The Christine Jennings (D) campaign has just sent us a statement concerning today's release of the state-commissioned audit of the flawed election during her race against Vern Buchanan (R) last November in Florida's 13th Congressional District.

See our earlier full coverage of the state reports here...

"The audit of Sarasota County’s voting system was flawed, incomplete, and provides even more compelling reasons for the Christine Jennings campaign to seek a thorough investigation by outside experts," the statement begins.

The complete Jennings statement follows below...

Late this afternoon, the state of Florida released a state-commissioned audit report detailing their investigation into the contested U.S. House Election in Florida's 13th Congressional district between Christine Jennings (D) and Vern Buchanan (R).

In two lengthy and carefully worded reports, released along with a statement from the new Secretary of State, Kurt Browning (R), the state audit report [PDF] concludes that "The audit team found no evidence to suggest or conclude that the official certified election results did not reflect the actual votes cast."

A statement issued in response by People for the American Way (PFAW), who, along with VoterAction.org, are representing the voter plaintiffs contesting the election in the state, have described the report as "a whitewash." Their statement, posted in full at the end of this article, points to the partisan makeup and conflicts of interest in the commission empaneled by the state to examine the firmware of the paperless ES&S iVotronic touch-screen voting machines used in the race.

The report "is the result of a flawed process overseen by people with a stake in the outcome," said PFAW President Ralph Neas in the statement, which also details a number of other flaws in the state's "independent" commission.

Additionally, The BRAD BLOG has found that details in one of the reports actually contradict both Browning's statement and the conclusion of the state's official audit. The reports, as well, reveal a stultifyingly complex process being employed to manage the most basic point of any election: The simple task of adding one plus one plus one...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Democrat Tom Vilsack, the centrist former Iowa governor, dropped out of the race for the presidency because he was unable to raise the millions of dollars necessary to compete with the better known candidates. Vilsack made it clear that "money and only money" was the reason for ending his bid.

Immediately after the announcement, the campaigns of other presidential hopefuls began seeking out Vilsack's staff and wooing his political backers. Senator Barack Obama, for example, sought the support of prominent Vilsack supporter Gary Hirshberg, the founder of Stonyfield Yogurt, within two minutes of the announcement today. Although noncommital, an impressed Hirshberg had this to say:

Read the AP story about Vilsack at The Huffington Post

Utah wants to hold a Presidential Primary Election. But they seem to have run into a new snag...

Oh, well. What was that they were saying about these systems saving the taxpayer money?

(Hat-tip to the Utah Election Official who brought this to our attention. Bless you. And good luck.)

And as our good friend, the legendary and mysterious Freeway Blogger, mentioned when he alerted us to the above, "Remember, it's not what you say, it's how many people read it."

Pass it on.

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by Libby/CIA Leak Trial Correspondent Margie Burns

At this writing, the jury is out in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney. When I left the courthouse this afternoon, Judge Reggie Walton was attending a memorial service, with the jury still deliberating for the second day.

I can make no prediction as to the trial outcome. However, in the interim some media outlets are pushing or falling into an insidious line that the Libby case is either too difficult and obscure to understand, or too trivial to bother with. Setting aside the allegations against Libby individually, this line is dangerous, partly because it is so blatantly the reverse of accurate. The CIA leak matter itself is actually very simple.

What the Libby case is about...

San Francisco is considering "upgrading" their voting systems to use Sequoia machines. They are demanding that the company publicly disclose their software source code for all to see. It's called transparency. That's a good thing.

But Sequoia is refusing. Yesterday, there was another discussion/debate on the topic at an SF Board of Supes hearing. The San Francisco Examiner reported this laugh line from the Sequoia spokeshole:

For those just joining the fun, who may be unfamiliar with guffaw-worthiness of Bennet's claim about concern for the security of his company's shitty voting systems, we'll refer you to this small sampling of previous relevant BRAD BLOG articles:

• Pro E-Vote Professor Accidentally Hacks Sequoia Voting System
• Sequoia's 'Yellow Button' Allows Voters to Vote As Many Times as They Want
• Sequoia Spokesperson Against Hack Testing of Touch-Screen Machines in Riverside County, CA
• Princeton Prof. Buys Sequoia System on Internet, Hacks It in 10 Seconds

...Along with a heads up that we'll have more --- much more --- on Sequoia's "concerns" about the security of their voting systems (or lack thereof) in a detailed investigative report in the very near future...

Was on Air America's Politically Direct with David Bender last night responding, in part, to Rep. Rush Holt, who was a guest on the show himself last week. (Interestingly enough, the show is sponsored by our friends at People for the American Way - PFAW.)

We spoke about the Holt Bill (good and bad), the Democrats (good and bad), and much more on the entirety of Election Integrity in an exceedingly jam-packed 20 minutes full of info (it was tape delayed out here in Los Angeles, so I got to listen to me while falling asleep...you can hear the coffee kick in about 4 or 5 minutes into the interview. )

Thanks to David for the overly generous description as "The Paul Revere of the Election Integrity Movement"...But I'll take whatever I can get! As he said, "One if by land, two if by sea, three if by Brad!"...

-- Brad on Politically Direct, 2/21/06 [MP3, 20 mins minutes]

Here's why...and how you can do it in 60 seconds...

(And thanks mightily to those of you who have already answered the call!)

Guest Blogged by Emily Levy of VelvetRevolution.us with additional reporting by Brad Friedman

During a question and answer period after a speech at a Black History Month event last night sponsored by the University of California Santa Cruz, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) announced that she plans to withdraw her co-sponsorship of Rep. Rush Holt's Election Reform Legislation, (HR 811).

Citing the bill's failure to require paper ballots, allowing for uncounted "paper trails" instead, Waters replied to a question of mine that she would be "glad to withdraw [her] name from the bill" when she returns to Washington on Tuesday in the wake of recent conversations she's had in California with Election Integrity advocates. The announcement drew an enthusiastic round of applause from those in attendance at Tuesday night's 23rd Annual Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Convocation at UCSC which was keynoted by Waters.

Waters would be the first of the bill's current 192 House co-sponsors to withdraw her support. (The full list of current co-sponsors is available here.) Given her leadership on civil rights and election-related issues over the years, Waters's move could be significant in the current debate which has seen Democrats and a number of their public-advocacy group supporters use the issue of civil rights, ironically enough, to support the continued use of DRE/touch-screen systems as allowed by the Holt legislation.

As The BRAD BLOG reported yesterday, "language minority" activists have contended that touch-screen systems are better able to serve voters whose first language is not English. That, despite any empirical evidence in support of the notion.

The Holt bill had received early support from a number of Democratic public-advocacy groups such as PFAW, MoveOn, Common Cause, and others, though the controversial bill has gone on to draw criticism, since it's filing, from Election Integrity advocates here at The BRAD BLOG and elsewhere for its failure to fully ban disenfranchising DRE/touch-screen voting systems and several other notable concerns.

Waters began her speech Tuesday Night by discussing the dire condition of our election system, asking, "What would Dr. Martin Luther King say" about the 2000 election in Florida, about the purging of supposed felons from voter rolls, about proposed voter ID cards, intimidation at the polls in Florida and Ohio, voting machines without "paper trails," and related issues. She did not discuss HR 811 during the course of her main address.

In the brief question and answer period following her speech, I asked Waters if she was aware that the Election Integrity movement --- the folks who have investigated, exposed, and challenged the horrors of electronic voting --- strongly opposed Holt's legislation.

"What would it take," I asked, "for you to withdraw your support?" ...

In case you missed it, this one-minute video is our choice for High-larious Wingnut Highlight of the Week from last Sunday's news shows.

Watch as Chris Wallace comes 'this close' to passing out in confusion after screwing up while trying to differentiate between Bush's latest flip-floppery on North Korea and the much-decried deal Bill Clinton made with them years ago. Of course, the Bushies were against it all before they were for it.

As it rolls, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) just looks on, smiling with the satisfaction of knowing he just owned Wallace on live Wingnut TV...

(Note: YouTube has been acting up today, so if it says "Video Not Available" when you try to play it, try again in a minute or so.)

(Thanks Alan Breslauer for the vid!)

We've been discussing the pros and cons of Rep. Rush Holt's Election Reform bill (HR 811 [PDF]) since it dropped two weeks ago in the House.

There is, no doubt, much more to say about the specific pros and cons in detail here as we move forward. For the moment, allow me to first address three false dichotomies opportunistically and/or disingenuously and/or naively being used by supporters of Holt's legislation in order to help see it passed by Congress.

In doing so, I'll share some of what I've learned over the past several weeks via my personal investigations into why the Democrats who support the bill, along with their closely-allied public advocacy groups, are currently unable or unwilling to show the necessary courage to insist upon the banning of disenfranchising, failed DRE/touch-screen voting system technology from all American elections.

The inability, or unwillingness, of such groups to stand up and call for what most know to be the right thing is occurring despite the fact that most of those groups actually agree --- and will admit privately, if not always publicly --- that DRE technology has no place in our electoral system and is a grave menace to true Electoral Integrity.

Collectively, these three arguments are being used to shore up support for a bill which offers much good (DISCLOSURE: I participated in the drafting of the bill myself, and did what I could --- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --- to improve its language and provisions), yet ultimately may prove to be as dangerous as the disastrous Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and risks becoming known as HAVA 2 by 2008. And, as I've pointed out before, this time the Democrats won't have the Republicans or Bob Ney to blame.

FALSE DICHOTOMY #1:
It's Either Holt or Hand-Counted Paper Ballots...

The first of the three false dichotomies being forwarded by some of the bill's supporters is to suggest that there are only two choices: Pass the Holt bill 'as is,' or continue an unwinnable campaign for all hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB).

The now oft-repeated intimation is the very definition of a strawman, a canard, and a truly disingenuous false dichotomy. ...

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG
*** by Libby/CIA Leak Trial Correspondent Margie Burns

One of the pettiest distortions connected with the CIA leak matter is simple: the flat-footed, bogus claim that Ambassador Joseph Wilson said he was ‘sent’ to Africa by Vice President Cheney.

Wilson did not make the assertion, but White House operatives and their media/think-tank allies continue, even today, to forward the fiction that he did.

This claim – that Wilson went around saying Cheney sent him to Niger – has been recycled by the rightwing echo chamber every time the radar screens registered some political fallout from the CIA leak case (many examples shown below). It has also arisen during testimony in the Libby trial.

However, the MSM (except Fox) have not parroted the same claim – with the interesting exception of NBC, mainly Chris Matthews.

Regrettably, this bogus claim is again given space in Sunday's Washington Post, in an article by the hard Bush partisan and former Reagan Justice Department attorney, Victoria Toensing, called “Trial in Error.”

Please donate online via PayPal or credit card, or use the blue form at right to sign up for a monthly subscription, or contribute via snail mail.
===

Finally back at the anchor desk of The BRAD BLOG World News Headquarters after three (unexpected) weeks taking my dog and pony show on the road. Upon my return: a total of two cash dollars in the Snail Mail PO Box --- for which I am eternally grateful.

But even during the time I was away, we managed to bring you first-hand exclusive eyewitness reporting from the courtroom of the Scooter Libby/CIA Leak Trial in DC by Margie Burns, an important continuing investigative series you'll find nowhere else on the disastrously compromised EAC by Michael Richardson, the latest daily developments in our crumbling Electoral System saga as brought to you by John Gideon, insightful Video Snippets on a number of broader topics by Alan Breslauer, Guest Blogs from important newsmakers, and yes, I did my best to keep up, managing to edit, file my own exclusives, and work behind the scenes on all of the above even while making public appearances around Arizona and California, Guest Hosting radio broadcasts and working the phones endlessly to both dig and try to move mountains while barreling down the highways and byways at 80 mph.

We'll continue the work here, come hell or high water, but as the water continues to get higher, and the hell more hellier, I am again forced to ask for your help...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

1/2 Hour News Hour, which debuted tonight on Fox News, is not funny (see clip at right). But too few laughs is the least of the problems this Daily Show wannabe brings to the table. Of far greater concern is that 1/2 Hour undermines Fox News far better than even the Daily Show or Colbert Report ever could. Viewed another way, what is the Fox audience supposed to think when a show advertised as comedy that clearly seeks to emulate the satirical Comedy Central shows, delivers a program no different than any Fox News show but for a laugh track?

Instead of Sean Hannity zingers about polar bears and global warming you get 1 liners and skits about polar bears and global warming. Instead of Bill O'Reilly shouting down Hollywood liberals you get 1 liners about Hollywood liberals. And while the Fox News audience is not known for being perceptive, the similarities between Fox comedy and Fox news are not subtle. In fact, the contrived targets, both people and issues, are basically the same.

Perhaps the best illustration of the dilemma is seen in the debut episodes opening "jokes" involving Senator Hillary Clinton. Before 1/2 Hour's debut, Fox News had spent almost every day for 10+ years skewering Hillary to the point that much of the country views her as a cartoonish villain. So, when 1/2 Hour jokes that President Hillary would staff the White House with angry lesbians it's hardly funny. Dick Morris has said essentially the same thing on the O'Reilly Factor more times than I care to remember. And you can basically assume the same problem will arise for every politician and celebrity that 1/2 Hour targets.