The latest e-vote mess with Texas...

So how many more such cases are we going to see in next week's elections, and more notably, in next year's elections? Hope you're ready for the meltdown to come.

In the above matter, it looks like the Travis County Clerk was more than happy to lie to the reporter so she could continue using her democracy-busting e-voting systems:

That is, of course, complete and total bullshit.

Only one disabled accessible voting device (and it needn't be a DRE) is required per polling place, as per the federal Help America Vote Act. If Texas has some state law requiring that every voter use such systems, we are unaware of it. In other words, if the reporters quote was accurate, County Clerk DeBeauvoir was lying.

It's a shame the reporter on the piece, like so many at local papers who cover this beat on rare occassions, didn't know enough to call her on it.

-- By Brad Friedman

After months of being told over and over by Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) office, People for the American Way (PFAW), and many of the other most ardent supporters of Holt's flawed Election Reform Bill (HR811) that "there is no support in Congress for a ban on DREs," it looks like they must have been wrong. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and co-sponsor Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) filed such a bill today.

Here's the complete bill [PDF] which we've yet to read in full. But note this item from page 41, Line 7:

A ban on such machines, finally? Yes! By 2012? Unfortunately, yes. But let's overlook that last point for a moment.

In a statement issued by Nelson today, pointing out that DRE (often referred to as "touch-screen") voting systems are "unreliable and vulnerable to error," the senator says, "The bottom line is we have to ensure every vote is counted – and, counted properly...Citizens must have confidence in the integrity of their elections.”

The new language banning DREs was added today to a previous version of the same bill which Nelson had introduced originally in early Summer. This version "would be the first [bill] to seek a ban on electronic touch-screen voting machines in federal elections nationwide," according to his statement, which adds that the language was updated after a recent meeting with Florida's Republican Secretary of State Kurt Browning, once an ardent support of DRE voting systems.

When Nelson's original version of the legislation was introduced some months ago, it was largely a "clone version" of Holt's original HR811 introduced in the House, but with a number of extra provisions addressing concerns of voter intimidation and suppression.

Little attention had been given to Nelson's bill at the time, since the Rules Committee was regarded as having jurisdiction for any Election Reform bills in the Senate, and the committee chair, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), had made clear she intended to introduce her own version of Election Reform as the Senate counterpart to Holt's. She eventually introduced S. 1487, which has been subsequently criticized by Election Integrity advocates as being even more flawed then Holt's much-criticized bill.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: We were invited to work on the Holt bill prior to its introduction, and succeeded in adding several much-improved provisions. Yet the bill, as currently written --- and far more so since being drastically watered down throughout the committee process --- has failed to garner our support.)

DREs: "Not a Reasonable Voting System"

Neither Feinstein's nor Holt's bill had called for a ban on DRE voting systems, however, despite an outcry among Election Integrity advocates and a host of computer scientists and security experts who argued that DREs were vulnerable to hacking, non-transparent, prone to error, antithetical to democracy, and thus simply could not be used safely in elections. With or without a so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail" (VVPAT) printer attached.

Johns Hopkins computer professor Avi Rubin testified earlier this year that "after four years of studying the issue, I now believe that a DRE with a VVPAT is not a reasonable voting system."

Stanford professor and VerifiedVoting.org founder David Dill, arguing in favor of the Holt bill, admitted, "I would personally prefer to see optical scan machines used nationwide."

And former legislative director of VoteTrustUSA.org Warren Stewart, now also of VerifiedVoting, had told a Senate panel earlier this year that while there were disagreements among some in the EI movement, most had agreed that touch-screen systems must not not be used. "While this broad based movement embraces a wide range of proposals and positions," he testified, "it is unified in the conclusion that the direct electronic recording of votes to computer memory is inimical to democracy."

And yet, all three of the above advocates, along with many others, continued to argue --- while failing to offer any actual evidence for the claim --- that there was simply no support for the idea of a DRE ban in either house of the U.S. Congress.

All the while, The BRAD BLOG had maintained that they, and the other Holt supporters, had fallen victim to a hoax by People for the American Way (PFAW). The popular public advocacy group had long pushed the unsupported notion that there was no congressional support for such a ban, in order to see the bill passed specifically without such a ban. It was one of several false notions being forwarded by the group in favor of the bill, as we argued both here and at Alernet early in the year.

A careful examination of PFAW's on-the-record statements, and numerous on and off-the-record conversations with their Executive Director and legislative leaders by The BRAD BLOG over many months, revealed that PFAW (almost inexplicably) has actually been advocating in favor of the use of dangerous DRE voting systems in American elections. It's fair to say that Holt's bill had thus been held hostage to ensure that such systems would not be banned.

But then came the fallout from the failed 13th Congressional District election last November in Nelson's home state, followed by California Sec. of State Debra Bowen's landmark scientific findings, Rep. Susan Davis's (D-CA) amendment this past summer, and a killer editorial from the New York Times as the tide began to slowly turn...

Last week we reported that a CBS poll finds Al Gore trailing Hilary Clinton by just 5% in the Presidential Primary race and is ahead of all of the others, even though he's not officially on the ballot.

Last month we reported that a Zogby "blind bio" poll of Republicans found that some unknown guy --- Ward Casscells --- who's not even running, led the Republican candidate field among GOP voters when no names, just summarized resumes, were given for each candidate polled.

Yesterday, Zogby released the results of their Democratic "blind bio" poll, showing that Al Gore is, hands down, in front of the pack with 35% support. His closest rival was Hillary Clinton at 24%.

Also in the poll, 60% of Dem voters would consider voting for someone other than the current slate of candidates, based on dissatisfaction with the positions on the Iraq War by the current official crop. 65% said they'd be open to supporting a new candidate based on the current candidates' global climate change positions...

More details...

After announcing last night (video here) that would not file to be on the Republican ballot, due to the exorbitant $35,000 filing fee ("I am not willing to write a $35,000 check to the Republican Party. ... I understand you have to keep a club exclusive but I paid less for my black-market liver"), Stephen Colbert said that he had filed the $2,500 required to be on the Democratic ballot in South Carolina's Presidential Primary.

The decision about whether the S.C. Dems would then allow him to be on the ballot was to be announced during tonight's broadcast. Politico beats him to the punch, however, with their report today that the S.C. Dems have rejected his application.

Though ABC snubbed us previously by referring to the John "Minorities Die First" Tanner video as "widely circulated on YouTube," we made last night's Nightline broadcast, if only for our logo on the original video they used showing his objectionable (and inaccurate) remarks explaining his approval of a Georgia Photo ID law, on behalf of the DoJ Civil Rights Voting Section, which later was struck down as an unconstitutional, Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Jake Tapper's take on the story last night was to look at "How Public Figures Apologize --- or At Least Pretend To." A text version of his report is here. The text version doesn't credit anyone, which is fine by us. The story's not about us. But if your going to attribute someone for the original report, it's appreciated when it's done accurately.

The quick broadcast version, which ran last night on Nightline follows. FWIW. (Video courtesy of Alan Breslauer, who taped the original, and now-infamous Tanner comments made in Los Angeles several weeks ago)...

P.S. A reminder: If you haven't seen WaPo's wicked cool video coverage of Tanner's hearing, please take a few minutes to do so! It's right here and well worth the 5 minutes!

UPDATE: Additional fallout from the entire ugly brouhaha. Bill Cavala at California Progress Report writes, in reference to Tanner, "Only George Bush could put a man with such sensitivity into such a sensitive post!" before pointing out why all of this, including Tanner's approval of the Georgia Photo ID law against the advice of career staffers, actually matters to everybody...

During yesterday morning's contentious hearings in the House Judiciary subcommittee, featuring DoJ Voting Chief, John "Minorities Die First" Tanner, a staffer in that division who we've come to know contacted The BRAD BLOG to say "Tanner is lying through his teeth."

We asked the staffer --- who has requested to remain "anonymous" for obvious reasons --- to elucidate with details, which are now posted in full below...

The letter continues below...

Well, this is interesting. It seems our Monday Exclusive on "gagged" FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has disappeared from Google News. Sort of.

A simple news search for "Sibel Edmonds" at Google no longer offers the rather blockbuster story, in which it's announced that she is now challenging American mainstream media television outlets to allow her to tell her story, uncensored and in violation of the ridiculous years-long "State Secrets Privilege" that the DoJ has been using to keep her quiet.

The story can be found via Google News, but it requires a search for both "Sibel Edmonds" and "Brad Blog," or drilling by date, etc. We've got no idea why the story fails to show up otherwise.

That's particularly odd since it's been incredibly popular since we first blogged it, having made it's way to #3 at Digg.com and #4 at Reddit.com, as well as becoming the #1 "recommended" diary at DailyKos.com for most of the day it first ran. (Those rankings alone translate to big traffic on the Internets, for those not familiar with how these things work.) We also ran a version of the report over at Huffington Post. That one doesn't show up either.

Oddly, our much older story from two weeks ago, in which we referred to and quoted Edmonds --- in relation to the recent House resolution declaring "genocide" in Turkey, and her damning allegations concerning former Speaker Dennis Hastert's corrupt bargain while pushing the same legislation in 2000 --- does show up via the Google News search for "Sibel Edmonds." Even though that one, unlike this week's, doesn't even have her name in the headline and was far less popular and infrequently linked to.

No idea what all of that is about, of course, but it seems noteworthy.

In related news, we'll have an exclusive follow-up soon on Edmonds, and the interesting response (or lack thereof), she's so-far received from the American mainstream media in the wake of the blockbuster Monday report. Here's a hint, she's called it "disgusting."

In the meantime, the blogger who pointed out the above anomaly suggests the "Stephen Colbert Effect" might be useful in Edmonds' matter as well.

UPDATE 11/1/07 12:02pm PT: The original story that wouldn't appear via simple Google News search for "Sibel Edmonds" now does show up as a result of that search. We have no idea what, if anything, has changed, but since we ran this report (which also shows up on the same search) 24 hours ago or so, the story now shows up as expected, when it did not previously. No clue what to make of it all still, of course, but noting it nonetheless.

Wow. Snap. Washington Post covered yesterday's House Judiciary subcommittee hearings in two separate articles today and via one hell of an online video to boot.

Dana Milbank covered on page 2, opening with "John Tanner is one sorry man." Dan Eggen covered the "political uproar" that we kicked off here at The BRAD BLOG several weeks ago, on page 4.

But it's Milbank's online "video sketch" that cuts to the bone, offering the best first-hand encapsulated coverage of the hearings we've seen to date (far better, even, than the PBS News Hour's version last night).

Consider the following montage a "Must See!" And one that almost makes one begin to feel sorry for John "Minorities Die First" Tanner...

...We said "almost." But not by much. A reply to Tanner's testimony yesterday --- from an insider still forced to work under him at the DoJ's Civil Rights Division Voting Section --- to come shortly.

In the meantime, if you've yet to see the full smack-downs that Tanner received yesterday at the hands of Reps. Artur Davis (D-AL) and then Keith Ellison (D-MN), the videos of both of those brutal Q&As are posted in full below, and are similarly "Must Sees!"...

Oops. Bill O'Reilly is "furious". So you know what that means, of course. Fox "News" gets it wrong again...

Asociated Press and ABC both cover the Judiciary Hearings with John Tanner today, leading with his tepid apology: "I want to apologize for the comments I made at the recent meeting of the National Latino Congress about the impact of voter identification laws on elderly and minority voters … My explanation of the data came across in a hurtful way, which I deeply regret."

His data were fine (they weren't), just that his explanation was hurtful.

The head of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division Voting Section's apologia comes in response to comments made on a video tape that, according to both AP and ABC, apparently created itself, reported itself, and then posted itself on YouTube.

We suppose their lack of attribution of the original source for both the video and reporting thereof (by your friendly neighborhood BRAD BLOG) of comments that led to several hours of hell-raising testimony and confrontation in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today is a step up from the DNC's version.

In the statement they released yesterday from Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, calling for Tanner to be fired, they attributed the comments to FoxNews.com. Very thoughtful.

Luckily, we are so well off here at The BRAD BLOG, so flush with overflowing resources, as based on the world-wide MSM recognition of the credibility of our work, we don't need the DNC to recognize us for having handed them Tanner's head on a silver platter via our elbow grease at our own expense.

Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, can use all the help he can get. If we're able to raise enough for this month's rent on our latest premium offer, we'll be sure to send whatever is left over to him. Happy DNC?

(Can you tell I'm rolling on little more than 3 hours' sleep today? Okay, done with my whining for tonight. Maybe.)

UPDATE: The Hill reports "CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) members pummel Department of Justice official" and NPR covers as well. They credit no one for the original reporting. Which is preferred to crediting "a Youtube video."

Here's NPR's coverage, with audio of some of the best Tanner spankings today (appx 4 mins)...

UPDATE: 10/31/07: PBS News Hour covered last night as well. And includes an appropriate attribution. In case it's not clear, the attribution is not because we need ego strokes or pats on the back. It's so that bad guys, in the future, are less able to say "Oh, that explosive report exposing us came from a blog, and we all know that blogs aren't credible." When said blog has been credited as credible by folks such as AP, ABC, and yes, even the DNC, it makes it much more difficult for those bad guys to duck accountability using the "just an Internet blog" defense.

Here's the PBS News Hour's coverage (thanks to Alan Breslauer!) from last night:

...Though the video coverage we've seen, by far, comes today from the Washington Post. Check it out right here...

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, issues a statement in response to today's extremely contentious subcommittee hearing with star-witness John "Minorities Die First" Tanner. We live-blogged the hearings here (now updated with videos!)

Conyers had said, at one point during the hearing in response to Tanner's "all is well" testimony: "I hope that you will take what is directed at you as constructive, because the one thing I am concerned about is that we stop having happen what has happened since the 2000 elections. And then you come here to stagger our imagination by telling us that 'it's never been better,' its never been worse!"

His post-hearing statement, which follows in full below, concludes notably: "We have clearly reached the point where the status quo is unacceptable."...

All criminal charges against Andrew "Don't Tase Me, Bro" Meyer have now been dropped in exchange for an apology from the 21-year old student. We guess he didn't "incite a riot" after all, as originally charged by the police [PDF] who tasered him.

AP covers here. NYTimes covers here.

Meyer, however, remains defiant, and stands by the line of questioning that got him tased (inappropriately, in our opinion) for asking three questions of Sen. John Kerry during a recent, now-infamous, event at the University of Florida (video here).

On his website today, now that he's out of hot water, Meyer posts a number of opinions including...

• Tasers are bad: "Tasers are not 'non-lethal.' Since June 2001, more than 150 people in the United States have died after being struck by tasers. I do not believe a taser should have been used on me..."
• Democracy is good: "We talk about fighting for democracy in Iraq. What about fighting for democracy at home? There is nothing more central to democracy than the right to vote, and while Americans are fighting and dying for democracy in Iraq, democracy in America is dying without a fight. America, our voting rights are being stolen from us..."
• Our elections aren't fair: "Not only might your vote not count, but the "frontrunners" have already been decided for you. Why is anyone a "frontrunner" yet? No one has voted. ... The media, which is controlled by a few men, is deciding the agenda for the entire country..."
• Forget about "Liberal" vs. "Conservative": "The United States have been divided. The country has been split into 'left vs. right,' 'Red state vs. Blue state,' 'CNN vs. FOX News.' This is all false division..."
• Candidates on both sides are ignored: "The media has time all day to talk about Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan, but millions of Americans have never heard the names Mike Gravel or Ron Paul..."
• Stolen Elections: "The will of the American people was subverted in both the 2000 and 2004 elections..."
• Wake up, America: "[D]emocracy depends on a free and fair election. If we the people do not decide the elections, than we the people are not living in a democracy. The problems of 2000 and 2004 have not been fixed. In fact, they have been expanded..."

Love him or hate him, we can't say we disagree with any of Meyer's general points. And we won't be issuing an apology about that.

Also not issuing apologies: Kerry and the majority of the students at the event who sat by and took no action as Meyer screamed in pain while being inappropriately tased by six police officers.

The Florida Police, however, acted appropriately according to a Florida Police review of the Florida Police actions. So we guess everything is just hunky-dory.

We're up before the West Coast dawn this morning to monitor the hearings in the U.S. House Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties featuring John "Minorities Die First" Tanner. His recent objectionable comments were originally video-taped and reported by The BRAD BLOG several weeks ago.

The most objectionable of those comments including his contention that it was a "shame" that elderly voters might be disenfranchised by a 2005 Georgia Photo ID poll restriction that he approved on behalf of DoJ and against the advice of four out of five of his career staffers, minorities would somehow benefit from it. His twisted reasoning was that "because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way white people do. They die first."

Tanner, incredibly, is still the Chief of the Voting Section in the DoJ's Civil Rights Division.

It's being carried live and webcast on C-Span 3, as well as via the Judiciary Committee's own webcast.

Major points in our story so far...

• 10/8/07: BRAD BLOG video exclusive of objectionable comments made on 10/5/07 (thereafter picked up far and wide in the media).
• 10/9/07: Tanner's former colleagues say comments "false", "ludicrous", "cherry-picked".
• 10/12/07: Conyers pissed off about comments, and Tanner's earlier whitewashed "investigation" of Ohio 2004 election.
• 10/19/07: Obama writes Acting AG to demand Tanner be fired.
• 10/19/07: DoJ defends Tanner to AP. Says comments "grossly misconstrued".
• 10:24/07: Rep. Nadler says "obviously, he should be fired"
• 10:26/07: Kennedy writes Mukasey, asking if he'll review Tanner's record to consider firing if he's confirmed.
• 10/29/07: DNC calls for "immediate firing" of Tanner.
• 10/29/07: Tanner apologizes (sort of) for comments.

Beyond that, Progress Report has an excellent round up of Tanner's "Erosion of Voter Rights" during his tenure.

The hearings have now ended, but our notes from our Live-Blogging of today's hearings are below, along with video clips of the key, and most pointed exchanges...

John Tanner, chief of the DoJ Civil Rights Division's Voting Unit, has not yet been fired. But he is sorry:

The apology, sent last Friday, becomes public on the eve of his testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning (Tuesday) at 10am ET, and just after the DNC joined many others early today in demanding he be "immediately fired." Tanner's sorry note was sent to a few folks just after Senator Barack Obama called on the Acting Attorney General to fire him. Several others have followed suit since.

Paul Kiel, who notes that "Tanner does not recant his analysis that voter ID laws actually discriminate against whites, but does apologize that his 'explanation of the data came across in a hurtful way,' has the scoop on the apology. It was sent to some of the attendees at the National Latino Congreso earlier this month where The BRAD BLOG video-taped and reported his objectionable, and incorrect, comments on restrictive Photo ID laws he's approved at the DoJ.

He had claimed such laws were just fine by him since, though they may disenfranchise some elderly voters, "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."

In advance of tomorrow morning's House Judiciary Committee hearing to feature testimony by DoJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief John "Minorities Die First" Tanner, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Donna Brazile of the DNC Voting Rights Institute have issued a statement calling for Tanner to be "immediately fired."

"In their latest scheme, the Republican Administration has manipulated the mission of the Department of Justice, firing US Attorneys who were unwilling to pursue phony 'voter fraud' cases, and politicized the Civil Rights Division," the statement (posted in full at the end of this article) reads.

The release goes on to decry the politicization of the Bush Department of Justice, and what is described as their "outright assault" on the right to vote.

"Tanner's outrageous comments underscore the GOP's utter disregard for the integrity of our nation's election system and are an affront to the spirit of the Voting Rights Act," Dean and Brazile said, before declaring that the embattled Voting Rights Section chief "should be fired immediately and replaced with someone who will work to make sure that all citizens are able to vote and have their vote counted."

They call on Judge Michael Mukasey, if he is confirmed as the next Attorney General, to "commit to replacing Tanner with someone who will protect our rights, not ignore them for a partisan agenda."

As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, however, Mukasey made clear in his recent Senate Confirmation hearings that he does not object to restrictive polling place Photo ID laws which critics contend may disenfranchise anywhere from 10 to 30 million largely Democratic-leaning voters who do not have such ID.

Previously, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have called for Tanner's firing. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote Mukasey last week to ask if he will review the matter and consider the termination of Tanner.
Tanner's objectionable comments were made several weeks ago during a panel discussion on Photo ID issues at the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles. Tanner, who approved a controversial Georgia Photo ID law on behalf of the DoJ against the advice of the majority of the career staffers in the Voting Rights section, admitted the law would disenfranchise some elderly voters and added that while that was a "shame," minorities would somehow be positively affected by such laws since "they don't become elderly. They die first."

(A short clip of Tanner's comments is posted at left.)

The Georgia ID law was later found unconstitutional and overturned by two federal courts that compared the restriction to a modern-day Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Paul Kiel at TPM Muck has a few more thoughts in advance of tomorrow's Judiciary Committee hearings.

Though Tanner comments were originally video-taped and reported by The BRAD BLOG, the DNC press release credits Fox News.com (thanks guys!).

UPDATE: Tanner apologizes for remarks! Sort of...

The complete DNC statement from Howard Dean and Donna Brazile as just issued, follows below...