It’s another very busy show on today’s BradCast! [Audio link to the complete show is at bottom of this article.]
First up, Trump crushes his competition in the Nevada Caucuses in every single demographic. Are Dems getting concerned yet? If not, they should be, as I explain today.
Speaking of those caucuses: I detail why they are far more transparent than a primary system would be in the state of NV, which still uses the same 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems that were certified in violation of state and federal law in 2004 by NV’s then Sec. of State, now U.S. Senator Dean Heller. (See my exclusive with Michael Richardson in the 2008 book Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, in which we detail how, based on public records obtained during our six-month investigation, Heller blatantly lied to the media and the public about the failed status of the machine’s federal testing results, yet certified them for use in the 2004 election anyway.)
As we saw last night, the Nevada GOP, wisely, used hand-marked paper ballots, publicly counted at each caucus precinct. And now, Wichita University mathematician Beth Clarkson, PhD, head of the school’s National Institute for Aviation Research, is calling for the same thing for Kansas elections, in light of a state court ruling last week barring her from accessing so-called “paper trails” from the state’s touch-screen voting systems as used in their 2014 elections.
“I am becoming more and more convinced that we need to go with an entirely paper ballot system — and hand-counted,” she tells me, while noting that optical-scan computers may “provide fast results, but you have to verify them — which we’re not doing. I think to have full transparency for all citizens, you need to have a hand-count of paper ballots.”
Clarkson notes that while post-election audits or “sampling” of optically-scanned paper ballots could be done, it would not solve the growing problem of the electorate questioning results. “As a statistician, I love sampling. It’s faster and it’ll get you excellent results, but it can also be manipulated just like any other system. And you can’t really manipulate hand-counted paper ballots. It’s the transparency issue that’s convinced me.”
She details the basis for her lawsuit which attempts a recount of a ballot measure from the 2014 election following a statistical analysis of the results which, says she, confirms a theory initially reported by two other statisticians in 2012 [PDF]. According to their study, computer-reported results from larger precincts, with more than 500 voters, reveal a “consistent” statistical increase in votes for the Republican candidates in general elections. That increase in votes runs counter to expectations for more densly populated jurisdictions. (Clarkson explains the theory in more detail during my previous BradCast interview with her from August 2015.)
Last week a state Judge allowed her recount case to move forward, but denied the motion by her new lawyer, former US Attorney Randy Rathbun, to allow her to review the “Real Time Audit Logs” (RTALs, also known as “Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails” or VVPATs in other states) from the voting machines used in the 2014 election, thus defeating the entire point of her challenge.
“[My] analysis only shows that there’s something there we don’t understand. It does not show cause. I think that manipulation of voting machines is the most probable cause, but I could be wrong on that. But the only way to know is to look. And not being allowed to look is, in many ways, a more serious issue.” Clarkson has now been blocked from viewing the RTAL’s now in both her public records request and recount lawsuit. “It seems to me that either I should be able to look at them under the Open Records Act or I should be able to examine them as part of a recount. You can’t have it both ways, but apparently they can.”
She goes on to offer her thoughts on why the state, including GOP “voter fraud” fraudster turned Sec. of State Kris Kobach, would be working so hard to block her attempt at oversight of election results; the unprecedented support she has received from the public for her case; and whether last week’s state court ruling will now be appealed.
By the way, the very same, oft-failed, unverifiable touch-screens in question — the ES&S iVotronics — will be used once again across the state of South Carolina during this weekend’s Democratic Presidential Primary. You can follow Clarkson’s progress on her case at her ShowMeTheVotes.org website.
Finally, good news for former TX Gov. Rick Perry who is now, apparently, off the hook for both of the felony indictments filed against him last year…
As we saw last night, the Nevada GOP, wisely, used hand-marked paper ballots
‘The GOP, wisely’, sounds kinda like jumbo shrimp to me
I early voted in the Texas Primary on 2/25/2016 @ 4:30. I showed the nice old lady my license and then she asked, “Was I voting Democrat or Republican”? I told her that was private she claimed she had to know because she had to type some info into her computer then she came me my number to vote. Is that legal for the voting staff to ask what party affiliation am I?
Arnetta @ 2:
Yes, that’s legal. And its necessary, at least in TX and other states like it where they run both Dem and Republican primaries at the same time, and you are required to choose which party’s primary you wish to vote in.
They need to know if you are to receive an R ballot or a D ballot. While TX, as I recall, is an “Open Primary” state (meaning you can vote in either one you want), you can only vote in one of those two primaries.
Make sense?
Maybe I read the news stories wrong, but I got the impression that Beth Clarkson lost her first case on legal technicalities partially as a result of representing herself and that the second one was thrown out because there’s some court rule that an exact case can’t be repeated- which I’m surprised her lawyer didn’t pick up on. I also got the impression that the judge left open the ability to continue the case in another way.
Just think, all of us who favor public hand counts are true conservatives or strict constructionists because that is how it was done in the early days of the Republic. So where are the self-styled “conservatives” or “strict constructionists” on the bench who will call anything less unconstitutional?