Since when are primaries, or any other election for that matter, a time to 'test drive' voting machines?

Couldn't agree with you more, John.

The Wexler v Anderson (11th Circuit) case quotes from Bush v Gore quite a bit.

Bush v Gore is where the Supreme Court placed preznit blush into power, and commenced the republican dictatorship.

Anyway, the Wexler case, like Bush v Gore, was wrongly decided.

And since it is substantially at odds with the 6th Circuit Case from Ohio, that would give grounds to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

I doubt that the Supreme Court could overcome their denial of what they did in Bush v Gore, and hear the Wexler case. We shall see.

PS: SCOTUS watchers are expecting a decision in the gerrymandering cases at any time (link here).

PPS: Hi WP, hope all is going well.

Thad Hall has been interviewed around Utah by the media for quite a while now in lieu of getting opinions from actual computer experts. He was at a public hearing here trying to scare attendees about paper jams and then disappeared because he was about the only speaker who didn’t get any applause. Now that we have the Diebold machines he says he has “nothing against paper ballots”.

I was at a presentation Mr. Hall gave at the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute where he was discussing a survey he had done explaining that people were not overly skeptical of using machines to count their votes. A survey that was easily debunked by fifteen real computer experts in this report:

Click Here

I asked him if he thought the results would have been different if he had included a question educating participants about the fact that their votes would be counted by secret software. He said there wasn’t room in his lengthy survey to ask such a question.

After the presentation, he was making comments about how devious the democrats were for taking money from George Soros. Honestly, when are we going to get information from the multitudes of legitimately concerned experts as opposed a red- faced ignoramus!