I’ll be sitting in as Guest Host for the good Cynthia Black this Sunday on Nova M / Air America Phoenix’ Action Point with Cynthia Black on 1480am KPHX.
I hope those of you in Phoenix and not in Phoenix will find a moment to listen in. Should be a good show.
Scheduled Guests include…
- Noel Runyan, an expert on technologies for the blind and author of the new study “Improving Access to Voting” as well as a recent open statement signed by more than twenty blind and disabled voting advocates calling for “an immediate ban” on Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, often called touch-screen) voting systems.
- Eric Boehlert, a Huffington Post blogger and senior Fellow at the media watchdog organization Media Matters, on their new report “If It’s Sunday, It’s Still Conservative,” countering the myth of the “liberal media” on the Sunday morning political talk shows
Listen up online right here on Sunday @ 12noon PT (3pm ET)
And call in with your questions/comments at: 800-989-1480
B There or B Square . . .
Clarification for Mr. Runyan: by stating in the “call” support “for an immediate ban on any voting system that fails to meet the twin requirements of full accessibility and election security” does this mean that hand counted paper ballots, the most transparent and publicly observable system, would be banned on the grounds that it is not “accessible”?
Or, with the statement quoted above, does that refer only to voting systems for the disabled?
Is it OK, in Mr Runyan’s estimation, to treat the dis-abled as a separate class from the class of nondisabled voters, thus not forcing the nondisabled to vote with the same level of technological assistance or interference as the disabled?
I believe Runyan answers that question in the affirmative in his report, Paul (available via the link above). But I’ll try to bring this question up for him during today’s show…Must run to the studio!
Open Thread here during the show!
Hey Brad, Please no Last minute town meeting remote brodcast this time (-; . . .
JoJ – Heheh…Safely ensconced in a studio this time around. What could possibly go wrong? 😉
(We’ll find out!)
I’m reading the report, but it is 71 pages.
If a totally VISIBLE and therefore publicly supervisable elections system is not important, this is totally unacceptable because of the overriding importance of the public right and need to oversee the vote counts because (1) the government can’t audit itself or supervise itself or blow the whistle on itself, and (2) by its very definition, the people are the only source of legitimate power and the “boss” in a representative democracy or republic, and thus nothing can justify hiding the election-count “ball” from the public.
Accessibility can’t justify that.
Convenience can’t justify that.
Nothing can.
Since voting is the right that protects all other rights, if ANY right is INALIENABLE, watching the count must be #1 on that list. If an individual vote is sacred or very important, with 100 million plus voters in the USA, the counting of the vote properly and openly is at least 100 million times sacred or 100 million times “very important.”
In case of conflict, public observability must prevail.
THe only system I know of with a VISIBLE counting function is hand counted paper ballots. Which if I understand Brad correctly, Mr Runyan OPPOSES.
Nobody knows what an opscan machine is doing, it’s more or less just like a hi-speed photocopier, and trying to determine what the totals are on 1000 SAT tests as they whiz thru the machine.
Touch i i i it… Touch i i i it… You want to Touch i i i i it…
BUT not the FUCKING Touch screen voting machine . . .
The report has two major recommendations I’d like to address:
(1) We can have BOTH accessibility and security. NOT WITH THESE VENDORS!!! The problem with expansive thinking (even though much of it is technically correct) is the short time to 2008 as well as feeding support for HIGH STANDARDS which, while desirable, put us in a heck of a bind:
EITHER (a) we accept the unacceptable: present voting systems OR (b) we right regulations and standards that are higher than the voting systems, VIOLATE those standards, and eventually at some point lead to INVALID elections.
So, which do we choose? This point is not a direct critique of the Runyan report but the report nevertheless feeds into a very troubling dynamic for 2008 and beyond.
The second recommendation, in the next msg.
Hey Brad,
Good to hear you on the radio.
The msm (main stream media)is beholden to the ” Prefered stock” stock holders control.
NETWORK COSERVATIVE MEDIA still run the show !
Which means gop Lies, propaganda & misleading news on the tube.
You Mean bill kristol of the weekly SUBstandard NAZI RAG! ! ! !
the Second Recommendation, per Brad’s confirmation above is for BLENDED systems, and hand counted paper ballots is not one of them.
My message above outlines some of the main reasons why handcounted paper ballots, as a publicly VISIBLE vote counting system, are necessary and mandatory. It should be noted that the needs of democracy and the facts here FORCE us to a regrettable zero sum choice, when it comes to vote counting, we favor either the visually impaired or the non-visually impaired. We’d have to go with the majority on that one, and that would mean visible vote counting. If there’s a way to allow both groups of citizens to monitor vote counting WITHOUT expense or burden or needing an expert to intervene, I’d be very interested to hear that.
BLENDED SYSTEMS. The report correctly recognizes that no voting system serves ALL disabilities. Nevertheless, Congress in its wisdom in HAVA says that one DRE per polling place complies with HAVA, so as a “safe harbor” its highly likely that DREs comply whether they IN FACT serve all the disabled OR NOT. (When the law says it’s ok you can’t very well prosecute)
But blended systems will serve more. Yet blended systems are precisely what came under Constitutional attack in Stewart v Blackwell, a 6th Circuit constitutional case under Equal Protection that applied Bush v. Gore to voting systems, finding that DREs were constitutional along with precinct count optical scans, and that punchcards and central count optical scan systems were unconstitutional. For no stated reasons, the test applied was “residual vote test” which is the sum of overvotes plus undervotes. Because, at least in Ohio, the two systems that were struck down had materially higher residual vote rates, they were so defective as to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and fall below minimum standards.
WIth any blended system of any kind, if it turns out to have a material difference in the way it serves voters, it would be subject to this same kind of constitutional Equal Protection attack. In fact some disabled groups are making these kinds of rhetorical and legal attacks. DREs have been attacked for their non-recountability on this basis in Tennessee, but as I recall standing was attacked and the merits not reached for that or some other reason. But blended systems are inherently subject to litigation as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If we have an unconstitutional election with blended systems, is that a VALID election? This is the question I’ve been raising. And in Busby/Bilbray’s CA50 election contest, the equal protection violations alleged therein by myself as lead attorney led us to plead for a new election in june 6, 2006’s special congressional election. But if the unconstitutionality is going to stay the same (i.e. if the problem is the technology’s blended nature with one of the systems being materially worse) then you’d have a constitutionality problem, yet a new election COULD NOT OCCUR until the entire voting system became UNBLENDED.
THis is a major major problem to say the least, if it occurs. It could mean the Bush administration is still in office in 2009, and wouldn’t that be fascinating that on the heels of the 2000 stolen election in 12/2000, that HAVA was drafted in 2001 and passed in 2002 when Bush v Gore was very fresh in mind (and is still our leading elections case) and now Stewart V Blackwell has applied Bush v Gore on a constitutional basis….. If the above scenario happens, then it would just so happen that HAVA, passed right after the stolen 2000 election, would enable the Bush administration, purely coincidentally, to stay in power in 2009 and perhaps beyond.
However long it takes to fix the voting systems…. in other words.
This puts a lot of pressure on everyone to just accept the completely defective situation we have today, and just pretend that HAVA doesn’t need to be repealed and HAVA is not the worst disaster our democracy has ever seen, That one of its authors Congressman Bob Ney is not in prison for corrupt acts, and on and on…..
FYI, Stewart v Blackwell, a published case, was vacated in anticipation of an enbanc hearing by all 6th circuit cases, and then the case settled overall, leaving us without an opinion for purely technical reasons. But the case stands as an example of how litigation actually proceeded concerning voting systems, and may happen that way again, more likely than not. And believe it or not, Prof Dan Tokaji and the ACLU were with the plaintiffs in this very troubling case. (from their perspective I think they were fighting historically disfranchising undervote problems, but the case’s collateral effects take us out of the frying pan and into the fire…)
I should have said that the Stewart v Blackwell case was vacated by an order for a hearing of all 6th circuit JUDGES, (an en banc hearing), and then the case settled. So it is only for that technicality that this case is not the law in Ohio and the rest of the states in the 6th Circuit.
Banning DREs alone has a couple major problems:
1. the only disabilities “solution” that legally complies with HAVA, DREs, is then gone, unless they are still approved for the disabled…. Multiple accommodations would then be needed to serve all the disabled, and presumably to comply with HAVA.
2. Optical scanning systems feature secret first counts, and recounts are extremely rare and and unreliable place to place ALL of our hopes for election integrity. For more, see http://www.opednews.com/article...ity_change.htm
Ya just can’t beat a Hendrix or Hendrix cover Bumper on the radio . . .
With Deep Purple to follow to ………………
Thanks for all guys! Paul – SORRY I couldn’t get to your call! Wanted to. IMPOSSIBLE to do all of that stuff in a single hour.
PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE CYNTHIA AN EXTRA HOUR (AT LEAST!)
We’ll be back next week, and see what we can fit in (hope to have a bit of a broadcast premiere special guest…cross your fingers!)
Thanks all!
Replying to Paul Lehto who said:
Nobody that I know of has ever called for “banning DRES alone”. The idea that that’s all that anybody calling for such a ban wants is short-sighted.
You are not correct in saying that the only disabilities “solution” legally complying with HAVA are DREs. That’s not true. Not by a long shot. (And, for that matter, as it turns out, there are no DREs that actually do comply with HAVA!)
As far as having different systems for optional use by disabled voters, I don’t see a problem with that. Much as we have both ramps and stairs in many public places.
So long as the disabled voters actually *can* verify their ballots as accurate (which cannot be done by either disabled or non-disabled voters on DREs!)
I don’t believe anybody is playing “ALL of our hopes” on such things. As well, op-scans without appropriate audit protocols are as bad as DREs. Without a doubt.
I believe your characterizations of the anti-DRE position over all is incorrect and/or short-sighted. With all due respect (and you know I have much).
I want to ban any government official who advocates junk science electronic voting machines and/or systems.
The junk science in this case is political science. All we are saying is give one vote = one ballot a chance.
The current “are you as smart as an electronic voting machine” realm does not want to mandate “1 = 1” in the binding sense.
We must reach the level of first graders (a bit or so above the level of a grown neoCon) and give machines that can show and prove that they applied the sound and secure “1 = 1” election philosophy a chance.
I wanted to clear up one thing in this weeks scandal list, the US Attorney firings, and why crimes were committed. I want to show that it was not simple “political exercises” that were done.
There are many facets to the notion of obstruction of justice, but lets focus on this one:
(18 U.S.C. 1503(a), emphasis added). Since any US Attorney is an “officer of the court” under the criminal statute above, any attempt to influence or steer them in a direction away from a prosecution in the pursuit of justice is a felony.
We know that Senator Dominici (R-NM) made such threats, and that at least three other US Attorneys that were fired received illegal influences that tried to get them to stop prosecuting republicans and instead prosecute democrats.
That is a crime pure and simple.