Friday, September 30, 2005
Startling Evidence: Voter Action Update on NM Voters' Lawsuit
From Voter Action on the NM lawsuit against the Secretary of State on behalf of voters:
Lopategui v. Vigil-Giron Lawsuit Update:
Our initial discovery process is revealing startling evidence of serious voting machine problems, top-to-bottom incompetence in the administration of elections, cover-up by election officials of major errors they know have gone uncorrected, and the ceding by election officials of oversight and control over our elections to unaccountable private companies.
Examples of this evidence, gleaned from two weeks of depositions, include:
- A voting machine vendor has admitted under oath that the design of machines used by many New Mexico counties probably causes the unintended erasure of presidential votes, contrary to the voter’s intent.
- The owner of the private New Mexico company that has been paid commissions by Sequoia Voting Systems on sales of their AVC Edge touchscreen voting system to New Mexico counties testified that the system lost votes in a Bernalillo County election and that he is suspicious of Sequoia’s claims that all of the lost data was successfully “recreated.”
- The state and county post-election canvass processes are incapable of detecting most types of voting machine error or fraud.
- Contracting out key parts of the canvass process to unaccountable private contractors and subcontractors has increased vote-counting errors and heightened security risks.
- A closer look at the “independent audit” of the 2004 general election touted by the Secretary of State reveals that:
-- It consistently under-reports as single “errors” common mistakes and irregularities even when the “error” results in the miscounting of hundreds of votes.
-- The audit examines only a small percentage of precincts, leaving undetected -- and uncorrected -- similar widespread and large-scale errors in between 80% and 90% of precincts statewide.
Our next step will be a thorough examination of several types of voting machines and central tabulators used in the 2004 election by our academic computer security and voting machine experts. Moving forward is contingent upon securing additional funding. Later we will need to take more key depositions, but the machines are our primary focus now.
Thanks for your continued support. Should you have any questions, always feel free to contact us. email@example.com, 505 823 6362
Holly Jacobson, Lowell Finley & the entire Voter Action Team
The budget for the New Mexico research and litigation effort is $250,000 and is actively being raised in order to move discovery forward in a timely and effective manner. As a project of the International Humanities Center, a 501(c)(3) organization, Voter Action can offer donors tax deductibility to the full extent permitted by law. Checks should be made out to Voter Action/IH Center c/o Voter Action, PO Box 25651, Albuquerque, NM 87125. Credit card payments may be made at our website - www.voteraction.org. Gifts of stock can be made by contacting Pam Stokes at Voter Action New Mexico 505 823 6362 or Co Director Holly Jacobson 206 769 7185
I am underwhelmed.
Startling evidence?? No. Most of that was known many months ago. For example, the claim that "canvass processes are incapable of detecting most types of voting machine error or fraud" has been obvious for years. The nice thing about wholly electronic data storage is that changes need leave no spoor.
Evidence?? Much of that hardly qualifies as evidence. Two people - who may or may not be knowledgable - are "suspicious". What does that mean? What are the grounds for their suspicions? Suspicion alone adds up to nothing.
For a quarter of a million dollars, which I regard as one hell of a lot of money (and I'd like to know where it's going) I'd hope for something a bit more persuasive.
I tried to look at their web site, hoping for more details and some actual evidence, but the URL returns only a strange error message. Something about recursions.
Posted by: Michael H Schneider | Sep 30, 2005 9:58:46 PM