Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Proposed In NY District Court

p.7 of the brief - crux of our "proposal":

As the United States' memorandum has made clear, HAVA recognizes the State's right to hand count paper ballots, as long as Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) are provided in every polling place, producing a paper ballot identical to the paper ballots marked by able voters. Thus, were the Court to direct a hand count of the two Federal races, the defendants would not have to choose between purchasing failed computerized systems or remaining in violation of a federal statute, thereby subjecting the State to this Court's directing an outside party to decide how New York's elections will be held in 2008.

p.11 - closing of the summary section; features some points made previously by Paul Lehto and here at WDNC:

Amici Curia respectfully urge the Court to act as the judiciary has and must when government's potential conflict of interest, in having the authority to determine the means by which it may be re-elected, would so regulate the people's elections as to thwart the full exercise of the franchise as secured by the Constitution. The right to choose our representatives means nothing if the people cannot know - not merely trust - that their will has been accurately reflected by the results of our elections. That right was not granted to the people, but rather was deemed "unalienable," by nothing less than our Declaration of Independence. Governments' role is to secure that right. There is nothing secure about voting on computerized systems which have shown themselves time and again to be readily corruptible while defying detection. We implore the Court to protect the citizens' means to observe and secure our elections so that we may see, not trust, that our consent to the outcome was respected.

Page 16 - from the core of the argument, a fine distillation of a point this country should have seen about five years ago as "Do not pass go, do not collect $200":

Not only have the essential democratic safeguards been obliterated by oblique computerized processes, but all of the voting systems sold by these voting vendors have been revealed to be seriously vulnerable to attacks that can change the outcome of entire elections. As demonstrated below and in the declarations of Lukacher, Anderson, Simon and Freeman, computerized voting offers by far and away the greatest opportunity for theft this nation has ever seen. After 200 years of successive legislative efforts to protect the integrity of our elections by minimizing the opportunities for tampering, we are witnessing a complete reversal wherein the opportunities for tampering are massively multiplied, enabled solely by the introduction of computers into our electoral process. Such action is in direct conflict with our Constitution.

Pages 23-24 - another part of the main argument, and another point we have tried to make here in Humboldt about how unsavory (really how unthinkable) it is now to do business with Diebold/Premier:

New York's Procurement Laws prohibit the State from entering into contracts with "non-responsible" vendors26. The voting vendors who sell America's computerized voting systems share a history of multiple infractions of "non-responsible" conduct as defined in New York's laws -- including, in addition to failed performance and unethical conduct, criminal indictments and convictions, bid rigging, computer-aided embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and kick-back scandals to name a few -- any one of which would render them ineligible to do business in New York.

26 http://www.wheresthepaper.org/Memo1NYSvendorsProhibited.pdf, http://www.wheresthepaper.org/UpdatedProcurementVendorIrresponsibility070822.pdf,
http://www.votersunite.org/info/IrresponsibleVendors.pdf and see Lukacher Declaration.

Two memoranda (amici's exhibits "B" and "C") containing 80 pages of documented reports of vendors disqualifying "not-responsible" conduct were submitted to the SBOE and various agencies within the Governor's office. The defendants ignored the evidence, avoiding their affirmative obligation to investigate these vendors.

The evidence of the disaster of computerized voting presented herein is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. In urging that New York become HAVA-compliant by purchasing this equipment, the United States' motion fails to mention that none of this equipment can provide a secure, reliable or accurate election result. The United States cannot justifiably compel the purchase of equipment that would disenfranchise millions by virtue of these machines' unacceptably high security vulnerabilities and documented failures.

 1  |  2