Tags for This Article:

Voter Disenfranchisement (1575)  Voting (1183)  Rights (1090)  Law (877)  Vote Theft (790)  Elections (602)  Reform (453)  Voter Fraud (352)  Constitution The (351)  Voter Participation (244)  Computers (167)  South (78)  Voters Bill Of Rights (42)  Secret Keeping (41)  Vote Hope (31)  Open Access (19)  Secret Tribunals (17)  Secretary Of The Treasury (14) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
January 17, 2008 at 12:13:53

An Open Letter to Senator John Edwards: The Constitution Prohibits Secret Vote Counting! Will You Take Action?

by Mark A. Adams JD/MBA     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

Senator Edwards:

I heard your call for eliminating touch screen voting machines. Of course, being from South Carolina you are certainly aware of its use of the notoriously unreliable iVotronic touch screen voting machines. Last Friday afternoon, I looked into South Carolina’s use of these infamous voting machines, and I discovered that it’s PROHIBITED by South Carolina’s Constitution.



Some of the key information from my article "South Carolina Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!" published on Monday January 14, 2008 on OpEdNews.com follows.

Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina states, "the ballots shall not be counted in secret." Although there is case law which supports the right to have votes counted in public, this is the election integrity jackpot, a Constitutional provision prohibiting counting votes in secret! No more need to refer to case law, evidence, or logic to argue against secret vote counting, at least in South Carolina.

You have courageously spoken out against touch screen voting. But, in case this is the first time someone else reading this has thought about how votes are counted on computers, they don’t understand that computers count in secret, or they think that fears about votes being counted on computers are unfounded, take a minute and think about three things: (1) How does a computer count votes? (2) Do computers sometimes malfunction? and (3) Do you have any security measures on your computer to protect against hackers?

The last two questions are really easy, but for those of you who haven’t yet thought of how computers count, it’s really simple. Computers count inside their case, with no oversight, just like they are told to do, unless of course, they malfunction or are hacked.

Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence of problems with counting votes on computers from across our country in the last several elections. The corporate media and the government media don’t mention these problems very often, but if you haven’t heard of them or you’re not concerned about allowing votes to be counted in secret, then you’re in the minority, a minority which is either hopelessly clueless or completely power hungry and corrupt.

This is why the vast majority of Americans are worried about election integrity. In fact, a Zogby poll from August of 2006 indicates that 92% of Americans are worried about our votes being counted in secret. See,
http://www.zogby.com/templates/printnews.cfm?id=1163

The cat is out of the bag. The people know about these problems, and they are becoming more and more aware of the damage that has resulted from them.

Those few of you who still think that we can trust having our votes counted in secret will be happy to know that your view is shared by many powerful and influential people. For example, Joseph Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." If you want to roll back the evolution of civilization from citizen influence over government to a form of feudalism, then you might as well quit reading now.

South Carolina is the best opportunity to make a case against allowing computers to count the votes in secret. I’ve discussed this with two leading election law advocates who have also brought election contests, Paul Lehto and Andi Novick. They both think that this is the best opportunity to act that they have seen. The South Carolina Constitution prohibits secret vote counting! The election reform community EXPECTS one of the Presidential candidates to take action.

I’ve already heard from four, now five, radio shows that want me to come on as a guest speaker this week to discuss this issue. I’ll be on two shows tonight. This was discussed on Voice of the Voters last night.

Congressman Kucinich has a lot of support in the election reform movement, and he might take action on this. He came out against the Holt bill after meeting with me last summer. Now, we have a new Holt bill which is better, but it still has some shortcomings.

Congressman Ron Paul has been a consistent defender of Constitutional rights. It would seem like he would jump on this case. Maybe he is working on it, but he didn’t ask for a recount in New Hampshire. Also, he’s running out of time, and he doesn’t have your legendary trial skills and legal team.

You could sit back and wait to see whether someone else takes legal action, then join in or sit by and just speak in support of another’s effort. If so, you lose the opportunity to take the lead and grab the spotlight in the effort to stand up for the rule of law and the right to have our votes counted accurately.

Most importantly, if you act before the Republican primary, you can make it a non-partisan issue. You would be working to help make sure that even Republicans’ constitutional rights are respected. Certainly, that would make the Daily Show as well as all of the late night shows.

I can see it now, John Stewart saying, "John Edwards has taken legal action to protect the Constitutional rights of Republicans. You know, those guys whose leaders don’t care about Constitutional rights!" It would explode across America!

 1  |  2

 

Mark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department. Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to require his inclusion in the Gubernatorial debates. Mark also represented John Russell, Clint Curtis, Frank Gonzalez, and others in contesting the official results of the 2006 elections in Florida state court and before the U.S. House of Representatives. Mark has been involved in the judicial reform movement since 2003, the media reform movement since 2004, and the election reform movement since 2006. Before those years, he believed that judges followed the law, that our media told us the truth, and that our votes were counted. Beliefs that most of us once held and that many still hold on to. Unfortunately, Mark, like many of us, learned that these beliefs were no longer true. However, Mark believes that we can counteract the forces which have destroyed these institutions if we face reality and take action before it is too late. Mark asks that you please remember that the American dream will die and our children will suffer if the people do not know what their government leaders are doing, if the people are not able to vote ineffective or corrupt leaders out of office, or if judges can ignore the law and the facts with no repercussions!

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 comments

i am cool. and strong
walter jenkinsi am cool. and strong

john edwards

we dont need you stop politics you dont do good for this country

by walter jenkins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 3:50:09 PM
 


Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of t...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Steven LeserSteven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of t...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Interesting, but I think one could make the argument that

... South Carolina's constitution interferes with Article Two of the Constitution which states in clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

You are a lawyer so you would know better than me, but I think the argument could be made that the nomination/primary/caucus process is all part of the larger process of choosing Electors for President and thus a power of the state legislature. If a state legislature decides to use secret vote counting in a primary, one could argue that this is a power that the legislature has under the US Constitution and that the US Constitution would trump the state constitution in matters of choosing Federal representation and a President.

by Steven Leser (187 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments) on Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 11:26:42 PM
 


Mark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department.

Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to re...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Mark AdamsMark A. Adams earned his BA in business administration with a major in finance and a minor in economics at the University of South Florida. He earned his law degree and his master of business administration at the University of Florida where he also worked as a teaching assistant in the Economics Department.

Mark practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark represented Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for Governor of Florida, in successful lawsuits brought against the media to re...

to see more of bio, click on member name

South Carolina's Constitution Clearly Controls

Mr. Leser, I see that you have done some thought provoking work which I agree with. So, I don’t mean to personally offend you, but you do seem to be arguing in favor of allowing votes to be counted in secret. I’m tired of nicely trying to debate with those who argue in favor of me giving up my rights, as I’m sure many of you may have noticed. You have stepped into the fray with the appearance that you are on the side of those who want to take away my rights. Let’s go.

 

Mr. Leser your biography indicates that you specialize in politics and that you held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations. I’m curious. Did you speak out against counting votes in secret? Certainly, you would have understood that counting votes in secret might lead to problems like, stolen elections, right? Are you for counting votes in secret now? It sure sounds like it.

 

You say that someone could argue that a state could provide for counting votes in secret. Of course, that obviously has been done as almost all votes cast in America are counted in secret.

 

To be more accurate, I should say allegedly counted in secret because no one can see what the computer does inside when the votes go in. Who knows if they come out again? Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that the official results have been incorrect, but don’t worry, be happy. We live in America, right?

 

Is it really acceptable to have our votes counted in secret? It must be. Our wonderful, honest leaders would not ignore the law and undermine our rights, even our most fundamental right to remove them from power, would they?

 

Article II, § 1 of the U. S. Constitution does give the legislatures of each of the states the power to determine the manner of appointing electors, but could a legislature do anything it wants? Could it say that no elector may be of African origin or that no elector may be a Catholic? Of course, not! The 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit such biased conduct.

 

Just so readers are not confused by your recitation of a provision from the U.S. Constitution, I’ll recite more provisions, and I’ll tell you how they were construed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Article I, § 4 of the United States Constitution gives the States the power to prescribe the time, place, and manner of elections. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This was meant to clarify that the government of the United States has limited powers.

 

Based on these Constitutional provisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the laws of the States control the manner of conducting elections as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution. This is why some States, I believe that they are Maine and Nebraska, do not follow the all or nothing rule of selecting electors based on who wins the popular vote in the Presidential election.

 

There is also a ballot initiative movement in California to change the method in which it selects its electors from the all or nothing rule. Why would the people try to amend the California Constitution if the Legislature could just ignore it? Isn’t the whole purpose of the constitutional amendment process to give the people some power to control our government? Well, please explain how that would work if the government could just ignore constitutional provisions whenever it wanted to do so. Would we be a government that followed the rule of law anymore, or would we have reverted to some form of feudalism where those with the power do whatever they want?

 

So, if a State’s Constitution prohibits counting votes in secret, does that abridge a power delegated to the United States? No. Is such a prohibition prohibited by the U.S. Constitution? No, the manner of conducting elections is delegated to the States.

 

What is the supreme law of the State? Its founding document, the State’s Constitution controls government power within the State as long as the State Constitution does not usurp a power delegated to the United States and as long as the State’s Constitution does not provide for some power which it is prohibited from exercising by the U.S. Constitution. This is basic Constitutional education as well as basic Constitutional law.

 

So, the manner prescribed for counting votes by South Carolina’s Constitution clearly controls on this point. Once again, Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina states, "the ballots shall not be counted in secret." Computers count votes in secret. No one can see a computer count, and therefore, using computers to count votes in secret violates South Carolina’s Constitution!

 

But there is more. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the fundamental right to have your vote counted stating, "We regard it as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection by Congress as the right to put a ballot in a box." U. S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383, 386 (1915). Do you know how your vote was counted on a computer? Do you just have faith that it was counted correctly, or at all? Are you a true believer in secret vote counting just like so many who walk the halls of power right now?

 

Wait, a flack for those who want to keep counting our votes in secret might say, "that’s a case from so long ago, they could never have imagined computers and how "efficient" they are, we shouldn’t be bound by that quaint old case about counting votes." Some people have no conscience and will do anything for a buck. I face off with that type of person all of the time.

 

Here is what the United States Supreme Court said in another case about the right to have your vote counted:

"A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, and to have their votes counted. In Mosley the Court stated that it is ‘as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection … as the right to put a ballot in a box. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing. As the Court stated in Classic, ‘Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted…." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). (Citations omitted.)

 

So, have I cleared up any confusion out there over whether or not South Carolina, and every other state by the way, should conduct its elections in a manner in which we can all make sure that our votes are counted which of course, does not allow votes to be counted on computers in secret? I hope so, and I hope that one of the Presidential candidates will stand up for our right to overthrow our government through peaceful means at the ballot box on election day. If not, there is no hope for any of us.

 

If you are one of that vast majority of Americans who do not want your votes to be "counted" in secret, step up, take action, call the Presidential candidate of your choice and ask them to take action to end the unconstitutional practice of counting votes in secret in South Carolina. It will help us bring this issue to the forefront throughout the United States.

 

STEP INTO THE FRAY WHEN YOU CAN DO THE MOST to save our country, to protect our freedom, to protect our right to elect our leaders, and to protect the future of our children and grandchildren! PLEASE HELP KEEP THE LIGHT OF LIBERTY BURNING! GO TO http://www.votecount2008.org/ and JOIN NOW!

by Mark Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments) on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM
 


Lynn Beckman is a freelance writer and political activist. She resides in Colorado with her husband and teenage son.
Lynn BeckmanLynn Beckman is a freelance writer and political activist. She resides in Colorado with her husband and teenage son.

Vote by absentee ballot

The only way to possibly get your vote counted fairly is to vote by absentee ballot. You can apply for one online in a matter of minutes. The ballot is sent to you, you fill it out and then send it back. I refuse to vote on a touch screen machine. If millions of people would request these ballots, the system would become log jammed, and it would force them to get rid of the error ridden, hackable machines.

by Lynn Beckman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, January 18, 2008 at 8:47:33 PM
 

 

7 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

 

 

 

 

Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder
by Linda Milazzo

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
by David Swanson

A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States
by Anonymous

The Perfect Storm from Hell
by Lord Stirling

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GAS REACHES 7 DOLLARS A GALLON ?
by Allen L Roland

Fortis Prediction of US Bank Meltdown a Net Hoax: The Making of an Urban Legend
by Paul Haughey

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate
by elliot cohen

Why were 'first responders' de-contaminated at the Pentagon?
by Len Hart

Ex Weapons Inspector: Iran Not Pursuing Nukes, But U.S. Will Attack Before '09
by Jason Leopold

Raw milk and the government/corporate effort to crush it
by Linn Cohen-Cole