Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
January 17, 2008 at 12:13:53

View Ratings | Rate It

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

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg

Tell A Friend

By Mark A. Adams JD/MBA (about the author)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Mark Adams - Writer

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.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

www.ProjectVoteCount.com

I practiced law in Florida. In 2006, I 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. I also represented John (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 
john edwards by walter jenkins on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 3:50:09 PM
Was that English? by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 7:09:32 PM
Interesting, but I think one could make the argument that by Steven Leser on Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:26:42 PM
South Carolina's Constitution Clearly Controls by Mark Adams on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM
Vote by absentee ballot by Lynn Beckman on Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 8:47:33 PM
An Absentee Vote is the Original Faith Based Voting Method by Mark Adams on Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM
NOT ONLY ARE THEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL by Mark Adams on Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 3:33:05 PM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum