In 2004 you asked us for money to ensure that our votes were counted, and we came through for you. Now we want to know if you will come through for us.
Here in California a special election was held recently to fill the seat of convicted felon Duke Cunningham. But there were many problems with this election:
1. The election was held on voting machines that were improperly certified because some of the software had never been inspected due to the fact that the vendor had misrepresented customized software as being "off-the-shelf" software. While "off-the-shelf" software need not be inspected for certification, customized software must.
2. Because the Brennan Center and other expert studies had proven that these machines are easily hacked, the California Secretary of State issued directives to protect the chain-of-custody of the voting machines. The San Diego Registrar of Voters did not comply with these directives.
3. The vendor, the Secretary of State, and the Registrar of Voters have all claimed that the voting machines are protected by tamper-evident seals. It has been proven that these machines can be opened so that their internal mechanisms are fully exposed, by simply removing five screws, and that unscrewing one bolt allows a person to remove, reprogram, and reinsert the memory card. The machine can then be closed back up leaving the tamper-evident seal untouched and intact. They are totally worthless.
4. On the night of the election, the TV coverage showed one candidate ahead, but suddenly reversed to show the other candidate ahead. To those of us active in election integrity and familiar with the history of election fraud in the U.S., this is a very suspicious occurrence.
Due to these and other irregularities, two voters attempted to request a recount. But the Registrar of Voters demanded a $6,000 deposit up front. As it happens, voters in this district has requested a recount in a previous election where there was one candidate and one proposition on the ballot. They had paid the $6,000 deposit believing that they would get a recount of everything on the ballot, but found out that they were only getting a recount of the votes for the candidate. Unwilling to be swindled again, the CA50 voters demanded that the Registrar tell them what they would be getting before they paid the $6,000 deposit. This is very important because the recount itself was estimated by the Registrar at $150,000, which is about ten times as much as recounts cost in nearby areas with similar demographics.
Since the Registrar would not tell them what they'd be getting for their money, these citizens refused to pay him the deposit and went to court to ask the judge to order a recount.
In the meantime, the Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray, was sworn in as a Member of Congress. This happened only a few days after the election, before all the votes had been counted, and long before the election had been certified.
When the voters' lawsuit was filed, Congress sent the court a letter saying that the judge did not have jurisdiction to order a recount because the candidate had already been sworn in. They cited Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution which gives Congress sole power to judge the elections of its members, completely ignoring the fact that the Constitution also says that Representatives shall be elected every two years by the people, and that Article 1, Section 4, says that the States shall determine the manner of these elections. The judge agreed with Congress that he lacked jurisdiction and we are pursuing an appeal of that decision.
Senator Kerry, if Congress can swear somebody in before the votes are counted, and thereby prevent the possibility of a recount, we can never know if our votes were counted accurately or not, or if the person sworn in was actually the one we elected. The Constitution did not say that Congress shall select its own Members, it said that We the People shall elect them.
You can read more about this case by going to www.nosleepovers.org www.bradblog.com or looking through the writers' archives on www.opednews.com for articles about this case by attorney Paul Lehto. Summaries of the case along with all the relevant documents and briefs, have been posted online and the links have been provided at the above sites.
Senator Kerry, we don't know what prevented you from using our money to protect our votes as you'd promised in 2004, but we know that there is nothing stopping you from helping us do so now. Even President Bush, in remarks addressed to Fidel Castro, admitted that without free and fair elections, there is no democracy. We are pursuing this case here in hopes that we can prevent this from happening all over the country in November.
Please familiarize yourself with the facts so that you can understand what is at stake. When you have done so, please go to www.velvetrevolution.us and donate what you can to help protect our vote. You were not a candidate in this election, so nobody can call you a sore loser. You told us that you want to protect our vote, so now is the time to stand up and show the world that you are a man of your word.
1 | 2