To rush through this re-certification, the Secretary of State had to go back on his word -- twice -- and violate federal and state law in the process. Compounding this travesty is that the re-certification is based solely on the views and recommendations of people on the Secretary's payroll.
Urge Secretary of State McPherson to reverse his decision on Diebold -- email him today!
The Secretary of State based his decision on what he called an "independent audit" -- which was really a review of the Diebold machines conducted by a board that he appointed himself. The results of this study were kept secret from you and every other California voter until after the Secretary made his decision to give Diebold the green light.
There was absolutely ZERO public review or input before this decision was made. That's not how you restore public confidence in California elections.
Where are the results of tests conducted by the federal "Independent Testing Authorities?" McPherson told us last December that he wouldn't even consider Diebold's application until those tests were done.
And why didn't McPherson allow experts and the general public to review and comment on this latest report BEFORE he decided to flip-flop on the issue and re-certify these Diebold machines?
Urge the Secretary of State to reverse his decision to re-certify the Diebold machines -- and schedule a public hearing to independently review new and damaging information about Diebold's machines!
This report determined that "there are serious vulnerabilities" with the Diebold machines "that go beyond what was previously known."
Don't you think that Californians deserve voting systems without "serious vulnerabilities?"
Urge Secretary of State McPherson to stop the re-certification of these Diebold machines until we know the facts -- send him an email today!
* The Secretary of State's own rushed secret study points out "serious vulnerabilities... that go beyond what was previously known," yet the Secretary decided to re-certify the machines.
* There has been absolutely no opportunity for public comment or review on these latest findings.