Disappeared News

by Larry Geller

The case is actually a suit against embattled Chief Elections Officer Kevin Cronin, not against a computer, but I like to think of it as possibly driving a wooden stake into the heart of these infernal machines. They’re designed to encourage fraud and manipulation. We’re better off without them.

See for example:

A computer scientist who is familiar with most of America's e-voting systems recently told us [Bradblog] that he has come to understand that, of all of the voting systems out there, ironically enough, Hart's systems, which have gotten far less attention in the media than those made by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia over the years, may, in fact, "be the most insecure of them all" due to their particular architecture. [EXCLUSIVE: Federal Fraud Complaint Against Voting Machine Company Unsealed, 3/27/2008]

Judge Joseph Cardoza agreed yesterday that plaintiffs Robert Babson Jr., Ann Babson, Joy Brann, Paula Brock and Daniel Granthamhad had standing as long-time registered voters. He noted that election procedures strike at the heart of our form of government. So the case will go forward.

The next hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, at which time attorneys will brief Cardoza on questions he has asked.

According to plaintiff attorney Lance Collins, Cronin did not follow state law in establishing rules for the use of the new machines, which transmit their data over the Internet or phone lines. Specifically, the Office of Elections didn't hold public hearings and establish a comment period before adopting its rules.

The Hart voting computers are also the subject of a contract dispute that has not been resolved yet and is still before a hearings officer (see: State snagged on elections protest: An objection to the bidding process halts planning and has lawmakers nervous, Star-Bulletin, 4/5/2008).

Permalink posted by Larry @ 8/09/2008 03:39:00 PM