What will talking power meters say about you?

VoterGa Supporters,

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled today that our current form of un-auditable voting does not infringe upon the fundamental right to vote and to have our vote counted. This ruling essentially gives the state a license to pretend to conduct elections. Not one of the 100+ million votes that have been cast on the machines since 2002 can be audited for accuracy and correctness of vote recording. Georgia  law in 2001 and 2002 required that any new machines have an independent audit trail of each vote cast. The state's own witnesses have acknowledged that the specific type of electronic voting machines we purchased and use do not have such an independent audit trail. The machines can only internally recreate selections that may or may not have been shown to voter. Without an independent audit trail, it is impossible to determine whether the actual ballots cast on Election Day were recorded correctly. Auditable electronic voting machines were available for purchase in 2002 as they are today.

 

When one or two officials can commit the state of Georgia to a 54 million dollar of equipment that was illegal when purchased, there must be some mechanism of accountability. Otherwise, public officials can operate above the law. In this particular case, the previous boss of former Secretary of State Cox, who signed the purchase agreement, was the lobbyist for Diebold, the voting machine vendor. When the people have no recourse even for a standard trial of evidence , they become slaves to their government rather than the masters of it.

 

The Georgia Supreme Court also upheld the remarkable lower court decision that no trial is warranted on any count of the 13 count legal suit. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to overturn that lower court decision in spite of 17 disputes of facts cited in lower court conclusions and 41 disputes of facts cited against claims made by the state to Georgia Supreme Court. Several of these disputes involved claims that were directly contradicted by the evidence in the record and clearly cited. Summary judgment dismissals, such as the one that the court upheld are rare in this type of case because standard procedures for any court in America require the court to hear the evidence in order to determine the facts before reaching a conclusion.

 

Now that the state has proven not to  be unable to rule against itself on any count, some Constitutional parts of the case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. While offering a more substantive decision than the lower court, the Georgia Supreme Court did not cite U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to ballot counting and recounting to corroborate its decision. All such U.S. Supreme Court rulings confirm that ballot counting and recounting requires strict scrutiny. On the contrary, the Georgia Supreme Court decided that the state need only have a rational basis for implementing the voting systems. Even so, there is no rational basis for implementing a voting system that violates the law.

 

 

Garland

www.voterga.org

GA Supreme Court Ruling: http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s09a1367.pdf

I was in a deposition with Dr. Broun a few years ago where he was testifying as an "expert" medical witness.  He billed himself as practicing family medicine and the periodical AMA News lists him as a family physician, but he has never graduated from a family practice medical residency program.  In fact, he hasn't graduated from any residency program.  

He saw patients as a physician but he didn't do lab work, he didn't administer vaccines, he didn't do diagnostic imaging studies, he didn't practice out of a clinic, he didn't keep medical records, and he carried no malpractice insurance.

 

He had been in a neurosurgical residency program, but testified that he quit because of a philosophical difference of opinion with an attending doctor.  If true, this would be amazing.  I suspect he was asked to leave for good reason after his transition year.

 

An investigation of this would make a great comedy segment.  As one of a few members of Congress that is a medical doctor,  Dr. Broun is often cited as an "expert" in this field when he is actually the least qualified licensed physician I know.

VOTER GA CASE HISTORY

Our Georgia Supreme Court case is picking up some national attention and as a result, several people have asked for a brief history of the case and its status so here it is: In 2002, Georgia became the first (and now only) state to conduct statewide elections with unverifiable voting equipment that has no means to the audit vote recording of actual ballots cast on Election Day.

Unbeknownst to us, the law at the time required that any new voting machines "shall have an independent audit trail of each vote cast". None of the voting machines procured, piloted, allegedly certified, and acquired with $54 million of tax money had any form of audit trails that are independent of the vote recording process such as standard Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails that were available even at that time.

Prior to the acquisition, the need for audit capabilities, voter verification and recount retention had already been documented in Senate meetings, by the Fulton County Elections chief, in the state's 21st Century Voting Commission report, by the general public and in plaintiff Emails that were authenticated under oath by the former Assistant Elections Director. Therefore, the acquisition could not have been a mistake.

In July of 2006, after attempts fell short to resolve the problem through the legislature, a politically diverse group of plaintiffs filed a voting rights suit against former Secretary of State Cathy Cox and other officials. The Plaintiffs chose to file the case in Fulton County Superior State Court rather than federal court because there were more obvious violations of state law than federal law.

The lawsuit challenged the legality and constitutionality of the Diebold AccuVote TS R6 voting machines, state election procedures and Georgia Election Code laws used to conduct the elections. During the discovery period as the parties received documents and admissions from each other, more potential violations of law were identified, including those that involved both the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions. The suit was eventually expanded to include 13 counts. Some of the key Constitutional counts include:

·       Failure to require elections by ballot according to the Georgia Constitution;

·       Violation of Constitutional due process by not protecting the vote count;

·       Failure to provide protection equal to that for absentee voters in regards to voter verification, recount completeness and discrepancy investigation;

Two of those counts were filed to prevent the state from purchasing AccuVote TSX machines temporarily used in a 2006 audit trail pilot because, as the current Secretary's own 2007 Voter Verified Audit Trail report admitted: "the sequential printing of the VVPAT paper ballots does not guarantee voter anonymity as required by Georgia law". Those machines rolled up elections results sequentially into a sealed canister rather than cutting the ballots and dropping them into a secured ballot box.

The lawsuit was drawn up so that if the Plaintiffs won any single other single count against the currently used voting machines, procedures and election code, the state would be enjoined from using all of the machines and any procedures that violated the rights of the voters. When deposing the Defendants' witnesses during the extensive discovery period, the Plaintiffs obtained key admissions that were over and above what was expected. Therefore, In March of 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on five of the counts, contending that there was no need for a trial since the Defendant's own witnesses had admitted key elements of the case as necessary for a favorable judgment.

Immediately afterwards, the Defendants also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that all counts be dismissed without a trial. If a court is to uphold any such motion by either side there must be no dispute of material facts.

Oral arguments were eventually scheduled for September 8, 2008. These arguments are a formality since a judge's decision must be based on the briefs that were previously submitted. That day, Judge Michael Johnson denied our Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld the Defendant's motion to dismiss all counts. He also stated in court that he would produce a Final Order stating the rationale for his decision by the end of that week.

For the next few months Plaintiffs, media representatives, interested parties and even a state legislator repeatedly contacted the Judge's staff attorney, Steven Jones, to get a copy of the order. During that time, Judge Johnson was reelected to another term while running unopposed. On February 20, 2009, one hour after a legislator called the judge's office for the second time, the order was released.

After a quick review of the fairly simplistic order we were amazed to find that the court:

·       Never considered in its order, a shred of the extensive evidence we provided;

·       Made at least 6 conclusions that were in direct conflict with the evidence we presented in the case;

·       Made at least another 9 conclusions citing facts that were actually in dispute and thus should have required the court to conduct a trial;

·       Never ruled on nearly all of the arguments we presented;

·       Failed to rule or even understand several counts of the case;

·       Repeatedly lacked rationale as to why our arguments were invalid;

·       Misinterpreted key case law that confirms our constitutional arguments;

Because of this bizarre ruling, we have never been able to publicly present our evidence in an open court of law. Since there were Constitutional issues at stake, we prepared an appeal straight to the Georgia Supreme Court.

The appeal that was filed on June 1, 2009 cites two main thrusts of errors committed by the lower court. These are:

·       The court unjustly denied our right to a trial when it upheld the Motion to Dismiss and made 17 conclusions that were not supported by, or in direct conflict with, the evidence of the case.

·       The Court misapplied case law when it denied our Motion for Summary Judgment and ruled in conflict with all U.S. Supreme Court case law for ballot counting and recounting.

On June 30, 2009 the Defendants (known as Appellees) filed their response. On July 13, 2009, exactly three years after our initial filing, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral arguments. At that hearing, we provided a supplemental brief, filed on July 17, 2009, citing 41 disputes of facts that were contained in the Defendants' Supreme Court brief.

During the hearing, one of the justices requested a letter from the Defendants to detail a ballot access case that they cited as a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in their favor. We responded with our own letter explaining that:

·       The case cited was immaterial because it was not about ballot counting;

·       The Defendants have yet to cite a single U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding ballot counting that is in their favor;

·       Virtually all U.S. Supreme Court case law regarding ballot counting and recounting is in our favor.

The Georgia Supreme Court is now in a difficult position. To rule against us, the justices will have to conclude that:

·       None of the 41 factual disputes that we have cited are valid;

·       All U.S. Supreme Court case law that strictly scrutinizes the fundamental right of ballot counting and recounting does not apply to this case;

We will soon learn if there is any justice left in Georgia.

Georgia's 12th needs to find a REAL DEMOCRAT to run against Barrow and send the incumbent's 'blue butt' home where he will no longer enjoy the best health insurance plan taxpayers' money can buy. 

...(1)  The IG Report is more notable for what it fails to address than for what it discloses, but that's the nature of IG Reports.  Most of the key players who authorized the illegal domestic spying -- David Addington, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, John Ashcroft, George Tenet -- simply refused to talk to the IGs or, in many cases, didn't even bother responding to their request.  The IG's have no power at all to compel them to do so; it's entirely optional.  That -- aside from the fact that they work within the Executive Branch and for the very agencies they are supposed to investigate -- is what makes IGs such an inadequate substitute for real oversight:  no matter how much integrity and independence they might have, they are extremely limited in what they can achieve.  

As any litigator will tell you, the lack of power to compel key witnesses to answer questions and produce documents severely hampers any ability to conduct a real investigation.  Yet, when they passed the FISA Amendments Act -- which legalized Bush's spying programs and immunized lawbreaking telecoms -- Democratic leaders kept pointing to the requirement of an IG Report to placate those complaining that they were whitewashing and legalizing Bush abuses.  But IGs are simply incapable, given their very limited powers and their institutional allegiances, of any real investigation of this sort.  What they were unable to disclose in this Report underscores how limited are their investigative abilities...