No Stolen Democracy

Photos: Rally For The Republic, Faneuil Hall Boston, MA, Jan 3 2005

(click on photos to enlarge)

Gathered @ MA State House     Marched to Faneuil Hall


Inside                                                                             Music from Greg Greenway


Ayer Selectwoman                                                     Vermont Elector Jeff Taylor
Faye Morrison


John Bonifaz                                                               Sheila Parks

      (Photos by Mike Walsh)
David Lytel

Jeffords Says No

January 4, 2005

Senator Jeffords' Statement
On Ohio Electors Challenge

I am deeply concerned about reported irregularities and flaws in the 2004 election, and I fully support efforts to find out what went wrong and make it right. A challenge to the Ohio Electors will not fix the problems at hand. We know that such a challenge will not affect the outcome of the election, and I fear it will only further polarize our political landscape. John Kerry has conceded this election, and we must now move forward in a constructive way. I believe the investigation by the non-partisan Goverment Accountability Office will provide needed answers.

In Congress, I will work to reform and clarify existing law, and push for the creation of a paper trail for electronic voting and a national standard for provisional ballots. These reforms are needed to assure that these problems are not repeated in future elections. People must have the utmost confidence that their votes will be counted.

(Source.)

Good Signs Out of Minnesota

This was posted on Democratic Underground, but I have it directly from the author, whom I've been working with. I'll post the DU link later, when I have the chance to get it. --BG

I am a member of CASE-Minnesota. CASE stands for Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections. We are affiliated with Susan Truitt's organization in Ohio, called CASE-Ohio.

This morning we had a meeting scheduled at 10am at Senator Mark Dayton's office in Minnesota. I did not attend this meeting, but I just got off the phone with someone who did, and I took notes.

What the CASE-MN member said:
We had a powerful meeting. The room was packed, 20-35 people from several organizations besides CASE - Minnesota: Green, Dean's group, League of Pissed Off Voters, National Lawyers Guild, Progressive Democrats of America. Two notables showed up: Ken Pentel, who was last election's Green Party candidate for governor, and an executive board member from the DFL (Minnesota's official Democratic organization).

We met with Nate, Dayton's constiuency advocate, for 1.5 hours, from 10-11:30am. Nate heard us, took notes, and promised to write up a report. He would send his impressions to both Senator Dayton, and the people at the meeting.

During the meeting with Nate, two CASE-MN members talked about their experiences in Ohio (recount). Everyone else got the chance to speak. It was all strongly worded, and passionate. People were giving reasons why Dayton should challenge the electoral vote. People were positive, but the underlying tone was that we expect Senator Dayton to stand up. He will be conceived as a leader, a hero, if he stands up for the Constitution, Civil Rights, and the right to vote. (I have heard some of these people speak, in the past, and they are eloquent, and persuasive. My friend commented that it was too bad that Dayton, himself, couldn't personally hear their statements).

After leaving Dayton's office, several went to the building's cafeteria and discussed the need to work together, even though we are from various groups. Email addresses and phone numbers were exchanged.

OF GREAT INTEREST:
During the pre-meeting it was noted that our CASE-MN chairman was missing. It was a surprise to learn that Mark H. was absent because he is on his way to Senator Dayton's office in Washington D.C. He has a 20 minute meeting scheduled with Dayton this afternoon.

Our group (CASE - MN) is meeting tonight, and Mark will be calling in from Washington DC on a conference call. He will report on his meeting with Dayton.

I'll post his impressions after the conference call. It won't be until after 9:00pm, Central.

"Phantom Votes Are Not Possible"

This imporant new information comes from VotersUnite. Check their page for updates. --BG

Yet there are 2,087 phantom votes in her certified canvass report.  Phantom votes are found when the number of votes reported is higher than the number of ballots cast. The canvass reports on the New Mexico Secretary of State's website show precinct totals and ballots cast, separated into voting types (absentee, early voting, and election day). Analysis shows that there are 2,087 phantom votes reported across the state and present in the certified results.*

Confronted with the evidence of phantom votes in her own canvass reports, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron explained that they are impossible and denied their existence.**
	Independent auditors that looked at the state's canvass, or final report, did not find any problems like that, she said. "They didn't find any irregularities like that," Vigil-Giron said. Election results are checked at the county canvassing board level, the state level and later by the independent auditor, Vigil-Giron said. "Listen," she told a reporter. "I'm a Democrat. If I would have found some irregularities, believe you me I would have brought them out and questioned them."
Nevertheless there they are, right in the canvassing details posted on the Ms. Vigil-Giron's website. The Bernalillo County, Precinct 512 example Mr. Lenderman points to in his article can be found at http://www.sos.state.nm.us/PDF/Bernalillo.pdf. Look on page 41 for the total number of certified presidential votes on the absentee ballots in Precinct 512 (Kerry 104; Bush 206; Badnarik 2; Nader 6). They add up to 318. Move to page 69. The last column lists the "Totals taken from signature roster." That's the total number of absentee voters in each precinct. For Precinct 512 that number is 166. Another of the 250 precincts with phantom votes is Dona Ana County, Precinct 106, with 325 absentee votes resulting from 107 absentee ballots cast. For details, look on pages 10 and 12 of the Dona Ana County canvass report. (http://www.sos.state.nm.us/PDF/Dona_Ana.pdf).

---

"Impossible Phantom Votes in New Mexico." By Warren Stewart.
"Did We Bounce an Election?" By Warren Stewart.

Top 20 phantom-vote precincts
All 2,087 phantom votes
Download complete data in an Excel spreadsheet (4MB)

* Summary Report on New Mexico State Election Data.
By Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen. December 21, 2004. (2-page Brief)

** Vote Recount Fight 'Is Not Over'. Albuquerque Journal. December 24, 2004. By Andy Lenderman, Journal Politics Writer.

---

New Mexico also had the highest 2004 presidential undervote rate in the nation -- that is ballots for which no presidential vote is reported.

 

We don't spend a lot of time on undervote issues.
I'm just speculating that some voters
are just not concerned with the presidential race.
~ New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron

Exit Polls

MiaMedia Guide to the Nov 2 Exit Poll Data! (Glenn Sanders)

The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote?
An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data, December 28, 2004
Jonathan D. Simon, J.D., Verified Vote 2004
Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D., Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago

Born Again Jim Crow

by Heather Baum

Who would have thought that on the 40th anniversary of Freedom Summer and the Voting Rights Act we would be fighting for voting rights for all of America? I'm sure you understand that vote suppression is not without historic precedence. The fight for suffrage is elemental to the peoples history. In our own life times, we know this from the history of Jim Crow. A system we fought a bloody battle to bring to an end in the south. We thought it was dead. But it is not. What has happened during the last three or four election cycles is an attempt to give birth to a "born again" Jim Crow. The obvious goal is to bring it to a new era of technological sophistication and spread it throughout the country...If unchallenged this could lead to a permanent one party rule. In Minnesota, we managed to beat it back...but I believe we cannot let this stand.

Bush can not wage war around the world in the name of democracy and fail to practice it at home. What's coming out about election suppression and fraud goes way past whether it's too late to find enough votes to save Kerry. Postmortems are important, but we have a genuine opportunity to reveal the Karl Rove voter suppression strategy. Now is the time to nail the right wing anti-democracy machine to the wall. Fighting for fair elections is fundamental, not just for the future, but for the present. Bush won no mandate. Yet he has already begun to spend his "political capital" in Faluja...and this will cost millions of lives.

The true reality is voter suppression has been a long term strategy the Right has methodically applied to gain control of all four branches of government. They can not win without it and they have admitted this publicly. It is a dynamic strategy...it includes manipulation of the census count...and allowing gerrymandered redistricting. Among other things it also includes voter intimidation, stolen ballots, manipulation of mail in ballots, sending out mass mailings of unrequested absentee ballots in communities of color, mass distribution of racially sorted provisional ballots, creating 10 hour waits at the poles and finally implementation of a paperless unverifiable electronic voting system, owned by the President's supporters.

How can we know if the election is rigged if there is no paper trail? One of the reasons we won here in Minnesota is that we have a paper ballot system...we can count the votes. So to me it has gone way beyond whether Kerry won or lost. If we let this go unchallenged, not four...but two more years..(the Senate election) will come...and something will have changed...the problems will be worse...more entrenched. And then guess what?...We might have to live with Republicans in charge forever. We need to challenge the Right, fight for the vote, learn how to listen, talk to people and organize when we are doing it ...all at the same time.

The reality is that there is ample evidence not only that a totally hackable electronic voting system has been put in place but also that very massive serious voting irregularities took place on November 2nd. It seems odd to me that when you present this evidence to fair minded Republicans... they want it fixed..now. But when presented to many progressives and liberals they go into a swoon of denial... what is that about?

The Right thinks that if it says something often enough...and loud enough...that makes it true. I call that having smoke blown up your ass. The Bush Administration thinks by saying something...over and over...real loud.. they can "make us think" what they say is true. This is designed to divide the people..."progressive bashing"...used to be called "Red Baiting" in the days of Joe McCarthy...It is an old tried and true method of getting people to look the other way while someone has their hand in your pocket. We have a lot of work to do, and so I think we need to be organizing on all fronts. I choose to fight on the voting rights front, because as my Mothers daughter, and as a veteran of the Southern Freedom Movement, that is what I have done all my life. My mother and grandmothers before me fought for suffrage for all..and so do I.

How do we know that there were not enough votes cast to win, if no investigation is done? If people were wrongly prevented from voting, if legitimate votes were miss-counted or not counted at all...if we hope to ever have another fair election again... we need to know. This is a question that all fair minded people including Progressives, moderate Republicans and Libertarians want the answer to.

Recent Ohio News Items

NBC4i.com reports: "Passionate Voters Chose To Challenge Election Results"
Bush Moves to Dismiss Ohio Election Contest Suit
"Re-Vote Ohio", Important Article by Ted Glick on Z-Net
Moritz College of Law Conducting Study of 2004 Ohio Election, Requesting Information

(via OhioElection Fraud.)

Video Clip of Jan 3 Ohio Rally

Featured Video Rally Challenging Ohio Vote Held

(Source.)

John Bonifaz Remarks At Fanueil Hall Rally

IMPORTANT DOCUMENT: This is a marvelously clear statement as to why Ohio's Electors are illegitimate and their electoral votes should be contested. --BG

The following are the remarks of John Bonifaz, delivered at the Fanueil Hall Rally on the night of Monday, January 3rd:

January 3, 2005

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BONIFAZ
BEFORE THE RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC, FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON
General Counsel for the National Voting Rights Institute
Co-counsel for presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik in their suit for a legally appropriate recount of all of the votes cast for President in Ohio in the 2004 election

Four years ago last month, the United States Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in the State of Florida and, for the first time, selected the president of the United States. It marked a dark moment in our nation’s history.

Since that time, people throughout this country committed to the vision of democracy pledged to never let it happen again – never again would we allow an individual to assume the power of the presidency without the proper counting of all the votes. We are here tonight because we are dangerously close to allowing it to happen again. We are here tonight because we refuse to be silent.

On December 13, 2004, in the state capitol of Ohio, we witnessed a crime – a crime against democracy, a crime against the right to vote, a crime against our Constitution. On that day, Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell presided over a meeting over a group of individuals who claimed to have won the right to serve as presidential electors for the State of Ohio in the Electoral College. Mr. Blackwell and that group gathered while a recount began of the votes cast in Ohio for President of the United States.

Mr. Blackwell has done everything in his power to push through a slate of electors based on an untested, initial count. In enacting its recount law, the Ohio legislature ensured that a proper counting of all the votes could include a recount. As candidates for the office of President of the United States, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik exercised their right under the law and sought a recount.

Mr. Blackwell had no right to convene a meeting of the Electoral College in Ohio while a recount was underway. And individuals who ran as candidates for presidential electors had no right to cast votes in the Electoral College in Ohio while a recount was underway.

The meeting of the Electoral College in Ohio on December 13 was illegitimate. It was in violation of the United States Constitution. It marked an utter contempt for the promise of democracy and for the rule of law.

We refuse to be silent in the face of this crime.

While Mr. Blackwell presided over this illegitimate gathering in Columbus, he also ignored his responsibility to ensure that the recount would be conducted in accordance with uniform standards as required by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. On December 7, we sent a detailed letter to Mr. Blackwell, on behalf of our clients, outlining a series of key issues that needed to be resolved prior to the start of the recount in order meet the requirement on consistent standards throughout the state for conducting the recount. Mr. Blackwell has yet to respond to the letter.

On December 13 and the days thereafter, the recount began in each of the 88 counties in Ohio. With hundreds of observers on the ground at each county board of elections office, we now know that this recount was not meaningful.

Under Secretary Blackwell’s own guidelines for conducting a recount, each county board of elections must randomly select three percent of the total vote in that county and count that three percent by hand. If the three percent hand-count does not match the initial machine count conducted after the election, the board must then proceed to a full hand count of all of the votes in that county.

Of the 88 counties in Ohio, only one conducted a full hand count of the votes in that county. The vast majority of county boards of elections did everything they could to avoid a full hand count. Many did not select on a random basis the three percent to be hand-counted. Some counties altered ballots in order to get the three percent hand count to match the machine count. Others suspended the recount when the three percent hand count did not match the machine count. One summoned the Triad company to bring a new machine to the board prior to resuming the recount. Another simply refused to conduct a full hand count. And in one county -- Hocking County, a technician from the Triad company visited the board of elections office prior to the start of the recount and tampered with the central tabulator machine; he advised board of elections officials on how to post a “cheat sheet” on the wall so that the three percent hand count would match the machine count.

In light of this evidence from Hocking County, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. has asked the FBI to investigate the potential tampering of voting machines prior to the start of the recount. The Triad company provides the voting machines for 41 of the 88 counties in Ohio. We have filed a motion before the federal district court in Columbus seeking a court order preserving all ballots and election machinery in Ohio, as is required by federal law for 22 months after a federal election. We have also filed a motion for expedited discovery to investigate further the Triad company’s potential tampering and destruction of voting materials in the 2004 election.

County boards of elections in Ohio not only applied inconsistent standards to avoid a full hand count of all the votes. They also applied inconsistent standards on which votes to count.

Some counties allowed observers to view rejected provisional ballots. Others did not. Some counties allowed observers to view rejected ballots based on alleged undervotes or overvotes. Others did not. Some counties allowed observers to view rejected absentee ballots. Others did not.

This was not a meaningful recount. It was not conducted in accordance with uniform standards throughout the state. It was not conducted in accordance with the equal protection and due process guarantees under the US Constitution.

We demand a new recount. Last Thursday, on behalf of our clients, presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, we filed papers before the federal district court in Columbus documenting the inconsistent standards applied during the recount in Ohio. We requested that the court enjoin Secretary Blackwell from formally declaring the final results of the presidential election in Ohio until a new recount is completed in accordance with uniform standards throughout the state. On December 10, this same court stated that, upon a showing of a violation in the conduct of the recount, it would consider a request for ordering a new recount. That request has now been made and is pending before the court.

There has yet to be a proper counting of all of the votes cast for President in Ohio in the 2004 election. Until a full and meaningful recount has been completed – as required by state and federal law, it is premature for the United States Congress to count the Electoral College votes from Ohio. In a democracy, votes must count and every citizen’s vote must be counted.

The nation is at a crossroads. We can stand by while our democracy erodes around us. Or we can stand up and fight. For the dignity of our nation and ourselves, and for the memory of those who have struggled before us, we must choose to fight. Count every vote.

For more information on the legal work to defend the recount, visit www.defendtherecount.org

(via Ohio Election Fraud)

Let's Not Get Too Excited Yet

Last night at our Rally for the Republic in Boston, David Lytel repeated his claim that Senator Barbar Boxer (CA-D) will join House Members to make an objection to the Electoral College vote. A number of people asked Lytel about this afterwards, including William Rivers Pitt, who reports the following on his blog, FYI.

Re: Tubbs-Jones and Boxer

Tuesday 04 January 2005 @ 11:11

After a series of telephone calls, the aforementioned story regarding Tubbs-Jones and Boxer stands just about where you'd figure. Senator Boxer is definitely considering offering a challenge to the Electors. If she actually decides to do so, however, she won't break cover until Thursday. That is, frankly, wise. To do otherwise would be calling down the thunder on herself and her staffers.

I couldn't get anyone to go on the record to confirm Lytel's statement that Rep. Tubbs-Jones can get Boxer to stand up just by asking her to do so. At the end of things here, Lytel's claim last night (which I am told he has repeated to a number of other blogs) is just going to hang out there in space until it is proven true or false.