m72mc
02-18-2008, 10:43 AM
:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUnNpD-fuQ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: BOB DWYER
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 508-930-5530
17 February 2008 jukelsa3@yahoo.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE RECOUNT APPEALED
Republican Presidential Candidate Appeals New Hampshire Recount and Calls for Internet Monitoring of Future Ballot Boxes
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE: Albert Howard, the Republican Presidential candidate who ordered a statewide recount in New Hampshire which was completed Monday, February 11th, filed an appeal to that recount with Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office on Friday, the 15th.
In his Petition, Mr. Howard has requested, "That the Ballot Law Commission and the Secretary of State’s office disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the Presidential primary election AND the statewide Republican recount because checks and balances to maintain the integrity of the ballots and the total counts were either not followed, or not in place."
The first level of appeal in New Hampshire is with the "Ballot Law Commission", which usually deals with matters of contested ballots. It is unlikely that this Commission will actually hold a hearing based on the many violations of chain of custody and election law that were observed and documented during the recount process and noted in the Petition of Appeal.
“Albert is determined to get a full hearing either at this Commission, or at a Federal Court.” Vickie Karp, National Chair of the Coalition for Visible Ballots. “He is one of the most committed patriots I've ever met.”
Mr. Howard was inspired to call for a recount when, on Primary night in New Hampshire, January 8th, he watched his vote total go from 178 DOWN to 44.
Through the donations of many interested voters and election reform activists, the Republican Presidential candidate was able to raise $55,000 necessary to pay for a statewide recount of New Hampshire's 100% paper ballots. The problem appears to be that 81% of those paper ballots were counted by Diebold optical scan counters.
A number of violations were cited which cast doubt on the integrity of New Hampshire’s election process. Mr. Howard states: "...discrepancies shown between the results of those ballots counted by hand versus those counted by Diebold optical scan counters..., together with violations of HAVA requirements, indicate a high risk and opportunity for manipulation of ballots and vote totals, thereby invalidating the results of both the Primary election and the recount." (HAVA is the Help America Vote Act of 2002.)
In some cases, machines malfunctioned, and these machine failures were improperly handled, possibly altering the outcome of the election.
For example, town clerks told Dori Smith, a reporter from Connecticut, that memory cards were switched out in some towns by LHS employees, which is contrary to state election laws. (LHS Associates is the vendor responsible for the optical scan machines.) In Manchester, 3 machines had to be replaced on Election Day, and one machine was reported to be "...taking ballots but counter not incrementing." In Barnstead, the problem was "Ballots rejecting a lot, even during test."
Apparently, the high error rate for the Diebold Optical Scanner is well-known. In a recent test at the University of Connecticut, the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan Accuvote 1.94w system (AV OS) demonstrated a failure rate of roughly 3.4%. Diebold itself issued a Product Advisory Note about this machine on January 25, 2008, too late for election officials in NH to be forewarned.
In addition to problems with the voting machines, the post-election chain of custody of the ballots and machines was poorly monitored. In some cases, the location of the memory cards, which are essentially electronic ballot boxes, was unknown after the election. Some ballots delivered for the recount were not stored and transported in boxes provided by the Secretary of State’s Office. Some boxes of ballots were not properly sealed. Some came with no tape at all, making it impossible to verify that they had not been tampered with. Other ballots arrived in bundles wrapped in newspaper or brown paper. Sometimes ballot boxes were left overnight in an unsecured room instead of in the "ballot vault."
Furthermore, Mr. Howard states, "On many days of the recount, ballots were delivered after the recount had ended for the day, after dark, when most of the employees were gone from the building, and their delivery was not witnessed by any member of the public or citizen monitors."
Mr. Howard proposes a number of solutions to these problems in his Petition, starting with the requirement that election officials abide by the laws and follow all applicable procedures already in place to ensure the integrity of elections. In addition, he advocates that cameras be set up filming the ballot boxes at all times and broadcasting live over the internet for citizens to oversee.
American citizens have not only the Constitutional right to vote, but also the Constitutional right to have their vote counted. The use of electronic machines instead of paper ballots makes this much more difficult, especially when the machines break down, malfunction or are possibly tampered with in some way that cannot be easily identified. In addition, it appears that much greater care needs to be taken in regard to the "physical chain of custody" of either electronic or paper ballots to ensure the integrity of our elections.
The problems in NH are, unfortunately, not unique. Similar problems have been reported all over the country in recent elections. Albert Howard’s Petition may prove to be an important step in the direction of ensuring honest, transparent elections in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUnNpD-fuQ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: BOB DWYER
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 508-930-5530
17 February 2008 jukelsa3@yahoo.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE RECOUNT APPEALED
Republican Presidential Candidate Appeals New Hampshire Recount and Calls for Internet Monitoring of Future Ballot Boxes
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE: Albert Howard, the Republican Presidential candidate who ordered a statewide recount in New Hampshire which was completed Monday, February 11th, filed an appeal to that recount with Secretary of State Bill Gardner's office on Friday, the 15th.
In his Petition, Mr. Howard has requested, "That the Ballot Law Commission and the Secretary of State’s office disclaim any opinion on the accuracy of the Presidential primary election AND the statewide Republican recount because checks and balances to maintain the integrity of the ballots and the total counts were either not followed, or not in place."
The first level of appeal in New Hampshire is with the "Ballot Law Commission", which usually deals with matters of contested ballots. It is unlikely that this Commission will actually hold a hearing based on the many violations of chain of custody and election law that were observed and documented during the recount process and noted in the Petition of Appeal.
“Albert is determined to get a full hearing either at this Commission, or at a Federal Court.” Vickie Karp, National Chair of the Coalition for Visible Ballots. “He is one of the most committed patriots I've ever met.”
Mr. Howard was inspired to call for a recount when, on Primary night in New Hampshire, January 8th, he watched his vote total go from 178 DOWN to 44.
Through the donations of many interested voters and election reform activists, the Republican Presidential candidate was able to raise $55,000 necessary to pay for a statewide recount of New Hampshire's 100% paper ballots. The problem appears to be that 81% of those paper ballots were counted by Diebold optical scan counters.
A number of violations were cited which cast doubt on the integrity of New Hampshire’s election process. Mr. Howard states: "...discrepancies shown between the results of those ballots counted by hand versus those counted by Diebold optical scan counters..., together with violations of HAVA requirements, indicate a high risk and opportunity for manipulation of ballots and vote totals, thereby invalidating the results of both the Primary election and the recount." (HAVA is the Help America Vote Act of 2002.)
In some cases, machines malfunctioned, and these machine failures were improperly handled, possibly altering the outcome of the election.
For example, town clerks told Dori Smith, a reporter from Connecticut, that memory cards were switched out in some towns by LHS employees, which is contrary to state election laws. (LHS Associates is the vendor responsible for the optical scan machines.) In Manchester, 3 machines had to be replaced on Election Day, and one machine was reported to be "...taking ballots but counter not incrementing." In Barnstead, the problem was "Ballots rejecting a lot, even during test."
Apparently, the high error rate for the Diebold Optical Scanner is well-known. In a recent test at the University of Connecticut, the Diebold Precinct-Based Optical Scan Accuvote 1.94w system (AV OS) demonstrated a failure rate of roughly 3.4%. Diebold itself issued a Product Advisory Note about this machine on January 25, 2008, too late for election officials in NH to be forewarned.
In addition to problems with the voting machines, the post-election chain of custody of the ballots and machines was poorly monitored. In some cases, the location of the memory cards, which are essentially electronic ballot boxes, was unknown after the election. Some ballots delivered for the recount were not stored and transported in boxes provided by the Secretary of State’s Office. Some boxes of ballots were not properly sealed. Some came with no tape at all, making it impossible to verify that they had not been tampered with. Other ballots arrived in bundles wrapped in newspaper or brown paper. Sometimes ballot boxes were left overnight in an unsecured room instead of in the "ballot vault."
Furthermore, Mr. Howard states, "On many days of the recount, ballots were delivered after the recount had ended for the day, after dark, when most of the employees were gone from the building, and their delivery was not witnessed by any member of the public or citizen monitors."
Mr. Howard proposes a number of solutions to these problems in his Petition, starting with the requirement that election officials abide by the laws and follow all applicable procedures already in place to ensure the integrity of elections. In addition, he advocates that cameras be set up filming the ballot boxes at all times and broadcasting live over the internet for citizens to oversee.
American citizens have not only the Constitutional right to vote, but also the Constitutional right to have their vote counted. The use of electronic machines instead of paper ballots makes this much more difficult, especially when the machines break down, malfunction or are possibly tampered with in some way that cannot be easily identified. In addition, it appears that much greater care needs to be taken in regard to the "physical chain of custody" of either electronic or paper ballots to ensure the integrity of our elections.
The problems in NH are, unfortunately, not unique. Similar problems have been reported all over the country in recent elections. Albert Howard’s Petition may prove to be an important step in the direction of ensuring honest, transparent elections in the future.