madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

From Mark Crispin Miller's email list:

From AZ activist Jim March:

Judge Miller's final decision came in this morning on the public
records case filed by the Pima Democratic Party. In short:

* All Diebold database files held in the trust's vault are to be
released. These go back to 1998.

* Database files in future elections are to be made available at the
time of the final canvass. The judge appears to be suggesting that
CD/DVDs or similar media with this material be prepared by the county
for immediate release so that the material can affect challenges
within the statutory five-day limit from the day of the canvass.

* There is nothing in this order regarding the legal bills rung up by
Attorney Bill Risner. However, given the now-absolute victory in
this revised order (attached) plus recent changes to AZ law
supporting legal fees and costs where a government agency loses a
public records suit, it seems very clear Mr. Risner is getting paid.

For Immediate Release - May 23rd, 2008 Media Contact:
Vince Rabago, Chair

MEDIA RELEASE

Democratic Party wins lawsuit to obtain
past and future electronic voting records

"This is a national victory for open government and transparency,"
declares Vince Rabago.

Tucson, AZ 5/23/08 Today a judge ordered the release of past and
future electronic election data in a public records lawsuit by the
Pima County Democratic Party against the Pima County Board of
Supervisors. The judge found no proof of any security risk to future
elections by releasing the records.

Vince Rabago, Chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party,applauded
the decision. "This is a national victory for open government and
transparency in elections," declared Rabago. "If you are going to
have electronic voting and election records, you need to have
electronic oversight. This is an important win for accountability,
oversight, and transparency in our democracy."

Since late 2006, the Democratic Party had fought for releaseof public
records to conduct its statutory oversight role, after
finding anomalies in a post-election review of audit log data. Pima
County refused to release the records and forced the Party to file a
public records lawsuit. After a four-day trial in early December,
the judge ordered the release of 2006 primary and general election
databases. On January 8, 2008, the Pima County Board of Supervisors
was met with public pressure from citizens and activists,
including representatives from the Democratic, Republican and
Libertarian parties, and agreed to gobeyond the judge's initial
ruling by releasing records for the 2006 Regional Transportation
Authority election, after a motion for reconsideration by Chairman
Richard Elias. A week later,Supervisors Bronson, Valadez and Day
reversed course and decided to continue fighting to keep past and
future election records secret.

On May 5, 2008, the Democratic Party went back to court seeking
election records dating back to 1998 and the ability to obtain
records in future elections. The Party presented testimony from
national experts who concluded there was no security risk
from releasing the databases. Today's ruling orders the release of
past election records and allows for future election records to be
released immediately after the official results of an election are
released. The timing of the release is important because Arizona law
has a 5-day period to challenge election results after the official
results are released.

Rabago commented on the review of election records in the future,
noting that consultants working for the Party have designed and
are developing a software program to allow for rapid review of
electronic election data for any given election to check for tampering
or even electronic glitches that could affect the outcome of an
election. "The software code for this analysis tool will be 'open
source,' which means the software will be open to review or use by
anybody and will not be subject to any proprietary or trade secret
restrictions. This is how election software should be, but isn't yet."

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

This does NOT mean that it will be possible to unseat unelected candidates or to prevent them from being sworn in. It only means that the evidence will have to be released before the statute of limitations expires.

It doesn't even mean that there will be sufficient time to examine the evidence or prepare litigation, and of course there is no guarantee that such litigation would be successful.

What the above post DOES do is illustrate that what I wrote in my essay, "Consensual Political Intercourse," was accurate and precisely correct in every detail.

When an election is stolen, the will of the people is savagely violated. The voters are assured that because there is a paper trail or paper ballot, their rights have been preserved, but this was not the case at all until this ruling, and as far as I can see this ruling does not go far enough as it does not prevent an unelected candidate from being sworn into office before the evidence can be examined, presented in court, and a decision handed down.

It is very game of the people involved to attempt to devise open source software tools that might enable them to examine the evidence more quickly, but that alone cannot prevent another stolen election.