February 1, 2006
Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court
by Lynn Landes
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lynn_lan_060201_voting_systems_lawsu.htm
http://www.opednews.com
Lynn Landes
Washington DC, Jan 30 - A little-noticed voting rights lawsuit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 05-930). It constitutes the first legal challenge to the widespread use of
nontransparent voting systems. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office.
The lawsuit was originally filed by freelance journalist Lynn Landes in July of 2004 in Philadelphia federal court (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Landes on November 2, 2005.
In her lawsuit Landes claims that, as a voter and a journalist, she has the right to direct access to a physical ballot and to observe the voting process unimpeded. Voting by machine or absentee, Landes claims, introduces obstacles and concealment to a process that must be accessible and transparent in a meaningful and effective manner.
Landes is representing herself in this action.
"I tried to get civil rights organizations interested in this case, but had no luck. Their disregard for this issue is incredible. It's clear to me that without direct access to a physical ballot and meaningful transparency in the process, our elections have no integrity whatsoever," says Landes.
The defendants in the Landes lawsuit are Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States.
Attorneys for the defendants have successfully fought Landes, claiming that she did not prove an injury and therefore does not have standing. Landes counters that she has the right to challenge the constitutionality of acts of the legislative branch under federal statute and case law, most
significantly under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Early American history seems to favor the Landes position. Prior to the Civil War, voting was a public and transparent process. It was only after
the war, as the elective franchise expanded to minorities and women, three changes to state and federal election laws were adopted that eventually made the voting process a private and ontransparent enterprise: absentee voting was allowed (1870's), the Australian secret ballot method was adopted
(1880's), and voting machines were permitted by Congress (1899).
Today, 94.6% of all votes are processed by machines and approximately 30% of all voting is conducted early or by absentee.
The defendants' response is due at the Supreme Court no later than February 24, 2006. The Landes lawsuit can be found at the following url:
www.EcoTalk.org/lawsuit.doc
Docket no: http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/searchright.asp?ct=supreme-court-dockets&q1=05-930&x=18&y=17
Source:
http://www.EcoTalk.org
Lynn Landes, publisher
215-629-3553
lynnlandes@earthlink.net
Stand Up & Be Counted
JOIN THE "OPEN VOTING"
Re-REVOLUTION
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm
================================
VOTEGATE 2004
Links to Vote Fraud Websites & Info.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/votefraud.htm
VOTEFRAUD 2000
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/election.htm
Lawyers to challenge election in Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/110094683912880.xml
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus- A trio of activist lawyers armed with mysteriously wrong exit
polls and hundreds of voter horror stories announced plans Friday to
contest Ohio's presidential election as soon as the vote is official.
Their challenge could lead to widespread reconsideration of dozens of
alleged election irregularities around the state - from reported
computerized voting glitches to provisional-ballot mishaps to unusual
incidents involving voter rolls, poll workers and machine technicians.
But it is unclear whether the complaint will ever get that far.
Columbus attorney Cliff Arnebeck, a national officer in the Alliance for
Democracy, could not predict exactly when members of the coalition will be
ready or able to file their request.
And, after they do, the Ohio Supreme Court would have to rule in their favor.
To qualify to reopen consideration of the election, Arnebeck said, the
group needs find only 25 aggrieved electors and evidence of irregularities,
both of which he and his associates have collected in abundance at hearings
around the state, he said.
Another hearing is scheduled in Cleveland today.
Arnebeck said the national boards of the NAACP, Alliance for Democracy and
Common Cause are reviewing requests to sign on to the litigation, which is
not affiliated with either political party.
Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office, said many
glitches brought to light on Internet blogs and in the alternative press
will be corrected in the state's official canvass of the election.
That process, which turns unofficial election results into official ones,
is still under way.
LoParo said the canvass includes precinct-level auditing of results, poll
book reviews, provisional-ballot verification and an actual recount of all
ballots cast on Election Day. Official results historically have varied
from final totals only enough to affect the outcomes of very close local
races, nothing of the scale of a national race.
Susan Truitt, co-founder of Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections and one
of the participating lawyers, said Ohioans need to know their vote was
properly counted.
"Our intent is to examine this election, and to prevail, so that we will
have a democracy in this country," she said. "So that we will not have our
voices shut down."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jsmyth@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Plan To Challenge Election Results
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2592759&nav=LQlCTMEA
Voting Systems Lawsuit Reaches U.S. Supreme Court
by Lynn Landes
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lynn_lan_060201_voting_systems_lawsu.htm
http://www.opednews.com
Lynn Landes
Washington DC, Jan 30 - A little-noticed voting rights lawsuit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 05-930). It constitutes the first legal challenge to the widespread use of
nontransparent voting systems. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office.
The lawsuit was originally filed by freelance journalist Lynn Landes in July of 2004 in Philadelphia federal court (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Landes on November 2, 2005.
In her lawsuit Landes claims that, as a voter and a journalist, she has the right to direct access to a physical ballot and to observe the voting process unimpeded. Voting by machine or absentee, Landes claims, introduces obstacles and concealment to a process that must be accessible and transparent in a meaningful and effective manner.
Landes is representing herself in this action.
"I tried to get civil rights organizations interested in this case, but had no luck. Their disregard for this issue is incredible. It's clear to me that without direct access to a physical ballot and meaningful transparency in the process, our elections have no integrity whatsoever," says Landes.
The defendants in the Landes lawsuit are Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States.
Attorneys for the defendants have successfully fought Landes, claiming that she did not prove an injury and therefore does not have standing. Landes counters that she has the right to challenge the constitutionality of acts of the legislative branch under federal statute and case law, most
significantly under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Early American history seems to favor the Landes position. Prior to the Civil War, voting was a public and transparent process. It was only after
the war, as the elective franchise expanded to minorities and women, three changes to state and federal election laws were adopted that eventually made the voting process a private and ontransparent enterprise: absentee voting was allowed (1870's), the Australian secret ballot method was adopted
(1880's), and voting machines were permitted by Congress (1899).
Today, 94.6% of all votes are processed by machines and approximately 30% of all voting is conducted early or by absentee.
The defendants' response is due at the Supreme Court no later than February 24, 2006. The Landes lawsuit can be found at the following url:
www.EcoTalk.org/lawsuit.doc
Docket no: http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/searchright.asp?ct=supreme-court-dockets&q1=05-930&x=18&y=17
Source:
http://www.EcoTalk.org
Lynn Landes, publisher
215-629-3553
lynnlandes@earthlink.net
Stand Up & Be Counted
JOIN THE "OPEN VOTING"
Re-REVOLUTION
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm
================================
VOTEGATE 2004
Links to Vote Fraud Websites & Info.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/votefraud.htm
VOTEFRAUD 2000
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/election.htm
Lawyers to challenge election in Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/110094683912880.xml
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus- A trio of activist lawyers armed with mysteriously wrong exit
polls and hundreds of voter horror stories announced plans Friday to
contest Ohio's presidential election as soon as the vote is official.
Their challenge could lead to widespread reconsideration of dozens of
alleged election irregularities around the state - from reported
computerized voting glitches to provisional-ballot mishaps to unusual
incidents involving voter rolls, poll workers and machine technicians.
But it is unclear whether the complaint will ever get that far.
Columbus attorney Cliff Arnebeck, a national officer in the Alliance for
Democracy, could not predict exactly when members of the coalition will be
ready or able to file their request.
And, after they do, the Ohio Supreme Court would have to rule in their favor.
To qualify to reopen consideration of the election, Arnebeck said, the
group needs find only 25 aggrieved electors and evidence of irregularities,
both of which he and his associates have collected in abundance at hearings
around the state, he said.
Another hearing is scheduled in Cleveland today.
Arnebeck said the national boards of the NAACP, Alliance for Democracy and
Common Cause are reviewing requests to sign on to the litigation, which is
not affiliated with either political party.
Carlo LoParo, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office, said many
glitches brought to light on Internet blogs and in the alternative press
will be corrected in the state's official canvass of the election.
That process, which turns unofficial election results into official ones,
is still under way.
LoParo said the canvass includes precinct-level auditing of results, poll
book reviews, provisional-ballot verification and an actual recount of all
ballots cast on Election Day. Official results historically have varied
from final totals only enough to affect the outcomes of very close local
races, nothing of the scale of a national race.
Susan Truitt, co-founder of Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections and one
of the participating lawyers, said Ohioans need to know their vote was
properly counted.
"Our intent is to examine this election, and to prevail, so that we will
have a democracy in this country," she said. "So that we will not have our
voices shut down."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jsmyth@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Plan To Challenge Election Results
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2592759&nav=LQlCTMEA
