Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned problematic Diebold touch-screen

[kster]

An old story, but now that the media may have an interest in Diebold, I don't want them to miss this all important story.


Touch-screen voting nixed here

No touch-screen voting for county
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 1, 2004

SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned problematic Diebold touch-screen voting machines used in San Diego and three other counties yesterday and accused the company of engaging in illegal behavior when it sought state approval for the machines.

Contending that the company had misled the state and violated state election laws, Shelley asked state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to open a criminal investigation into the matter.

A spokesman said Lockyer's office will review Shelley's claims.

Shelley also decertified different electronic voting machines used in 10 other counties until they meet 23 new requirements, including better security and a paper ballot option at each polling place

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040501-9999-1n1evote.html

[caligirl]

1. good idea, more links for the GAO report and other stuff on Ca problems

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

And excellent summary of GAO report by verifiedvoting.org
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6308

Shelly's report on Diebold breaking the law in 17 California counties.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/diebold_report_april20_final.pdf

[Ellipsis]

2. kster you dog you!

Nominated


And another old story not about California tho, sorry.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10414


:toast:

[kster]

5. Just wanted to help the media get to the bottom of the

Diebold story and all the rest of the election theft machine.

Heres another one.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1593

[nicknameless]

3. This is exactly why they smeared and hounded Shelley out of office.

And look at the POS SoS Ahhnold put in Shelley's place.

[Amaryllis]

7. Did you know that Shelley was exonerated on all charges against him?

THe media was salivating over the rumors but hasn't printed anything about him being found innocent of the charges.
see this:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr75.html

and this: Shelley's address to the CA Voting Systems Panel- he was really sticking his neck out here. It was unprecedented for an SOS to address them:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5021
Here's a quote:
"The core of our American democracy, members, is the right to vote. And implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question – the privacy of the vote, the security of the vote, and the accuracy of the vote. It troubles me, and it should trouble you."

[Wilms]

9. Was he found innocent?

I read the link but didn't see that he was tried, no less found innocent.

Someone posted an abc tv web article where Dan Lundgren, I think, said that there was nothing to the charges. But that's all I saw. And I think it referred only to the campaign fund question, not the HAVA $ question.

I'd like to see some better documentation, as I sense that he was railroaded AND that he contributed mightily to his own demise. The one hearing that was held, he didn't show up for.

[Amaryllis]

17. here's more:

He was not SUPPOSED to show up at that hearing, and the media made it out like he was negligent in not showing.

As far as the issue with the HAVA money, the most they could get on him was "sloppy management." Nothing for which he was personally guilty. It was a case of having way to much to do with way too small a staff. I don't believe that he contributed mightily to his own demise; I believe it was a well-orchestrated smear campaign to take him out.

here is a link saying that Lockyear found him innocent of any wrongdoing in the one actual charge against him:

Subject: Attorney General Bill Lockyer's comments re: Kevin Shelley and the Julie Lee case that appeared on ABC's local affiliate in San Francisco KGO Channel 7, on April 8, 2005, when Ms. Lee made her first court appearance in the State case:

"State Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he's cleared Shelley of any wrongdoing in the Julie Lee matter. We caught up with Lockyer at a luncheon this afternoon in Berkeley.

Bill Lockyer, (D) California Attorney General: 'Kevin Shelley was not a participant in this crime. He is absolutely innocent of any personal involvement in the crimes that Julie Lee committed.'

Lockyer says even though Shelley's campaign got money from Julie Lee, he played no role in the crime."

From: http://www.abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=2952060

[Wilms]

20. Thanks A. Now, what about the HAVA charge.

That link says:

"This is good news for Shelley, but he's not out of the woods yet. He's the subject of a federal investigation into his handling of $46 million dollars from the Help America Vote Act program."


Please link me to the part of the story where he was not supposed to show. I do recall reports that he hadn't, but this is the first I'm hearing that he wasn't required to. Who was to show up? Why? Did they? What was that outcome?

And why, then, did he quit?

I recall there was a concern that he didn't have money to fight it. And to be honest, that rang hollow to me. He entered the race for that office late and with millions (if you want I'll try to find that) of his own money. Perhaps he blew all his money getting in that race but that doesn't sound right, either.

Thanks for taking the time.

On edit:

The statement from the link you gave, http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr75.html

"The first tip-off, of course, is the fact that, as I may have just mentioned, no one came to his defense and no one lamented his political passing. Because if the entire corrupt media establishment and the entire corrupt political establishment are united against you, then it is a pretty safe bet that it isn’t because you yourself are corrupt."

You'll have to pardon me that I'm not as convinced about that logic as the author is. In fact, I considered it so specious as to question the bias of the author. That ABC TV link works a lot better. And it does raise the question about why THAT wasn't widely reported as the suspicions were.

[nicknameless]

12. Good article. Wish Dave had raked McCormack over the coals though.

The report at your second link is one I cite often (the 17 CA Counties without a single tested machine containing certified software).

The Shelley smear and take-down were transparently a part of the rw coup plan.
But it is still unimaginable why the majority-Dem state legislature went along with it. Mind-boggling.

[Amaryllis]

18. Conny McCormack has an unbelievable amount of power....Dems are on

the take also...voting machine companies dont care what party they belong to! It's a question of corrupt or not, not dem or repub. Do you know that SHelley wouldn't even go to the NASS conferences that were pimped by the vendors because he saw it as a blatant conflict of interest? how many election officials are even aware enough to realize that? You can imagine that wouldn't win him popularity points with those who were cozy with Diebold.

[nicknameless]

21. He was so great. I hadn't read about his stance on the NASS conferences.

They sound like that Election Center extravaganza from this year, where election officials were wined and dined by the vendors.
If Shelley had still been our SoS at the time, I wonder what he would have had to say about it.

Speaking of corruption, I just ran across this 6/04 article about Mischelle Townsend, Riverside County’s previous Registrar of Voters. Breath-takingly scandalous!
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1013&IssueNum=55

[Oversea Visitor]

4. YES And they smear

The goodness of DU responding to Andy need for money for a life saving operation
NEVER FORGET WHAT THE ENEMIES IS LIKE.

Oh yes we are the witness, freepers on this forum we know what the enemies is like.

[kster]

6. Yes they do, More on Diebold

Diebold attempts to evade election transparency laws
by Matt Zimmerman
November 20, 2005
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1584

[Oversea Visitor]

11. Yeah

I read about the action by Scott and Scott
Someone got brains oh well people just not please with all this crap.

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. Way to go. It's all coming around. n/t

[Time for change]

10. We really need more people like him n/t

[kster]

13. Yes and if all the honest Dems and Repugs would have stood

up with Kevin Shelley it would have been safety in numbers. And this election theft sh*t would have been over with by now. Most all of our Gov remain silent.

[Einsteinia]

14. He's been exonerated & here are some old diaries for the record:

BLACKWELL GOOD -- SHELLEY BAAAAD!
(Diary of the hearing when not one of the 17 counties had certified equipment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/18/14525/599

RNC vs. Shelley
(About the lack of support by spineless dems for Shelley)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/203839/646

[kster]

15. Hope the Diebold shareholders, see this thread...nt

[Wilms]

16. Re: "He's been exonerated..."

Link. Please.

[Amaryllis]

19. See post number nine for Lockyear statement that he was innocent.

Also the state audit found him not guilty of misspending HAVA money. Those were the two issues. I don;t know how to link to a pdf taht doens't have a link but this is the title so maybe you can find it if you google it.


California State Auditor
Office of the Secretary of State
Help America Vote Act of 2002
Presentation by
Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
January 10, 2005

[Wilms]

22. Thanks. Here it is.

Hardly exonerating. So I'll repeat my sense that he contributed to his own demise.


http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/presentations/2004-139.pdf

AUDIT HIGHLIGHTS

The Office of the Secretary of State’s (office) insufficient planning and poor management practices hampered its efforts to implement the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) provisions promptly.

The office’s disregard for proper controls and its poor oversight of staff and consultants led to questionable uses of HAVA funds.

The office avoided competitive bidding for many HAVA purchases paid with HAVA funds by improperly using a Department of General Services exemption from competitive bidding and by not following the State’s procurement policies.

The office bypassed the Legislature’s spending approval authority when it executed consultant contracts and then charged the associated costs to its HAVA administration account.

The office failed to disburse HAVA funds to counties for the replacement of outdated voting machines within the time frames outlined in its grant application package and county agreements.

The State’s chief elections office lacks a policy that strictly prohibits partisan activities.

snip


The details follow in the report. And they appear worse than the "highlights" offered in the preamble.

You have to admit, if such charges were brought against McPherson, the California Coup Koos would be outside his office with Torches and Pitchforks.

(Unless they're already there.) :hide:

I'm glad Shelley challenged Diebold. I'm sure the elements of the audit were displayed by the McCormak crowd in the ugliest light. However, no one here could feel to comfortable with the info in the audit.

Thanks. You've cleared up a lot for me. Much appreciated.

BTW, has McPherson undone any safeguards that Shelley implemented?

[Helga Scow Stern]

23. "California Coup Koos"?

Are you intentionally dismissing the efforts of the California Election Protection Network and others, or are you just unaware of what is going on?

[Wilms]

24. Did I say "California Election Protection Network and others"? No.

Is it CEPN that ran the threads here about Shelley? If so, you know very well what I've been critical of. I'd hate to have another pie-fight.

If something they've done is something I've criticized, you can assume that I criticized that something. And if I applauded something they've done, you can assume that I applauded that something. I'm often flexible that way. (Shelley de-certifies Diebold: Applause! Shelley lets no-bid contracts when required: Criticism! -- Like that.)

And yes, I consider myself very unaware of what is going on because of some of the confusing and inaccurate reportage and email surrounding the CA Standards and Certifications processes. Though, I do feel somewhat informed to realize that much.

But I am aware, as you well know, about the discussions surrounding Shelley, the claims about his innocence, and the assertions of his exoneration.

The pdf challenges that notion, at least (though I'd jump to his defense on at least a few of the charges). But I'm not aware of it having been previously posted for a reasoned discussion, though I was away for a while and may have missed it.

Would you care to post one?

My post asked if the report does not raise serious concern about Shelley, and if such charges, leveled at McPherson, would bring calls for his head.

You hit the reply button. Otherwise, let's just let it go.