Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AZ Sec'y of State to Appear in Court Re: Voting System Decertification

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
lady lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 12:52 AM
Original message
AZ Sec'y of State to Appear in Court Re: Voting System Decertification
Edited on Wed Oct-12-05 01:22 AM by lady lib
Secretary of State Jan Brewer has been ordered to appear in Pima County Superior Court on October 18, 2005 at 9:00am to explain why she has not complied with Arizona law that requires adoption of voting system decertification standards. This order is the result of a Complaint for Special Action filed on October 6, 2005 for plaintiff Thomas W. Ryan, head of Arizona Citizens for Fair Elections.

A.R.S. §16-442C states ” the secretary of state shall adopt standards that specify the criteria for loss of certification for equipment used at any election for federal, state or county offices and that was previously certified for use in this
state.” In response to a public records request, State Election Director Joseph Kanefield, in a letter to plaintiff dated September 9, 2005, stated that “based on a review of our records we do not have any of the specific records you request.” It is clear that the secretary of state has not complied with the statute.

With Arizona lacking standards for loss of certification, there is no criteria for determining that voting equipment should be evaluated for failure to accurately count every vote, as required in A.R.S. §16-446B(6). In a close September 2004 Republican primary election in LD20, optical scanners in Maricopa County produced a significantly different result when ballots were recounted; the recount resulted in nearly 6% more absentee votes read from the same set of ballots. The inability of these machines to repeat the count within a reasonably small error is convincing evidence that either
a) the ballots were mishandled between the original count and recount, or
b) the machines malfunctioned.

Election officials claim the ballots were handled properly. If this is the case, the machines are defective, yet Maricopa County has used them in subsequent elections. The optical scanners in Maricopa County use antiquated technology and should have been replaced or upgraded long ago, especially since similar equipment behavior was observed in the 2002 LD11 Republic State Senate primary election recount. The fact that there are no standards for decertification of the machines allows the County to continue to employ defective vote-counting machines.
-snip-

LINK
http://www.azfairelections.org/statewide%20brewer%20court.htm

Well, well, well, this should be interesting to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Link Repair
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lady lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks, Wilms! I fixed the link in the OP.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nictuku Donating Member (907 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Nominated!
There is also a story on this on www.bradblog.com

Wow!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lady lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thank you, Nictuku.
Why didn't Jan Brewer feel it necessary to comply with A.R.S. §16-442C and adopt decertification standards? Why didn't a 6% failure rate merit her attention? I just think this shows either worrisome incompetence or indifference to the will of the voters. Either way, the electoral process has been impaired, and I hope the media attention (or a court order?) will get her to do her job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onthebench Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Me thinks she just don't care
As the number 2 for the state, she eyes the top job. She can not be worrying about some silly election rules. These are the rules that got her elected so they must be ok. Her staff in the election department was pretty green when they took office. I personally spent time teaching some staffers on how to certify voting machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC