LandShark: Sequoia, Snohomish County, And The Constitutionality of DREs

[Wilms]

Sequoia, Snohomish County,And The Constitutionality of DREs

By Paul Lehto

February 11, 2006

snip

Fast forward to February 10, 2006, when, after Sequoia and the County got their removal of my lawsuit to federal court tossed out of federal court, they asked to convene a settlement conference to see where things were at. Just this past month, the County had voted to get rid of the touch screens and go to vote by mail, so the impact of this move on the litigation had to be assessed. The County and Sequoia requested a settlement conference, which I attended on February 10 along with Randy Gordon. The defendants were apparently interested to find out what we wanted in the case, and to share their opinion once again that our litigation is moot because the County voted to get rid of the DREs on January 5, 2006. We were able to give them a copy of the New Jersey Appellate Court opinion of February 9, 2006, with which they were unaware, after they expressed their confidence that the courts will take their side next time, despite the fact that the courts have now failed to do so 3 times in a row.

Both defendants purport to be baffled as to why we continue to sue them over "moot" issues, so we had to point out that the constitution is, in fact, of continuing and recurring importance and has therefore not been rendered "moot" by a reversible decision to mothball certain totally secret DRE vote counting machines, in favor of the use of largely secret optical scan vote counting machines, albeit optical scan machines capable of a hand recount of the paper ballots under transparent conditions if provided for and requested by the few parties able to trigger this process.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=904&Itemid=113


See the New Jersey Appellate Court opinion reinstating the lawsuit challenging constitutionality of electronic voting machines.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412385

[EFerrari]

1. Thank you.

K&R
:kick:

[Metta]

2. Good work. Hang in there.

Good for you for not letting the bastards grind you down. :thumbsup:

[MissWaverly]

3. I will be happy to nominate, and kick to greatest page

Land Shark has scored a major victory for election reform,

[Melissa G]

4. DU's Land Shark Rocks!

Way to go Paul! Thanks for posting, Wilms!:loveya:

[Straight Shooter]

5. K&R. Excellent rebuttal re the "moot" issues. eom

[Wilms]

6. Reminds me of Jesse Jackson's "The Point is Moot" bit.

It was a skit he did on Saturday Night Live back in the eighties.

[Land Shark]

7. Is it a man, or a shark?

[Wilms]

8. I'm a bit confused about that, too.

[mod mom]

15. Is this the animal/human hybrids that * warned of in the SOTU?

[bleever]

16. Bwah!

Too funny!

[Nothing Without Hope]

9. Let's hear it for Land Shark!!! Proof that some lawyers are heroes

K & R

[Gelliebeans]

10. Thank you so much

for all of you that work so hard to keep the rest of informed on election updates.
:toast:

[bleever]

11. Thank you for the election law Candygram, Land Shark!

A toast to you, sir:

[Land Shark]

13. Ah, the phrase "the jaws of life" comes to mind here (above)

[GuvWurld]

12. Kudos and Questions For LandShark

Paul, thanks for keeping us updated on your important work. As with other matters of language that we frequently discuss, it is vital that you continue to portray your efforts in these clear and comprehensible frames that should allow for some distilled talking points for those of us wishing to cite your writing.

So, on that score, please help us understand what, if anything, is settled to be referenced definitively (incorporating relevant precedents from other cases if necessary/possible - the NJ case was a great ace up your sleeve, way to be prepared!).

Can you offer any suggestions based on your recent experiences that would inform my effort to compel Humboldt County not to use previously certified Diebold machines because they are most likely out of compliance with federal guidelines presently due to interpreter code?

[Land Shark]

20. What is settled? Well......

It is in the nature of virtually all legal proceedings that the benefits (if any) are concentrated at the very end (at least if one is Plaintiff!). Meanwhile, the costs and hassle pile up until those benefits of uncertain amount and nature are obtained at the end. And, of course, there may be no benefits at all at the "end of the rainbow".

What can be referenced definitively at this point? Primarily the attitude of the defendants, as further explained in the article. Perhaps we need other mechanisms for dispute resolution and social growth. (Not perhaps, we do in fact need them). Still, I can't say that there's a lot of light being emitted from the other side. Which is curiouser still, because, since we aren't out for money damages a little more accommodation on the other side could conceivably save a bunch of money.

Your last paragraph is very hard question. I think the best thing is to review and know in your heart and in your mind what's right, then go in (if this is still possible)and have as good a conversation as you can with the election officials involved. Then use other mechanisms like letters, protests, publicity, and lawsuits all of which I might call "the continuation of conversation by other means" just as war has been called the continuation of politics by other means.

I'm afraid this may not be that helpful. But in general, I'd be aware that the "interpreter code" issues sounds technical and not important on the surface level, so be prepared to explain on the macro level and in very clear and accurate ways how this impacts and destroys democracy in a way none of us can support in the end. Thus, it would be with regret that the conversation about something so important would break down. If care is taken to keep the conversation going, the chances of the other side learning your point will be maximized, and thus your chances of success maximized. This is, you might say, easier said than done.

[mod mom]

14. John Gideon brought up Landshark on the Laura Flanders Show last night

Way to go Landshark:

:yourock:

[Land Shark]

17. Hmm, I didn't know the Flanders show was specifically covering

shark biology, though I did hear they were going to cover election fraud. Will have to check it out.

[mod mom]

18. Yes, John Gideon brought up your suit and your name, although he

refrained from the use of "landshark".

[Wilms]

19. Yes. You were mentioned as having cited the Jersey decision in your case

And, no. They didn't reference LandShark, just Paul Lehto, but I could have sworn I heard thrashing sounds in the background. :D

Have you seen this "unpublished" opinion from an appellate court in New Jersey?

It's a .pdf
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2842-04.pdf