DOJ is suing to force touch-screens on New York!

The Department of Justice has sent a letter to New York indicating their intent to file a lawsuit against New York State due to our non-compliance with HAVA.

The DOJ letter is attached (see below). The implications of this, and how it proceeds, are huge. Just how far will the DOJ go to insure compliance with HAVA? Will they only take back the HAVA funds and fine us, or are there more ominous possibilities – a federal judge stepping in and choosing NY’s voting machines, or enforcing a DOJ imposed implementation plan?

-Bo L.

*****

On January 10, 2006, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and the New York State Board of Elections informing them that:

“I have authorized the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the United States against the State of New York as well as the New York State Board of Elections, et al, pursuant to Sections 301 and 303(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C && 15481 and 15483(a).Section 401 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. & 15511, authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action in federal district court for such declaratory and injunctive relief as is necessary to carry out the requirements of Title III of HAVA.”

Basically, we are considered non-compliant with the voting machine provisions of HAVA (section 301), and the voter registration database requirements (Section 303).

The letter is clear that they feel NY is the worst of the worst non-compliant states:

“It is beyond dispute that New York is not now in compliance…”

and

“…it is clear that New York is not close to approaching full HAVA compliance, and , in our view, is further behind in that regard than any other state in the country.”

They state that resolution may be resolved through a “negotiated consent decree rather than through costly and protracted litigation” and ask if NY is willing to “enter into negotiations for a fair and equitable settlement of this matter…”

Three "leftists" on Alito

Today’s New York Times claims that “the left” wants the Democrats on the
Judiciary Committee to get tougher with Alito.

“The left”? Is it “left-wing” to insist on the separation of powers? Is it “leftists”
who won’t want the president to wield imperial authority? Apparently the Founding Fathers were a bunch of socialists.

Here are three strong “leftist” pieces on the threat posed by Alito’s nomination and those Democrats (and sane Republicans, if there are any left) who won’t oppose the will of George I.

George Bush’s rough justice

The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian

“If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?” “No treaty,” replied John Yoo, the former justice department official who wrote the crucial memos justifying President Bush’s policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance without warrants.

Yoo publicly debated last month the radical notion of the “unitary executive” – that the president, as commander-in-chief, is sole judge of the law, unbound by hindrances such as the Geneva conventions, and has inherent authority to subordinate independent government agencies to his fiat. This is the cornerstone of the Bush legal doctrine.

Yoo’s interlocutor, Douglass Cassel, a professor at the Notre Dame law school, pointed out that the theory of the unitary executive posits the president above other branches of government: “Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.”

“I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that,” said Yoo.

The “unitary executive” is nothing less than “gospel”, declared the federal judge Samuel Alito in 2000 – it is a theory that “best captures the meaning of the constitution’s text and structure”. Alito’s belief was perhaps the paramount credential for his nomination by Bush to the supreme court.

Read more.

Prof. Lance DeHaven-Smith

You may recall the article I circulated/posted recently, about the new report by this professor, offering further confirmation of the fact that Gore won Florida in 2000. It’s a very solid piece of work. I wrote to him to thank him, and he replied with this great email, which includes some references to other of his writings.

MCM

Dear Professor Miller,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. Your encouragement means a great deal to me, because I know what an outstanding scholar you are and how important you have been to the struggling movement for election reform in the United States. I have read with great interest and much admiration all of your books, including not only your most recent (Fooled Again), but also Cruel and Unusual and The Bush Dyslexicon. The latter was very helpful to me in the early stages of the Bush Administration when I was first trying to make sense of the 2000 election and the failure in its wake investigate possible crimes by election officials in Florida and to truly reform election laws in Florida and nationally. Your book raised my awareness of what kind of person George W. Bush really is. Like most people in the United States, I had initially dismissed Bush’s bizarre comments, verbal slips, and word-mangling as humorous but unimportant. The Bush Dyslexicon opened my eyes to the true meaning of Bush’s manner of (mis)speaking.

I read Fooled Again just a few weeks ago. It’s a great read and a great work of scholarship. I am amazed at your ability to assemble and synthesize so much information. I am even more amazed that you can take all of the details and complexities of recent elections and election reforms, and make them so clear and understandable to the average person without losing any of the nuances. American democracy is fortunate to have such a gifted scholar on its side.

I was especially impressed by the insights of Fooled Again into the elections here in Florida. I study Florida government and politics, and I have been following the state’s “election reforms” very closely, so I know of what I speak. Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Glenda Hood, and others in Jeb’s administration have been using very sophisticated and devious tactics to corrupt election administration, but most journalists and not a few scholars have failed to recognize what is going on. I have been trying to arouse public concern about election tampering in my public speaking and in a few op-ed articles in state newspapers, but it has been difficult to arouse much public interest because the Republican machine in Florida has been very effective in stifling dissent, putting out disinformation, silencing leakers, etc. So when I saw that you had written a new book and that it was on the 2004 election, I hoped that you would expose the situation to a national audience. I was not disappointed. You got it all-the many errors produced by touch-screen machines, the political connections of the touch-screen companies, the far-flung program of voter suppression, the use of technicalities to throw out voter registration forms, the flawed felon-disenfranchisement program, the Governor’s lies about it, and much more. You presented a thorough and fully documented case that officials at the highest levels of Florida government have been working against the electorate rather than for it.

Thank you again for your letter and also for posting information about my research on your blog. You may also be interested in a couple of op-ed articles expressing my doubts about the official election results in 2004. “Show Us the Votes” was published in the Tallahassee Democrat shortly after the election. “Massive Fraud” appeared in the Miami Herald early in 2005.

Sincerely,
Lance d-S

Abramoff, Bob Ney and ELECTIONGATE!

The Soon-to-be-Indicted Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio’s Connection To Electoral Fraud
The Dots Connect Between Abramoff, Ohio 2004 Election Smokescreen and Ney’s Former Staffer Revealed to be on Diebold’s Payroll While Working for White House Law Firm
All the While as HAVA — America’s ‘Election Reform’ Bill — is Used for Political Payoff in the Bargain…

There’s been a great deal of speculation over the last several days, particularly in the light of Jack Abramoff’s recent guilty pleas, concerning the connection of Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) to Election Fraud in Ohio, and indeed, vis a vis his stewardship and authoring of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) back in 2001 and 2002. The heavy-handed tactics he has taken since then in order to keep the flawed act from being changed in any way over the years, along with the great lengths he’s gone to in order to keep the nation’s eyes off of massive electile dysfunction in Ohio and elsewhere since 2004 may finally soon get the attention it all properly deserves.

Connections revealed by The BRAD BLOG between thousands of dollars paid by Voting Machine Company, Diebold, Inc. to Ney’s former chief of staff David DiStefano just scratch the surface of the direct relationships between various monied and political interests to Ohio’s big man on Capitol Hill.

And as the spotlight of corruption has finally begun to shine bright and clear in the Mainstream Media onto Ney, renewed interest in his support and authorship of HAVA itself — along with the connections between that legislation, chicanery in Ohio’s Election, Abramoff and several other GOP operative and lobbying firms’ merry band of pay-for-players — are helping to bubble up towards the surface a few previously overlooked, but important, details that may finally now receive the attention they always deserved from the Mainstream Media…

Read more.

Question Authority

From Suburban Guerrilla:

You know, I really shouldn’t complain when public radio and TV stations do things like this, because almost invariably, it leads to a wave of donations from readers who say, “That’s it, I’d rather give you the money than them, I’ll never support public radio again.”

Read more.

Is Philly public radio censoring ads?

Attytood asks:

What do you think about this radio ad?

Brought to you by Mark Crispin Miller’s book “Fooled Again – how the Right stole the 2004 election, and why they’ll steal the next one, too (unless we stop them)”. In November, 2004, some 8 million votes were switched or trashed in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and many other states – 8 million votes, which is more than twice the number by which Bush supposedly won re-election.

Read more.