Monday, August 31, 2009

Attorney Bill Risner Reaffirms the Need for the Courts to Provide Prospective Relief

Run Time 12:52 - August 28, 2009

The Democratic Party through their attorney Bill Risner, and the Libertarian Party through their attorney Ralph E. Ellinwood, will ask the judge to "stay" his order until we appeal his earlier decision where he claimed that Arizona courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider allegations of fraud in any election. Basically, the only issue that will be of interest is the decision on the stay question. The legal issue is extremely important but would be moot if the ballots were destroyed.

What’s At Stake

The real issue is whether our courts have any role in guaranteeing honest elections. Judge Harrington ruled that he is unable to consider that an election was rigged. The procedural ruling said that the court did not have jurisdiction of the very subject. It was assumed for the decision that the election was fraudulent and the result "rigged" to give a false result. Nonetheless, the Judge said Arizona's courts could not hear or consider such a case. He said that a voter has five days only to challenge an election after the election canvass is approved. It is impossible to challenge an election within five days because a challenge must allege specifics that prove the outcome was actually different. Such evidence can never be obtained.

If proof is obtained, like for instance a sworn statement that the computer operator had been ordered to rig the election and did so, the court is nonetheless powerless to consider it. That is an unacceptable situation in a democracy, whether in Arizona or anywhere in the world. We want to appeal. An appellate court needs to rule on this issue. We think it is clearly wrong. If correct, we want it in writing from an appellate court that our courts are powerless to consider fraudulent elections. That is the issue. If the ballots are burned then a court of appeals could not consider the case.

We are seeking “prospective relief” so they cannot cheat in the future. However, history tells us there are many ways to cheat and if more ways are found we need to have the courthouse doors open to right the wrong. This case is as fundamental as it gets.

Add to this all the other problems previously exposed, documented and yet not answered leaves the public questioning whether our votes are being secured and accurately counted in Pima County. The previous case in Judge Miller’s court room proved that Pima Count’s voting system is “Fatally Flawed”. When counting and processing of the ballots is concealed from the public, the only solution is transparency, transparency and more transparency at all times, not Election Theater.

Treasurer of Pima County Neutral in RTA Issue?

You decide.

Run Time 01:18 - August 28, 2009

"Why not get to the bottom of it?" the judge asked. In answer, the Pima Treasurer's attorney offers a bewildering rationale why it would be better to destroy the ballots than examine them -- while professing neutrality on the question.


Two-Fold PR Campaign Emerges in Recent Court Arguments

Run Time 09:18 - August 28, 2009

The Complete Court hearing of Friday August 28, 2009, Pima County Superior Court heard a motion from the Republican Party to allow the Pima County Treasurer to destroy the RTA ballots.

Total run time 35:30 - August 28, 2009

AZ Superior Courts Deliberate: Can the Courts Intervene When No Adequate Remedy is Provided for Elections?

Attorney Bill Risner argues that the statutory 5-day period to contest an election, enacted in 1912 during an era of publicly-counted paper ballots, is no longer adequate for verifying elections counted by computer, and that the right to contest a suspect election is thereby effectively denied. Given the evidence of probable election fraud presented in the RTA database lawsuits, Attorney Risner calls on Judge Herrington to stay Pima County's motion to destroy the RTA ballots.

Another reason for a stay of an order to destroy ballots is to resolve a previously filed public records case requesting copies of the election poll tapes (precinct election results on a paper tape) and the pollworkers end of day certified report, both generated election night at the precincts and signed by the pollworkers. These documents are public records boxed with RTA ballots subject to a destruction order. This critical evidence was ignored in the Attorney General’s hand count of RTA ballots. Reconciling ballots with the signed poll tapes is always standard procedure in hand auditing of ballots to verify that the ballots being counted are the same that were cast at the precinct.


Sunday, August 30, 2009

We want real “Prospective Relief” not more “Election Theater” in Pima County!

By John R Brakey

What is the “Prospective Relief” we want and why are we asking for in Pima County Superior Court?

As it stands today if proof is obtained, like for instance a sworn statement that even if the computer operator had been ordered to rig the election and did so, the Pima County Superior court has decided that nonetheless it is powerless to consider that kind of evidence. It is now impossible to cite specific evidence of fraud within the narrow 5 day time-line to challenge an election result in Arizona. That is an unacceptable situation in a democracy, whether in Pima County, (Tucson), Arizona or anywhere in the world.

That's why we seek “prospective relief” to protect the integrity of future elections and prevent the possibility of cheating. History tells us there are many ways to cheat and if more ways are found we need to have the courthouse doors open to right the wrong. This case is as fundamental as it gets.

We’ve proven in the first public record court case with Judge Michael Miller that the Diebold system is “Fatally Flawed.” If you’re confused about what is going on please be with us at the Loft Theater on Speedway, September 16th at 7pm for the premiere of the documentary film about this case, "Fatally Flawed." You’ll be able to see with your own eyes that we are voting on a “Fatally Flawed” computerized electronic voting system. For more information go here:

As we moved from public counting of votes at the precincts where results could easily and openly verified by public witnesses and the press to private vendor-managed computerized electronic voting, tabulation of votes occurs inside computers on hidden microchips. The inherent secrecy of electronic elections requires a simple transparent solution--a verification method that will restore public oversight and accountability to ensure fair elections.

We are now working to implement a simple inexpensive system of transparent checks and balances making it much harder to manipulate election results, no matter what method might be used to try to cheat.

Yes, voting is a secret process; however counting and verifying our vote must be a public process. That’s why the pro-active inexpensive solution we are working towards for Pima County is graphic scanning of ballots, similar to the method pioneered in Humboldt County, California.

A short video explains how graphic scanning works to allow the public to monitor and verify an election.

Graphic scanning combined with improved accounting standards works to quickly verify election results. Here are some key elements:
  • CPA to oversee a real canvass accounting of all ballots and to sign off on the results.
  • Certain parts of the canvass board are NOT made up of election department employees as it’s done at this time.
  • Graphic scanning of all ballots starting election morning with early ballots in audited batches of at least 1,000 ballots per box with GEMS result before and after allowing them to be audited starting at 7:PM election night.
  • Election night 7 to 10% of precincts are randomly selected election day, scanned and transferred to a DVD given to political parties and then uploaded to internet with the GEMS precinct results as the process goes forward.
  • Over the next week all the other ballots are scanned.
  • All spoiled and left over ballots are accounted for.
  • Basically 100% of the ballots are made available to the public on the internet.
  • The graphic scanned images of ballot then can be processed by a computer.
  • This system done properly and independently as part of the canvas and is verifiable to the public.

Programmer Mitch Trachtenberg Discusses How the
Ballot Browser Program Works at Counting Ballots

The Ballot Browsing Program - An Open Source Solution

The picture above is a screen shot of an auditing program that was developed by Mitch Trachtenberg. This free and open source program provides the transparency that is missing from the proprietary software currently in use by Humboldt County. This program counts ballots for precincts.

Election Transparency Project


Recent Media Coverage

Brad Blog
The go-to blog for election integrity activists.

Unique Transparency Program Uncovers
Problems with Voting Software