[PRINT this page]
[E-MAIL a friend]
[send us feedback]
[home]
[link]
NM Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections
based on a report from voteraction.org. November 11, 2005
In the past week, two New Mexico election officials refused to allow the voter plaintiffs in the case of Patricia Rosas Lopategui v. Rebecca Vigil-Giron, et al. to conduct meaningful inspections of their electronic voting machines. This despite clear indications that there were serious problems in last year's presidential election with these same machines, which do not produce a voter-verifiable and auditable paper record.
Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera has given no explanation for her sudden, flat refusal to permit any inspection after weeks of discussions between plaintiffs' attorneys and attorneys for the county. Plaintiffs have sworn statements from Bernalillo County voters who tried to vote on the county's paperless touchscreen voting machines, manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems, and whose votes were switched before their eyes from the candidate they supported to a different candidate. Plaintiffs also have evidence that the county's widespread use of another type of paperless machine, the Shoup 1242, resulted in the erasure of votes that citizens tried to cast for presidential candidates.
San Juan County Clerk Fran Hanhardt permitted limited inspection of her county's voting machines. She would not, however, open the voting machines to permit plaintiffs' experts to examine their components. The reason? Doing so would void the county's warranty from the manufacturer, Election Systems and Software (ES&S).
Ms. Hanhardt also refused to allow plaintiffs' experts to examine or copy electronic files containing the results of the November 2004 presidential election that were stored in the machines' redundant memories. The reason? The machines store the results of public elections in a secret, proprietary format that ES&S claims as its private property. According to Ms. Hanhardt, allowing plaintiffs' experts to see those results in their original form would violate the county's contract with ES&S, which prohibits disclosure of proprietary information.
You have been reading excerpts from "NM Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections" from voteraction.org. You can read the entire piece here: tinyurl.com/7cwmg. Thanks to bradblog.com. We visit often and we hope you will too.
based on a report from voteraction.org. November 11, 2005
In the past week, two New Mexico election officials refused to allow the voter plaintiffs in the case of Patricia Rosas Lopategui v. Rebecca Vigil-Giron, et al. to conduct meaningful inspections of their electronic voting machines. This despite clear indications that there were serious problems in last year's presidential election with these same machines, which do not produce a voter-verifiable and auditable paper record.
Bernalillo County Clerk Mary Herrera has given no explanation for her sudden, flat refusal to permit any inspection after weeks of discussions between plaintiffs' attorneys and attorneys for the county. Plaintiffs have sworn statements from Bernalillo County voters who tried to vote on the county's paperless touchscreen voting machines, manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems, and whose votes were switched before their eyes from the candidate they supported to a different candidate. Plaintiffs also have evidence that the county's widespread use of another type of paperless machine, the Shoup 1242, resulted in the erasure of votes that citizens tried to cast for presidential candidates.
San Juan County Clerk Fran Hanhardt permitted limited inspection of her county's voting machines. She would not, however, open the voting machines to permit plaintiffs' experts to examine their components. The reason? Doing so would void the county's warranty from the manufacturer, Election Systems and Software (ES&S).
Ms. Hanhardt also refused to allow plaintiffs' experts to examine or copy electronic files containing the results of the November 2004 presidential election that were stored in the machines' redundant memories. The reason? The machines store the results of public elections in a secret, proprietary format that ES&S claims as its private property. According to Ms. Hanhardt, allowing plaintiffs' experts to see those results in their original form would violate the county's contract with ES&S, which prohibits disclosure of proprietary information.
You have been reading excerpts from "NM Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections" from voteraction.org. You can read the entire piece here: tinyurl.com/7cwmg. Thanks to bradblog.com. We visit often and we hope you will too.
