The followiing is a reformatted email from blackboxvoting.org, dated July 10, 2006: Below it is another email from blackboxvoting.org, dated August 23, 2009. Consider sending a link to this page, or a copy of this page ... to your Secretary of State and Governor's Office. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Seven candidates, from two different political parties, have joined together to fight the Kentucky machine. One ordinary citizen has galvanized this action and stopped this very important case from being dismissed. When Glenda Young called Black Box Voting she was a woman with a mission. "I need a lawyer," she said. "Can you help?" Her plain spoken Southern drawl was laced with urgency and determination. "I believe that a great injustice has been done. When seven candidates join together from different parties to contest an election because they believe it was not honest, something's terribly wrong." After questioning her, Kathleen Wynne of Black Box Voting was sufficiently concerned about procedural violations in the election that she took it upon herself to contact several attorneys on Glenda's behalf. The first attorney to understand the urgency and importance of this case was Paul Lehto, a formidable advocate for clean elections from Everett, Washington. The candidates had already filed a case with local counsel, and a motion had been filed to dismiss. Lehto wasted no time catching a plane to Kentucky. After meeting with candidates, who provided hair-raising accounts of election irregularities, Lehto stepped in to fight the dismissal with the aid of local attorney Leroy Gilbert. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to Lehto & Gilbert's legal brief: (QUOTE) The Court must recall at all times that the voting here in question involves invisible electronic ballots which have not been inspected at any time by any party hereto, even the County Clerk has not counted them. Rather, the electronic ballots have been purported to be counted in secret by trade secret counting software owned by the vendors. There is no reason at all or basis for confidence in the electronic counting until verified by the plaintiffs not only because the Clerk himself is a defendant-candidate here, but also because it is the nature of the computer to do precisely as it is told without reference to any laws, morals or ethics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lehto explains: "Computers do what they're told -- without regard to laws, ethics or morals, and THAT's the problem. They can put computers into elections when they find a computer that fears going to jail." Here. is a copy of the plaintiff's supplemental response to the motion to dismiss. Here is a copy of Lehto and Gilbert's offer of proof for the motion to dismiss. Here is a copy of the original petition. Glenda Young is a prime example of the backbone of America. One person CAN make a difference. When she called Black Box Voting, we realized that she was as serious as a heart attack. It was clear that there was no way she was going to back down, whether we helped her or not. This is the kind of tenacity it's going to take to reclaim our elections. "I never believed this would happen in my own back yard," Young says. "It is up to us as the people of America to take a stand." Lehto explains: "For all the talking points of elections officials about pre-election testing, post-LAT testing, parallel testing, ITA certification, etc., the ONLY relevant question is WHAT WAS THE MACHINE TOLD TO DO ON ELECTION DAY ITSELF? "We don't doubt that the machines CAN count correctly...We wonder what they were told to do on election day that causes either a malfunction (because computers are so complicated and literal) or causes a fraud (because computers will do ANYTHING)." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The evidenciary phase of this case has not been opened yet, (as of 7/10/06) but when candidates from two parties join together to file a joint lawsuit, red flags go up like the Fourth of July. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seven candidates. Two lawyers. One ordinary citizen with firm resolve. This is an example of what you can accomplish. Now, to expand on this: We cannot overstate the importance of getting involved and gathering real evidence. Evidence = photographs, audio recordings, video, and public records. There are no small elections. Every election represents the integrity of the machinery and the procedures for the jurisdiction itself. If there is a problem with a local race, you can't have confidence in any race above it. "We're counting the votes. Get over it." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To discuss this article, click here. Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY. Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting. relevant blackboxvoting.org LINK :O- PERMISSION TO REPRINT OR EXCERPT GRANTED, WITH LINK TO blackboxvoting.org End of reformatted email

__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ You can post public comments here: By now, almost all voting machine makes and models have been demonstrably compromised by researchers, but election officials continue to defend them, news reporters continue to ask the wrong questions, and even public interest groups seem unable to grasp the real reason they get run 'round the hampster wheel every time they present evidence. The article at the link above, and another one I posted in the New Jersey forum at BlackBoxVoting.org provide examples of poor argumentation against hackable machines. Here I will show you how to use the core argument of PROCESS CONCEALMENT to neutralize most arguments put forth by vendors and election officials, and I'll show you how to debunk other arguments as well. Let's start with a particularly weak argument for the machines: "...But many county clerks say the state's strict election laws mean they can trust the technology" First, the laws don't do a darn thing to protect against concealment of key activities through inside access by government officials. Second, the laws aren't consistently followed. And third, when election laws aren't followed there is no real remedy available to the public. And fourth, even when someone decides to actually try to deal with election laws and procedures that aren't followed, as a general rule no meaningful consequences are invoked. And furthermore: Public elections aren't public when the processes are concealed from the public. None of the defensive arguments for use of these systems address that, the most crucial issue of all. The election officials put forward especially meaningless arguments, like this: "Many clerks like the machines." Many election officials like vote-by-mail, which removes nearly ALL controls from the public and hands them over to insiders. Many dictators like not even having elections. Many lawyers might like having trials without the bother of public juries. What's easy and what insiders like is not the point. Then we see the complete lie trotted out again, that it would take a huge conspiracy from the manufacturer all the way down to the poll workers. Election officials know that is not true, and any election official who makes that claim in this day and age should be scrutinized especially closely. Elections office insiders have the greatest access of all to manipulate the outcome. Another official says it comes down to voter confidence. No, "confidence" is something "con men" try to achieve. Our system of government is based upon public controls, not public "confidence" regarding what government insiders do in concealment. The arguments about security seals fall apart when you realize that insiders have access to the machines before the seals are applied, and also that many elections offices have been documented handling seals improperly and even ordering multiple seals with the same seal number. The issue of voters not handling the memory cards, cartridges or PEBs is a red herring, since it's not the voter that is the problem, it's the insider, who definitely does handle these items. Some officials say they're not going to ditch the machines based on a bunch of what-ifs. Well here's something that is not a what-if: The machines conceal the counting of the vote from the public. And here's something else that is not a what-if: The nation of Germany banned e-voting systems this year because they conceal the voting from the public, with Germany's equivalent of our Supreme Court deciding that use of such machines is unconstitutional. Is hand counting the only solution? Actually, when we focus on mechanics we start to lose the arguments. Hand counting if done in concealment, or if done centrally after transporting the ballots, also violates the principle of public controls and prohibition of concealed key processes. Hand counting if done at the polling place and with public observation and with the allowance of videotaping (to provide public controls if insiders write wrong number on reporting form) does honor the principles of democratic elections. Also, optical scan machines, if allowing public observation and videotaping of one extra step, showing each ballot at the polling place and allowing public to videotape, dealing them out like a deck of cards to enable the public to compare input to output, does honor the principles of public controls. Any election that conceals key processes from the public is, in fact, not a democratic election at all. You can't transfer controls to insiders to perform in concealment and still have public elections. We need to get citizens groups and reporters here in the US understanding and articulating the real issues, because we continue to lose the battle when we argue "security" and "hackability" -- arguments which quickly diverge into a bunch of distraction arguments. Most arguments fall apart instantly when you frame the issue as one of public controls and concealment of key election processes from the public. * * * * * Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan nonprofit elections watchdog group funded entirely by public donations. If you believe our work is valuable, please consider making a donation to support us: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html or mail to: Black Box Voting 330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB 547 Renton WA 98057 This message was sent by: Black Box Voting, Inc., 330 SW 43rd St Suite K - PMB 547, Renton, WA 98057 Email Marketing by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com To update/change your account click here: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=50780659&l=100140&s=HV9W&m=664845&c=325456 Forward to a friend