The Memphis Flyer gets it. When the judge “declined last week to issue the injunction sought by plaintiffs trying to force the hand of stonewalling state election authorities,” he potentially signed a death warrant for the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act – and secure and accurate elections for Tennesseans.

Without such an injunction, it seems clear that Secretary of State Tre Hargett and state Election Coordinator Mark Goins will attempt to run the clock out until January when the legislature convenes again. And the Republican majorities in both houses, fully alert now to how the game is being played, will pick up where they left off in the 2009 legislative session. That was when, on the eve of the General Assembly’s adjournment, they tried to vote a postponement of the act’s provisions until after the 2010 election cycle but narrowly failed to do so, essentially because a handful of key GOP members happened to be elsewhere on the day of the vote.

That oversight will be corrected in January, when party discipline will rule the day. The reality is that Democrats want the TVCA in effect for the 2010 election cycle and the Republicans don’t. The GOP will have the votes, and all that remains to be seen is whether the act is merely postponed or amended or quashed altogether.

Tennesseans deserve to secure and accurate elections – the kind that we can’t get now because the voting machines we use simply do not work.

The TVCA will replace the broken system we have now – where a machine votes for us under cover of a secret black box – with one in which we have a piece of paper that actually records the intent of each voter correctly – and which we can rely on for recounts and audits.

Why are they still dragging their feet?

  • Share/Bookmark
Tre Hargett is lucky it was Perkins and not Judy.

Tre Hargett is lucky it was Judge Perkins and not Judge Judy.

All good news from a ruling last week that rejected a plea for the court to step in and “compel” Secretary of State Tre Hargett and State Election Coordinator Mark Goins to implement the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act, a.k.a. the paper ballot bill (which they have been fighting hard against, for some reason).

While the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it did rule that, contrary to what Mr. Hargett has been saying, the Tennessee Voter Confidence ACT does NOT require 2005-only standards for machines.

In addition, the court said that the law must be implemented by November 2010 and that the Secretary of State is under a legal obligation to do so tout de suite.

Even more good news is all the attention this case – which is ultimately about secure and accurate elections for all Tennesseans – is receiving from the media.

Nationally, the preeminent election integrity activist and blogger, Brad Friedman – who, by the way, has been with Tennesseans fighting for secure and accurate elections from the beginning – wrote up a thorough synopsis:

The ruling appears to be a victory for the plaintiffs nonetheless, as Perkins ruled the state’s argument/delay tactic that there were no currently certified voting machines that meet the law’s mandate for systems that are federally certified to 2005 standards. Trouble is, the law contains no such mandate. The judge determined that the law does not require new systems meet 2005 standards — there are currently none certified to that standard — and that systems meeting the 2002 federal standards are perfectly legal.

The Voting News blog also covered the hearing.

WSMV-TN Channel 4 in Nashville taped the entire hearing and posted a story on its website and Jackson Baker wrote about it for the Memphis Flyer. Baker’s piece artfully acknowledges what those of us fighting for secure and accurate elections in Tennessee understand as the next threat – delaying implementation of the TVCA as Republican legislative priority (as stated by Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Ron Ramsey):

While Hargett’s statement would appear to be guardedly compliant with the Act and Thursday’s ruling, the references to “current law” and to the prospect that “this debate will continue in the next legislative session” would seem to validate the fears of TVCA supporters that Hargett and Goins mean to postpone any effort to implement the TVCA in the hope that the General Assembly, meeting in January, will amend the Act, negate it, or postpone the date of its implementation.

Tom Humphrey at the Knoxville News Sentinel has both the news and a follow up from a statement by Dick Williams of plaintiff Common Cause:

Optical scan voting systems are now the most widely used voting method in the nation, and are used by over 60% of the nation’s voters.

“Nothing is more important than having verifiable ballots,” said Dick Williams of Common Cause Tennessee. “There is no good reason for running the 2010 elections with systems that are vulnerable to error and don’t allow a recount or an audit,” Williams said.

Following the hearing, Attorney Gerard Stranch for the Plaintiffs said: “The ball is now in the defendants court, hopefully, they will have greater respect for the will of the Court than they did for the will of the legislature.”

Stranch is right, the ball is in the Secretary of State’s court. But don’t expect him to quietly follow along with the will of the people. Rather, he will drag his feet until January counting on Ramsey and the Republican-led legislature to repeal the act.

Last month Jeff Woods at the Scene nailed down the most obvious follow-up question to ask of Mr. Hargett and Mr. Goins, “Why else…would Republicans fight so hard to stop an obvious good-government election reform that only a year ago enjoyed broad bipartisan support?”

In light of recent events, and as they will undoubtedly continue to drag their feet, the answer is more important and relevant now than ever before.

  • Share/Bookmark
The war on fair elections comes earlier and earlier every year.

The war on fair elections comes earlier and earlier every year.

Secretary of State Tre Hargett got a shiny new present for Christmas and the voters of Bedford, Lincoln, and Rutherford counties got lumps of coal.

Seriously, who cares about a fancy new website and “election night results program!” if we can’t be sure that even one vote cast on the touch screen electronic voting machines used in yesterday’s House District 62 special election was counted accurately?

The most important feature of a free and fair election system is transparency – being able to verify that what goes in is what comes out. The touch-screen electronic voting machines used yesterday provide zero transparency. The votes cast on them are 100% unverifiable.

Secretary of State Hargett knows that 93 out of 95 counties cast votes on these machines and yet he continues to want us to use them in election after election. Why, as the guardian of our democratic process, doesn’t he want to fix our broken election system?

Why is Tre Hargett more concerned with shiny new toys instead of accurate elections?

  • Share/Bookmark

From Wired:

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold, has patched a serious security weakness in its election tabulation software used in the majority of states, according to a lab that tested the new version and a federal commission that certified it.

The flaw in the tabulation software was discovered by Wired.com earlier this year, and involved the program’s auditing logs. The logs failed to record significant events occurring on a computer running the software, including the act of someone deleting votes during or after an election. The logs also failed to record who performed an action on the system, and listed some events with the wrong date and timestamps.

  • Share/Bookmark
Are these the little dudes counting the votes inside the machines?

Are these the little dudes counting the votes inside the machines?

We represent the Lolliproof Guild. The Lolliproof Guild. The Lolliproof Guild. And in the name of the Lolliproof Guuuuiiiild…We wish to welcome you to Disenfranchise Land!

It’s been four days since I asked for Secretary of State Tre Hargett and State Election Coordinator Mark Goins for proof that even one vote cast during any election using the 100% unverifiable electronic voting machines we use now in 93 out of 95 counties in Tennessee has ever been recorded accurately, as per the voters’ intent.

On Day 3, yesterday, I heard back from Mr. Goins via email. It’s clear, however, that he didn’t quite understand my request.

After making sure that I knew that he was not responsible for making the decision to purchase the 100% unverifiable electronic voting machines (“Decisions were made by the election commissions in each of those counties about what type of equipment to purchase”) he explained the testing procedure (“…the machines are tested prior to purchase, upon delivery and again before each election in each county…”) and suggested that I contact individual election administrators from each of the counties that use the 100% unverifiable electronic voting machines to witness testing procedures:

Rutherford, Bedford and Lincoln counties are all scheduled to hold elections Oct. 13. Typically, the testing of the machines is done a few days prior to each election, so I encourage you to contact the election administrators in those counties to make sure you’re aware of the time and location of the testing.

For Rutherford County, contact Hooper Penuel at (615) 898-7743. For Bedford County, contact Summer Leverette at (931) 684-0531. For Lincoln County, contact Shelia Allen at (931) 433-6220.

Rutherford and Bedford County both use Micro Vote Infinity equipment, while Lincoln County uses ESS iVotronic equipment.

If you’re interested in seeing a test of the Hart eSlate equipment, it is used in Dickson County, where an election is scheduled for Sept. 24. The contact there is Linda Medley at (615) 789-6021.

And if you’re interested in seeing a test of the Premier (formerly Diebold) equipment, it will be in use in Shelby County’s Oct. 15 election. The contact there is Rich Holden at (901) 545-2600.

I feel nicely put off. But I do not feel as if my request has been answered. Perhaps I made it too confusing. Let me break it down more directly:

“On election day, can Tre Hargett, Mark Goins, any poll worker, or poll monitor look into the internal bits of a touchscreen electronic voting machine and see how the votes are being counted? Can we, as voters, feel certain that what goes in the machine is going to be what comes out at the end of the day tally? Where’s the proof?”

Operation P.O.P. continues.

  • Share/Bookmark

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...