E-voting debate heats up in California (political candidate sues)

[phoebe]

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,94585,00.html

snip

JULY 16, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - A former California political candidate who lost the March 2004 race for Riverside County Board of Supervisors by only 45 votes filed a lawsuit today against the county after she was denied access to the memory and audit logs of the electronic voting systems used during the election.
Linda Soubirous filed the lawsuit against the county and its Registrar of Voters, Mischelle Townsend, with the backing of the national election integrity organization VerifiedVoting.org Inc.

The case arose after Soubirous petitioned the county registrar and machine vendor Sequoia Voting Systems for access to the systems' audit logs, redundant memory, the results of logic and accuracy tests that were conducted on the systems, and the chain-of-custody records for the system components. Despite a California law that permits any voter to request and review "all relevant election materials" pertaining to a recount, Townsend refused to grant Soubirous access to the material, arguing it was not "relevant" to a recount.

"I was shocked when Riverside County election officials told me that access to the internal memories of the voting machines was not relevant to a recount," said Soubirous. "Of course the internal information is relevant. Without it, there's no way to determine whether the votes were recorded and counted properly inside the machine."

[Trajan]

1. Chain of Custody records ...

Music to my ears ....

[BadGimp]

2. lol

this is just the begining people

those machines are ushering in the end of Democracy in America

[Mz Pip]

3. Good news

Of course the internal information is relevant. Isn't that where one would learn how the damn thing is programmed?

MzPip
:dem:

[hang a left]

4. kick n/t

[sendero]

5. The only problem is...

.... that other than the chain-of-custody records there is not likely to be anything that actually can be reviewed, or should I say reviewed before being "corrected".