BBV: Urgent -- Why HR 2239 won't work, what we need to do right away

BevHarris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-17-03 02:13 PM
Original message

BBV: Urgent -- Why HR 2239 won't work, what we need to do right away

Folks, HR 2239 won't do what really needs to be done in the short term. Get behind it for the long term, but in the mean time there is something much more important to do.

We need an emergency interim solution. We have two months. We cannot possibly pass legislation and correct the problems with electronic voting (both optical scan and touch screen) before the 2004 primaries begin. Can't be done, and the risk we face is this: The wrong people might win the primary, giving us the wrong choices in the November election.

I told a reporter in October that if no one else had filed a public suit by November 15, step aside -- I'm in. Well, the only people who have (publicly) are two Republican candidates. So it's time. I'm going in, and need as many of you as possible to do what you can to help me. Can we make this "us?"

I think you will agree that I've been ahead of the curve on this issue. I don't want to be ahead of the curve now -- I NEED you to get up to speed on the real issues and go 'round this curve side by side with me, right away.

1) Both optical scan and touch screen systems are flawed, because they are improperly audited, putting out an open invitation for tampering.

2) We have no time to redo legislation or recertify systems or mandate better auditing by the primaries.

3) Therefore, to ensure that we can have confidence in the system, we need, immediately, to go to PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTED for the primary election.

4) Concurrently, we should work on long term solutions, like HR 2239 with a vastly beefed-up audit procedure -- but if we can achieve only one of these two goals, it needs to be getting the plug pulled on unaudited machines for the upcoming primary. Note that I didn't say "get a paper ballot for the primaries." That's no good, since we aren't using the paper ballots to audit.

5) The best way to achieve what we really need is by filing injunctions. We need to do this concurrently in as many states as possible, starting with the 37 Diebold states.

To this end, I am lining up attorneys. Yes, a few have come on board. One location won't do it. We need multiple locations, filed concurrently, and we need clean, quick yes-no type cases, which we have the documentation already to prove.

I am putting out a call for more attorneys, but have little expectation that they will come from DU -- or they would have before. I am not going out and calling lawyers -- been there, done that, it's a waste of time. Have people call me, because I won't trot around the block on that.

Those attorneys who have called me have been coming through. In every case the good ones were referred by activists, like you. So make a pitch and have your contacts call me. But there's more you can do:

In connection with this, we need more researchers. I am talking public cases, not Qui Tam, not copyright disputes, but filing for injunctions to halt machine use until we can put a proper system in place.

The specific legal case varies state by state. We need more people with very good analytical skills to pull together evidence on specific issues identified by the lawyers, which will vary according to the type of action filed.

Here is my contact information:
Bevharriscontact@aol.com
For attorneys and the press ONLY 425-228-7131
(love to talk to others, can't, no time, use e-mail).

I have access to some 65,000 documents, many of which have never seen the light of day. I will provide it for public interest lawsuits. I'm committing my time to this -- and if we coordinate and consolidate information, we can get a lot done in a relatively quick and simple way.

I have also been negotiating with research groups from some of our major universities. Need more. I can put university researchers in touch with the hard-to-find material they need so they can do their studies, but not irresponsibly; I am requiring a curriculum vitae and a project description and an interview first, and the deal must go two ways -- in other words, they must also help us by adding their names, as expert witnesses, pro bono. Feel free to put your academic contacts in touch with me.

According to my calendar, the Iowa primary is in January. Do you really want to risk the result on these machines? Do you really think passing HR 2239 will get us out of our immediate jam? Push HR 2239 if you have time, but first, commit more time to lining up attorneys and helping with the research.

Cases can literally be filed in each county -- 159 cases are possible in Georgia alone. It is not one state per customer.

Tell them to call me. I can discuss approaches with them, some of which can compensate them for their time.

Let's do this thing.

Bev Harris