Re the NM case being blocked by Bernilillo County officials...

[texpatriot2004]

Am I understanding this right, that "election" officials are using the contracts made with corporations when the counties purchased the machines to deny access to the "election" contents of those same machines?

That seems to be the case in the NM suit and other places too.

IOW I work for the county board of "elections" we purchase one or more machines from, say Diebold or Sequoia ES&S, and we have an "election." There are disputes in the "election" and someone takes us to court to look inside the machines. I deny access to the machines and I say it's because the contract I have with the vendor (Diebold or Sequoia ES&S) doesn't allow me to give that access to others as it violates our contract, the contract we made when the county bought the machines.

Am I understanding that correctly? Now, actually, I know that Herrara woman in Bernilillo County is not giving any reasons why she is denying access to the machines but this is the idea that I get from the case.

Is that right?

BTW Voter Registration for Bernilillo County as of 2005

Bernalillo Dems 154,885 45% Repubs 119,679 35% Other 10,549 3% No Party 57,131 17%
Total Registered Voters 342,244

NOTE: MORE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS than any other

[Old and In the Way]

1. So the contract between the elections official and the machine maker

supercedes our right as citizens to have total transparency and accuracy in our elections? This seems like a suit that needs to get tested at the Supreme Court.

[texpatriot2004]

2. Right. I am not certain, but it seems that is what they are claiming

I am still trying to get verification but that is my understanding of it. That is what's becoming clear to me...perhaps that is nothing new. I am not new to the election fraud issue but for some reason that just hit me.

I absolutely agree that if that's what they are claiming then a) it needs to go all the way up the courts ASAP and b) they need to open up those damned machines because the public's right to know, the American's right to transparency in their "elections" comes FIRST.

My guess is even the stupid owners of these fraud machines know that and that's why they keep stalling.

[Stevepol]

4. Remember, the courts have ruled that the "source code" is taboo.

This has been ruled in several cases. It's considered to be "proprietary," like Coca-Cola's syrup recipe, so even the elections officials can't look at it.

[Old and In the Way]

5. But, unlike Coke's magic recipe, we have a compelling interest

to know our elections aren't stolen. Seems that the case law this is built on is pretty weak. If this is the case, news law should be written that addresses this issue specificly.

If you want to sell electronic systems to use in any US election, the code ought to be universal (i.e. must use code approved and accessible by the states or federal government).

The way things are now, this is not in the public's interests....what's wrong with Open Source code?

[texpatriot2004]

6. I agree. No Corporation can sell away the public's right to

transparency in "elections" in America...or at least they shouldn't be able to.

[msongs]

3. public access to all voting machine code is a MUST! as we're trying

to get the dems in CA to demand this and theya re pretty much ignoring our requests.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm