NewsMine — cabal-elite — election-fraud — electronic — 2004-general — Viewing Item

Glitch could force ncarolina to vote again Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10133265.htm http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10133265.htm Posted on Tue, Nov. 09, 2004 Glitch could force state to vote again MICHELLE CROUCH Staff Writer More than 4,500 votes irretrievably lost in coastal Carteret County could trigger a new statewide election if the official margin of victory in two Council of State races is close enough, state election officials said Monday. The problem, which one expert called one of the worst election glitches nationwide, occurred on a machine that wasn't set correctly. "This is one of the few cases in which the votes were totally lost," said David Dill, founder of the Verified Voting foundation. The votes, all early ballots, could affect the races for superintendent of public instruction and agriculture commissioner, both too close to call Monday. Counties will add totals from as many as 75,000 provisional ballots to their returns today. If the final margin in any race is within 4,532 -- the number of lost votes in Carteret -- the losing candidate can file a protest with the N.C. State Board of Election. It's unclear what would happen in that case. Attorneys are studying whether the board could call a new election in Carteret County only, or even ask the disenfranchised voters to vote again. (Local elections officials have their names.) But state law may not allow that: "The new election shall be held in the entire jurisdiction in which the original election was held," it says. That could mean the whole state. Gary Bartlett, the state board's executive director, did not know Monday if the state has ever had to redo a statewide election; it hasn't happened in recent memory. A second election would cost between $2.5 million and $3.5 million, he said. "We've had some machine discrepancies in the past, but none has ever impacted the result of the election," Bartlett said. The maker of Carteret's push-button voting machines, UniLect Corp., acknowledges it told county officials the machines would hold more than 10,000 votes. The machines actually held 3,005 because the computer software had not been updated. "It was a simple mistake, one that could be fixed with a simple two-second key stroke," said Jack Gerbel, the company's president. "None of our customers have ever lost even a single vote, and now this." Gerbel said the machines flash a warning message when there is no more room for storing ballots. "It was either ignored or overlooked," he said. Bartlett said Carteret County elections officials have sworn the message never appeared. Gerbel said his company is looking for a way to stop the machines from accepting votes after the memory is full.

24 ohio counties votes exceed voters { November 10 2004 } Broward machines count backward { November 5 2004 } Broward software votes yes amendment 4 { November 5 2004 } Bush gaining 4 percent in exit polling states impossible CuyahogaCounty OhioVotingResults [pdf] Evidence mounts that the vote may be hacked { November 6 2004 } Florida vote fishy say researchers Gambling vote glitch mars tally Glitch could force ncarolina to vote again Glitch found in ohio counting { November 6 2004 } Machine gives bush 700 percent of ohio county More than 4500 north carolina votes lost Nader asks recount on new hampshire diebold machines Ohio error boosted bush Ohio excess votes blamed on computer glitch Ohio voting machine jumps from kerry to bush { December 13 2004 } Slot machine measure wins by computer glitch { November 5 2004 } Software miscounting ballots South florida oks slot machines { November 5 2004 } States using voting machines 2004 [htm] Teresa heinz says vote was hacked { March 7 2005 } Files Listed: 21

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.