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

Judge denies electronic voting challenge to march elections Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/7984115.htm http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/7984115.htm Posted on Wed, Feb. 18, 2004 Judge denies electronic voting challenge to March 2 elections JIM WASSERMAN Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected a legal challenge Wednesday to California's March 2 election over allegations that new electronic voting systems are vulnerable to hackers. Judge Raymond Cadei denied a temporary restraining order sought against voting machine maker Diebold Election Systems Inc., saying there isn't enough evidence of security threats to justify interfering in an election just 13 days away. Diebold is based in North Canton, Ohio. A group of computer programmers and California voters alleged that new electronic touch-screen voting machines being used in at least 14 counties on March 2 are insecure and could be manipulated to disrupt election results. Legal challengers included Sacramento computer consultant Jim March and Washington state resident Bev Harris, who has written extensively on possible security glitches in new electronic voting systems. But 40 minutes into Wednesday's hearing, Cadei said he remained unconvinced "that there is a serious actual threat to the election process" and quickly ended a legal threat looming over elections that will elect legislative candidates and decide ballot propositions and U.S. presidential candidates. Cadei, several times expressing his reluctance to disrupt an election where absentee voting has already begun, cited last year's judicial rulings that stopped final-hour efforts to cancel the Oct. 7 recall election. County officials, who maintain their new voting systems will prove reliable, expressed relief over the ruling. Many had predicted greater chaos from the proposed last-minute security improvements sought by the legal challenge than from risks of doing nothing. "We're 12 and a half days before a major election. You can't change the rules of the game at this stage," said Contra Costa County Clerk Stephen Weir, who attended the hearing. Doug Stone, spokesman for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, also praised the decision, saying Shelley appreciates "that the court has chosen not to interfere with the upcoming election." Diebold attorney Daniel D. McMillan called the challenge a "waste of public resources" brought on by publicity-seeking "conspiracy theorists." "Certainly, it reaffirms the company's position that its products are effective and clients, when they use them, are satisfied with them," McMillan said. Lowell Finley, the Berkeley attorney who sought the order, said he was disappointed but that "we don't believe the issues are going away." Finley argued that Diebold's electronic systems have weaknesses that "pose a grave threat to the security and integrity" of the March and November elections. He cited studies that called them "vulnerable to vote tampering both by company insiders and outside computer hackers." ------------: On the Net: California Secretary of State: http:/www.ss.ca.gov

2004-general 2004-primaries dissent franklin-county rollout voting-disputes About election systems and software inc Companies close relationships election officials { August 4 2003 } Compuware testing ohio machines Control voting machines { January 31 2003 } Convincted felons work for voting companies Crooks in control { September 16 2002 } Diebold backs of legal challenge Diebold ceo committed to bush { November 9 2003 } Diebold ceo to help bush Diebold glitch not affecting scan equipment { September 30 2003 } Diebold maryland reviews elections systems software { March 17 2006 } Diebold stops executives from making political donations Diebold sues over california voting systems Electronic voting paper trail idea attacked { December 21 2006 } Field grows for voting machines Goldwater voting machine { November 16 2002 } Grand jury grants chico ca machines How bush wins 2004 Judge denies electronic voting challenge to march elections Left accused of vote machine fraud before 2006 election { October 29 2006 } More state of the art machines not chosen { June 17 2003 } Pentagon program for internet voting insecure { January 22 2004 } Republicans will take care of the vote counting { November 15 2004 } Selections committee violated provisions { July 14 2003 } Sen hagel connections { January 29 2003 } Seqouia prices higher than others { September 10 2003 } Sequoia comments on diebold Sequoia prints recall ballots { August 12 2003 } Sequoia software unprotected Sequoia threatens legal action ohio Task force finds voting machines easily manipulated { June 27 2006 } Two voting companies two brothers count eighty percent { April 27 2004 } Urosevich brothers run two top vote machine companies { April 28 2004 } Vote machines rothschilds Voting machine companies refuse disability access Voting machines ensure bush victory Files Listed: 36

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.