Guest blogged by Winter Patriot
For all advocates of election integity, and especially for those in San Diego, Monday is going to be a big day. Attorney Paul Lehto is on the scene and Monday morning he will be filing a contest to the U.S. House special election held on June 6th in California’s 50th congressional district to replace disgraced Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
According to a press release issued by a group of Election Integrity advocates organizing themselves as the CA-50 Action Group, a press release will be held on the steps of the Court House in San Diego at 10:30am, just after the filing. (The BRAD BLOG has received an advance copy of the press release. It is posted in full at the bottom of this article.)
The election between Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray was marred, as reported in detail by The BRAD BLOG over the past two months, when the Diebold optical-scan and touch-screen voting machines used in the race were sent home with poll workers on so-called “sleepovers” for days and weeks prior to the election. That breach in security was in contravention of new state and federal security mitigation requirements enacted just months ago after dozens of severe vulnerabilities were recently confirmed in those specific voting systems.
According to the new state and federal security requirements, such breaches of security effectively decertify the systems for use in California. The election contest, to be filed on behalf of several CA-50 voters on Monday will charge the votes cast on those decertified machines are, in fact, illegal votes. The casting of illegal votes in one of several ground under which a contest may be filed in California state court.
Dozens of election integrity organizations around the country including the California Election Protection Network, the Progressive Democrats of America and the Election Defense Alliance to name just a few have declared “No Confidence” in the reported results of the election. Even the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, for the first time in their history, has called for a complete hand count of the paper ballots and “paper trails” from the race in light of the security violations and other irregularities in the first federal race of the year, and since the new requirements were enacted.
San Diego County Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas has admitted to breaches of security during the election — he said that storage of voting machines in poll workers garages and cars could “not be considered security,” and told the San Diego Union-Tribune that more than 100 voting machines were found to have broken security seals or other breaches of chain of custody — but nonetheless has refused the release of dozens of chain of custody documents requested by voters.
Furthermore, Haas has arbitrarily (and illegally) set the cost for a manual hand count of ballots at nearly $150,000. That price, for which Haas has failed to give accounting, amounts to nearly $1 per ballot and has stymied a request by CA-50 voter Barbara Gail Jacobson to hand count the paper ballots and trails as she is legally allowed under California’s recount provisions. Compared to the .14 per ballot charged for a similar hand count in neighboring Orange County, the charges have been characterized as arbitrary and capricious by the CA-50 Action Group organizers as well as other critics of the San Diego Registrar of Voters. The behavior of Haas, in apparent violation of several California laws, has raised questions as to why he has confounded citizen attempts to achieve transparency in verifying the so-far unproven results of the race as announced by his office.
Bilbray was sworn in by the Republican-led U.S. Congress just days after the election while votes were still being counted by Haas’ office. The rush to swear Bilbray into office occurred several weeks before the election was even certified in San Diego County on June 29th.
Citizen contributions to help fight for accountability in the Busby/Bilbray CA-50 election are funding this action. Your donations to VelvetRevolution.us are appreciated and will help to continue the fight. (DISCLOSURE: VR was co-founded by The BRAD BLOG’s Brad Friedman.)
Best wishes to all our friends in San Diego. May the democracy force be with you.
Use the force, Paul! Use the force!
The complete press release from the CA-50 Action Group announcing the contest and the press conference follows below in full…
CONTACT: Ilene Proctor PR, (310) 271-5857
ELECTION CONTEST FILED DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY, DECERTIFICATION AND PAPER BALLOT COUNT OF BUSBY/BILBRAY ELECTION IN CA-50
Press Conference Set for 10:30am in San Diego
Today, famed election attorney Paul Lehto filed an election contest lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court demanding a count of all paper ballots in the Busby/Bilbray special election to replace convicted Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham. On the face of the pleading, Lehto, on behalf of voters of CA-50, asserts that they are entitled to a 100% ballot count at a reasonable cost because of massive security violations of federal and state law by election officials.
California state law requires that all votes cast in an election be properly counted and tabulated. In the CA-50 election, however, it cannot be determined whether or not all votes were counted because legally mandated procedures were violated both in the run-up to the election and during the official voter request for a hand ballot count. County Registrar Mikel Haas sent the Diebold voting machines on “sleepovers” in the unsecured homes and cars of volunteer poll workers for weeks prior to the election in violation of federal and state law. When voter Barbara Gail Jacobsen filed for a recount, Haas set an exorbitant price of $150,000 but refused to provide the documents necessary for that count.
“Given the fact that all the voting machines were circulating in the county for at least a week prior to the election, and manipulation of a single machine can rig an election, there is no basis for voters to have confidence in the election results,” attorney Lehto said. Indeed, because the Diebold machines used in the election were conditionally certified by the Secretary of State under stringent security and chain of custody conditions to protect against manipulation, the lawsuit asserts that non-compliance with those conditions necessarily requires decertification of the election results.
A press conference will take place today on the steps of the San Diego County Superior Court at 10:30 am. Lehto, voters and activists will be on hand to talk about the lawsuit and their plans for further action to ensure compliance with all California election laws.
VelvetRevolution.us, a network of scores of election reform organizations demanding honest and accountable elections, is handling the fundraising for this CA-50 legal challenge and donations are being accepted on its website, www.velvetrevolution.us.
Most excellent! Great news to go to bed on – thanks Paul Lehto! These votes need to be counted correctly.
Thanks, indeed, Obi Juan ComPatriot! 😀
May the force be with you! 😉
Well the swords are crossed and high time. You can bet your ass that Herr Rove’s phone has been ringing. Thanks for the heads up Brad/WP and of course a big thanks to the people down in Dago that have said “Enough”. Into the breech…….. I need to head over to your other lair WP and anty up some Doh Ray Me.
I believe something will come out of this when millions blockade the city and shut it down until the votes are actually counted.
Looking forward to it!!
Emily Levy said that they were going to file Monday morning on the Peter B. Collins Podcast from Brad. I’m so glad, I hope some asses get kicked. Now how do we get to count those 2004 ballots before they get destroyed in November?
Francine Busby should be embarrassed that an attorney from Washington state has flown to San Diego to intercede in an election that she might well have won, given that she conceded the election before a legal count of the votes took place.
But somehow I doubt Ms. Busby is at all embarrassed.
Come on media, jump on it!
This isn’t some voting machine hearing filled with long, boring technical explanations and acronyms, (yawn).
This is an explosive, riveting, compelling, eye opening, must see, heart stopping, and yes, BREAKING, story! (BANG)!!
A reporter’s DREAM!
A network’s FANTASY!
A ripe, succulent and savory blockbuster, just waiting to be plucked from the low lying branches of American journalism!
Don’t be late!
This is obviously the proper way to do this.
The election warlord Haas has forced the issue.
Now he has to tell the truth or face potential perjury charges.
Like Fibby Libby.
Watch Haas squirm!
This is important, because imagine if the count has Busby as the winner. What would that do for our cause? Busby should fight and be vocal, like the Republicans are when they “lose” a close race, which I admire them for fighting like they do.
I hope they can’t appeal this all the way to the Supremes. Stop! In the name of love and peace and rock and roll and all that good stuff that democracy has brought us over the years…
#4 MEP,
I was proud to contribute to the CA-50 fight…we ALL need to “anty up some Doh Ray Me”.
PLEASE. Get out your wallets. We need to put our money where our mouth is for this!!
Czaragorn #12
I want to see a link to the complaint …
If there are any federal issues it has a potentially different path than if it is only state issues.
The chain of custody issues, wherein Haas evidently violated California law, are state issues, not federal.
So it depends on how the pleading (complaint or petition) is structured.
It sounds to me like it will be a petition for a writ of mandate or prohibition, which would target at least Haas, and which would frame the pleading in state issues only.
But we will have to wait and see …
Wouldn’t we feel better, if we were fighting for someone who was ALSO fighting??? But, this is bigger than Busby anyway, it’s about e-vote fraud…
Whew! I can breathe again. Votes will be counted.
Thanks for the hard work, you guys.
The question I have is, how long does a suit like this take to wind through the legal process? Will it all become moot, especially if Haas can get his lawyers to put up roadblocks, so that the congressional term will have expired by the time it is litigated? I realize that the issues are more important than the winner or loser of this race and I want the votes counted, regardless, but I fear that, if they are able to drag it out long enough they will be able to argue that it is water under the bridge and doesn’t matter (excuse my lack of appropriate legal terminology) and that they promise to do it the “right way” with they next election.
#17 Steve
Exactly.
You stole the election.
No I didn’t.
Yes you did, and I am filing a lawsuit.
File your lawsuit, but I am swearing in Joe.
Joe now votes yes on all the Fast-Tracked globalist items.
Judge X, starts the case.
Joe does more damage to the country.
Judge X, finds diebold guilty
Diebold pays the $25 dollar fine, and gets 32 days in the jail.
Joe keep up the destruction like an energizer bunny.
There’s so much more to this story.
Not to mention so many more precints out there with similar dilemas.
Steve,
This case should fall under the exception to the mootness doctrine that was instituted by none other than Roe v. Wade. When an issue has the potential to be repeated yet evades judicial review due to its own short “shelf life”, the mootness doctrine is not applied.
#17 Steve
Exactly. Even if the case does not become legally moot (i.e., it continues on to eventual finality), in the meantime Mr. Bilbray is sworn in and casting votes. (Although I think the Speaker votes for a District in which the incumbent has resigned/died/etc. until a replacement is selected.)
So long as the system is sufficiently shrouded from scrutiny, whoever runs the election can pretty much declare a winner then stonewall / foot-drag / no-comment their way until it no longer makes a practical difference who won.
The Union Tribune is still allowing the Haas folks to totally distort the issues here.
““There is nothing unusual or different about the way that we distribute election supplies to supervising poll workers,†Haas said, noting that poll workers must first pass a training class.
“It is the most efficient, accountable and transparent practice we know of in which to assure that the polls open on time, at 7 o’clock in the morning, and that everything’s ready to go on Election Day.â€
Haas added:
“The election was run fairly and accurately, and if there were issues that we found – either pre- or post-election – you wouldn’t have found my name on the document certifying the results.â€
…”
and then comes the marginalizing to be a “fringe left” issue…
“The voting machine issue in this contest has become a hot topic among progressive bloggers, but has gained little traction elsewhere.”
Does anyone know how many requests for recounts (actual vote counts) have been turned down since 2000. Or how much republicans have had to pay for requested recounts. It seems to me that only when the issue is important to republicans are they conducted. To my limited knowledge it appears that there have only been two recounts granted to those challenging results against Republicans. The first was AL Gore in 2000. The Supreme court stopped that one. The last I heard was in Ohio 2004 where it has now been successfully prosecuted that the recount was fixed.
Surely the MSM has noticed this. It would make for interesting ( horrifying )reading or news. Republicans have no problem getting recounts. Dems get none. What are the courts and officials saying to people. That only republicans deserve democracy.
Well, the Democrats did ask for (and paid for initially) the recount for the Washington gubernatorial race, and eventually got that one overturned and got the money refunded. That was $50 I donated WELL spent! Of course, Rossi was allowed to try and appeal the recount results for almost a year after the recount.
Somewhere on this case, I heard about LOTS of absentee ballots showing up at the last minute. Does anyone have the details and documentation on that?
Somewhere else I seem to remember someone saying that it will probably end up turning not on the machines that did the ‘sleepovers’ but on other things.
Anyone?
#23 calipendence
Thanks for posting that. Still seems pretty lopsided but I guess the Dems just don’t ask for recounts often enough.
V. Kurt Bellman #19
I don’t know any lawyer who would, with a straight face, urge anyone to believe that Roe v Wade established the mootness doctrine.
That principle was in full force and effect a hundred years previous to that case.
In 1895, the Supreme Court pointed out:
(Mills v Green, bold added).
Dredd #26
Gotta admit, that was a good reply!