Guest Blogged by Michael Bryan
I am Michael Bryan, an attorney and blogger whose home is Tucson, Arizona. Starting today and continuing through Thursday, at BlogForArizona.com (my blog) and The BRAD BLOG, I will be covering the trial of Pima County Democratic Party v. Pima County. The proceedings will be live-blogged at BlogForArizona every day, with a daily summary posted each evening of the trial here at The BRAD BLOG.
The trial concerns the Pima County Democratic Party’s demand for access to public records. Specifically, they seek access to database files that contain the raw tabulator vote data from a past local bond election. They seek to establish the public’s right to inspect and analyze those records to search for any irregularities or manipulation by elections department insiders. Ideally, the Democrats want the judge to declare that all such files must be given to all political parties in Pima County in all future elections, so that public scrutiny can help ensure that the vote is honestly counted.
Why the concern that public officials, whose job it is to count the vote, may be instead manipulating the vote? Because the software Pima County (and many, many other jurisdictions around the country) is using to tabulate the vote is “fundamentally flawed” as to security according to an independent audit [PDF] commissioned by the Arizona Attorney General.
The “fundamentally flawed” software is made by Diebold and is called Global Election Management Software, or GEMS. Election integrity activists and researchers have long known that vote totals can be easily manipulated by insiders with access to the computers on which GEMS runs. The software is so fundamentally insecure that vote data can be changed by simply using the common database software Microsoft Access — and the fraud can potentially be completely untraceable. With security conditions like that, it becomes imperative that the public have oversight of that data, just as the public has (or should have) oversight over the rest of the elections process.
For more background information about the software and the issues behind the trial, please see my post, Pima County Election Integrity Blues, or my introduction to the trial, both on BlogForArizona.com.
You may also wish to see Steve Rosenfeld’s excellent report yesterday at Alternet, offering more specific details on what is at stake here.
If you would like to just listen to a discussion of the issues in the trial, please take a few minutes to listen to my recent interview with Action Point host Cynthia Black on Phoenix’ Air America station…
[audio:http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/files/CynthiaBlack_MichaelBryan_1207.mp3]
For additional context here, I’ll point you to a video (at right) of one of the men at the center of this controversy, Pima County’s Election Director Brad Nelson. BRAD BLOG readers may remember this remarkable video referred to as “Election Director Gone Wild” as Nelson breaks into a tirade after being questioned by Pima County Election Integrity activist, John Brakey, about the Diebold DRE voting systems that Nelson was preparing, back then, in February of 2006, to bring into the county.
Please check my blog, BlogForArizona.com, for regular updates on the trial as it unfolds, and here at The BRAD BLOG for updates at the end of the days proceedings today through Thursday. Please use the comments on either blog to ask questions or make suggestions, we’ll have someone monitoring the comments during the trial and will do our best to respond.
We’ve done what you are trying to do in Georgia. We lost.
The court ruled that Diebold was entitled to a PERMANENT INJUNCTION against releasing the election data.
You can find the Permanent Injunction at this link:
http://www.countthevote.org/dek...injunction.pdf
You can find the trial transcript here:
http://www.countthevote.org/dek...transcript.pdf
The trial is fascinating so far. The County admits in its opening statement that the software they’re using is full of security holes, and that’s the reason we can’t let anyone see the database files — because that would mean that anyone could get in there and manipulate the results. I’ve been told this is the “security by obscurity” defense.
I have to ask, should one of our most precious rights, the right to free and accurate elections, be at the mercy of software that everyone admits is full of holes? It boggles the mind.
Yep, Dave, that’s their defense. That plus the fact that they store the passwords and GEMS phone in numbers in an Access database.
Thanks for the heads-up, RJ!
Pima County Attorney Christopher Straub is going to cal Merle King of Georgia as a witness. Did he testify or participate in the Georgia case? What should we know about him? John B says Merle is a professional witness for the vendors, who never met an e-voting system he didn’t like.
Hey Randall.
Merle King tutored Ray Cobb (see trial transcript) in our trial.
You can expect the exact same things. Honestly, that trial transcript may save your case. Please read it.
You can also read Merle King’s “The Georgia Method” here: http://www.countthevote.org/thegeorgiamethod.pdf
Merle King runs the Kennesaw State University Election Center which does all the state cerfifying of the Diebold voting machines in Georgia. (Yeah, KSU – home of Newt Gingrich’s infamous GOPAC).
Merle King also tried to get Avi Rubin fired when they did the first review of the Diebold voting system in 2003.
Kennesaw State’s Election Center has been an arm of Diebold for god knows how long. Their “cleaners” in the state of Georgia for years.
KSU has been involved in the Diebold voting machines in Georgia since the RFP was issued.
The earliest document we can find was written by Brit Williams of The KSU Election Center dated March 1, 2000 and is titled:
RULES
OF
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
ELECTION DIVISION
CHAPTER 590-8-1
CERTIFICATION OF VOTING SYSTEMS
590-8-1-.01 Certification of Voting Systems.
Prepared by: Brit Williams
Date: March 1, 2000
Revised: January 3, 2001
{Ed Note: This comment was edited. Please read the commenting rules, Michael. –99}
Tuesday November 13, 2007, 8:11 pm
POST by Runner:
Go to link for the rest….
Thanks for keeping us aware of this Mr. Bryan.
We shall see if the tricksters can persuade yet another judge or whether reason will prevail and the records will be released.
These are clearly public records IMO.
Response to — Ed Note: This comment was edited. Please read the commenting rules, Michael. –99 Tuesday November 13, 2007, 8:11 pm POST by Runner: Unchecked contract programmers write BALLOT SOFTWARE – The software most likely to steal elections… — http://www.care2.com/news/membe...1933861/540818
I assume you think I plagiarized from the article by ‘runner’ from the care2.com link you posted. In fact, this is my original work. If you look carefully at the link you reference, you will see that someone named Ron Goodman copied it, without full source attribution, to ‘care2.com.’ This was copied from a opednews comment I made on opednews.com where I my userid/pseudonym is runner. I often find my work copied to other sites by others. This is the first time I’ve been accused of plagiarizing my own original work via such such copy propagations. I often reuse this, my original, text in comments as it is critical that we all understand that our ballots are, in fact, prepared and counted by hidden and unchecked programmers!
Is there a problem with my reuse of my own original material?
Michael Dean a.k.a. Runner
P.S. Here is the top of my opednews comments list:
Michael Dean Comments
26 comments
On Article “Unauthorized vote alterations on Texas iVotronic voting mach”
DecisionOne ES&S partner in 1,700 jurisdictions in 34 states
by runner (9 articles, 26 comments) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 7:23:59 PM
On Article “Unauthorized vote alterations on Texas iVotronic voting mach”
Unchecked contract programmers write BALLOT SOFTWARE
by runner (9 articles, 26 comments) on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 8:00:41 PM
On Article “The Republican Party is Imploding”
Only liberalism can repair our national purpose
by runner (9 articles, 26 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 9:53:03 PM
No. I didn’t think you plagiarized. I thought you cut and pasted a long passage when you could have linked to it.
I understand you are just attempting to police the posts here, but your comment #11 reply that “I thought you cut and pasted a long passage when you could have linked to it†to my comment #10 questioning of your edits to my comment #8 does increase my concern.
In my comment #8 you deleted my original text and replace it with a care2.com link, a site that copies (cut and paste) opednews.com material, (some of it being my original opednews content) without attribution to opednews, in a deliberate attempt to make the content look as care2.com original content.
You were clearly notified in my comment#10 that care2.com copied opednews original content without attribution!
1. If bradblog has a policy against such cut and paste copies without attribution why do you actively edit a bradblog post to add a links to a site that clearly makes such inappropriate and unattributed copies?
2. Why did you not correct your edit to comment #8 when I notified you that your care2.com link has such inappropriate and unattributed copies opednews material?
3. In so editing my bradblog post you have associated my name with a site that copies from opednews without attribution – that association is not appreciated!
4. I will notify opednews publisher Rob Kall and Brad Friedman that care2.com is making such copies from opednews without attribution, that a bradblog editor has redirected a comment to care2.com, and that bradblog editor did not correct his edit linking to care2.com when notified the site contains copies of opednews material, that is made to look as care2.com original content, with no opednews attribution.
Again, to your reply that “I thought you cut and pasted a long passage when you could have linked to it†– replacing my text with a link to long base article with several attached comments to have the reader find my specific comment text given under that opednews article, rather than just letting the reader read the text in the bradblog comment seems like you are making the reader work hard just to save a few computer bits……
It never ceases to amaze me how aggressive people get when anyone dares tamper with stuff they have posted. Why didn’t you just link the OpEdNews thing then? I didn’t go looking at every link. You’re certainly making up for any bits you or I might have saved Brad to begin with.
Your “original” comment was so well-written I naturally felt it came under the heading of rule number three….
My problem is:
First, that Ron Goodman at care2.com cut my (Michael Dean / opednews.com userid runner) original work from opednews and pasted it to care2.com, without the attribution that it was cut from opednews, and made it look as an original care2.com comment posting.
Second, you deleted my comment text written under my name here on bradblog and replace it with a link to the care2.com site where my original opednews comment was plagiarized without attribution to opednews.
Third, When I notified you that my opednews comment was plagiarized without attribution and gave you the proper link to opednews in comment #12 you did not correct your link edit to my comment #8, rather, you just gave me flippant “I thought you cut and pasted a long passage when you could have linked to it.”
If you are an editor here, can you not understand my issue with – 1)someone making a plagiarized cut-and-paste copy of my opednews material, 2)proper attribution of copied material, 3)your part in supporting plagiarism by replacing my text written here at bradblog under my name with the care2 plagiarized link, and finally 4)your lack of action to correct your original edit to my bradblog post – is a literary injury to opednews and myself?
My issue is not that “anyone dares tamper with stuff they have posted” – my issue is that as an editor you have a responsibility to make sure that your editorial changes improve information value and protect original authorship. Your error here is not that enforced rule#3 – your error is you deleted my text written here on bradblog under my name and replaced it with a link to a webpage where my original work written elsewhere has been plagiarized – and then you give flip replies when I notify you of such.
Please just go back to comment#8 and properly correct your edit where you added the link to care2.com and instead make the link to ‘OPEDNEWS.COM Article “Unauthorized vote alterations on Texas iVotronic voting mach” following COMMENT POST “Unchecked contract programmers write BALLOT SOFTWARE” by runner Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 8:00:41 PM at URL – http://www.opednews.com/article...ed_vote_al.htm as I notified you in comment #10.