April 4, 2006
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BOARD OF SUPEftVlSORS 200~Ej,n 2~~p 2: 1 q March 22, 2006 Dear & &+d w In light of the lawsuit just filed (see attached) against the purchase and use of Diebold touchscreen DREs (Direct Record Electronic) in the state of California, I am counting on you to find alternative systems for use in this year's elections. The Diebold touchscreen DREs were already decertified once on ample evidence in 2004, and the stack of evidence against their use has only grown since that time. It would be irresponsible for your county to commit taxpayer dollars and citizen votes to these failing machines under such uncertain conditions. The Secretary of State made it clear in his conditional certification of the Diebold TSX that he is passing responsibility off to the counties, and to the vendors. In lay terms, our Secretary of State is leaving you "holding the bag." Please choose another option that voters can actually trust, the disability community can access, and taxpayers can stomach. As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the irresponsible cost to counties that these touchscreen DREs represent. According to one seasoned Election Chief in Florida, Ion Sancho, it will cost him $1.8 million to adequately serve his county on paper ballots optically scanned, in combination with a ballot-marking device to meet the disability access requirements of the Help America Vote Act. To provide the same voter capacity for his county using touchscreen DREs, Mr. Sancho would have to spend $5 million. This may make sense to the vendors, but it certainly doesn't make sense to our a1reab.y strapped county budgets. According to Republican Governor Ehrlich of Maryland, Diebold touchscreen maintenance costs have spiraled 1000% higher than estimated. With new and more devastating facts coming out about Diebold daily, I ask that you make a common sense commitment to a moratorium on touchscreen DREs, to a moratorium on Diebold; and that you make a commitment to precinct level paper ballots optically scanned with audits yourself. ANNOUNCEMENT MARCH 21,2006 Dolores Huerta Joins California Voters Filing Suit to Halt Use or Purchase of Diebold Electronic Voting Systems in the State Who: Lowell Finley, Esq., Counsel for voter plaintiffs, Co-director of Voter Action, and expert on election law, election privatization, and electronic voting machine issues John Eichhorst, Esq., Co-counsel, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin Holly Jacobson, Co-director, Voter Action Dolores Huerta, Plaintiff, and social activist, co-founder, United Farm Workers Bernice Kandarian, Plaintiff, and President of the Council of Citizens with Low Vision International Voter Action is a not -for-profit organization dedicated to providing legal, research and logistical support for grassroots efforts to ensure the integrity of elections by guaranteeing that every citizen's vote is recorded and counted as intended. Voter Action led successful litigation in New Mexico to block purchase and use of the types of voting machines that are most prone to error and most vulnerable to tampering, and is now supporting similar efforts in numerous states across the country. What: Attorneys Lowell Finley and John Eichhorst, on behalf of more than 20 California voters including Dolores Huerta and Bernice Kandarian, filed a legal action against California's Secretary of State and county elections officials on Tuesday, March 21, in the Superior Court of the State of California, aimed at halting the use or purchase of Diebold electronic voting systems. Why: Diebold's TSx touch screen voting system is a severe security risk, and does not accommodate all disabled voters as required by.law. The Diebold system is difficult if not impossible to audit or recount, and has been proven vulnerable to malicious tampering in tests and studies. Diebold technology contains "interpreted" code, which.is easily hacked, and illegal for voting systems in the State of California. How: Review legal filing documents at www.VoterAction.org .