Saturday, December 8, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Is Arizona's Secretary of State Feigning Ignorance Over Terry Goddard's RTA Investigation?


J.T. Waldron

Arizona's Secretary of State's office has issued a surprising answer to Supervisor Ramon Valadez's request for ballot scanning.  Contrary to what has been publicly revealed and analyzed in Arizona Attorney General's public recount of the 2006 RTA election, Arizona's Secretary of State's office issued a memo citing the "accuracy" of Goddard's recount as a reason to forego graphic scanning of ballots.

The key quote in the document is as follows:

"The Secretary of State's office has viewed the idea of ballot scanning as a way to further audit our elections process. However, recent events (the Prop. 112 recount, Attorney General Goddard's evaluation of the RTA election, and the 2012 hand count results) have once again demonstrated that our election machines are incredibly accurate and reliable. Therefore, at this time, I don't believe that it is prudent to spend resources on creating an audit for a process that is already audited."

Perhaps they aren't aware of the chimpanzee hacking the very same GEM's elections system, but we do know that it's incredibly naive to suggest that the need for election audits could only be defined by the potential accuracy and reliability of the machines - not the people running the machines.

So why would the Secretary of State choose to mislead the public with a letter alluding to "accuracy" in Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard's RTA investigation?

It was Goddard's ill-faited recount of the 2006 RTA election that became part of the legal argument for prospective relief in rigged elections which won an appellate court decision in 2010.   

There were so many problems with Terry Goddard's investigation that election integrity groups AUDITAZ and Voters Unite! issued a twelve page report outlining significant discrepancies between the County's canvass and Goddard's hand count. By what measure does the Secretary of State cite Goddard's hand count as sufficiently accurate to forego meaningful audits? We know that federal guidelines require accuracy within a tolerance of 1 in 500,000. Goddard's recount had:
159 precincts missing 1,541 ballots
126 precincts that had 389 ballots too many
1,152 total ballots missing.
Goddard proclaimed in his press conference that they did such a good job, they found 63 additional ballots. Evidently, this was supposed to distract the public from the fact their count was missing four precinct's worth of ballots.

Goddard's investigation was so bad it garnered national attention on the Mike Malloy show once it was discovered that over a third of the poll tapes (that Goddard refused to inspect) were missing.

The missing poll tapes strongly correspond with electronic records of the RTA election showing memory card re-uploads characteristic of an attempt to pre-program memory cards.

From the perspective of a statistical analysis, one only has to consider the odds for the same precincts experiencing the same re-upload errors correlating to the same missing poll tapes.

Goddard had also refused to perform a forensic exam of the ballots, despite a previous move by the county to compromise court evidence. On the day of his press conference, Goddard acknowledged to the public on the John C. Scott show that he was aware of Pima County violating a court order by compromising evidence in the county vault.

Adding to the need for a forensic exam, court testimony indicated that no adequate protection of the stored RTA ballots took place until a court order was issued in 2011.

Attorney General Terry Goddard clearly moved beyond what is considered 'executive discretion' and served in some capacity to ensure Pima County's right to commit election fraud.

When the Secretary of State's office cites Goddard's work as cause to forego graphic scans as a safeguard against election fraud, they are placing themselves in the same camp, especially when Pima County is now the main obstacle to a forensic exam of the RTA ballots.

John Moffatt's name is all over the I-Beta report.
Moffatt represents the suspect in this investigation.
Terry Goddard's investigation into the RTA election showed early signs of compromise as the suspects in the investigation (Pima County) were given the opportunity to shape the investigation. This took place through Pima County employee John Moffatt, who was afforded the opportunity to make himself an inextricable part of the report created by the independent data firm, I-Beta. Moffatt was also named in the I-Beta report providing many ineffectual tests that were certain to be meaningless in the first half of Goddard's investigation. Since Goddard stated in public that he was aware of Moffatt being caught with his hand in the 'evidence cookie jar',the decision to include Moffatt in this process demonstrates highly questionable judgment. By this time, it was clear that John Moffatt, who works directly under Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, was responsible for the convoluted logic that ultimately cost Pima County over one million dollars in legal fees resisting disclosure of public records.

Goddard continued coddling the suspects as he refused to provide the results of the I-Beta report to those who filed the initial complaint, but let the suspect (Pima County) receive a copy and subsequently instructed the suspect not to provide a copy to those who filed the initial complaint.

These conflicts of interest were so widely publicized it would be difficult for the Secretary of State's office to make a credible claim of ignorance.

The Secretary of State's office should direct its attention to the money being wasted by Pima County as they use every legal measure permissible to stave off a forensic exam of the RTA ballots.

Pima County's Superior court judges have been ruling in defiance of the 2010 appellate court decision granting jurisdiction for prospective relief in rigged elections.

Before any court orders affecting election procedures are issued, the hearing for prospective relief needs to complete the fundamental tasks ignored by Attorney General Terry Goddard. The court must allow for the actual audit of the ballots (comparing, for the first time, one set of numbers to another set of numbers) and a forensic examination of the ballots. In fact, if the audit and forensic exam do not turn up evidence of foul play, the court does not have sufficient cause to issue orders for prospective relief. That outcome would end the case.

So why is Pima County the primary obstacle to this investigation?

All local media outlets fail to articulate this inescapably simple resolution that Pima County avoids. Everyone endowed with basic cognitive skills is left with the uncomfortable realization that Pima County has been caught cheating and they are staving off the inevitable with taxpayer's dollars.

If the Secretary of State's office is so confident in Terry Goddard's investigation of the 2006 RTA Ballots, they should encourage Pima County to stop wasting taxpayers dollars and to stop obstructing the appellate court ruling for prospective relief.  That way, the Secretary of State's office could demonstrate leadership in state elections instead of what appears to be an elections 'circle jerk'.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Supervisors Accept County Shenanigans, Reject a Proper Audit


J.T. Waldron

The Pima County Board of Supervisors refused to conduct a proper hand-count audit of the 2012 general election ballots. This decision was made despite seasoned statisticians and computer experts in its own Election Integrity Commission indicating that the county's elections are not verifiable in their current state.

The primary reason? Timing. Pima County's use of this rationale is ironic because it appears that the county was in complete control its timing. As EIC member Mickey Duniho states in reference to Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry:

"Mr. Huckelberry unilaterally postponed the recommendation without consulting or informing the Election Integrity Commission. This violated the Commission’s right to advise the Board of Supervisors without interference, and it also violated basic rules of courtesy."

This postponement plays a role in solidifying the board's argument that 'it's too late'.

Huckelberry's recent memo, which is rife with distortions and errors, states that it's impossible to do a hand count audit. Such hyperbole was thoroughly eviscerated by Mickey Duniho's point by point response to the erroneous memo. Duniho provided his rebuttal in writing to each member of the board of supervisors.

"Your elections are being run by a sociopath," said EIC member Jim March. Elections Director Brad Nelson was held under a burning magnifying glass in the most recent Board of Supervisors meeting as March leveled a series of new charges against Nelson. First, March states that Nelson had his county-issued credit card yanked for fraud, yet he still keeps his job.

Other charges had to do with Nelson's management style with his employers. According to March, employees are willing to recall how they were retained because it was easy for Nelson to "make them cry" and "that's something he needed to do on occasion". Finally, March accused Nelson of breaking the law as he states that Nelson would ask temporary staff and poll workers to switch their party allegiance so that he can continue to retain these employees for future tasks.

Jim March's history of careful, meticulous analysis  before calling any one person's reputation into question adds significant weight to these charges.  We can only hope that an independent investigation into Brad Nelson's activities will take place. 

The only Supervisor concerned about having verifiable elections for this elections cycle was Ray Carroll, a Republican who has consistently moved to transcend party affiliation and improve transparency.

Arizona solidifies its national reputation as the 'meth lab of democracy' because those who can intervene refuse to make direct, immediate, substantive changes to the elections process.



Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Pima County Issues Memo with Numerous Factual Errors


Memo King
Chuck Huckelberry
Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry's primary PR activity occurs through the construction of memo's addressed to various department heads within his own purview.  These memos, of course, wind up in the hands of specific local press outlets.  Local  outlets provide nice fluff pieces favoring Pima County in exchange for continued access and future reservations at Pima's own PR staff's trough after ad sales for these less than substantive reports hit the dumpster.

In his latest offering, Huckelberry seems to have outdone himself with the number of distortions, omissions, and factual errors.  This latest memo is part of an exchange with the public as it learns about Pima County's efforts to circumvent its own Election Integrity Commission to obtain a waiver from sorting early ballots by precinct.   The following is retired NSA analyst Mickey Duniho's correction of factual errors in Huckelberry's memo:

(1)  Mr. Huckelberry stated that “one member” of the Pima County Election Integrity Commission “has championed the concept of sorting early ballots by precinct,” implying that only one member of the Commission really cares about such matters. He omitted the fact that the October 26 EIC recommendation was approved by a 7-0 vote of the EIC members.

(2)  In describing 300-400 staff hours to sort early ballots as an impossible task, Mr. Huckelberry omitted the fact that 300-400 hours of work by a dozen people could be accomplished in three days, and that the cost of 300-400 hours of work would be on the order of $2,000-$3,000. Mr. Huckelberry’s estimate of time required to sort the ballots also omitted any reference to F. Ann Rodriguez’s offer to provide lists of precincts represented in the various batches, which would enable workers to extract ballots for a few precincts rather than sort all precincts. After extracting ballots for the chosen precincts from a batch, workers could move on to the next batch of ballots. This could shorten the time and reduce the effort required to select a small number of precincts for hand counting. With Ms. Rodriguez’s assistance, the time required might be only two days, since the three-day estimate is based on sorting all 288 precincts instead of just selecting a few precincts for the audit.

(3)  Mr. Huckelberry’s estimate of $256,137 for hiring Runbeck to sort the ballots is factually incorrect. First, he based his estimate on 261,364 ballots, the total number of early ballots received at the time he wrote his memo; the EIC recommendation only referred to less than 200,000 early ballots received and processed by Election Day. Second, Runbeck’s price of $.98 per ballot is 100 times what it should be; it would make no sense for Pima County to pay Runbeck $200,000 to do a job that can be done in-house for $2,000. For $200,000, Pima County could buy several sorting machines.

(4)  Mr. Huckelberry’s estimate of $300,000-$500,000 to buy a sorting machine is a multiple at least five times too high. I asked Pitney Bowes about an earlier estimate of $125,000 given out by John Moffatt and was told that Pima County could buy a top-of-the-line Pitney Bowes sorting machine for “significantly less” than $125,000. The person I talked with, at Pitney Bowes Sales Headquarters, said the cost would depend on which features were included but that the cost would be on the order of $65,000.

(5)  Mr. Huckelberry’s distinction of sorting ballots in the envelopes versus out of the envelopes is incorrect. The sorter can handle ballots either way with equal ease.

(6)  Mr. Huckelberry disputed my report last week that the EIC members were not informed of the postponement of our proposal on the BOS agenda. He stated that we were notified on Nov 9. In fact, the EIC was informed only after we demanded an explanation of why the agenda published on Nov 8 did not contain the EIC recommendation. Mr. Huckelberry unilaterally postponed the recommendation without consulting or informing the Election Integrity Commission. This violated the Commission’s right to advise the Board of Supervisors without interference, and it also violated basic rules of courtesy.

(7)  Mr. Huckelberry’s statement that sorting early ballots is “impossible” is incorrect. The task is not impossible, merely tedious to do by hand. Mr. Huckelberry gave six reasons (the second two were actually the same reason, restated in different words) for avoiding the sorting of early ballots. None of these reasons is actually a valid argument for rejecting the EIC recommendation.

a.     The first reason: The fact that Pima County had already counted 100,000 ballots when the EIC made its recommendation is true but logically irrelevant to the current discussion.

b.    Reasons two and three: The risk of handling ballots in the face of a possible recount is listed as a reason for not sorting ballots but is logically erroneous. At this point, we are reasonably certain there will be no recounts and no legal challenges. In any case, an accusation of mishandling ballots would not be allayed by the County claiming that it did not touch the ballots while in its custody. A charge could easily be made that County election personnel manipulated the ballots while they were “in storage.” Sorting the ballots and performing a hand count audit by precinct is the only way to positively demonstrate that the ballots were counted honestly and that no manipulation of votes took place while the ballots were in Election Department custody.

c.     Reason four: That the audit should take place between the Hand Count Audit and the Canvass is true but logically irrelevant to your decision unless your decision is delayed until the date of your approving the Canvass, which it appears has been Mr. Huckelberry’s strategy all along.

d.    Reason five: The difficulties encountered by counters in the Hand Count Audit are well-known but not logically relevant to this discussion; they are manageable problems.

e.     Reason six: The difficulties of extracting early ballots for a precinct-based audit are real but manageable, and were considered manageable by the Election Integrity Commission before its recommendation was submitted to you.

(8)  In describing the sequence of events leading up to Pima County’s obtaining a waiver from the state requirement to sort early ballots by precinct, Mr. Huckelberry omitted the fact that Brad Nelson neither consulted nor even informed the EIC of the requirement or the waiver. In addition, Mr. Nelson’s arguments in his letter to the state that sorting is impractical are factually erroneous. Mr. Nelson claimed he could do a better hand count audit by not sorting the ballots but, in fact, the early ballot audit as currently performed is worthless in terms of confirming a lack of fraud in vote counting. It is also noteworthy that the Secretary of State’s Elections Director granted the waiver BEFORE Mr. Nelson wrote his justification letter, suggesting an improper sequence of events.

(9)  Mr. Huckelberry cited a successful hand count audit as proof that no further audit is needed, another distortion of fact. He touted the fact that Pima County counts four percent of polling place ballots; he omitted the fact that polling place ballots in this election made up only 27% of all the ballots cast; 70% of voters cast early ballots, and therefore a proper hand count audit of early ballots is needed to confirm the integrity of the overall election. Mr. Huckelberry also omitted the irrelevance of the current early ballot hand count audit to confirming a lack of fraud. [I might point out that the law requires an audit of 1% of all the early ballots issued (1% of 261,545 ballots would be 2,615 ballots) but Pima County only hand counted 1,985 early ballots. Not that it makes any difference, since the current early ballot hand count audit is useless for confirming an election’s honesty.]

(10)             In his concluding recommendation:

a.     Mr. Huckelberry said the election tabulation “is expected to continue for another 4 to 7 days.” In fact, processing of the ballots which your EIC recommended sorting and hand counting was completed by Election Day.

b.    Mr. Huckelberry referred to the physical impossibility of accurately selecting, sorting into precincts and auditing nearly 200,000 early ballots. In fact, the EIC’s recommendation could be satisfied by selecting and auditing approximately 2,000 ballots.

c.     Mr. Huckelberry reiterated the “risk of handling ballots when faced with possible recounts.” In fact, it appears there will be no recounts, and Pima County would be in a better position to defend itself against charges of malfeasance if it adopted a more transparent policy, following the state requirement to sort early ballots and audit by precinct instead of secretly obtaining a waiver from the state requirement.

d.    Mr. Huckelberry claimed the positive outcome of the present hand counts as a reason to not adopt the EIC recommendation, but the EIC took that into account when it made the recommendation. The present early ballot audit is worthless in terms of certifying the election’s integrity.

How does a community allow an institution like Pima County's government to display such arrogance with so many lies to the representatives?

Just to give you an idea of how absurdly simple it is to build a system that is far more verifiable than what we currently have, here is the ballot scanning presentation produced by CBS Miami:



Friday, November 16, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: Mickey Duniho and Jim March Report Election Shenanigans to Pima County's Board of Supervisors




 County Board of Supervisors Comment for 11-13-2012

I have not spoken in this forum since I was appointed to your Election Integrity Commission four years ago. A sequence of events has brought me here today.

* * * * * * * *

The first event: In November 2011 the state added new election requirements, including one that counties must sort early ballots by precincts for the hand count audit. John Moffatt was involved, and reported to your commission on changes proposed and made – but did not report this new requirement to your commission.

The second event: In June and July 2012, Brad Nelson applied for and received a waiver from this requirement. Mr. Nelson neither consulted nor informed your commission of this action.

The third event: On October 26, with statistical evidence suggesting potential fraud nationally in computerized vote counting, an emergency meeting of your Election Integrity Commission unanimously approved a recommendation for today’s meeting that you order the sorting of early ballots and a precinct-based hand count audit to confirm the honesty of Pima County elections.

The fourth event: In response to a lawsuit the County included copies of two letters which revealed the existence of the new early ballot sorting requirement and Mr. Nelson’s successful request for a waiver of that requirement.

The fifth event: Without informing or consulting your Election Integrity Commission, your staff postponed your consideration of our recommendation to November 20.

The sixth event: In response to a query about why your Commission’s recommendation was missing from the November 13th agenda, Mr. Moffatt attributed the delay to ballot counting and possible recounts and challenges. The reasons given are clearly not relevant to delaying your consideration of our recommendation, and serve only to tighten the time frame in which to organize people to implement a precinct-based hand count audit before the ballots are moved to the Treasurer’s vault.

This sequence of events raises the question whether there is genuine importance or credence given to election integrity in our county. Your staff has been disrespectful to your Election Integrity Commission and by implication insubordinate to you.

The question now is whether you will take any action to address these acts of disrespect to you and the Election Integrity Commission you created four years ago, after listening to two years of public concern about the conduct of elections in Pima County, and after Pima County lost, at great taxpayer expense, a lawsuit having to do with election transparency.

If there is no election fraud to mask, there is no reason for Pima County’s continued tolerance of the obvious anti-transparency efforts demonstrated by your staff.

Thank you for your attention.

Michael A. Duniho

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Did Expert Witness, Activists Thwart a Rove Ohio Vote Plot?


Michael DunihoA software expert’s testimony last week may have thwarted a plot to flip enough votes to secure a victory for GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Building on years of efforts by activists, election software critic Michael Duniho testified in Ohio's state court that secret software installed on Ohio machines could enable officials to flip enough votes to select a different statewide winner that the one chosen by voters. 

Duniho, a retired National Security Agency analyst, is shown at right in similar testimony in Arizona, where he is a local elections official. 

Jon HustedDuniho provided his explosive testimony first via telephone to a federal judge in a temporary restraining order hearing in the morning, and then to Franklin County Judge Mark Serrott to amplify his written affidavit, published here. The testimony supported an injunction request by election machine critics who have argued for years -- with scant previous success in courts and in the media -- that election machine software tampering has enabled theft of major elections, and thus poses a grave danger to the democratic process.

On Election Day 2012, their litigation and testimony raised the issue to unprecedented prominence. The litigation against state officials would have put any plotters on notice of serious threat of investigation and retribution. 

The contrary view is that no plot ever existed -- and that Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, shown at left, and fellow Republicans are being falsely suspected of bad intentions. Husted has denied misconduct in court filings. I reached out to him also for more specific questions, and shall update this post with any comment he or his staff provide. The Ohio Secretary of State's website contains background information.

This column reports Duniho’s testimony, and summarizes other evidence that election software poses a threat to fair elections. Reported also are: an Oct. 24 news conference announcing a chart alleging a Rove-linked “empire” of vote theft; a half dozen recent books on electronic election fraud; and a survey of a decade of major scandals, books, and articles.
The documentation draws on my previous columns, my research for a forthcoming book, Presidential Puppetry, and my ongoing interactions with research sources, several of whom asked my advice concerning their recent  news announcements in Washington. I suggested they announce litigation before Election Day because the public tunes out complaints from losers.

Update: I am scheduled to appear Nov. 12 on vote theft-critic Harvey Wasserman's 3 p.m. (EST) radio show on the Progressive Radio Network to discuss next steps with him and his fellow pioneer in the election integrity movement, Robert Fitrakis, a 2012 Green Party Congressional candidate. Fitrakis, based in Columbus, is a professor, attorney, website editor, and co-author of several books with Wasserman. Fitrakis filed the suit alleging electronic voting theft in Ohio’s 2004 presidential election and elsewhere.

Theirs and my multiple roles are increasingly typical in modern communications. Many news makers blog and broadcast these days, thereby blurring the lines between being a news source and part of the media. 

An even greater departure from past categories is that Karl Rove covered the Democratic National Convention September on a press pass. This was while he was also in the process of spending an estimated $300 million to help Republican candidates via his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS funds. Also, he was allegedly scheming to steal elections via software fraud and voter suppression. Rove, like Husted, denies wrongdoing, and failed to respond to my request for comment on specifics. Whatever the facts on election fraud, Rove clearly is part of the Washington punditry elite delivering news to the nation.

The Duniho Testimony

 
Michael “Mickey” Duniho is a volunteer election official in Pima County, Arizona. He became prominent this fall among electronic voting machine critics because of his videotape testimony in an Arizona case arguing that dishonest officials can easily steal votes electronically. The photo above portrays that testimony, not his remarks by telephone in the Ohio litigation Nov. 6.

Duniho worked nearly four decades as a National Security Agency computer expert before his retirement. NSA is far larger and more secretive than the better-known CIA. It has vast information gathering and storage capabilities reported, among other places, in a series of authoritative books by former NSA staffer James Bamford.

Duniho claimed that the United States faced the threat of vote theft in Ohio because Husted, Ohio's secretary of state, had secretly installed software on voting machines covering 80 percent of the state’s population for no apparent legitimate purpose. The witness said the software could enable vote theft by officials, and no actual “emergency” required its installation throughout Ohio in violation of a state law requiring testing before installation. Also, Duniho said the voting machine company, Electronic Systems and Solutions (ES&S), appeared to be cheating the state on the cost of the software.

Clifford Arnebeck
Husted’s legal team rebutted Duniho’s affidavit and testimony. The presiding state court judge failed to issue the injunction requested by the plaintiff.

A whistleblower in Husted’s office prompted the litigation by telling the Fitrakis team Thursday that the state secretly installed the controversial software in September. The Fitrakis suit was one of several he filed in state and federal courts last week with the cooperation of Columbus attorney Clifford Arnebeck, at left.

The litigation failed to attract much news coverage from major news outlets. Historically, reporters ignore allegations of electronic vote fraud as, in general, too complex and controversial. NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd sent a Tweet this fall claiming election machine fraud is a “conspiracy theory” unworthy of coverage. 


Similarly, the New York Times published on Nov. 8 what can only be described as a biased, mocking profile of Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor and author who has documented election fraud. The Times article was A Long Day for a Professor Suspicious of Voting Machines. In contrast to the snide approach by the Times reporter, a YouTube video garnered more than 80,000 views with its more straightforward interview, visible here: None Dare Call It Stolen: US Election Fraud in 2012?
Despite such handicaps, the litigation last week doubtless reminded elections decision-makers that civil and perhaps criminal investigation could await them if dubious election results occurred. A reporter such as NBC's Chuck Todd can ignore a story. A defendant must respond in court, sometimes by sworn testimony that could potentially escalate into a criminal investigation that trumps secrecy provisions in official contracts with private vote tabulation companies.

The Secretary of State's Role?
Several voting theft opponents allied with Fitrakis and Arnebeck helped publicize the Ohio-litigation with a news conference Nov. 5 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Speakers included Clint Curtis, a Florida IT consultant who helped pioneering whistle blowing in the field by alleging that a Florida congressman asked  him to help defraud voters in the 2000 election. Also speaking were Harvey Wasserman, a frequent co-author with Fitrakis of books and articles on the topic, and Lori Grace, who has helped provide funding for such research. The activist group Protect Our Elections created a video of the speakers.

Several days previously, Ben Swann, a television-consumer reporter based in Cincinnati for Fox News affiliate WXIX-TV, published an investigative report describing how electronic vote thievery can occur. Swann’s video was widely circulated until YouTube removed it for violating terms of service. Election theft critics hope that such news reports encourage the FBI to demand records and interview all those involved. 


Their view is that massive elections fraud can be accomplished by very few conspirators so long as the operators are sufficiently expert and corrupt.


Alleged Rove Electronic Vote Fraud 'Empire'
On Oct. 24, I  co-moderated with Arnebeck a news conference at the National Press Club. Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson and IT consultant Jim Marsh unveiled a new chart that they described as “Roadmap to Karl Rove’s Empire of Election Fraud.”

The chart is displayed at right, here on a downloadable link, and in larger size below. The relationship chart diagrams voting machine companies, and their ownership (including by Romney and Bush family backers).  Also, it asserts that a national training network runs a significant part of the nation’s back-office election operations through private companies hired by partisan officials who conduct operations in secret because the voting companies use proprietary software immune from outside scrutiny. 


Simpson, Marsh, and Arnebeck also announced formation of a new organization, Election Protection Action. This is one of several small civic groups across the country that have developed election fraud research for years, primarily in obscurity. 

Simpson has said she formerly worked with Rove and his allies on campaign opposition research that inevitably led, by her account, to campaign dirty tricks that soured her on the Republican Party. Among her allegations is that SmarTech, a Chattanooga IT consultancy, has played major role helping Republicans control elections, government websites, and government email  traffic both through the United States and globally.

Alabama Test Run For Election Theft?


Now a progressive, Simpson says that when she was a Republican volunteer opposition researcher she visited SmarTech in the days it was handling vast volumes of sensitive political traffic. Also, she has been reported to be knowledgeable on certain circumstances of one of the nation’s most notorious election software mysteries, the late-night switch of nearly 7,000 votes in rural Baldwin County that flipped Democratic Governor Don Siegelman’s reported re-election victory in 2002.
Speaking also at the Oct. 24 news conference was Siegelman's daughter, Dana, 27. She said the family went to bed on Election Night in 2002 believing news reports that her father had won re-election, but awoke to learn that votes had been shifted electronically in Baldwin County for never-disclosed reasons. She said that Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor, a Republican since elevated to the federal appeals court, threatened to arrest anyone who tried to investigate the vote-change. 

Therefore, she said, there was nothing her father could do except try to run again for governor in 2006. However, the Bush administration indicted him on corruption charges in 2004. When that case fell apart, they indicted him against before a different judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who was able to help prosecutors secure corruption convictions by making many pro-prosecution rulings that have puzzled legal experts for years but have been affirmed by appeals courts, including Pryor's. The convictions were primarily for Siegelman's reappointment to a state board in 1999 of a Republican who had donated to a non-profit that Siegelman supported.

In 2007, Simpson broke with the Republican Party to swear that she was aware of a Republican plot for years to prevent Siegelman from running for re-election in 2006 by framing him on corruption charges with the help of “Karl” {whom  she identifies as most likely Karl Rove] and Fuller, whom she swore was picked to preside over Siegelman as judge because the judge "hated" the defendant and wanted to "hang" him.


Nonetheless, Fuller has remained on the case, and in August ordered Siegelman, now 67, to resume a seven-year sentence. Don and Dana SiegelmanDana Siegelman, at left with her father before his reimprisonment, is leading a nationwide petition drive to persuade President Obama to pardon her father. The petition is here.
 
She said it has been signed by 34,000 people so far, including an unprecedented group of 112 former state attorneys general who separately wrote the Supreme Court that Siegelman's actions did not constitute a crime under the law. The Justice Integrity Project has gone beyond that finding and concluded that prosecutors and the trial judge framed Siegelman, thereby creating a notorious political prosecution of global significance. 
The Siegelman prosecution is the kind of result that can occur when vote thieves acquire the power to appoint prosecutors and judges. 

Simpson’s “roadmap” devised with Marsh is so other researchers, including the media and law enforcement personnel, can understand the ownership, operation, and goals of the nation’s vote-tabulation process. The critics allege that the process is increasingly secret and controlled by partisan officials seeking to rig outcomes in selected locales when the stakes are high enough.


Karl Rove
Rove has denounced her as someone who makes incredible allegations. Also, he states that he has never met her. Vanity Fair columnist Craig Unger examined her allegations, SmarTech's responses and , and Rove’s denials in his recent book, Boss Rove. Unger found her to be more credible than Rove on the specifics.

I have reached a similar conclusion. Rove has failed to respond to my requests for comment, or an in-depth interview. Furthermore, representatives of the Romney family have denied that family or Bain investments in a voting tabulation company, HIG Capital, which controls Hart InterCivic, has a fraudulent purpose.

Historical Background of Software Fraud

 
Fitrakis, Arnebeck, and Wasserman have alleged election machine fraud for years, including in litigation alleging that the 2004 presidential election was determined by IT fraud. In their  books and unsuccessful lawsuits, they say Ohio’s electoral votes went to President Bush via what they call a “Man in the Middle” strategy whereby IT consultant Michael Connell helped arrange for SmarTech to have access to Ohio’s votes before they were announced to the public. 


Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a GOP partisan, arranged Connell’s consultancy via his company, GovTech, which hosted its operations at SmarTech in Chattanooga. Blackwell denied any improper motive or result. Yet Steve Spoonamore, the top IT employee for 2008 GOP nominee John McCain, testified that the set-up enabled vote-switching without public knowledge. Connell described in a 2008 pretrial deposition the specifics of how he set up vote transfers. Connell died a month later when his airplane crashed. I summarized that history in a 2010 column. An appendix to the column provides hot links to nearly a decade of major books and articles in the field.

The concept of "election fraud" orchestrated via voting machine software is different from "voter fraud," which typically refers to ineligible voters casting ballots. Republicans have enacted many harsh voter suppress laws to restrict voting by largely Democratic groups, as Huffington Post columnist Dan Froomkin noted Nov. 12, Voter ID: The More You Know, The Less You Like It. Some voter fraud does in fact exists, counters Melinda  Pillsbury-Foster, a host of World Truth Radio who formerly had close contacts with prominent conservatives. But, she says, whatever actual problems exist in voter fraud have been grossly magnified by the media to create a false equivalence with the much-greater problem of massive elections fraud.

Summing up
Conventional wisdom is that no plot existed this year, or ever in the past. But we’ll never know for sure unless the relevant operatives and officials are examined under oath. 


Michael Duniho took the process to a new level on Election Day, Nov. 6. Let’s hope that the beginning, not the end, of any questions.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Pima County Judge Refuses Citizen's Request that Pima County Elections Follow the Law


J.T. Waldron

Pima County Judge James E. Marner denied every request by citizens concerned about election integrity in Pima County.  Parroting the previous Pima County judges' claims about the lack of jurisdiction, Marner has paved the way for Pima County to continue subverting efforts to improve election integrity.   Key auditing functions like the simple placement of election returns receipts in election returns envelops (A.R.S. §16-615), incorporating sufficient quantities for hand count audits and the separation of early ballots by precinct will fall outside of any meaningful law enforcement.  One of the main obstacles to improving elections in Pima County is the county's choice to simply adhere to what is legally permissible instead of what truly achieves election transparency.

The appellate court, which looms just above Pima County's insular legal structure, ruled in favor of the court's jurisdiction to intervene when the legislative branch and the executive branch fail to provide an adequate remedy in a constitutional crisis. As Brad Roach stated in his closing arguments in last Thursday's hearing, "To say you don't have the authority because there already been some rules that passed, it fails. It has to fail, because that's what court systems do is make sure state executives and state legislatures follow the state law."

In his analysis, Judge Marner refers to Judge Kyle Bryson's previous ruling over jurisdiction. He attempts to clarify the previous judge's ruling against what the appellate courts ruled:

"Judge Bryson's order does not find that he lacked jurisdiction to hear challenge and, as evidenced by his detailed analysis of the arguments before him, he obviously accepted jurisdiction to hear the contest. However, as indicated below, the nature of the requested relief by the Plaintiff does not raise a question of where this court's jurisdiction ends."

Citizens concerned about rigged elections know that jurisdiction "ends" once elections are truly verifiable and transparent. Local citizens have introduced very finite measures for this outcome.

The only hope for citizens to restore the integrity of elections within the system is to once again appeal to a higher legal authority. The previous case heard by Judge Kyle Bryson is currently back in the appeals court and will be one of few options for straightening out elections within Pima County.

Closing arguments in last Thursday's hearing (Pardon the dirty tape heads):






Various figures of Pima County's legal establishment helping the county preserve their right to cheat in elections. Includes the five judges (Borek, Miller, Marner, Harrington and Bryson) that have juggled the hot potato of election integrity.  Can anybody guess what the green monster represents?



Related:

Pima County Circumvents It's Own Election Integrity Commission to Get a Waiver that Removes Proper Audit of County Election


Arizona Citizens Sue Pima County to Enforce Existing Election Laws

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Pima County Circumvents It's Own Election Integrity Commission to Get a Waiver that Removes Proper Audit of County Elections


J.T. Waldron

A key document has surfaced in a recent lawsuit in Pima County, Arizona, that suggests much more activity affecting the reliability of elections took place in secret meetings with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett. When the 2011 revision of the state elections manual added a sentence requiring presorting of early ballots by precinct, the County secretly went to the Secretary of State and got a waiver, without any disclosure to their own Election Integrity Commission. This activity certainly falls within the purview of the Commission and presorting had been frequently discussed by the Commission.

Although Bennett is familiar with Pima County's Election Integrity Commission, he may or may not be aware that the meetings took place without the knowledge of the other Commission members. Pima County employee John Moffatt and staunch county supporter Benny White were the two members of Pima County's Election Integrity Commission (EIC) that sought changes to the Secretary of State’s Election Procedures manual. One key substantive auditing provision, to sort early ballots by precinct, was removed without the knowledge of the rest of the EIC.

The letter from the Secretary of State, dated June 29th of 2012, acknowledges the request made by Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson to avoid presorting early ballots by precincts and grants an exemption for the upcoming Fall election. At no point was this change mentioned at any of the commission meetings. Retired NSA analyst Mickey Duniho, Computer expert Tom Ryan, and Black Box Voting member Jim March are among the members of Pima County's EIC that strongly recommended presorting the early returns by precinct.

The process for revising the Secretary of State’s Election Procedures manual begun in 2011 when Ken Bennett formed a commission consisting of Pima County employee John Moffatt and Benny White. Although Brad Nelson is the recipient of the exemption, it is unknown whether he participated in that committee. During the time in 2011 when that committee was meeting, John Moffatt and Benny White regularly reported to the Pima County Election Integrity Committee about the changes that were being recommended. At no time did they mention the Secretary of State's intention of requiring presorting of early ballots by precinct. At almost every EIC meeting, however, Mickey Duniho and other members frequently discussed with the board the importance of presorting early ballots by precinct before conducting the hand count audit.

Citizens filed a lawsuit against Pima County and held a hearing earlier this week over presorting early ballots along with other auditing procedures provided by Arizona Statutes. They filed this lawsuit absent any knowledge that this provision was added by the Secretary of State and later exempted at the request of Pima County. Had it not been for the current lawsuit to get Pima County to follow existing election laws, we would have never discovered this activity taking place behind the backs of the rest of the Election Integrity Commission. Such trickery seems to involve far more work and effort than actually negotiating the logistics of presorting early ballots by precinct.

It appears that County Attorney Chris Straub has reported this change and the accompanying waiver to the court in this recent trial. This disclosure is likely required to avoid potential sanctions, even possible disbarment, for withholding information from the court that is pertinent to the case.

Those who knew that the Election Integrity Commission was being circumvented are obviously Benny White and John Moffatt. Brad Nelson and Chuck Huckelberry would also have a difficult time claiming ignorance over withholding information and secretly obtaining a waiver from Ken Bennett to avoid compliance with the new rule. Every EIC meeting has transcripts and are sufficient to show that Moffatt and White were falsely representing what took place with the Secretary of State.

Was Benny White's role in working with the Secretary of State to enhance the impression of the EIC's participation in the revision of the Secretary of State’s Election Procedures manual? Pima County has no doubts over Benny White's loyalty to those currently entrenched in Pima County's bureaucracy. In 2008, he provided false testimony and slandered John Brakey to the Pima County Board of Supervisors when Brakey was falsely arrested while serving as an elections observer (see below). Brakey has so far refrained from suing Pima County over his false arrest, which was requested by Brad Nelson. Despite what we had previously predicted, Benny White indeed testified in the hearing earlier this week. You could see the difficulty in getting a direct answer out of him as he's asked his position over presorting early ballots by precinct.



Discovery of this "runaround" by the county sheds new light on the dynamics of last week's emergency meeting proposed by Mickey Duniho. Here they are spending hours discussing the importance of presorting the early ballots. Benny White left early because he claims to have a conflict of interest with the upcoming court case. Absence makes withholding information a lot easier. Brad Nelson has the easy excuse of being busy during the election season (It's also the excuse Pima County uses for not complying with state election laws). Pima County employee John Moffatt is left to sit through the whole meeting discussing a subject that he knows has been "managed" behind their backs. It's his job.



Here is Benny White lying to the Pima County Board of Supervisors:





With all the scurrying behind the scenes, one has to wonder what part of the election do they plan to alter?

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Former Rep. Ted Downing Recalls Efforts to Exclude Audit of County Races






Pima County has not only fought over the plain meaning of various election and public records laws, it has actively intervened in drafting of election laws.

Specifically, in 2006, former Representative Ted Downing and former Senator Karen Johnson authored SB 1557 in the State legislature to mandate random auditing and hand counting of ballots. Pima County Election Director Brad Nelson told Downing that including county races in the bill would be a "deal breaker". Nelson said that he and the Maricopa County Election Director would oppose the entire bill if the County elections were covered by the mandatory hand count. Because of that threat, SB 1557 was passed into what became A.R.S. §16-602 and County races were not included.

www.facebook.com/teddowning
www.facebook.com/votedowning
http://www.teddowning.com/

Elections Specialist Jim March Testifies About Black Box Vulnerabilities and Election Fraud





Jim March's testimony covers a variety of ways to hack into an electronic elections system. In yesterday's hearing, March also had the opportunity to describe the various indications of fraud that he had discovered in the electronic records from the 2006 two billion dollar bond measure (RTA Election).

Pima County Attorney Daniel Jurkowitz somehow thought is was a good idea to bring up Attorney General Terry Goddard's investigation during his cross examination. This backfires as March responds by reminding the court that Goddard's recount was missing four precincts.

This testimony is key in finally referring to the statistical improbability of having a third of the 368 precincts experience memory card re-uploads followed by the discovery of the corresponding missing poll tapes. After all, experts with DNA analysis provide a statistical probability of there being a match to a suspected murderer. Why does the statistical match not apply here? There is no will to prosecute, of course.

Retired NSA Analyst Mickey Duniho Testifies in Arizona Election Integrity Trial






Mickey Duniho testified in yesterday's election integrity hearing held in Tucson, Arizona.  Duniho is one of thirteen plaintiffs suing Pima County to get them to comply with existing election laws.   He provides an excellent summary of the problems verifying elections counted on electronic voting machines.

Pima County is notorious for fighting measures for election integrity and  have spent millions of taxpayer's dollars to prevent disclosure of public election records. 

The aim of the lawsuit against Pima County is to get the court to:

1. Issue an injunction requiring the Defendants to instruct poll workers to include, in every Official Return Envelope, a copy of the signed “tally lists” or results tape as required by A.R.S. §16-615.

2. Issue an injunction mandating that the Defendants separate the vote by mail ballots by precinct.

3.  Issue and injunction ordering Pima County to conduct sufficient randomly selected hand count audits of the vote by mail ballots, according to the procedure outlined in A.R.S. 16-602.  County races must be included in the audit.

This suit also requests the recovery of legal fees incurred.

A ruling on this case is expected today.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Donna Branch-Gilby Talks About Why She Ran Against Supervisor Sharon Bronson





Arizona:  In light of Pima County Supervisor Sharon Bronson's campaign season shots at Republican rival Tanner Bell over money and politics, the public is slowly starting to learn that the real question should be "Who's your sugar daddy?"


Friday, October 26, 2012

Arizona Citizens' Election Integrity Lawsuit Explained by Attorney Brad Roach and Republican Candidate Bill Beard


From left to right:  Attorney Brad Roach,  John Brakey,
Bill Beard, Chris DeSimone 
KVOA Wakeup Tucson at 7:00 AM Mountain Time on 1030 AM radio

Stay tuned for the final clip containing Pima County shill Benny White refusing to
participate in the Elections Integrity Board's emergency meeting scheduled to discuss former NSA employee Mickey Duniho's analysis of past elections. White mistakenly assumed that the meeting was going to discuss the pending lawsuit requiring Pima County to follow existing election laws. One can assume he is also mistaken in thinking he can be a co-defendant in that case because he ultimately would be acting against significant members within Pima County's Republican Party who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Editor's Note:  I was wrong with that assumption.  Benny White did testify last Thursday and stated that it was not his desire to separate ballots by precincts, despite it's value as an auditing function.  We'll have a post of it shortly.




NSA Analyst Mickey Duniho's presentation to the Pima County's Election Integrity Board will be posted later this evening.

Pima commission to discuss chance of election fraud in larger precincts


Arizona Daily Star
Carli Brosseau

The Pima County Election Integrity Commission is holding a special meeting today to talk about whether one member's statistical analysis of votes in recent elections shows evidence of fraud.

Under the group's bylaws, an emergency meeting can be held if at least five of the nine members call for one.

Michael "Mickey" Duniho
His presentation to the Election Integrity Board
will be posted on The Intercept today.
Mickey Duniho, a retired National Security Agency computer programmer, requested the meeting two days ago after he began plotting cumulative votes by precinct and noticing that outcomes seemed to differ by precinct size.

He was replicating earlier studies done by California researchers Francois Choquette and James Johnson, an aerospace engineer and a financial analyst. The researchers argue that their analysis of the recent Republican primary shows Mitt Romney making strange vote gains in most states' large precincts.

Duniho - formerly a Republican election observer in Maryland, a supporter of Democrat-backed lawsuits against Pima County's Elections Department and now a registered independent - said that his results seem to parallel those of Choquette and Johnson, who tried to account for their findings using demographics.

He is now collecting demographic data by precinct to try to explain his results with other factors, such as whether a precinct is rural or the affluence of the precinct's residents.

Duniho suspects that the patterns he found show a 10 percent flip of votes in favor of the Republican candidate in the 2010 race between Raúl Grijalva and Ruth McClung and the race between Gabrielle Giffords and Jesse Kelly the same year, as well as votes switched to benefit Romney in the Republican primary.

"The problem is figuring out what the statistical evidence does mean," Duniho said. "The computer is a black box. It is very easy for the guy who wrote the program to do just about anything."

At today's meeting, Duniho hopes to persuade the county Elections Department to sort early ballots by precinct before doing the hand-count audit required by law.

He has been advocating for that sorting, as well as for upping the percentage of ballots hand-counted, for about six years, arguing that his method boosts the chances of revealing fraud if it were to occur.

By law, Arizona counties must do a hand-count audit of 1 percent of early ballots and 2 percent of precincts in at least one federal and one state race. Pima County already audits more than required - 4 percent of precinct-cast ballots and 1 percent of early ballots. No local races are audited.

Some of the commission's members have argued strongly against holding the meeting and worry that it could unnecesarily increase fears about the vote count.

Benny White providing false testimony
to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
about John Brakey's arrest while monitoring
elections in the Fall of 2008.
Benny White, a Republican election observer, responded to news of the meeting request with a sharply worded email.

"After reviewing the academic research involved with the links in the message, I conclude that the allegations being made are absolute nonsense," he wrote. "These academics don't take into account the fact that election results are the response by voters to campaigns and candidates. …

"I think there is a greater probability that fluctuations in the electrical voltage of the lines serving the election department have more to do with variations in election results than these alleged anomalies."

The county's technical consultant on election matters, John Moffatt, agrees that the data do not seem to show a vote flip in Pima County, but he does think the California researchers may be on to something with their findings in some other states.

Pima County employee John Moffatt speaks of
"witch hunts" in the past, but is responsible
for the incoherent rationale that required a suit
to obtain electronic public records. 
"It's worth paying attention to, and we took it seriously," he said. "My personal opinion is that it's another witch hunt, but our responsibility is to check this stuff out, not just blow it off."

He adamantly rejects allegations that county elections staff somehow tampered with any results.

The county's elections director, Brad Nelson, will not be at the meeting to approve a change of audit procedures because of family issues, but county workers involved in those processes caution that while it's theoretically possible to make Duniho's suggested change, it would be logistically difficult.

"That's a monumental task," Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez said. "It's kind of late to be changing the procedures in the middle of a major election."

The sorting machine needed to do the job efficiently would cost at least $125,000, said Chris Roads, deputy recorder and registrar of voters.

To do the sorting by hand would likely take two days, Moffatt said.

The window to challenge a vote count after an election in Arizona is five days after the canvass.

Arizona Citizens Sue Pima County to Enforce Existing Election Laws


J.T. Waldron

Attorney Brad Roach represents the plaintiffs in a bid
to enforce existing election laws.
Citizens in Arizona concerned about Pima County voting procedures are part of a lawsuit compelling the county to follow state voting laws before the upcoming general election. A diverse group of plaintiffs registered as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independents are suing Pima County's Board of Supervisors to incorporate tasks specified by Arizona State Law 16-615.  The plaintiffs' stated mission is to restore public oversight to the elections process.  Like the rest of the nation, Arizonans share a growing concern that election computers make elections easy to cheat and impossible to challenge.

Laws in place but not currently followed by Pima County involve having poll workers include in every Official Return Envelope a copy of the signed “tally lists” or results tape.  Although this practice has been ignored or abandoned over time, the procedure is a valuable step in providing a useful auditing tool in the event of a recount or contested election.

In other words, the citizens are asking that the official returns be signed on the back by the poll workers and placed in the clear plastic envelope labelled "Official Returns Envelope" at the end of the night's count.

The recurring theme for any audit is the comparison of one set of numbers to another set of numbers and there are many circumstances that would require the comparison of ballots to the official returns or "poll tapes". To facilitate this process, citizens are also requesting the court issue an injunction mandating that Pima County separate the vote-by-mail ballots by precinct.

Handling of vote-by-mail ballots is another task that the citizens would like to see Pima County perform in compliance with ARS 16-602. To prevent Pima County's continued defiance of the law, plaintiffs are requesting that Pima County conduct sufficient randomly selected hand count audits of the vote-by-mail ballots as outlined in state law.

Attorney Brad Roach is representing the plaintiffs and states in his action: "Pima County has a long and sad history of blocking any attempt to monitor the elections process, verify the integrity of the computer systems, or audit the results."

Roach refers to the two billion dollar Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Election and Pima County's resistance to public oversight and records requests (Pima County Superior Court cases C2007-2073 and C2008-5016).  "This persistent hindering, at every turn, of electors’ and political parties’ attempts to verify election integrity has cost the County hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and resulted in multiple court ordered releases of election information Pima County sought to hide."

This suit also requests the recovery of legal fees incurred.

Partisan politics are fierce on Arizona's Senate floor, but verifiable elections seem to transcend any political differences among the plaintiffs.  Green Party Candidate Dave Croteau, Republican Candidate Bill Beard, Libertarian Elections Specialist Jim March and Paul Hilts, the chair of the Pima County Democratic Party Elections Committee are among the plaintiffs with an interest in the November 5th, 2012 General Election.

Election integrity advocate John Brakey of AUDITAZ adds his take on a familiar theme,  "It's not about right or left, It's about right or wrong - and then when you look further, it's also about greed and corruption." Brakey is also part of the team that patiently waits for Pima County to step aside and allow for an actual audit and forensic exam of those 2006 RTA Election Ballots stored for a court case aimed at further restoring the integrity of elections in Pima County.

To monitor progress and get information for this 2012 elections lawsuit, visit their new facebook page:

Pima County Elections - Trust but Verify at http://facebook.com/pimacountyelections

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Karl Rove's Electronic Empire Of Fraud


Jim March
Jill Simpson

Jill Simpson and Jim March are election integrity researchers who have traveled the country documenting the various elements of Rove's electronic election fraud network, guided by Ms. Simpson's past as a volunteer GOP operative directly under Karl Rove.

Jim March is a specialist in electronic voting systems and one of Bev Harris' supporters at BlackBoxVoting.org.

Together they have produced the first “big picture” outline of what the total election fraud network looks like, at least as connected to Karl Rove (which is most of it).

They are particularly concerned due to the passage of something called the “MOVE Act” in 2009. This new federal law for Military Overseas Voting Enhancement purported to make voting more “efficient” for this surprisingly large class of voters consisting of military, various “contractors” overseas, consulate staff and the usual mix of US business people overseas.

The act specified new federal funds for new systems to support the MOVE Act, which requires that these voters have the option to both register to vote and vote electronically over the Internet. No security provisions were put in – at all. And worst of all, states are not allowed to put in security provisions more strict than the MOVE Act specifies if it slows down the “efficiency goals” of the MOVE Act in any way.

Scytl, an up-and-coming voting system vendor out of Barcelona Spain set up a series of sham US offices but in reality ran these critical functions out of Spain.

To fully implement “MOVE Act” election fraud, data mining companies would be needed to identify which overseas voters to impersonate – we have identified two including one with a notorious past as a cocaine dealer. Political strategists would be needed to identify races and counties to target – we have located those as well. Corruptable county election officials would be a boon to this scheme and we know how that works too.

We will be taking questions and doing a brief intro today at high noon, National Press Club

ElectionProtectionAction.org Press Contact 614-361-9434

The following audio clip contains key excerpts from last Monday's radio broadcast with Jim March,  Jill Simpson, Craig Unger and Mark Crispin Miller. Jim March identifies the MOVE act as containing the likely path for how the upcoming 2012 Presidential race can be rigged through Karl Rove and his operatives. Towards the end of the clip, he lends his expertise about what to specifically watch for this election season.




For larger view, click here.


Friday, October 19, 2012

Arizona Election Fraud: East Side Republicans Club host Democrat Bill Risner on election integrity


Arizona Daily Independent

Republican Lori Oien, head of the East Side Republican Club, invited democrat attorney Bill Risner to discuss election integrity in Pima County. The Election Division, under Brad nelson, has come under scrutiny since the RTA Bond election in 2006.

Oien, a former candidate for Tucson City Council, introduced Risner, Republican Election official Benny White, Democrat Election official Mickey Donohue, and a documentary film crew that has been following her and documenting her life for the past 11 months. She told the multi-partisan group, that she had heard Bill Risner on the radio and because election integrity is “not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a fairness issue,” she invited Risner to address the packed house.

Risner, White, and Donahue presented pending lawsuits, current practices, and continuing concerns. Risner explained that “the problem for people who care about democracy and whether your vote actually counts is that we using computers, and they are computers that are privatized and suing their software, and computers do what they are told.” It is exactly what the Pima County computers were told which is at the heart of the continuing legal battle between Risner and the Pima County government.

Pima County officials exempted County races from hand count audits, and have denied access to the ballots cast in the 2006 election, as well as refusing to use optical scanners in the County’s possession to account for all ballots cast in election subsequent to 2006.

Aside from the concerns about the computers’ accuracy and security is the manner in which early ballots are handled by the County. Currently, early ballots are tabulated over a week before General Election Day, which has triggered speculation in past races that the results were known to political operatives who used that information for unfair political advantage.

White, who is a staunch defender of Pima County’s system, conceded that in the past there was fraud, but he said that there is none now.

“It’s our contention base on facts and past history that by the morning of the 30th of October with approximately 25,000 plus vote counted they will know who’s winning and losing and if they need to HACK or STUFF any county races, they will have 7 days to do it, said John Brakey of Americans United for Democracy Intergrity and Transperency in election Arizona, (AUDIT-AZ).



Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Tom and Terry: Sunday’s comic bonus


Arizona Daily Independent


Tom Horne was found this past week to have violated campaign finance laws.
The public outcry is nearly non-existant.

Both Attorney General Tom Horne and former Attorney General Terry Goddard failed to provide shed light on the RTA election.

Thr public outcry has been nearly nonexistant.

Crickets……

Friday, September 28, 2012

Brief history of Pima County’s election reform struggle



Bill Risner

Bill Risner
This timeline is designed to give people new to the issue an understanding of why we think there’s problems, what we’ve done about it so far and why we need to keep going after eight years of hard effort. A few items refer to happenings outside of Pima County but directly related to the issues here.

I’ve attempted to set out a time line and story from my viewpoint. Several persons have been key to a joint effort to achieve an honest count of votes. The effort has been long, costly and difficult. It was initially centered in the Pima County (Tucson) Democratic Party. Eventually heavy pressure from major contributors and the party’s candidate for governor caused the Democratic Party to drop out of the struggle.

November 1996. At this election part of the ballots in Pima County were counted on optical scanners using GEMS software and another part of the county used punch cards. The data from the different systems needed to be “merged” so the company sent an expert to Tucson to teach the county computer operator how to use Microsoft Access to accomplish that task outside the constraints of the software. Thus, the county learned that data could be manipulated outside the software constraints and re-inserted without leaving any fingerprints. All the “fingerprints” could be simply erased before re-insertion.

This “off-line” work could be done on any computer that used Microsoft Access, a common program. Testimony established that Pima County’s election computer operator regularly took home with him copies of election data where such data manipulation could easily be accomplished.

First Phase: Study, Reform and Cooperation

November 2000. The Florida ballot counting highlighted the necessity of looking for cheating. Bill Risner had obtained a complete recount of punch card ballots in a City of Tucson election 1990 and offered his experience and help to Gore’s lawyers in Florida. The offer was among many and was not accepted.

Bill Risner, a Tucson personal injury lawyer, had handled various election cases on and off throughout the previous thirty years. He had twice been hired by the county government as a special election lawyer. He was functionally the county Democratic Party lawyer in election law matters.

Bill asked to be appointed as the Democratic Party’s observer at the next election. He knew the party historically had not looked for cheating and wanted to observe the entire ballot handling process to see where one could cheat. Everything looked good at the 2002 election up until the actual tabulation where all that could be seen was a couple of blinking lights in a black box containing a computer. Bill knew nothing about election software or computers.

2003: Pima County Democratic Party chair Paul Eckerstrom at the request of a concerned Democrat created an election integrity committee and appointed Bill Risner and Tom Ryan to the committee.

Dr. Tom Ryan, Ph.D., was at or near retirement from a career as a computer specialist. He knew computers and was interested in the role they played in the election process. Tom lead the investigation of the computer system and wrote a report on the vulnerabilities of our computerized system. The County Democratic Party adopted his report as its policy.

2004: Tom Ryan identified the “early ballot” processing as a critical point because it constituted one-half of the ballots and had no auditing of accuracy at any point.

October 2004: Tom Ryan and Bill Risner, on behalf of the Democratic Party, met with Pima County’s Election Director Brad Nelson to ask for changes in the early ballot vote counting so as to have auditable results. Nelson later reported that the software “doesn’t permit it.”

November 2004: John Brakey worked at Precinct 324 as a poll observer. John suspected cheating among a couple of poll workers and conducted a personal investigation that proved it. After official disinterest in his proof, he started a group called AuditAZ. He has remained a driving force in pushing for fair and honest elections.

November 2005: Bill Risner and Tom Ryan obtained the City of Tucson’s agreement to audit its early ballot counting at the city election. The same auditing that Brad Nelson said couldn’t be done. The city and county use the same software.

May 16, 2006: A Special Election was held in Pima County to approve a one-half cent sales tax to generate $2 billion to pay for a 20 year road plan favored by “growth lobby” business interests and the county board of supervisors. The same sales tax had been defeated in four prior elections. The four prior losses were by a 60% – 40% margin. This victory was reported as a 60% – 40% approval. None of the election activists claimed the election was fraudulent.

But, they did object to the lack of monitoring and the questionable use of a Microsoft Access manual by the election operator during counting, as it violated election procedures. Local Democratic activists consulted by telephone with Jim March of Black Box Voting during the count that evening. Pima County refused to permit any political party to monitor that bond election.

Later, the county party brought Jim March from California to Tucson for expert consulting. He eventually joined the local election activist team. Jim is a Libertarian and a board member of Black Box Voting. He is applying his computer skills full time to election computer issues and was an invaluable addition to the citizen team. Jim consults with election activists nationwide.

Summer 2006: The Democratic Party election team was joined by Michael Duniho (“Mickey”), a retired National Security Agency (NSA) master programmer who had been a Republican Party election monitor for many years in Maryland before retiring to Tucson. Mickey became the local Democratic Party point person in recommending and achieving many procedural and equipment security changes for the fall general election.

November 2006: At this point the Democratic Party “team” included four people with extensive computer election expertise: Tom Ryan, Michael Duniho, Jim March and John Brakey and one lawyer with election law expertise. After the general election they used Arizona’s public record laws to request computer audit logs from the election. The county provided the audit logs that revealed that the county illegally printed summaries showing actual vote counts of “early ballots” more than a week before election day.

A public record request was made for the entire county electronic database of past elections. The county refused to provide that database. The citizen computer experts knew there was not a valid reason for the refusal and the county gave none.

Second Phase – Lawsuits and Discovery that a major election had been rigged.

January 2007: The Pima County bi-annual organizing convention of the Pima County Democratic Party unanimously passed a resolution requesting the Democratic dominated county board of supervisors to turn over the database and not force their own political party to sue them.

The board of supervisors still refused.

Bill Risner, hoping to avoid a more complicated lawsuit over the database, sued the county board on behalf of the Democratic Party to obtain the illegally printed vote summaries made before election day and videotaped discovery depositions of the county election director and computer operator.

April 17, 2007: The “summary report” lawsuit depositions revealed further illegalities and a lawsuit was then filed by the Democratic Party against the county board seeking the entire electronic database.

The County furiously defended that lawsuit. Its lawyers initially sought a “stay” in the lawsuit discovery because they claimed no one in the election department could testify because they all might assert their Fifth Amendment Right to avoid self-incrimination.

This “Database” lawsuit was defended by the County using all their resources. I estimate that the county spent more than $1 million in defending that public record request.

That lawsuit represented a new phase in the struggle, because it was abundantly clear that the County was hiding something very big and it could only be that it had fraudulently rigged the May 16, 2006 RTA election. The depositions and other discovery solidified our conclusion.

During the pendency of that case, the initial lawsuit was concluded when the county agreed to open the ballot boxes from the November 2006 general election where they claimed all the “summary reports” could be located. The subsequent examination confirmed the illegal printing as alleged by the Democratic Party.

At the four-day Superior Court trial in the database case, the county’s defense was that the Democratic Party could print fake results in the future if they learned the font and page layout used by the GEMS software and thus could create “chaos and mayhem” by “spoofing” the actual results. That absurd claim and thus lack of any defense re-confirmed that the county would fight to the last taxpayer dollar to prevent discovery of its election secrets.

January 27, 2008: Tucson Resident Zbigniew Osmolski went with friends to the Boondock’s Lounge where he had a candid conversation with Bryan Crane, who confessed that he “fixed” the RTA election on the instruction of his bosses and he did what he was told to do. Crane expressed his concern about being indicted and said he’d like to talk but couldn’t trust anyone. Affidavit of Zbigniew Osmolski: http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/Osmolski_Affidavit.pdf

May 23, 2008: The court ordered the County to turn over its database and to pay $234,347.20 to the Democratic Party’s lawyer as fees and costs.

An additional $19,161.05 in fees and costs was ordered to be paid by the county for the “summary report” case.

July 24, 2008 – Meanwhile, the ballots from the RTA election were in storage under the control of the Pima County Treasurer. The ballots are the definitive evidence of the fraudulent RTA election. The County wanted to destroy the ballots. A lawsuit was filed by the Pima County Treasurer for “guidance” by the court as to whether she was required to destroy the ballots.

The Libertarian Party and the Democratic Party filed a counterclaim alleging that substantial evidence existed to show that the RTA election was fraudulent and, therefore, the court should take control of the ballots and have them examined. That evidence included a confession by the county computer operator that he had rigged the election at the instruction of his bosses.

December 23, 2008: The optical scanners used at precincts print a “results tape showing the votes cast at each precinct at the closing of the polls on election day. Those scanners can be programmed by a machine called a “cropscanner” to print fake results. Pima County purchased such a machine two weeks after being alerted by a Black Box Voting Organization national alert on July 4, 2005. Invoice for the cropscanner Pima County Elections: 


Strong evidence was uncovered that Pima County may have used its newly purchased hack tool to rig the RTA results. The Democratic Party filed a third lawsuit – a public record lawsuit requesting to examine the poll tapes because the tapes might have clues showing they had been fraudulently programmed. After lengthy litigation, the tapes were produced and some 44% of the poll tapes were found to be “missing” or didn’t match the final database.

January 27, 2009: Superior Court Judge Charles Harrington ruled that the Arizona Courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider evidence of a fraudulent election for the purpose of an injunction to prevent cheating in the future. He dismissed the case without requiring the County to answer the allegations because he found the Democratic and the Libertarian parties did not state a claim.

November 17, 2009: The Libertarian Party filed an appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals of that ruling. The Democratic Party was pressured by Democratic elected officials and contributors to not appeal as the case could embarrass its candidates. The Libertarian Party asked Bill Risner to join its lawyer in continuing the case the Democratic Party now wanted killed.

October 28, 2010: In a Memorandum Decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed Judge Harrington and ruled that the Libertarian Party had stated a claim and that they could pursue their claim that the RTA was fraudulent and obtain injunctive relief.

November 12, 2010: Pima County requested the appellate court to reconsider its ruling, claiming the Libertarian Party had alleged nothing more than “a discrete incident of past wrongdoing.” Its request was denied.

November 29, 2010: Pima County petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review. Review was denied. The case was sent back to Pima County.

May 4, 2012: The County Board of Supervisors requested that the case again be dismissed because they claimed they had not cheated in any subsequent election after the $2 billion road plan and tax increase and that the Libertarian Party had not specifically alleged they had a “good faith belief” that they would cheat again. Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson dismissed the Libertarian case a second time, claiming that the most the court could do would be to issue an order that Pima County just “obey the law” and that it could not consider actual procedural changes. Therefore, he ruled that the Libertarian Party had not stated a claim that any court could consider.

July 11, 2012: The Libertarian Party requested Judge Bryson to reconsider his ruling.

August 13, 2012: Judge Bryson confirmed his ruling.

September 10, 2012: Libertarian Party filed its notice of appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The local election activists fully understand that the stolen election in 2006 will not be reversed. That is not the issue. Their goal is to prevent cheating in the future. There are many steps the court could order to prevent cheating. Court intervention is needed because the county administration will not agree to changes that would prevent them from cheating. However, the county court won’t permit evidence to be presented.

We recognize that the same system used here is used in thousands of jurisdictions across the nation. Our goal is to help protect democracy at our home and hope that it helps others in our state and country.