Hungry Blues

Myth Breakers: Facts about Electronic Elections The second edition
	Still tells the facts ... - Corrects HAVA misconceptions - Describes HAVA-compliant alternatives to DREs - Gives general pricing information - Speaks about myth vs. misinformation ... and now includes ... - Malfunctions from the 2004 General Election - More about testing and certification - Details about software complexities

This is a crucial, concise and clear guide to what is at issue with electronic voting technology—for lay people, activists and election officials alike.

Download (776kb) the pdf file.

Participate in the New Project Myth Breaker to inform election officials, legislators and the media.

Project Myth Breaker is brought to you by VotersUnite!

• Robin Weingarten Campaign volunteer in Ohio, CAEF member.
• Greg Greenway - One Man, One Woman, One Vote Musician
• Fay Morrison Ayer Selectwoman, witness to voter intimidation and touch screen fraud in FL and OH
• Tom Barbera Waltham Elector whose motion asking for the investigation and remedy of election violations was passed unanimously by all twelve Massachusetts Electors
  
• Jeff Taylor Vermont Elector who passed a motion with the other Electors in his state for the investigation and remedy of election violations
• Grace Ross CAEF member, Truth In Elections member.
• Sheila Parks Vice Presidential candidate for the Green Party, Historian, Liberal talk show host
• Donna Palermino Activist and Attorney, to speak on the legal aspects of the challenge, member CAEF
• David Lytel Part of  the 2000 & 2004 challenges to Congress against the certification of
             Electoral College votes for reasons of election fraud and civil rights violations
• Pat LaMarche Vice Presidential candidate for the Green Party, Historian, Liberal talk show host
• John Bonifaz General Counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute and Co-counsel
  for Presidential Candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik in their
  demand for a meaningful recount of 2004 in Ohio
• Jonathan Simon Activist and Attorney, Collaborator with Steven Freeman on 2004 exit poll analysis
• Greg Greenway -- offeratory

(from the Coalition Against Election Fraud web site.)

STATES
• Counties inconsistent in provisional-vote rules Tom Beal (Arizona Daily Star)

About 5 percent of Arizona's voters - 101,536 of them, to be exact - had some trouble voting in the 2004 election, and 27,878 of them had their "provisional" votes thrown out.

•Observations from Orlando Election Fraud Hearing 1/27 (Democratic Underground)

1) In Orange County, many voters in precinct 212 received telephone calls in the days leading up to the election from people who purported to be election employees. Those calls told voters that precinct 212 would be closed on election day and that they should report to precinct 214. In fact, precinct 212 was open and the people who believed the calls had to wait in line at 214 only to learn that 212 was open.

It also was noted that many election employees didn't understand how the new provisional balloting system would work. Various voters also left before voting because queues were excessively long.

2) The second witness was Ms. Marie Palmer, a volunteer with the Florida NAACP for more than forty years. She was an observer at Orange County's Mitchell Center, an early voting site, for twelve of the fourteen days when early voting took place. She noted excessively long queues and too few election employees. After the second day of observing long wait times, she asked the election staff on site why additional voting tables and staff were not allotted. The answer she received was that the office of the Orange County Supervisor of Elections did not anticipate a strong turn-out for the election and nothing could be done. . . .

•Wisconsin G.O.P. Chairman Says Wisconsin May Have Gone to Bush, Continues His Efforts to Distract Nation from Ohio (Nashua Advocate)

OHIO
•As mentioned previously, Ohio Republican Attorney General James Petro has sued the lawyers who filed suit on behalf of Ohio voters to contest the election. Petro is suing for sanctions, including hefty fines. The four lawyers—Robert Fitrakis, Susan Truitt, Cliff Arnebeck and Peter Peckarsky—are mounting a defense that will include presenting massive evidence of election fraud to the court. The lawyers are in urgent need of financial help.

Please go to http://freepress.org/store.php#donate and make a financial contribution to the "Ohio Sanctions Defense Fund".

•Representative John Conyers Asks FBI to Expand Investigation into Clermont, Union, Fulton, Hocking, Monroe, Henry, and Harrison Counties (pdf)
John Conyers asks the FBI to expand its investigation into further incidents in Ohio. Attached to Conyers letter is the FBI January 12 refusal to further investigate or seek prosecution of the Triad vote machine tampering incident in Hocking County. (via Ohio Election Fraud.)

•Ohio recount volunteers allege electoral tampering, legal violations and possible fraud (The Raw Story)

Several volunteer workers in the Ohio recount in Clermont County, Ohio have prepared affidavits alleging serious tampering, violations of state and federal law and possible fraud. They name the Republican chief of Clermont’s Board of Elections Daniel Bare and the head of the Clermont Democratic Party Priscilla O’Donnell as complicit in these acts.

These volunteers, observing the recount on behalf of the Greens, Libertarians and Democrats, assert that during the Dec. 14, 2004 hand recount they noticed stickers covering the Kerry/Edwards oval, whereas the Bush/Cheney oval seemed to be “colored in.”

Some witnesses state that beneath the stickers, the Kerry/Edwards oval was selected. The opti-scan ballots were then fed into the machines after the hand recount.

Allegations of ballot tampering in Ohio – which decided the outcome of the presidential election by some 100,000 votes – find particular resonance in Clermont, one of three Ohio counties which saw the biggest increases in votes for Bush from 2000 to 2004. The other counties were Butler and Warren; Warren County had a lockdown after an alleged terror threat that the FBI later denied.

These counties “increased their support of Bush by only a few percentage points each,” the Cincinnati Enquirer reported Monday. “But in the raw numbers of votes, they made the difference.”

•The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio Michael Keefer
Good overview of election problems in Ohio with footnotes.

•Eye On Ohio: The Informed Citizen's Guide to the 2004 Election
A more detailed overview of election problems in Ohio. Also well footnoted.

NATION
•US Count Votes Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report (pdf)

Background
After last November’s presidential election, there were numerous reports of irregularities. Reported
problems included:

• voting machine shortages
• ballots counted and recounted in secret
• lost, discarded, and improperly rejected registration forms and absentee ballots
• touch-screen machines that registered “Bush” when voters pressed “Kerry”
• precincts in which there were more votes recorded than registered voters
• precincts in which the reported participation rate was less than 10%
• high rates of “spoiled” ballots and under-votes in which no choice for president was recorded
• a sworn affidavit by a Florida computer programmer who claims he was hired to develop a voting program with a “back door” mechanism to undetectably alter vote tallies

These problems arise in the context of election systems where un-auditable voting equipment cannot provide assurance that votes are counted as cast. The crucial question is whether these problems were part of a larger pattern. Were these issues collectively of sufficient magnitude to reverse the outcome of the election, or were they isolated incidents, procedurally disturbing but of little overall consequence?

Under such circumstances we must rely on indirect evidence, such as exit polls, to ascertain the overall integrity of the official election results. The 2004 exit poll was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International on contract with major national press and TV news services, operating collectively as the National Election Pool. Immediately following the election, these polls raised a red flag because they showed that Kerry had won the popular vote by a margin of 3%, while the official tally indicated a Bush victory by 2.5%.

Shortly after the exit poll disparity was noted, the Edison/Mitofsky group took the position that their own projections could not be taken as an indication of error in the official vote count. The theory they put forward to explain the disparity was that more of the Bush voters had declined to be interviewed for the exit polls, while more of the Kerry voters had completed the poll questionnaire. A full report was promised, and last week that report was released.

Introduction to the Edison/ Mitofsky Report
On January 19, 2005, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International released a 77-page report on their (p. 3) “analysis of the performance of the exit polls” in the 2004 election. The Edison/Mitofsky reportacknowledges widespread discrepancies between their exit polls and official counts, and admits that the differences were far greater than can be explained by sampling error. The report repeats the assertion (p. 3) that this disparity was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”, but no evidence is offered to support this conclusion. In fact, data newly released in the report suggests that Bush supporters might have been overrepresented in the exit polls, widening the disparity to be explained. The report gives no consideration to alternative explanations involving election irregularities.

The position taken by the Edison/Mitofsky group is consistent with professional norms and practices. Election survey analysts ordinarily assume that official election results are the objective standard against which their own findings must be weighed, and perhaps found wanting. We admire Edison/Mitofsky’s willingness to find fault with their methods and interview results. However, nothing in their report
demonstrates that such errors could account for the gap between the exit polls and the election results. We consider here the three possible explanations for a discrepancy between the official vote count and exit polls:

1. Statistical sampling error – or chance
2. Inaccurate exit polls – Kerry supporters responded in greater numbers than Bush supporters.
3. Inaccurate election – the voters’ intent was not accurately recorded or counted.

We agree with Edison/Mitofsky that the first possible cause, random statistical sampling error, can be ruled out. The second possible cause, that inaccurate exit polls were biased towards Kerry, is a hypothesis that is compelling only if one dismisses the third, that official election results may have been distorted.

I've had a lot less time to write these days; thus my amped up news blogging sans commentary. I now have a backlog of items that under other circumstances I would have written about. For now, I'll have to content myself with another digest of recent items of interest. A separate post will follow with election-related items.

•Creeping extremism David Neiwert (American Street)
Racist extremism legitimized by mainstream media and Mississippi state legislators. Two stories for the price of one. The latter story came my way first via the editor at Mississippi Political News Watch, but I didn't get around to blogging it while the news was fresh.

•What I have learned from blogging so far Kim Pearson (Professor Kim's News Notes)
Observations about blogging as a medium. I like analyses like this one, where the writer writes as an insider (one who blogs) but has a view of the inside that is informed by other, contrasting perspectives: Kim is also journalist and a professor of journalism.

•What the rest of the world watched on Inauguration Day Joan Chittister, OSB (National Catholic Reporter, via Corrente)

Here was the other side of the inauguration story. No military bands played for this one. No bulletproof viewing stands could stop the impact of this insight into the glory of force. Here was an America they could no longer understand. The contrast rang cruelly everywhere.

I sat back and looked out the train window myself. Would anybody in the United States be seeing this picture today? Would the United States ever see it, in fact? And if it is printed in the United States, will it also cross the country like wildfire and would people hear the unwritten story under it?

There are 54 million people in Iraq. Over half of them are under the age of 15. Of the over 100,000 civilians dead in this war, then, over half of them are children. We are killing children. The children are our enemy. And we are defeating them.

•Squelching Oversight jesselee (The Stakeholder)

Today, in the House Judiciary Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, John Conyers and Ike Skelton offered amendments allowing the minority party to initiate full hearings, including subpoena power - which is the crucial element lacking in "rump hearings" the likes of which Democrats have held by themselves on issues such as Halliburton and which Senate Leader Reid has promised during this cycle. The refusal of the committees to investigate issues such as Administration legal and ethical lapses in cases like the improper payments from the Department of Education to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams has left a vacuum of accountability that Democrats cannot address without the ability to hold full hearings. This is needed because the Administration has show a complete inability and unwillingness to look into their own legal failings - such as Cheney's involvement with Halliburton no-bid contracts - and the Republican House and Senate have been totally AWOL when it comes to wrongdoing by their own. If we are to have any chance of getting to the bottom of scandal like that involving Armstrong Williams, the under the table payments revealed today to columnist Maggie Gallagher to push Bush's pro-family initiatives, or the fact that more than $88 million of taxpayer funds were expended on Republican propaganda last year, the Democrats must have subpoena power!

So not surprisingly, when Ranking Democrat John Conyers offered this modest proposal in the Judiciary Committee, the Republicans rejected it based on a red herring. Chairman Sensenbrenner claimed it wasn't necessary because Democrats could bring resolutions of inquiry requesting information from the Administration. Yet, when Democrats and Conyers did introduce these resolutions - for example in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal - the Republicans rejected them as unnecessary. Then, when a motion was presented to the House to initiate an independent inquiry, not a single Republican voted for it, and the search for accountability was squelched - even today, we have not had anything close to a full accounting of that scandal. The Republicans on the Armed Services Committee also rejected a similar amendment offered today by Ranking Democrat Ike Skelton.

•Nice thought Earl Dunovant (Promethus 6)
Yesterday I posted a story about how Black church leaders have united to oppose Bush policies. Earl takes this quote from Rev. Major Lewis Jemison in 2005:

The history of the civil rights movement shows how potent the black church is . . . If we take the time to do what our mothers and fathers have done, we can get things done.

and sets it against this one from Dr. King in 1967:

When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance only when they have accumulated the power to enforce change...

The nettlesome task of Negroes today is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that the government cannot elude our demands. We must develop, from strength, a situation in which the government finds it wise and prudent to collaborate with us. It would be the height of naïveté to wait passively until the administration had somehow been infused with such blessings of good will that it implored us for our programs.

We must frankly acknowledge that in past years our creativity and imagination were not employed in learning how to develop power. We found a method in nonviolent protest that worked, and we employed it enthusiastically. We did not have leisure to probe for a deeper understanding of its laws and lines of development. Although our actions were bold and crowned with successes, they were substantially improvised and spontaneous. They attained the goals set for them but carried the blemishes of inexperience.

You may be surprised by Earl's conclusion.

•Alberto Gonzales and Nazi war criminal Wilhem Keitel agree: Geneva Convention is 'obsolete' Ted Kahl (democrats.com)
The title says it all, but read the whole thing. It will make you squirm.

(emphasis added)

New York
excerpt from:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/voting/20020401/17/728

First, there is the straightforward practical concern. As many as 3 million New York City voters do not have a driver's license. Indeed, 1990 census data showed that less than 50 percent of New York City's voting age residents had a driver's license compared with 91 percent of the state's residents overall. Also, members of minority groups are far less likely to have a driver's license than whites; recently naturalized citizens (and new immigrants from Puerto Rico) are also less likely to have a driver's license. For many of those potential voters, it may also prove onerous for them to have another valid form of identification handy when they go to the polls. This requirement, then, could depress the voting power of New York City and members of minority groups.

Second, application of the identification requirement is likely to create a host of problems. An identification requirement will require poll workers to use their discretion and judgment. More discretion and judgment will be required when the voters use a form of identification other than a driver's license. Unfortunately, poll workers often get the rules wrong. The more complicated the rules, the more likely they will not be applied properly - and this set of rules could seem complicated. A study of New York City's 2001 general election by the New York Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that most poll workers did not know basic rules about where someone should vote if they moved or who could help a disabled person vote. This suggests that poll workers will not be able to apply an identification requirement properly. Under the bill, the first-time voters who fail to provide proper identification should be permitted to vote with an affidavit or paper ballot, with which they sign an affidavit promising that they are who they say they are. But, again, given the reliability of the poll workers, it is quite likely that significant numbers of voters could be wrongly turned away. In fact, New York election lore is full of stories about poll workers who do not know when someone should use such a ballot and denying voters access to such ballots.

The i.d. requirement also creates opportunities for discriminatory treatment. African-Americans have a history of being subjected to special scrutiny at the polling place - as have members of other minority groups and recently naturalized citizens. Stories abounded in Duval County, Florida of African-American voters being asked to show a form of identification - sometimes two - while white voters were allowed to sign in without presenting any i.d. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense Fund found that in the 2001 New York City general election one in six Asian voters was improperly asked to show identification before voting.

Finally, there is no evidence that such a rule is needed. In even the closest elections, there is rarely any evidence of voter fraud at the polls. And, the experience of states with same-day voter registration suggests that identification is not needed to protect against fraud.

Wisconsin
excerpt from:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/mar03/129305.asp

Guess how many verified cases of identification fraud lawmakers cited in advocating a new rule that residents show a Wisconsin driver's license or a state ID card each time they vote? Answer: Zero.

That's right. Backers of the measure noted not a single instance anywhere in Wisconsin in which it was shown that a voter lied about who he or she was in casting a ballot. So the ID rule, approved this month by the Assembly, fixes a problem that lawmakers have failed to show exists.

Well, the rule won't do any harm, right? Wrong: It will do harm. This added step is sure to stop some eligible voters from exercising their franchise. That price is worth paying only if identification fraud amounts to a serious problem in state elections.

Ease of voting has put the state among the leaders in voter turnout - a tradition lawmakers should safeguard. Wisconsin requires proof of residency at the time one registers, not a state ID each time one votes. Right now, only eight states require all residents to show identification on each trip to the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and only one of those states, South Carolina, mandates the use of driver's licenses or state ID cards. That's company Wisconsin shouldn't keep.

True, for an overwhelming number of residents, the ID requirement would amount to a small or no inconvenience. But for a minority, it could act as a stumbling block to the polls, which should be easily accessible to all eligible voters.

The rule could keep from the polls: newcomers with out-of-state driver's licenses; poor people too consumed with day-to-day existence to take the time to get the proper ID; elderly or disabled people lacking the mobility to conveniently get the required cards; and residents who have misplaced their ID cards or have simply forgotten to bring them to the voting sites.

New Mexico
excerpt from:
http://abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/223359opinion09-15-04.htm

Like most states, New Mexico has never required voter ID. New Mexico's checks on voter fraud include a computerized system that verifies that voters are real, live where they say, and are eligible to vote. Voting twice is a crime, and voters' signatures are in county clerks' records for comparison.

Voter ID requirements have been shown to interfere with balloting by students and by voters who don't: drive; have a utility bill in their name; bring "proper ID" to the polls; or understand the complicated procedure for providing ID to vote absentee.

An ID requirement, particularly one imposed at the last minute, would effectively turn many lawful voters away.

Two weeks ago, despite these facts, Republican Party lawyers concocted a "voter ID" controversy by loudly proclaiming their "shocking discovery" that voter registration groups had filed "at least 3,000 fraudulent registrations in Bernalillo County alone." This provoked the public freakout the Republicans wanted. Their charge, however, turned out to be fabricated. When their lead plaintiff was under oath, he had to admit they had no evidence of fraud. The "3,000 fraudulent registrations" were duplicates, forms with illegible addresses, omitted Social Security numbers, unsigned forms and the like. In other words, just what you would expect among 60,000 new registrations. None were added to the voter rolls, nor could they have resulted in a fraudulent vote. The only arguably "fraudulent" registration apparently was a teenager's prank that would have been routinely screened out during computerized cross-checking of Social Security numbers.

In court, the director of the Bureau of Elections and a county clerk's representative carefully explained how New Mexico's databases eliminate felons, dead people, people who have moved away, and other ineligible voters.

National studies confirm the United States does not have the "voting fraud" problem the Republicans are braying about. What we do have is a pattern of exclusion of lawful voters. This is the ugly picture that emerged in Florida where thousands of black voters were wrongfully denied the vote. It does not take a vivid imagination to know what a requirement for "proper ID" would translate into in Florida or, for that matter, what kind of chaos would reign at New Mexico polls if a last-minute "voter ID" requirement were imposed on thousands of new voters when there is no agreement on what constitutes a valid ID. --snip--
 

So why are the Republicans beating the drum for voter ID for new registrants? The answer is simple. There are more than 120,000 new registrants in New Mexico— 44 percent Democrats, 24 percent Republicans and the rest "Independent" or "Won't Say."

Add to that the fact that ID requirements historically disrupt voting by students, minorities (particularly Native Americans in remote areas), the institutionalized elderly and the poor. These groups (surprise!) tend to vote Democratic. If you think the Republicans would be demanding voter ID if new-voter numbers were reversed, I have a bridge to sell you.

The percentages being what they are, a voter ID requirement would likely shave a couple of points off the Democrats' margin in this swing state. Republicans are about as concerned with "voter fraud" as they are with protecting the spotted owl. They want the chaos and vote suppression they managed in Florida.

(Cross posted at Democratic Underground.)

UPDATE: More stories.
ARIZONA: Feds OK voter ID rules in Prop. 200
MISSISSIPPI: The Issue of Voter ID Comes Back to the Table
FLORIDA: Voter ID Problems in Florida

Groups unite on opposition agenda
by Manya A. Brachear
Tribune staff reporter

January 29, 2005

NASHVILLE -- Leaders of 15 million black Baptists on Friday called on President Bush to pay as much attention to democracy at home as democracy abroad, issuing a list of demands that they say better defines America's moral values.

After an unprecedented assembly of four historically divided Baptist groups, presidents of each denomination declared their opposition to the war in Iraq and to the nomination and expected confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general.

They also called for a higher minimum wage, discontinuation of recent tax cuts, investment in public education and re authorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, some provisions of which are up for review in 2007.

"We have power in terms of black registered voters across the country to impact who sits in the White House," said Rev. Stephen Thurston, president of the 3 million-member National Baptist Convention of America and pastor of the New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church on Chicago's South Side.

Leaders also demanded that Bush stop privatization of prison construction, reinvest in children's health insurance and increase global relief for black nations such as Sudan and Haiti.

During this week's sessions, delegates passed the plate to endow two historically black colleges, fund care for African AIDS victims and provide tsunami relief in Somalia. The money will be distributed from a newly opened bank account shared by the four groups.

The Nashville assembly was the first since 1895, when a number of black Baptist state and regional associations met in Atlanta to form the National Baptist Convention, USA.

Divided by political and philosophical differences, the National Baptist Convention of America was the first to break away in 1915. The Progressive National Baptist Convention emerged in 1961. The National Missionary Baptist Convention of America formed in 1988.

Rev. William Shaw, president of the 7 million-member National Baptist Convention, USA, did not rule out reunification, saying it is up to God's will.

"It is not erased from our thinking," he said. "The Holy Spirit has caused this coming together."

Shaw said an effort to galvanize other African-American denominations is under way. Leaders of other black churches, including the African Methodist Episcopal Church, attended this week's gathering.

Rev. Lewis Baldwin, a Baptist minister and professor of theology and church history at Vanderbilt University, said the joint meeting was the most promising sign of active engagement since the death of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Since King passed away, the black church has retreated into reactionary traditions," he said. "Many see a need to reawaken the church to its prophetic mission."

Rev. Major Lewis Jemison, president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, said the church must take its cues from that era.

"The history of the civil rights movement shows how potent the black church is," Jemison said. "If we take the time to do what our mothers and fathers have done, we can get things done."

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

My God, what has our government done. . .

(See the rest.)

Over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend I picked up on the Bush interview in which he claimed that Social Security privatization would be good for African Americans because

the life expectancy of African American males is a lot less than other groups and, therefore, if you really think about that, you have people putting money in the system that aren’t — families won’t benefit from the system.

My translation:

In Bush-speak injustice is when people miss the chance to have their pockets lined with cash—as if it's a forgone conclusion that African Americans die younger than white Americans

It turns out that my assessment of Bush's bigotry was much too one dimensional.

First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years - but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years - not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.

Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits.

That's Paul Krugman. Read the whole thing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 26, 2005

Eyes on the Screen

"Eyes on the Prize", Civil Rights Documentary, To Be
Released Over the Internet Despite Copyright Disputes

A day of public screenings of the legendary documentary, to be organized for February 8th, 2005

HYPERLINK: http://www.eyesonthescreen.org

According to some, it's illegal for makers of the civil rights documentary "Eyes on the Prize" to put it on DVD or show it in public. But at 8:00 PM on February 8th during Black History Month, Downhill Battle (downhillbattle.org) is encouraging Americans to celebrate the struggle and triumph of the civil rights movement with screenings of "Eyes on the Prize" in homes and public places with the goal of having a screening in every major city in America. The campaign is called Eyes on the Screen.

"Eyes on the Prize" is the most comprehensive and revered civil rights documentary ever made. But the documentary has not been available for public viewing for the past 10 years because of unreasonable copyright laws that impose stifling restrictions on artists and filmmakers. In one instance, copyright holders believe they should receive licensing fees for the song "Happy Birthday," which appears in footage of a group of people singing to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"To celebrate Black History Month, we believe that "Eyes on the Prize" should be seen by as many people as possible," says Tiffiniy Cheng of Downhill Battle. "The civil rights movement is just too important for this invaluable resource to be denied to the public. So, we're going to help distribute "Eyes on the Prize" to a mass audience and communities can have screenings."

"Eyes on the Prize is one of the most effective documentaries ever put together that dealt with civic engagement," says civil rights leader Lawrence Guyot. "This is analogous to stopping the circulation of all the books about Martin Luther King, stopping the circulation of all the books about Malcolm X, stopping the circulation of books about the founding of America... I would call upon everyone who has access to 'Eyes on the Prize' to openly violate any and all laws regarding its showing."

"Eyes on the Prize" is an award-winning 14-volume documentary made by the late Henry Hampton, tracking the Civil Rights Movement from 1954 to 1965. Clayborne Carson, a Stanford University history professor, has said, "It is the principal film account of the most important American social justice movement of the 20th century" (Wired News, 12/22/04).

"Eyes on the Prize" was the first introduction to the history of the Civil Rights Movement for millions of people," says Nicholas Reville of Downhill Battle, "But our corporatized copyright system is keeping it locked away."

"The situation of "Eyes on the Prize" is a perfect example of why copyright law isn't working for the public," says Cheng. "It's ridiculous that this documentary is languishing in copyright purgatory, instead of being shown in classrooms. "Eyes on the Screen" is a perfect example of how people can bring attention to bad copyright law and start turning the situation around."

For background, see this article:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14801-2005Jan16.html

Contact:

Lawrence Guyot,
Former Leader of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party
w: (202)727-4742
h: (202)332-5157

Tiffiniy Cheng,
Co-Director of Downhill Battle
w: (508)963-1096
e: tyc@downhillbattle.org

Nicholas Reville,
Co-Director of Downhill Battle
w: (508)963-7832
e: npr@downhillbattle.org

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS:

HELP US STOP APPROVAL OF ALBERTO GONZALES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Please call on your own Senators to object to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. The Judiciary Committee just voted: 10 yeas and 8 nays on the Gonzales nomination. The votes were on party lines, with 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats on the committee. The recommendation goes to the Senate floor: it could be either today or in the next few days.

Tell your Senators that we need an Attorney General with a commitment to Civil Rights and Voting Rights. Call 1-800-839-5276 or 1-877-762-8762 connecting all offices.

TALKING POINTS

In the last five years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has DECREASED its Civil Rights enforcement dramatically. While the number of civil rights complaints has remained constant, at about 12,000 per year for the last five years, the number of defendants charged with criminal violations of the nation's civil rights laws has dropped by close to 50%, from 159 in 1999 to 84 in 2003.[1]

When it comes to the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, which has the historic mission of protecting voting rights, it is clear that the Department of Justice

• Has failed to address allegations of voting irregularities and is not properly documenting them;
• Has replaced the protection of voting rights with the potentially discriminatory advancement of so-called "voter integrity"; and
• Has been litigating to limit the private right of action by individual citizens to enforce federal statutes guaranteeing voting rights.

J. Gerald Hebert, a former chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, said "This is the first time in history the Justice Department has gone to court to side AGAINST voters who are trying to enforce their right to vote. I think this law will mean very little if the rights of American voters have to depend on this Justice Department."[2] It is crucial that the new Attorney General demonstrate a strong commitment to fixing the damage done to voting rights under Attorney General Ashcroft. Therefore we call on the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to object to the nomination of Alberto Gonzales on the grounds that he has no program to resurrect the DOJ's mission to protect voting rights.

A legitimate candidate for the office of US Attorney General must:

• Present a clear plan to adopt the recommendations of the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, "DOJ Activities To Address Past Voting Irregularities" (GAO-04-1041R).[3]
• Reverse the current Voting Section emphasis on voter "integrity" and focus on voter access.
• Return to its long standing, aggressive support of private suits to fight discrimination.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On October 14, 2004, Representatives John Conyers and Henry Waxman wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft to express concerns about the GAO findings that:

• "The Voting Section does not have a reliable method to consistently record and document telephone calls received alleging voting irregularities";
• "The Voting Section does not routinely track its election monitoring activities through the Interactive Case Management (ICM) System, the Justice Department's formal process for tracking and managing work activities";
• "The Justice Department, due to its lack of specific information about allegations of voting irregularities, and Justice Department actions taken to address them, is unable to provide the public and Congress with clear information concerning election procedures."[4]

Since 2000, John Ashcroft has changed the original mission of the Voting Section from increasing voter access to limiting voter fraud in the name of "voter integrity." According to Stanford Law Professor Pamela S. Karlan, voter integrity is "one of those great euphemisms . . . By and large, it's been targeted at minority voters." The architects of the current Voting Section voter integrity programs are among the same people who have developed GOP Ballot Security programs since the 1960s to suppress minority voters through intimidation tactics, including voter challenges in polling places. Hans A. von Spakovsky, chief counsel to Assistant Attorney General Acosta, has said "that voting integrity will remain a focus for the Justice Department, and that voter access might best be left to volunteers." [5]

The well developed voter suppression tactics of the GOP have become part of DOJ Civil Rights enforcement.

In court battles, pre-election 2004, over how provisional ballots would be counted and the legalities of voter challenges at the polls, Bush administration lawyers argued that individual voters may not sue over violations of the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act. The DOJ argued, instead, that only the Attorney General has power to bring lawsuits to enforce the provisions of the 2002 law--provisions that include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and that they give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls. In a 1969 US Supreme Court Ruling on enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Justices said "the achievement of the act's laudable goal would be severely hampered ... if each citizen were required to depend solely on litigation instituted at the discretion of the attorney general."[6]

Please let your Senators and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that we hold the protection of voting rights sacred among the duties of the DOJ. Call the Senators and tell them we want an Attorney General who is committed to the original mission of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.

REFERENCES

[1] "Civil Rights Enforcement By Bush Administration Lags," Transactional Records Clearinghouse, 2004,

http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/civright/106/

[2] David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt, "Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights," Los Angeles Times, 29 October 2004,

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/103004U.shtml

[3] http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041014092633-82277.pdf

[4] http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041014092559-26084.pdf

[5] Jeffrey Toobin, "Poll Position," The New Yorker, 20 September 2004,

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040920fa_fact

Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, REPUBLICAN BALLOT SECURITY PROGRAMS: VOTE PROTECTION OR MINORITY VOTE SUPPRESSION OR BOTH? A REPORT TO THE CENTER FOR VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTION, SEPTEMBER 2004,

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf (476kb)

[6] Savage and Schmitt, "Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights".

---

Coalition Against Election Fraud

web: http://www.caef.us

email: caef@caef.us

Members of The Democratic Underground have put together a powerful home-made video on the 2004 presidential election.

It's an excellent 8 minutes and 55 seconds. Check it out:

Real media 256k stream

Real media 56 k stream (for dial-up)

The US's economic history hides some unpleasant truths

Thousands of slaves were accepted as collateral for loans by two banks that later became part of JP Morgan Chase.

The admission is part of an apology sent to JP Morgan
staff after the bank researched its links to slavery in order to meet
legislation in Chicago.

Citizens Bank and Canal Bank are the two lenders that
were identified. They are now closed, but were linked to Bank One,
which JP Morgan bought last year.

About 13,000 slaves were used as loan collateral between 1831 and 1865.

'No excuse'   
   

Important dates                                                                                                    1831 Canal Bank formed 1833 Citizens Bank formed 1924 Citizens and Canal join to form Canal Commercial Trust & Savings Bank (CCTSB) 1931 Chase Bank takes control of Canal 1933 CCTSB fails during Great Depression and goes into liquidation 1933 National Bank of Commerce in New Orleans (NBCNO) formed with some Canal Bank deposits and loans 1971 NBCNO becomes First National Bank of Commerce 1998 First National Bank of Commerce merged into Bank One Louisiana 2004 Bank One merged with JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Because of defaults by plantation owners, Citizens and Canal ended up owning about 1,250 slaves. 

"We all know slavery existed in our country, but it is
quite different to see how our history and the institution of slavery
were intertwined," JP Morgan chief executive William Harrison and chief
operating officer James Dimon said in the letter.

"Slavery was tragically ingrained in American society, but that is no excuse."

"We apologise to the African-American community,
particularly those who are descendants of slaves, and to the rest of
the American public for the role that Citizens Bank and Canal Bank
played."

"The slavery era was a tragic time in US history and in our company's history."

JP Morgan said that it was setting up a $5m scholarship
programme for students living in Louisiana, the state where the events
took place.

The bank said that it is a "very different company than the Citizens and Canal Banks of the 1800s".

Or, Why My Father Despised Rudolph Giuliani

The following is from an important history of Republican voter suppression tactics. Citations follow, below.

Mayoral Politics in New York, 1993

The 1993 New York City mayoral contest was a bitter rematch between incumbent Democrat David Dinkins, the city’s first black mayor, and Republican Rudolph Giuliani. Four years earlier, Dinkins had edged out Giuliani 50-48%. Racial issues, and fears of racial division, loomed large in the 1993 campaign—as did fear of fraud and intimidation. A New York Times article summed up the latter worries shortly before the election:

The Dinkins campaign expressed concern that off-duty police officers supporting Giuliani might intimidate Democratic voters, while the Giuliani campaign demanded extra police officers to make sure no fraud occurred in polling places where the Mayor’s supporters outnumber the challenger’s.141

Giuliani representatives earlier had sent a letter to the New York City Police Commissioner, Raymond Kelly, asking for at least 2,700 police officers to be assigned to the polls, in addition to the “thousands” of volunteer poll watchers provided by the Republican Party.142 Kelly responded by assigning 3,500 officers and creating 52 “captains” to supervise the poll watching.143 This decision was a compromise designed to please both sides: the 3,500 poll-watchers were assigned to watch for voter fraud, and the 52 captains were assigned to ensure the poll-watchers did not intimidate voters. Mayor Dinkins warned that it was improper for poll-watchers (especially officers who supported Giuliani) to “exert their influence and intimidate people” and “to throw their weight around.”144

Meanwhile, New York State Republican Party Chairman William Powers made it clear that his party’s volunteer poll-watchers would be out in force in majority- Democratic precincts: “We will be manning polls that have never seen a Republican before,” he announced.145 The Giuliani campaign had been worried for months by rumors that many Democratic voters registered more than once or were illegal immigrants.146

On Election Day morning, Mayor Dinkins held a news conference stating that “we appear to be seeing an outrageous campaign of voter intimidation and political dirty tricks afoot in today’s election.”147 This allegation was based on three initially unsubstantiated reports by Dinkins’ poll-watchers, and Giuliani responded, “I can assure you this has nothing to do with my campaign and it is precisely what we expected of them.”148 The reports were that off-duty police officers physically threatened a Dinkins volunteer and that intimidating posters had been placed in black and Latino neighborhoods.149 The second report was later confirmed. Posters had been placed at several polling places, and read: “Federal authorities and immigration officials will be at all election sites. . . . Immigration officials will be at locations to arrest and deport undocumented illegal voters.”150 Dinkins called on the Department of Justice to investigate, and a statement issued by the department advised voters to disregard the posters and pledged “to protect the rights of minority voters.” It also announced that “the Department of Justice and the FBI are conducting an investigation to determine who prepared and posted these notices.”151

The investigation coincided with charges of minority vote suppression in the New Jersey gubernatorial contest and added to the racially charged atmosphere in New York City. In addition to the threatening posters, reports emerged that ten homeless men showed up at a predominantly black and Hispanic voting site in Bedford-Stuyvesant and tried to disturb the voting process; one of the men admitted to having been paid $60 for the purpose but did not identify the source.152 Others among the ten told a Democratic poll-watcher they had been promised $70 and a hot meal by an organization called Together We Stand.153 Another person not connected with the homeless men reported that Republican poll-watchers asked for the green cards of prospective voters in East Harlem.154

Giuliani defeated Dinkins by almost the same margin Dinkins had won in their first contest: 51-48%. On November 29 Al Gordon, New York State Democratic Party chairman, claimed he had evidence of over seventy-five instances in which voter intimidation and minority vote suppression had occurred on Election Day, and promised to forward his evidence to the Justice Department in hopes of preventing future Republican ballot security programs.155 His evidence, he said, revealed a pattern of harassment that seemed to him to be orchestrated not by the Giuliani campaign but by the Republican Party at the state level. “We are not calling for an overturning of the election,” he said. “We are saying that there was a pattern of thought-out harassment by the Republican Party and that they have to stop.”156

He cited instances in which homeless men disturbed voters by asking for their identity and instances in which poll-watchers tried to slow down the voting process by asking for several forms of identification.157 He also cited the testimony of Denise Ryan, a Dinkins poll-watcher who reported that in her precinct “four large white men came into the gymnasium and proceeded to stand in the doorway, blocking the door. . . . An elderly gentleman trying to get in couldn’t even see past them.”158 Gordon concluded, “I think it was an effort to delay, harass and intimidate voters just in the minority communities.”159 However, Republicans retorted that the same kind of behavior was taking place in predominantly Republican precincts. “There was voter intimidation by them—not by us,” said John Sweeny, a lawyer for the New York Republican Party.160 State party chairman Powers called Gordon’s accusations “a cheap political stunt.”161 There were no definitive resolutions of these allegations. Charges and countercharges regarding the same issues—vote fraud and vote intimidation—would continue with a vengeance in New York City five years later.

------
137 United States of America et al. v. Charleston County, S.C., et al., 34.
138 Ibid.
139 United States of America et al. v. Charleston County, S.C., et al., 34.
140 McDonald, “The New Poll Tax,” 28.
141 Celia W. Dugger, “2 Sides Seek More Police to Stymie Intimidation and Fraud at Polls,” The New York
Times, 1 Nov. 1993, B5.
142 Ibid.
143 Ibid.
144 Ibid.
145 Ibid.
146 Ibid.
147 Michael Rezendes, “Giuliani Projected N.Y. Victor,” The Boston Globe, 3 Nov. 1993, 1.
148 Todd S. Purdum, “Giuliani Ousts Dinkins By A Thin Margin,” The New York Times, 3 Nov. 1993, A1.
149 “Dirty Pool At Polls Alleged; Dinkins, Giuliani Trade Allegations,” The Record (New Jersey), 3 Nov.
1993, A14.
150 Thomas B. Edsall and Malcolm Gladwell, “Vote Probe Targets N.Y. City Turnout; Bid to Deter
Minorities Claimed,” The Buffalo News (New York), 12 Nov. 1993, A1.
151 “Dirty Pool At Polls Alleged,” A14.
152 Edsall and Gladwell, “Vote Probe Targets N.Y. City Turnout,” A1.
153 James C. McKinley, Jr., “G.O.P. Accused of Disrupting Minority Voting in New York,” The New York
Times, 1 Dec. 1993, B2.
154 Edsall and Gladwell, “Vote Probe Targets N.Y. City Turnout,” A1.
155 “Dirty Tricks in Mayoral Election? Democrats Accuse, GOP Denies,” The Record (New Jersey), 1 Dec.
1993, A14.
156 Seth Faison, “Mayor’s Race Poll Abuse is Charged,” The New York Times, 30 Nov. 1993, B3.
157 Ibid.
158 “Dirty Tricks in Mayoral Election?,” A14.
159 Marc Humbert, “Authorities Probe Election Charges,” The Times-Union (Albany), 30 Nov. 1993, B2.
160 Ibid.
161 “Dirty Tricks in Mayoral Election?,” A14.

(Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise. REPUBLICAN BALLOT SECURITY PROGRAMS: VOTE PROTECTION OR MINORITY VOTE SUPPRESSION—OR BOTH? (pdf 476kb) A REPORT TO THE CENTER FOR VOTING RIGHTS & PROTECTION, SEPTEMBER 2004. 77-79)

Further reading:
Dr. Clint Wilson. David Dinkins Elected First Black Mayor of New York, November 7, 1989.
Tom Robbins. Sundown on the Patronage Party: Liberals Sink as Working Families Rise.

PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release

Details: Patricia Axelrod 1 - 775-787-1909, email paxelrod1675@yahoo.com

JUDGE ORDERS RELEASE OF NEVADA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PUBLIC RECORDS…

“George Bush was taking the oath of the Presidency just about the same time I was swearing under oath about how he might have stolen the election,” says Patricia Axelrod. Axelrod – a writer and researcher – spent Inauguration Day in court battling for the release of the Nevada public election records she says may prove that George Bush stole the election. Two and a half hours passed as Axelrod argued pro sea against Deputy Attorney General Joshua Hicks and Rhonda Moore [former] Secretary of State in charge of elections. Moore took the stand to defend against Axelrod’s charge of illegally withholding the public records generated by the 2004 presidential election. The Court battle heated up as Axelrod repeatedly charged Moore with perjury reminding the official “that she was under oath.” until Judge William Maddox cut off her cross examination with a threat of contempt of court and jail. Surprisingly after the smoke had settled The First Judicial Court of Nevada had ruled in favor of Axelrod and ordered the Nevada Secretary of State to allow the activist full access to the 2004 Presidential Election public records as well as to just cause why the State should charge a $1.00 per page copy cost.

Judge Maddox ruled against Axelrod’s request of the Court to hold Nevada State in contempt of court and he altogether refused to hear the researcher’s separate motion to hold The Secretary of State and The Attorney General in contempt of court for what the litigant was colluding “with malice aforethought to undermine” the 'lawful right and benefit’ to the public records she began requesting November 3.

Axelrod says, “I won’t call George Bush President until it is proven that he won the election fair, square, and democratically.”