Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
It will be shown in court, and likely not before then.
Election Coverage And Results Thread
- Thread starter Dr. Evil
- Start date
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
you tube pulled down the video of election fraud I posted this morning.
This is the new America gentlemen, censorship, propaganda , lock downs, and coming to a town near you , gun bans.
spat
.950 JDJ
At this point I would say that "the election was fair" is the extraordinary claim.
I have seen no evidence that it was.
If I walked into my bank tomorrow and said "I was balancing my checkbook the night of the election, and around 2AM I found the total was off by $135k, but your website doesn't reflect it" I am going to bet they don't just take my word and adjust my balance LOL.
Rebellion, brewing in a town with tyranny.
I understand and agree. I would like to see something released that does something to counter the existing press narrative.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Im with you on that.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I want to stress in advance, that I DO NOT want to be political in this briefing. I am not saying I LIKE any of the recent developments. And I’m certainly NOT saying I want a particular candidate to win.
All I am saying is that the election is a mess and from what I can tell, no one in the media is actually outlining what’s to come based on the law. Instead I’m seeing a lot of political opinion, being presented as fact, when it isn’t.
The media wants you to believe the election is over.
By law, it isn’t.
Unless a candidate concedes, the election remains in play until December 14th when states cast their electoral college votes.
So, unless President Trump concedes between now and then, Joe Biden hasn’t won anything, no matter what the media tells you. Indeed, the media has no say in this, anymore than they can decide what color the sky is; they’re simply trying to get you angry so you’ll continue to watch their awful shows so they can sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
With that in mind, we need to take a step back and assess how this election is likely to play out based on the LAW, not public opinion or media propaganda.
Based on the law, it is highly possible and in fact probable that Donald Trump will end up winning the 2020 Presidential election.
Why?
Because the election is now in the courts. And the courts have a clear precedent for how contested elections play out.
When the courts get involved in an election, it becomes an issue of evidence. Specifically, what a given court decides is compelling versus non-compelling evidence, and how the court chooses to address the issue of voter fraud if indeed there is compelling evidence.
For instance, if President Trump’s legal team goes to court and says, “we want to have a vote audit in Michigan because there was voter fraud” the first thing the court will ask them is, “what evidence do you have to support this claim?”
If the President Trump’s legal team’s answer is “we saw some numbers that looked suspicious,” the court controls its urge to laugh, throws out the case, and that’s that.
However, if the President’s legal team responds, “we have sworn affidavits from 50 witnesses, video evidence, as well as three whistleblowers” then it’s a completely different story.
Once evidence of fraud is introduced to the courts via a lawsuit, the court, NOT the voters and certainly NOT the media, is in charge of the election.
The courts can demand a vote audit of every single vote counted in an election. If, during the vote audit, actual fraud is discovered, the court can rule that those votes are no longer valid, the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
Even if fraud is not discovered by the audits, but there is a particular problem with vote cards (the wrong type of ink was used, the hole punch didn’t go all the way through the ballot as was the case in Florida in 2000, etc.), the courts can deem those problematic votes as illegitimate.
This again can mean the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
This process is now underway in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona.
Any one of those states could see Biden end up losing (remember, he only won these states by 0.5% for most of them). That means that if Biden loses even 10,000 votes due to fraud or some technicality (the ballots arrived after the deadline), Trump could be declared the winner.
Again, I am NOT saying I want this to happen. I am simply outlining how this process works. If a court says “jump” you jump, no matter who you are.
Speaking of which…
Two weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Alito (as in the Supreme Court of the U.S., not of just one state) ORDERED the State of Pennsylvania to segregate and count separately any ballots that arrived after 8PM on election night.
This is a legal order from the Supreme Court of the United States. If you disobey it, you can go to prison. And because it’s a federal violation, the lawsuit isn’t going to be “Joe Schmo vs. John Doe,” it’s “the United States of America vs. Joe Schmo.”
My sources tell me that for Alito to order this without any comment from other justices suggests the Supreme Court as a whole is supportive of his action.
So, this is the Supreme Court of the United States effectively stating, “we are now getting involved in this mess.” That is a big deal.
If you are looking for a reason as to why the media rushed into announcing Joe Biden as the President Elect Saturday (the day after Alito’s order), this is probably it.
The Democrats and their media allies (the media companies that lean left) realize that once the courts get involved, the odds of Biden actually winning drop dramatically. So, they are attempting to mount as much pressure as possible for President Trump to concede so that the election is finished before ever entering a courtroom.
Remember, the only way this election ends right now is if President Trump concedes.
If he doesn’t, but instead chooses to fight in court, then the process follows the path I outlined a little while ago, where the courts decide which votes count and which ones don’t.
For an election in which multiple states were “won” by less than 0.5%, the odds GREATLY improve for President Trump once these issues are introduced in court. He only needs to have 10,000 or so ballots thrown out in order to flip multiple states.
And bear in mind, that if a given court accepts or rejects a given lawsuit, the situation doesn’t end there.
If either party or candidate is dissatisfied with a lower court’s ruling, they can appeal the ruling, which can result in the lawsuit moving up to a higher court, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which serves as the ultimate arbiter of election law in the U.S.
This was the case with the 2000 Presidential election, when the Supreme Court ruled that vote cards from Florida that didn’t have clean hole punches were NOT valid, which gave the state to George W. Bush and resulted in Al Gore conceding the election on December 13th.
And the Supreme Court’s justices are currently 6-3 conservative to liberal. Even if Roberts were to side with the liberals, the conservatives still hold the 5-4 majority.
Put simply, the ultimate arbiter in court rulings on elections favors Trump. Provided he DOESN’T concede, the odds greatly favor him winning a second term.
That’s what the law and the courts say. And they’re the ones that matter in this situation.
www.zerohedge.com
All I am saying is that the election is a mess and from what I can tell, no one in the media is actually outlining what’s to come based on the law. Instead I’m seeing a lot of political opinion, being presented as fact, when it isn’t.
The media wants you to believe the election is over.
By law, it isn’t.
Unless a candidate concedes, the election remains in play until December 14th when states cast their electoral college votes.
So, unless President Trump concedes between now and then, Joe Biden hasn’t won anything, no matter what the media tells you. Indeed, the media has no say in this, anymore than they can decide what color the sky is; they’re simply trying to get you angry so you’ll continue to watch their awful shows so they can sell your eyeballs to advertisers.
With that in mind, we need to take a step back and assess how this election is likely to play out based on the LAW, not public opinion or media propaganda.
Based on the law, it is highly possible and in fact probable that Donald Trump will end up winning the 2020 Presidential election.
Why?
Because the election is now in the courts. And the courts have a clear precedent for how contested elections play out.
When the courts get involved in an election, it becomes an issue of evidence. Specifically, what a given court decides is compelling versus non-compelling evidence, and how the court chooses to address the issue of voter fraud if indeed there is compelling evidence.
For instance, if President Trump’s legal team goes to court and says, “we want to have a vote audit in Michigan because there was voter fraud” the first thing the court will ask them is, “what evidence do you have to support this claim?”
If the President Trump’s legal team’s answer is “we saw some numbers that looked suspicious,” the court controls its urge to laugh, throws out the case, and that’s that.
However, if the President’s legal team responds, “we have sworn affidavits from 50 witnesses, video evidence, as well as three whistleblowers” then it’s a completely different story.
Once evidence of fraud is introduced to the courts via a lawsuit, the court, NOT the voters and certainly NOT the media, is in charge of the election.
The courts can demand a vote audit of every single vote counted in an election. If, during the vote audit, actual fraud is discovered, the court can rule that those votes are no longer valid, the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
Even if fraud is not discovered by the audits, but there is a particular problem with vote cards (the wrong type of ink was used, the hole punch didn’t go all the way through the ballot as was the case in Florida in 2000, etc.), the courts can deem those problematic votes as illegitimate.
This again can mean the formal vote counts can change, and it is possible that a given state ends up declaring a different winner.
This process is now underway in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona.
Any one of those states could see Biden end up losing (remember, he only won these states by 0.5% for most of them). That means that if Biden loses even 10,000 votes due to fraud or some technicality (the ballots arrived after the deadline), Trump could be declared the winner.
Again, I am NOT saying I want this to happen. I am simply outlining how this process works. If a court says “jump” you jump, no matter who you are.
Speaking of which…
Two weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Alito (as in the Supreme Court of the U.S., not of just one state) ORDERED the State of Pennsylvania to segregate and count separately any ballots that arrived after 8PM on election night.
This is a legal order from the Supreme Court of the United States. If you disobey it, you can go to prison. And because it’s a federal violation, the lawsuit isn’t going to be “Joe Schmo vs. John Doe,” it’s “the United States of America vs. Joe Schmo.”
My sources tell me that for Alito to order this without any comment from other justices suggests the Supreme Court as a whole is supportive of his action.
So, this is the Supreme Court of the United States effectively stating, “we are now getting involved in this mess.” That is a big deal.
If you are looking for a reason as to why the media rushed into announcing Joe Biden as the President Elect Saturday (the day after Alito’s order), this is probably it.
The Democrats and their media allies (the media companies that lean left) realize that once the courts get involved, the odds of Biden actually winning drop dramatically. So, they are attempting to mount as much pressure as possible for President Trump to concede so that the election is finished before ever entering a courtroom.
Remember, the only way this election ends right now is if President Trump concedes.
If he doesn’t, but instead chooses to fight in court, then the process follows the path I outlined a little while ago, where the courts decide which votes count and which ones don’t.
For an election in which multiple states were “won” by less than 0.5%, the odds GREATLY improve for President Trump once these issues are introduced in court. He only needs to have 10,000 or so ballots thrown out in order to flip multiple states.
And bear in mind, that if a given court accepts or rejects a given lawsuit, the situation doesn’t end there.
If either party or candidate is dissatisfied with a lower court’s ruling, they can appeal the ruling, which can result in the lawsuit moving up to a higher court, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which serves as the ultimate arbiter of election law in the U.S.
This was the case with the 2000 Presidential election, when the Supreme Court ruled that vote cards from Florida that didn’t have clean hole punches were NOT valid, which gave the state to George W. Bush and resulted in Al Gore conceding the election on December 13th.
And the Supreme Court’s justices are currently 6-3 conservative to liberal. Even if Roberts were to side with the liberals, the conservatives still hold the 5-4 majority.
Put simply, the ultimate arbiter in court rulings on elections favors Trump. Provided he DOESN’T concede, the odds greatly favor him winning a second term.
That’s what the law and the courts say. And they’re the ones that matter in this situation.
ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
At this point if press reported it I wouldn't believe them anyway. Have lost all credibility IMO. I'm happy to let the lawyers do their lawyering and let the matter run its course in the courts. F the press and their narrative.
spat
.950 JDJ
The media full court press is designed to drum up outrage when the existing narrative is overturned.
They may be hoping that will persuade some judges "put the legal argument aside, if you rule that way cities will burn". This is essentially extortion, and the threat of violence is textbook terrorism.
If they can't persuade judges to rule against law with their threats, they just hope the violence is as bad as possible.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
The Affidavit: Sidney Powell With Lou Dobbs
46,250 views
•Nov 16, 2020
4.6K44SHARESAVE
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Well thats curious!
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
So is this...
The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos
Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.
www.theepochtimes.com
No conflict of interest here lol.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Top 3 democratic Senators warned about Dominion voting
counting technology could switch the outcome of elections,
( including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Ron Wyden (OR)
They wrote a letter about thier concerns in Dec 2019.
December 6, 2019
Sarni Mnaymneh Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer H.l.G. Capital, LLC 1450 Brickell Avenue 3 lst Floor Miami, FL 33131
Tony Tamer Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer H.I.G. Capital, LLC 1450 Brickell A venue 31st Floor Miami, FL 3 3131
Dear Messrs. Mnaymneh and Tamer: We are writing to request information regarding H.I.G. Capital's (H.1.G.) investment in Hart InterCivic Inc. (Hart InterCivic) one of three election technology vendors responsible for developing, manufacturing and maintaining the vast majority of voting machines and software in the United States, and to request information about your firm's structure and finances as it relates to this company. Some private equity funds operate under a model where they purchase controlling interests in companies and implement drastic cost-cutting measures at the expense of consumers, workers, communities, and taxpayers. Recent examples include Toys "R" Us and Shopko. 1 For that reason, we have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry-an integral part of our nation's democratic process. We are particularly concerned that secretive and ''trouble-plagued companies,"2 owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election administration equipment, "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."3 In light of these concerns, we request that you provide information about your firm, the portfolio
companies in which it has invested, the performance of those investments, and the ownership and financial structure of your funds. Over the last two decades, the election technology industry has become highly concentrated, with a handful of consolidated vendors controlling the vast majority of the market. In the early 2000s, almost twenty vendors competed in the election technology market.4 Today, three large vendors-Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCiviccollectively provide voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. 5 Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, with very limited "information availabl~ in the public domain about their operations and financial perfonnance."6 While experts estimate that the total revenue for election technology vendors is about $300 million, there is no publicly available information on how much those vendors dedicate to research and development, maintenance of voting systems, or profits and executive compensation. 7 Concentration in the election technology market and the fact that vendors are often "more seasoned in voting machine and technical services contract negotiations" than local election officials, give these companies incredible power in their negotiations with local and state governments. As a result, jurisdictions are often caught in expensive agreements in which the same vendor both sells or leases, and repairs and maintains voting systems-leaving local officials dependent on the vendor, and the vendor with little incentive to substantially overhaul and improve its products.8 In fact, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the primary federal body responsible for developing voluntary guidance on voting technology standards, advises state and local officials to consider "the cost to purchase or lease, operate, and maintain a voting system over its life span .. . [and to] know how the vendor(s) plan to be profitable" when signing contracts, because vendors typically make their profits by ensuring ''that they will be around to maintain it after the sale.'' The EAC has warned election officials that "f you do not manage the vendors, they will manage you." 9 Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat. In January 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the United States' election infrastructure as "critical infrastructure" in order to prioritize the protection of our elections and to more effectively assist state and local election
officials in addressing these risks. 10 However, voting machines are reportedly falling apart across the country, as vendors neglect to innovate and improve important voting systems, putting our elections at avoidable and increased risk. 11 In 2015, election officials in at least 31 states, representing approximately 40 million registered voters, reported that their voting machines needed to be updated, with almost every state "using some machines that are no longer manufactured."12 Moreover, even when state and local officials work on replacing antiquated machines, many continue to "run on old software that will soon be outdated and more vulnerable to hackers."13 In 2018 alone "voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana."14 In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states."15 And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican Chairwoman said, " [ n ]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem."16 These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack. H.1.G. reportedly owns or has had investments in Hart InterCivic, a major election technology vendor. In order to help us understand your firm's role in this sector, we ask that you provide answers to the following questions no later than December 20, 2019. 1. Please provide the disclosure documents and information enumerated in Sections 501 and 503 of the Stop Wall Street Looting Act. 17 2. Which election technology companies, including all affiliates or related entities, does H.I.G. have a stake in or own? Please provide the name of and a brief description of the services each company provides. 10 Department ofHomeland Security, "Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election
counting technology could switch the outcome of elections,
( including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Ron Wyden (OR)
They wrote a letter about thier concerns in Dec 2019.
December 6, 2019
Sarni Mnaymneh Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer H.l.G. Capital, LLC 1450 Brickell Avenue 3 lst Floor Miami, FL 33131
Tony Tamer Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer H.I.G. Capital, LLC 1450 Brickell A venue 31st Floor Miami, FL 3 3131
Dear Messrs. Mnaymneh and Tamer: We are writing to request information regarding H.I.G. Capital's (H.1.G.) investment in Hart InterCivic Inc. (Hart InterCivic) one of three election technology vendors responsible for developing, manufacturing and maintaining the vast majority of voting machines and software in the United States, and to request information about your firm's structure and finances as it relates to this company. Some private equity funds operate under a model where they purchase controlling interests in companies and implement drastic cost-cutting measures at the expense of consumers, workers, communities, and taxpayers. Recent examples include Toys "R" Us and Shopko. 1 For that reason, we have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry-an integral part of our nation's democratic process. We are particularly concerned that secretive and ''trouble-plagued companies,"2 owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election administration equipment, "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."3 In light of these concerns, we request that you provide information about your firm, the portfolio
companies in which it has invested, the performance of those investments, and the ownership and financial structure of your funds. Over the last two decades, the election technology industry has become highly concentrated, with a handful of consolidated vendors controlling the vast majority of the market. In the early 2000s, almost twenty vendors competed in the election technology market.4 Today, three large vendors-Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCiviccollectively provide voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. 5 Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, with very limited "information availabl~ in the public domain about their operations and financial perfonnance."6 While experts estimate that the total revenue for election technology vendors is about $300 million, there is no publicly available information on how much those vendors dedicate to research and development, maintenance of voting systems, or profits and executive compensation. 7 Concentration in the election technology market and the fact that vendors are often "more seasoned in voting machine and technical services contract negotiations" than local election officials, give these companies incredible power in their negotiations with local and state governments. As a result, jurisdictions are often caught in expensive agreements in which the same vendor both sells or leases, and repairs and maintains voting systems-leaving local officials dependent on the vendor, and the vendor with little incentive to substantially overhaul and improve its products.8 In fact, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the primary federal body responsible for developing voluntary guidance on voting technology standards, advises state and local officials to consider "the cost to purchase or lease, operate, and maintain a voting system over its life span .. . [and to] know how the vendor(s) plan to be profitable" when signing contracts, because vendors typically make their profits by ensuring ''that they will be around to maintain it after the sale.'' The EAC has warned election officials that "f you do not manage the vendors, they will manage you." 9 Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat. In January 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the United States' election infrastructure as "critical infrastructure" in order to prioritize the protection of our elections and to more effectively assist state and local election
officials in addressing these risks. 10 However, voting machines are reportedly falling apart across the country, as vendors neglect to innovate and improve important voting systems, putting our elections at avoidable and increased risk. 11 In 2015, election officials in at least 31 states, representing approximately 40 million registered voters, reported that their voting machines needed to be updated, with almost every state "using some machines that are no longer manufactured."12 Moreover, even when state and local officials work on replacing antiquated machines, many continue to "run on old software that will soon be outdated and more vulnerable to hackers."13 In 2018 alone "voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana."14 In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states."15 And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican Chairwoman said, " [ n ]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem."16 These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack. H.1.G. reportedly owns or has had investments in Hart InterCivic, a major election technology vendor. In order to help us understand your firm's role in this sector, we ask that you provide answers to the following questions no later than December 20, 2019. 1. Please provide the disclosure documents and information enumerated in Sections 501 and 503 of the Stop Wall Street Looting Act. 17 2. Which election technology companies, including all affiliates or related entities, does H.I.G. have a stake in or own? Please provide the name of and a brief description of the services each company provides. 10 Department ofHomeland Security, "Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
PROBLEMS WITH MACHINES,2019
NEDC V. BOOCKVAR: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE INSECURE EXPRESSVOTE XL VOTING MACHINE IN PENNSYLVANIA
The National Election Defense Coalition has filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court challenging the use of the insecure, unreliable ExpressVote XL voting machines.
The lawsuit was filed against Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar with the pro bono assistance of the law firm Baker Hostetler LLP. It argues that the ExpressVote XL does not meet legal requirements for voting machines under the Pennsylvania Election Code, and use of it violates voting rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Our lawsuit seeks an order to the Secretary to decertify the ExpressVote XL.
The machines were used in the November 2019 election in Philadelphia and Northampton Counties where they caused severe problems.
Some voting security groups want Northampton County voting machines gone after November malfunction
WFMZ (Jan. 14, 2020)
Voting security advocates seek to block use of Northampton County’s machines
Morning Call (Jan. 13, 2020)
A Pennsylvania County’s Election Day Nightmare Underscores Voting Machine Concerns
New York Times (Nov. 30, 2019)
Citing election security, advocates seek to force Pa. to reexamine new voting machines
Philadelphia Inquirer (July 17, 2019)
CHALLENGING INSECURE VOTING MACHINES IN SOUTH CAROLINA CASE: HEINDEL V. ANDINO
The National Election Defense Coalition and experts in computer science from around the country are friends of the court in a case concerning the security of election technology in South Carolina. We argued that the state’s use of iVotronic direct-recording electronic voting machines is disenfranchising citizens through software errors and remains susceptible to hacking by domestic and foreign actors. After the appeal was fully briefed, South Carolina’s State Election Commission announced that it had entered a contract to purchase new voting machines that would replace the iVotronic machines statewide. The new systems have been delivered (and the iVotronic machines removed) in most of the state, and the rollout is on track to be complete before 2020.
Update: In July 2019, after the appeal was fully briefed, South Carolina’s State Election Commission announced that it had entered a contract to purchase new voting machines that would replace the iVotronic machines statewide. By October 2019, the new systems had been delivered (and the iVotronic machines removed) in most of the state, including the counties in which the plaintiffs vote, and the rollout is on track to be complete statewide before 2020. Consequently, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit.
(TRUMP WINS s CAROLINA!)
CHALLENGING INSECURE VOTING MACHINES IN TENNESSEE: SAVE V. HARGETT
The National Election Defense Coalition and experts in computer science from around the country are friends of the court in a case concerning the security of election technology in Shelby County, Tennessee (the state’s largest). We argue that the county’s use of AccuVote TSx direct-recording electronic voting machines is disenfranchising citizens through software errors and remains susceptible to hacking by domestic and foreign actors.
COMMENT HIGHLIGHTING MAJOR FLAWS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY VOTING SYSTEM
National Election Defense Coalition and Free Speech For People submitted public comments to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, regarding the proposed certification of Los Angeles county’s Voting Solutions for All People 2.0 (VSAP) election system. The joint letter addresses the system’s non-compliance with California Voting System Standards, and flaws that bring the VSAP’s security and reliability into question.
CHALLENGING FALSE ADVERTISING BY VOTING MACHINE VENDORS
The National Election Defense Coalition is calling on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to investigate ES&S, one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of electronic voting machines, for falsely advertising that a key component of its voting system has passed federal certification. ES&S is claiming its DS200 ballot scanners with wireless modems are federally certified when they are not. Our letter asks the Commission to investigate ES&S’s false marketing, require substantive corrective action, and subject ES&S to rigorous ongoing overview.
EQUEST FOR RECORDS SUBMITTED TO ELECTIONS DIVISION OF THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE
On November 28, 2018, Free Speech For People and the National Election Defense Coalition submitted a request for records under the Texas Public Information Act for information about a serious voting machine problem that manifested during the 2018 general election.
About 82 of Texas’s 254 counties (including some of its most populous) use the obsolete and trouble-plagued Hart InterCivic eSlate voting machines. During the 2018 general election, many voters using eSlate voting machines discovered that when they selected the straight-ticket voting option, their recorded votes on the summary page showed that they had voted for the candidate for the U.S. Senate from a different political party. The Director of Elections acknowledged on October 23, 2018, “We have heard from a number of people voting on Hart eSlate machines that when they voted straight ticket, it appeared to them that the machine had changed one or more of their selections to a candidate from a different party. This can be caused by the voter taking keyboard actions before a page has fully appeared on the eSlate, thereby de-selecting the pre-filled selection of that party’s candidate.” As the Secretary of State later noted, the eSlate voting machine’s display rendering is so slow that a voter must “wait at least 3-5 seconds for all choices to be rendered on the eSlate voting machine” (or longer in some counties) or else risk inadvertently selecting an opposing party’s candidate.
At this point, it is unclear the extent to which this voting machine problem affected the final vote totals. But regardless of its influence on the outcome in the 2018 election, a basic principle of democratic elections is that they must use equipment that reliably clarifies and registers the voter’s choices.
NEDC V. BOOCKVAR: LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE INSECURE EXPRESSVOTE XL VOTING MACHINE IN PENNSYLVANIA
The National Election Defense Coalition has filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court challenging the use of the insecure, unreliable ExpressVote XL voting machines.
The lawsuit was filed against Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar with the pro bono assistance of the law firm Baker Hostetler LLP. It argues that the ExpressVote XL does not meet legal requirements for voting machines under the Pennsylvania Election Code, and use of it violates voting rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Our lawsuit seeks an order to the Secretary to decertify the ExpressVote XL.
The machines were used in the November 2019 election in Philadelphia and Northampton Counties where they caused severe problems.
Some voting security groups want Northampton County voting machines gone after November malfunction
WFMZ (Jan. 14, 2020)
Voting security advocates seek to block use of Northampton County’s machines
Morning Call (Jan. 13, 2020)
A Pennsylvania County’s Election Day Nightmare Underscores Voting Machine Concerns
New York Times (Nov. 30, 2019)
Citing election security, advocates seek to force Pa. to reexamine new voting machines
Philadelphia Inquirer (July 17, 2019)
CHALLENGING INSECURE VOTING MACHINES IN SOUTH CAROLINA CASE: HEINDEL V. ANDINO
The National Election Defense Coalition and experts in computer science from around the country are friends of the court in a case concerning the security of election technology in South Carolina. We argued that the state’s use of iVotronic direct-recording electronic voting machines is disenfranchising citizens through software errors and remains susceptible to hacking by domestic and foreign actors. After the appeal was fully briefed, South Carolina’s State Election Commission announced that it had entered a contract to purchase new voting machines that would replace the iVotronic machines statewide. The new systems have been delivered (and the iVotronic machines removed) in most of the state, and the rollout is on track to be complete before 2020.
Update: In July 2019, after the appeal was fully briefed, South Carolina’s State Election Commission announced that it had entered a contract to purchase new voting machines that would replace the iVotronic machines statewide. By October 2019, the new systems had been delivered (and the iVotronic machines removed) in most of the state, including the counties in which the plaintiffs vote, and the rollout is on track to be complete statewide before 2020. Consequently, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their lawsuit.
(TRUMP WINS s CAROLINA!)
CHALLENGING INSECURE VOTING MACHINES IN TENNESSEE: SAVE V. HARGETT
The National Election Defense Coalition and experts in computer science from around the country are friends of the court in a case concerning the security of election technology in Shelby County, Tennessee (the state’s largest). We argue that the county’s use of AccuVote TSx direct-recording electronic voting machines is disenfranchising citizens through software errors and remains susceptible to hacking by domestic and foreign actors.
COMMENT HIGHLIGHTING MAJOR FLAWS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY VOTING SYSTEM
National Election Defense Coalition and Free Speech For People submitted public comments to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, regarding the proposed certification of Los Angeles county’s Voting Solutions for All People 2.0 (VSAP) election system. The joint letter addresses the system’s non-compliance with California Voting System Standards, and flaws that bring the VSAP’s security and reliability into question.
CHALLENGING FALSE ADVERTISING BY VOTING MACHINE VENDORS
The National Election Defense Coalition is calling on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to investigate ES&S, one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of electronic voting machines, for falsely advertising that a key component of its voting system has passed federal certification. ES&S is claiming its DS200 ballot scanners with wireless modems are federally certified when they are not. Our letter asks the Commission to investigate ES&S’s false marketing, require substantive corrective action, and subject ES&S to rigorous ongoing overview.
EQUEST FOR RECORDS SUBMITTED TO ELECTIONS DIVISION OF THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE
On November 28, 2018, Free Speech For People and the National Election Defense Coalition submitted a request for records under the Texas Public Information Act for information about a serious voting machine problem that manifested during the 2018 general election.
About 82 of Texas’s 254 counties (including some of its most populous) use the obsolete and trouble-plagued Hart InterCivic eSlate voting machines. During the 2018 general election, many voters using eSlate voting machines discovered that when they selected the straight-ticket voting option, their recorded votes on the summary page showed that they had voted for the candidate for the U.S. Senate from a different political party. The Director of Elections acknowledged on October 23, 2018, “We have heard from a number of people voting on Hart eSlate machines that when they voted straight ticket, it appeared to them that the machine had changed one or more of their selections to a candidate from a different party. This can be caused by the voter taking keyboard actions before a page has fully appeared on the eSlate, thereby de-selecting the pre-filled selection of that party’s candidate.” As the Secretary of State later noted, the eSlate voting machine’s display rendering is so slow that a voter must “wait at least 3-5 seconds for all choices to be rendered on the eSlate voting machine” (or longer in some counties) or else risk inadvertently selecting an opposing party’s candidate.
At this point, it is unclear the extent to which this voting machine problem affected the final vote totals. But regardless of its influence on the outcome in the 2018 election, a basic principle of democratic elections is that they must use equipment that reliably clarifies and registers the voter’s choices.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF VOTER FRAUD!
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD!
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD TO CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION!
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD!
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD TO CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION!
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD TO SEND ANYONE TO JAIL!
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD TO LOOSE AN APPEAL!
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN.THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD TO SEND ANYONE TO JAIL!
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD TO LOOSE AN APPEAL!
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
THERE ARE NO AMERICAN TROOPS IN BAGDAD
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Russia Russia Russia
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Jsmegs77
.308 Win
I bet there are a whole lot of folks wishing that Nick Sandemann suit in DC never happened, making Lin Wood a household name. He made CNN blink and now they’re up for sale (unrelated I’m sure but still notable). Hope he’s as successful with this.