Fwd: Fw: Hearing on denial of request for unredacted SAIC report on Diebold voting system

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon Feb 07 2005 - 05:47:27 CST

FYI...From Ken Fox

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:Xofnek@aol.com>Xofnek@aol.com
>Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:14 PM
>Subject: Hearing on denial of request for unredacted SAIC report on
>Diebold voting system
>Late last week, I received notice from the Maryland Office of
>Administrative Hearings that my contested case will be heard on
>Thursday, April 7, 2005 at 9:30 AM in Hunt Valley, MD.
>The denial of my Public Information Act request was based on a
>statutory exception about the security of an information system.
>Consequently, I am prepared to argue
>that the Diebold Accuvote TS Voting System and Processes utilized in the MD
>general election on November 2, 2004 do not comprise an information system
>in the sense enacted by the MD State Legislature. I have the
>legislative history
>of this enactment, and I know a State Delegate who was married to a
>State Senator,
>now deceased, who worked on that history.
>Also, I have spoken to a member of the staff at the National
>Institute of Science
>and Technology who is knowledgable about information systems. In his opinion,
>there is no clarity on whether voting machines generally are
>information systems.
>I also plan to argue that, if the Diebold voting machines were
>information systems,
>the burden should be on the State to show that the redacted portions
>of the SAIC
>report implicate their security..
>The hearing will follow the Administrative Procedures Act, Title 10,
>Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article, Annotated Code of
>Maryland; and the Code of Maryland Regulations, Title 28, Subtitle
>02, Chapter 01. Both of these are available online at
>Of special interest are 10-212(a). Open Hearings. Except as provided by law,
>a contested case hearing conducted by the Office shall be open to the public.
>COMAR Discovery. A. By written request filed not later
>than 30 days before the scheduled hearing, a party may require any
>other party to produce within
>15 days, for inspection or copying, any file, memorandum,
>correspondence, document, object, or tangible thing relevant and not
>And COMAR Subpoenas. A. The Office may issue subpoenas
>requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
>production at the hearing of tangible items in the possession or
>under the control of these witnesses.
>COMAR Intervention. A. Upon motion filed not later than
>15 days before
>the earlier of the prehearing conference or the hearing date, a
>person may be permitted to intervene in an action when the person
>has standing and has an unconditional right
>to intervene as a matter of law, or claims an interest relating to
>the subject matter of the hearing that is adversely affected, and
>not adequately represented by existing parties.
>COMAR B. A judge may admit an affidavit as evidence.
>COMAR Conduct of Hearings. B. Telephone Hearings. The
>judge may conduct all or part of the hearing by telephone or other
>similar audio electronic means.
>COMAR Proceedings Open to the Public. D. Audio recording
>equipment, cameras, or other electronic or photographic equipment
>shall be excluded from the hearing room when required by law or if
>the judge determines that the use
>of this equipment may impede the orderly progress of the hearing or otherwise
>interfere with the hearing process.
>I would certainly appreciate comments, suggestions, guidance, and
>other advice regarding this matter. Thank you all for your interest.

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Sun Feb 27 17:17:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 17:17:13 CST