Re: Fw: Use of audit/copies in event of loss of original ballots Riverside County

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jul 05 2004 - 16:53:02 CDT

Michelle Townsend (sp?) has quit... further Riverside (in name and
through her deposition) was a part of the Benavidez v. Shelley
litigation... that was recently denied a TRO or a PI (lawgeek-speak
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
respectively). Here's the TRO order hot off the presses:

http://www.eff.org/e-vote/benavidez_v_shelley_tro.pdf

Joe

PS: Note that the court chose to ignore the Brady deposition in it's entirety.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 18:24:17 -0700, Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kennedyx@pacbell.net>
> To: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 8:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [voting-project] Use of audit/copies in event of loss of
> original ballots Riverside County
>
> > Hello All:
> >
> > Riverside County has long been a poster child for DRE's. Press
> releases
> > usually read about how well it worked with an emphasis on how quickly
> > results came in. If my memory serves me right, when there equipment was
> > decertified by the CA SoS, they (Michelle Townsend?) announced that they
> > were going to ignore the decertification and use the equipment as is in
> the
> > coming election. Should be interesting.
> >
> > Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joseph Lorenzo Hall" <joehall@gmail.com>
> > To: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: [voting-project] Use of audit/copies in event of loss of
> > original ballots
> >
> >
> > > Note that Riverside County here in CA is currently in the middle of a
> > > DRE-recount fiasco that appears to have taken the job of the RoV
> > > (Michelle Townsend) with it. She had been denying the challengers
> > > access to any records that could be used to recount the vote (as
> > > sparse as they are with many DREs). I'm not sure what voting system
> > > they have but a casual glance at SoS Kevin Shelley's page should
> > > say... let me look:
> > >
> > > http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems_2004.pdf
> > >
> > > Riverside used the Sequoia AVC Edge on March 2... this could be what
> > > the initial poster (Hyde?) asked about. There *must* be more... like
> > > the cases in New England where DREs were removed from polling places
> > > and then returned in last November's or October's election.
> > >
> > > joe
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:18:26 -0700, Alan Dechert
> > > <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Doug,
> > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know if this issue has been addressed legislatively?
> > > > >
> > > > > Badly at best.
> > > > >
> > > > I think this is all quite lovely. This situation is a tremendous
> > > > opportunity for the OVC to get involved--help bring about order from
> > chaos,
> > > > and all that.
> > > >
> > > > We're on the case here in CA (e.g., SB1438) and I expect OVC members
> in
> > > > other states to watch for relevant legislation (or create legislation;
> > ACR
> > > > 242 was written by an activist that handed a piece of paper to his
> > > > Assemblyperson).
> > > >
> > > > Alan D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> > > UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
> > > http://pobox.com/~joehall/
> > > blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb/
> >
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:14 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT