believe that I am bringing “to the attention of the Court relevant
matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of
considerable help to the Court.” Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court
of the U.S.
am a freelance journalist who has been covering the issue of voting technology
and democracy for the past year. I believe that I am the foremost expert on
this subject in my profession. My articles and reporter's notes can be found
217 S. Jessup Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
believe that the court should prohibit the use of any voting technology in
California elections that is more sophisticated than a pen, paper ballot, and
local hand count, because the use of sophisticated voting technology
(mechanical or electronic) violates a citizen's right to vote and to have that
vote counted properly under the U.S. Constitution, The Voting Rights Act, and
federal law. The use of sophisticated voting technology introduces
concealment and secrecy to that part of the voting process that depends on
public oversight and inspection in order to ensure an honest election,
and therefore, renders enforcement of the Voting Rights Act impossible.
are three steps to the voting process: the voter's selection of a
candidate (example: a checkmark next to a candidate's name), casting the
vote (example: putting the ballot into the ballot box), and counting the vote.
The first step should be concealed, but the second two steps must be open
to public observance and inspection, per federal law. In addition, the hand
count must first be conducted locally as a check against vote loss or
tampering in the transfer of ballots to a central location. Sophisticated
technology and non-local vote counts makes it impossible for the public, poll
watchers, or Federal Observers to determine whether the casting and
counting of the vote is done properly.
an interview I conducted with Nelldean Monroe, Voting Rights Program
Administrator, for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, she admitted that
there is no training for Federal Observers on how to “observe” voting
machines because in her words, “They can’t do that.” She elaborated in
the following email to me on page 2. Ms.
Monroe is the person responsible for the hiring and training of Federal
Observers for the Department of Justice.
The determination of whether to use Federal observers during an election is made by the Department of Justice. Under the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Office of Personnel Management has the responsibility to provide the Federal observers to cover elections. Federal observers are placed at polling sites, as determined by DOJ, to observe the full or a portion of the election process and prepare a report to DOJ on their observations. They may observe when voters receive assistance in voting.
machines and electronic technology constitute a secret or 'concealed' casting
and counting of the vote which cannot be observed by Federal Examiners (as
authorized under federal law), which makes the examiner's role in that regard
- moot, and federal law - unenforceable. Therefore, all voting machines and
electronic technology are a violation of the following three laws and
Voting Rights Act of 1965, SEC. 2, states, "No
voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to
deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on
account of race or color."
U.S. Code: Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 20 - Elective
Franchise, Subchapter I-A Enforcement of Voting Rights, Sec. 1973f. - "Observers
at elections; assignment; duties; reports: Whenever an examiner is
serving under subchapters I-A to I-C of this title in any political
subdivision, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management may assign, at
the request of the Attorney General, one or more persons, who may be officers
of the United States, (1)
enter and attend at any place for holding an election in such subdivision for
the purpose of observing whether persons
who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote, and (2)
enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election
held in such subdivision for the purpose of observing
whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated.
Such persons so assigned shall report to an examiner appointed for such
political subdivision, to the Attorney General, and if the appointment of
examiners has been authorized pursuant to section 1973a(a)
of this title, to the court."
Sec. 1973i. Prohibited acts: (a)
or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote
(d) Falsification or concealment of
material facts or giving of false statements in matters within
jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers; penalties.
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing
officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals
a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document
knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
right to have your vote cast and counted properly has been affirmed
in the following three cases:
line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 . In Mosley the Court stated that it is "as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a box." 238 U.S., [377 U.S. 533, 555] at 386. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 , Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 , nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 , nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 , United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . As the Court stated in Classic, "Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted . . . ." 313 U.S., at 315."
4 - End