[ale] OT: VoterGA eVoting suit -- oral args on appeal before the GA Supreme Court

[Richard Bronosky]

I hope the VoteGA lawyers are making the argument that technology
isn't what is being opposed. That there are technical solutions to
electronic voting, but they eliminate a single corporation's ability
to contract exclusive rights to licensing the solution. That is the
reason the current process is in place. Because there is no money to
be made in paper ballots or equally reliable electronic voting. Even
as a die hard capitalist, I can't endorse this method of making a
buck.

On 7/14/09, Aaron Ruscetta <arxaaron at gmail.com> wrote:
> [ A thank you to Bob Toxen for the off list request for
> information that prompted this post. ]
>
> I was able to attend yesterday's (7/13) Georgia Supreme Court
> appeal hearing regarding the VoterGA law suit.  The multiple
> counts of the suit challenge the constitutionality of using
> Diebold's black box, zero-evidence computer systems to
> conduct our State elections. [ see <http://VoterGA.org> ]
>
> Unfortunately, my permission to record video of the session
> was withdrawn at the last hour based on fabricated concerns
> that I was not directly employed by a corporate media interest.
> Quality independent media distributions supporting the free
> speech of the citizens are apparently not welcome in Georgia.
> So much for those fraudulent party platforms claiming to
> support transparency in government.
>
> Given that I can't SHOW everyone exactly what transpired
> in the court room, y'all will have to settle for  my own
> "no spin zone" review of the proceedings:
>
> I felt the VoterGA legal team did a much better presentation
> of the facts than they did with oral arguments in the lower
> court. The State's lawyers, of course, could do nothing but
> trot out their flimsy, worn out litany of customized corporate
> propaganda -- the exact same steaming pile of half truths and
> misdirection and misrepresentation that I have watched these
> Diebold apologists dive under dozens of times -- apparently
> the only recourse for someone trying to bury or excuse the
> blatant core incompetence of these proprietary, paperless
> computerized election systems.
>
> A fellow informed observer expressed disappointment and
> concern that the judges did not pose more questions, given
> the potentially sidetracking technicalities of the issues.
> Of course, it may be that the courts are simply more concerned
> with points of legal precedent. Or it may be that these judges
> actually possess the common sense to realize that all the
> banter about system certifications and security codes and
> memory cards and holding secret software in escrow is nothing
> but insipid obfuscation.
>
> All we can hope is that the members of our State's highest
> court can muster the simple wisdom to see through all the
> smoke screens and uphold that, under our State constitution,
> it is impossible to conduct a legal or legitimate election
> using systems that are entirely incapable of producing the
> essential, untainted, voter verified, physical ballot
> evidence by which the citizens can publicly secure, audit
> and validate their election results.
>
> It will most likely be at least 60 days before the court
> will announce their decisions.
>
> peace
> aaron
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

.!# RichardBronosky #!.