(H/T) The Brad Blog
Why am I not surprised?
In a year where we’ve seen faux President Obama elected using fake documents to verify he is a natural born citizen we now have the Georgia Supreme Court blowing off Georgia’s voters.
Yes, boys ‘n girls, the voting machines you use can be hacked into with ease and where there is no paper trail to verify that the vote cast was properly recorded, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled those facts immaterial. I guess hanging chads are OK but and unauditable voting machine, ah yes, that’s another thing!
On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled [PDF] that unauditable voting in the state does not infringe upon the fundamental right to vote and to have that vote counted. (emphasis mine) In 2002, Georgia was among the first in the nation to implement Diebold touch-screen voting machines across the entire state.
The lead plaintiff, Garland Favorito, was astounded. “This ruling essentially gives the state a license to pretend to conduct elections. Not one of the 100+ million votes that have been cast on the machines since 2002 can be audited for accuracy and correctness of vote recording.” …
“Georgia law in 2001 and 2002 required that any new machines have an independent audit trail of each vote cast. The state’s own witnesses have acknowledged that the specific type of electronic voting machines we purchased and use do not have such an independent audit trail. The machines can only internally recreate selections that may or may not have been shown to the voter. Without an independent audit trail, it is impossible to determine whether the actual ballots cast on Election Day were recorded correctly.”
How easy is it to hack into one of these machines? Just watch.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCyVsUir8k&feature=PlayList&p=EB4AF70ADA2120E2&index=0&playnext=1[/youtube]
According to the Supreme Court:
We cannot say that use of paperless, touchscreen voting systems severely restricts the right to vote. No balloting system is perfect. Traditional paper ballots, as became evident during the 2000 presidential election, are prone to overvotes, undervotes, “hanging chads,” and other mechanical and human errors that may thwart voter intent. [Cit.] Meanwhile, touchscreen voting systems remedy a number of these problems, albeit at the hypothetical price of vulnerability to [certain types of fraud]. The [DRE Voting] System does not leave [Georgia] voters without any protection from fraud, or any means of verifying votes, or any way to audit or recount. ( Really? On what planet do these Justices live?) The unfortunate reality is that the possibility of electoral fraud can never be completely eliminated, no matter which type of ballot is used. (That’s right there is no perfect system, but that doesn’t obviate the necessity to try to ensure that votes are properly counted and tallied!) [Cit.] [Even assuming that] none of the advantages of touch-screen systems over traditional methods would be sacrificed if voter-verified paper ballots were added to touchscreen systems . . . , it is the job of democratically-elected representatives to weigh the pros and cons of various balloting systems. [Cits.] So long as their choice is reasonable and neutral, it is free from judicial second-guessing. In this instance, [Georgia] made a reasonable, politically neutral and non-discriminatory choice to certify touchscreen systems as an alternative to paper ballots. . . . Nothing in the Constitution forbids this choice.
I vote in Georgia and I remember voting in the 2004 election, standing in line wondering whether my vote would be properly counted. My concern was due to the fact that the first time I voted on the electronic machines that the information on the touch screen seemed not to coincide with my vote.
According to the Georgia Supreme Court, “tough noogies” … so what? When Cathy Cox, our past Secretary of State turned paid Diebold lobbiest, selected these unverifiable machines, as long as her choice was “neutral” the fact that my vote may have been stolen is of no consequence.
According to Voter GA, Georgia is now the only state in the union that still expects to conduct statewide elections in 2010 on unverifiable voting equipment.
What I want to know is this … how big were the payments the “Justices” received? I wonder if any of them hold stock in Diebold, now known as Premier Election Solutions?
