Still Voting? Will it count?

Posted By: Hunter
Posted on: Aug. 4, 2006 at 7:17 PM

13 Comments

4.3 / 5

Based on 3 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

This is more of a alert since "we the people" still have time to act before the shooting starts. If accurate election mean anything to you, you will want to read on. If you're content with the Party in power picking the next empty suit politician over the consent of the governed, move on, nothing to see here

As you may know it was ILLEGAL to hand recount elections ballots in the State of Arizona. That changed with the passage of SB1557 last June as "Emergency Legislation". The new law, ARS 16-602, requires a hand recount of 2% of the ballots cast in every election, in what I call a lame attempt to keep the little black boxes honest. ( NeoCon's, this bill was sponsored by Republican Karen Johnson so please, be civil)

That all sound pretty good so far, so what action needs to be taken? Well like every single stinking, God DAMN, %#&@*@ law passed, the government left themselves an out. It seems Jan Brewer has to appoint a 7 member committee to oversee the process 30 days before the election takes place, and if she doesn't do it, the law doesn't count. Kind'a like a take no action signing statement

On July 14, Ernest Hancock (Libertarian candidate for Sec. of State) met with a MR. Kevin Tyne of the Sec of States office and inquired about how the committee selection process was going and was told, "NO EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE UNTILL THE UNITED STATES DoJ APPROVED IT."

WHAT????? WHAT???? DoJ WHAT??? So as I'm slaming a fresh mag in my M4 carbine and screaming out the 9th and 10th amendments at the top of my lungs, I notice Ernie (Libertarian for Sec. of State) has filed a Special Action lawsuit in the AZ Supreme Court to force Jan "I have worked vigorously to ensure integrity in elections dispite the lawsuits" Brewer to comply with ARS 16-602 before the Primary election on Sept 12th. That means she needs to have the committee up and running by Aug 12th. I'm willing to bet on Aug 12, 2008 we still won't have that committee. Anyone want to throw in 20 bucks?

So this is where you can help, and save me for another weapons charge. Call the Secretary of State's office and in your most polite voice, DEMAND THE BITCH FOLLOW THE STINKING LAW!!!! Jan awaits your call at 602-542-8683 or email her from the SoS website.

Now if you will class, please open your Voter Candidate Statement book to page 13 and in the center of the page you will see Ernest Hancock's ugly mug and his mission statement. It's clear and to the point, something missing from politics today. His web site @ ernesthancock.com has archived a bunch of radio programs on vote fraud he did when he had a radio show. I suggest you listen to them, the test will be Friday

Dave

Click here to view more articles by Hunter

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 Next »

indie616

Aug. 4, 2006 at 08:02:15 PM

View Profile

Hi Hunter,
Very interesting.

I looked up ARS 16-602 and found this:

16-602. Removal of ballots from ballot boxes; disposition of ballots folded together or excessive ballots
A. The ballots cast in the election shall first be removed from the ballot box and counted without being opened, except as may be necessary to ascertain that the number of ballots cast corresponds with the number of names on the poll lists.
B. If two or more ballots are found folded together appearing as a single ballot, they shall be laid aside until the count of the ballots is completed. If it then appears by comparison of the count with the number of names on the poll lists, that the ballots thus folded together were cast by one elector, they shall be destroyed. If the ballots in the box are still found to exceed in number the names on the poll lists, the ballots, except those destroyed, shall be replaced in the box, and one of the judges shall, without looking in the box, draw therefrom, one at a time, and destroy unopened, a number of ballots equal to the excess, and the election board shall record on the poll lists the number of ballots so destroyed and shall then sign the poll list.

So, 16-602 doesn't require a hand recount.

Then I looked up SB1557 and found this:

Hand Count and Procedures
• Requires the county officer in charge of elections (Officer) to conduct a hand count for each countywide primary, general and presidential preference election.

• Directs that the hand count be preformed at the central counting center.

• Provides that the hand count consist of at least 2% or two precincts in that county, whichever is greater.

I cannot find the stipulation-- "7 member committee to oversee the process 30 days before the election takes place, and if she doesn't do it, the law doesn't count. Kind'a like a take no action signing statement"

So it would appear, at least from my reading that 16-602 doesn't provide any "recount" stipulation. But, SB 1557 does. However, I can't find any law or regulation about a 7 member committee.

Could you help me out and provide the law or regulation in that stipulation? That would be helpful.

Thanks.

Report Abuse

Hunter

Aug. 4, 2006 at 08:29:51 PM

View Profile

I guess they haven't changed the web site yet. Did you want to apply for the job of Vote Counter on the Verification Committee, cause Jan's hiring?

Try here, [url[link:=www.azsos.gov]]Secretary of State[/url]

Report Abuse

indie616

Aug. 4, 2006 at 08:33:19 PM

View Profile

The link doesn't work.

Report Abuse

Hunter

Aug. 4, 2006 at 08:51:36 PM

View Profile

Sorry, try this.

[link:www.azsos.gov]

If if fails go to the Secretary of States website

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Aug. 4, 2006 at 08:56:29 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Hunter is essentially correct in his facts. I heard about this issue for the first time on Air America Radio last week, but it got misplaced with all my other tidbits of weekly outrage.

The details of SB1557 are to be found in this document:

[link:www.azleg.gov]

The pertinent information is this:

Procedures for Hand Counts of Ballots Cast in the Polling Place and Ballots from Direct Recording Electronic Machines (DREs)

22. Establishes procedures for the hand count:
a. The initial hand count is for the selected races in at least two percent of the precincts in that county or two precincts, whichever is greater.

AND

Vote Count Verification Committee

38. Requires the SOS to appoint seven persons to the committee, no more than three of whom are members of the same political party, at least 30 days prior to the 2006 primary election.

The only correction I can make to Hunter's information is that 2% of the PRECINCTS will be recounted, or 2 precincts, whichever is greater. This does not necessarily mean 2% of the ballots will be recounted.

My only thought is that after reading this bill, I do not necessarily conclude that if the 7 person committee isn't formed, the recount law can be ignored. Maybe this tactic of neglect is a lawyer's way out, since the bill stipulates the committee must be formed within 30 days of the primary. But to my layman thinking, I would intepret this as meaning Jan Brewer cannot ignore the requirement of forming the committee, or she would be in violation of State law. Could it be that simple? Maybe we should call Brewer and inform her that there is a law that requires her to act by August 12th, and if she doesn't, we as Arizona citizen will place charges against her. Any lawyers here?

Report Abuse

indie616

Aug. 4, 2006 at 09:18:42 PM

View Profile

That link worked. Thanks.

Honestly, Hunter, I am not trying to be difficult here, but I need to know the facts.

So next I need an answer to this:

"It seems Jan Brewer has to appoint a 7 member committee to oversee the process 30 days before the election takes place, and if she doesn't do it, the law doesn't count. Kind'a like a take no action signing statement"

Where does it say that she can disregard the law? As you write "and if she doesn't do it, the law doesn't count."

It would seem to me that the law is the law,and if she doesn't follow it, then all election results could be contested.

Again, not trying to be a pain in the ass, just wanting the truth.

After all, you said there would be a test on Friday, I am just doing the research!

Report Abuse

Hunter

Aug. 4, 2006 at 09:26:17 PM

View Profile

MIC

It's in the "General Procedures For Hand Counting" and reads "Provides that if the board workers selected to perform the hand count fail to appear and perform the hand count, then no hand count will be conducted and the electronic tabulation is deemed the official count."

If no one is appointed to committee it's hard for them to appear. At least thats how the SoS office see's it. You and I understand they HAVE to be "selected", but Jan's not looking at it in clear tearms.

This isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.

Yeah know what else is missing? A provision to force publication what an "acceptable" variance rate between the machine and hand counts really is.

I like that "tidbits of weekly outrage", can I use it?

Report Abuse

indie616

Aug. 4, 2006 at 10:06:55 PM

View Profile

Well, if worse comes to worse I guess we can all slam a fresh mag in our M4 carbine.

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Aug. 4, 2006 at 11:36:20 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

"Provides that if the board workers selected to perform the hand count fail to appear . . . "

Isn't this the key? The General Procedures also "Requires the county chairmen of each political party to designate and provide election board members." That reads "requires," and it is the SOS who must assure that the party chairmen designate board workers to do the hand count, if one should become necessary. The "selection" of these board workers doesn't seem like it's optional, as the bill is written. If the selected hand counters fail to appear, that's one thing, but if they're never selected, that's a failure to obey the law.

If Jan Brewer interprets this differently, that's her perrogative. Should I or any concerned citizen wish to take her to court for breaking the law, willfully or out of negligence, I think we're on good legal ground. Are there no political watchdog groups informing her of the risk she is taking? Should we write her a friendly letter?

Anyway Hunter, feel free to use tidbits of weekly outrage, daily outrage, or even hourly outrage. There's more than enough outrage to go around.

Report Abuse

Hunter

Aug. 5, 2006 at 01:08:28 AM

View Profile

MIC

As I stated above, "selected" is a key word, but that means nothing to our elected janitors, their going to clean the place as they see fit. If you go to the link I provided for Indie from the SoS office, you'll note the closing date to be on the Vote Committee is close of business on Aug 11, 2006. Do you honestly think they'll spend all night pouring over applications, select the best canidates, interview them, check references and hire them in 24 hours?

I've been active in politics for a few years now and the one thing I've learned the hard way is the "rule of law" means nada to politicians. The guy I talked about in my artical, Ernest Hancock, he's been fighting voting laws since 1993, some all the way to the 9th Circuit, and always lost in some way even when the courts ruled in his favor. Did you know publishing court decisions is at the descretion of the court? Thats right, they don't have to publish case law rulings if they don't want to.

And this Special Action case Erine filed now is sure to be a winner, but who's going to enforce it if Brewer say's sorry I can't find qualifed personal?

I asked eveyone reading my article to go to Ernie's website and listen to his interviews with people in the know, even Kevin Tyne, our currrent Deputy Secretary

I promise it'll be worth your time

Good nite,

Dave

Report Abuse

1 2 Next »