It wasn't a pretty deliberation, but the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors tonight ended up sending the resolution to approve acceptance of a grant to purchase touch screen voting machines back to the Judiciary Committee. A motion to send the resolution back to the committee was defeated on a 19-17 vote. However, the vote to then approve the resolution failed on a vote of 24 Aye and 12 No--it failed because the resolution needed two-thirds of the membership (26 votes) to pass. Board Chair David Albrecht then said he would ask the Judiciary Committee to bring the matter back up.
Dr. Ann Frisch, Ron Hardy, and I presented the Board with information related to the problems with electronic voting technology that have been reported nationally. Supervisors Claud Thompson, Bill Wingren, Paul Eisen, and Jef Hall led the move to get the resolution back to the Judiciary Committee. Supervisor Hall was especially effective in documenting problems that have been found with the very Diebold model that the County plans to purchase.
The supervisors who voted against referring the resolution back to committee and for the original resolution seemed persuaded mostly by specious arguments. They argued that the "Help America Vote" act provides them with no choice but to purchase this technology. Seems to me that any law that forces you to buy something that has been demonstrated to be unreliable is not a law worth following. Counties and municipalities should tell the feds in the strongest possible terms that "helping America vote" does not mean undermining the integrity of elections with technology that is deeply flawed.
Other supervisors argued that since the County Clerk is such a good and competent person, we should simply take her recommendation to purchase the equipment. That's one of those arguments to which the only response possible is "huh?!"
Winnebago County does not need Diebold touch screen voting. In order to defeat it, citizens will have to make their voices heard. Contact your county supervisor and let him or her know that we refuse to have the integrity of our elections undermined by bad federal law. When the next Judiciary Committee meeting is scheduled, try to attend and speak out if you are available.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
There are more questions than answers about the new voting machines.
What does the federal law say and require?
What is the opinion of Pam Ubrig, the Oshkosh city clerk?
What happens if no machines are purchased?
Aren't the present machines adequate to provide access to those with impairments?
How can a person with a visual impairment use a touch screen without assistance?
Finally, this is not grant. There is no grant application and if the county purchases the machines they simply submit a voucher to get reimbursement.
Thanks for bringing attention and discussion to this issue. How did this come up from nowhere? I heard nothing until yesterday.
Our current system does not allow handicapped citizens to vote without help. We do not have "machines" to help the handicapped. Without new equipment we will be in violation of the new law. Pam Ubrig is on board with purchasing the machines. Have you heard of brail? Yes it is called a grant. Any more questions?
I have a question:
How can one read braille on a touch screen? Touch screens are flat. Will little bumps pop up from the screen? That's a technology I look forward to 'seeing'. If Braille is the answer - print some ballots in Braille.
People who have "any more questions" might want to take the matter into their own hands and Google "Diebold source code". Even a brief scan of the hits you get from that search ought to make you feel queasy.
In Tony's first post on these machines the article mentions "security flaws", try the fact that Diebold has had the source code for these machines blasted all over the net. Could be a problem.
If you think "Harvard" is a more impressive info source than "Anonymous" or even "Pam" then take a look at this summary of the situation
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/briefings/dvb
And, whether you resonate with this group or not,
http://www.votergate.tv/
its very existance is an indication that these machines are fraught (cool word, huh) with controversy - even blocked for a time in California due to questions about - you guessed it - their source code.
Fools (and councils) jump in , where angels fear to tread...
Ohmigod! I mentioned the Angel thing again.
Jody, So what is your suggestion? You mentioned California blocked them "for a time", obviously they let them in then. Why? No system is perfect. No matter what we do there will always be a Becker or Gore that will cry foul. Last of all this is not a county issue. If cities, towns, and villages will be fined for not complying, we need to let them make their own decisions. Sue was doing everyone a favor by doing all the paperwork with one grant. The county will not receive the fine for non-compliance. Let the cities, towns and villages make their own decisions.
Why is it that we feel compelled to "blindly" follow any old law that is put on the books? No rational, no reason, just do as we say or else. Or else what? Here's another thought, as dark as it mat seem, who are the folks making up these rules, laws, oh yeah that's right guys and gals like Scott( scooter) Jensen, Bonnie Ludwig, Brian Burke etc. and we should feel profoundly confident that they have our best interests at heart both here in Winnebago County as well as the entire State of Wisconsin!?
Sorry but this taxpayer wants more documentation, and information before blindly following these folks with their "NEW TECHNOLOGY"!
Melanie Bloechl
I do believe elected officials take an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution of the state of wisconsin and the united states so I guess that means you follow the law, even a bad law or change it... and it's Bonnie Ladwig, not Ludwig...
Like not putting statues of angels in public parks? And not further torturing the subject by denying the angel is, in fact, a religious symbol?
What about all the laws Bush has broken or trespassed upon? I suspect that iceberg is still mostly under water.
(Forgive me, Jody, but you DID open the door! Wave an angel under my nose and I gotta respond.)
When your elected to office one does NOT check their collective brain and conscience at the door to city hall! With attitudes like that of Anon 12:09 am would you have blindly followed the laws that Hilter instituted, after pledgeing an oath to his REICH?
We have an obligation to question, research and speak out on those thing/laws that we know or feel could be harmful to those whom we represent.
Food for thought
Melanie Bloechl
Anon 12:09 am said you follow the laws or change them. Read the whole comment before spouting off.
Citizen,
Where in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights does "separation of church and state" appear?
Actually it is a federal law Melanie, you really should do some research before going off half cocked as usual. Sue Ertmer and the other clerks in the county have researched the machines and have decided we need to follow the law. The law was instituted after the problems in the past national elections.
Excuse me, you are most certainly correct it is a Federal law, I believe my original point is even more on track if you look at the track record of corruption, disconnect and out right lies from the FEDS to the lowly locals!
Melanie Bloechl
Melanie is right on target. How could we blindly follow a federal law that could result in purchasing voting technology with a proven track record of unreliability? Counties and municipalities throughout the nation need to say NO to this. (The Maryland Assembly voted unanimously to ban all touch screen voting, a vote that the Maryland governor agrees with. The state Senate did not act on the bill so it died for this session. But rest assured that many states will seek to ban this nonsense as the sheer unreliability of the equipment becomoes more well known.).
Melanie, I just love how you throw around statements like, "Blindly follow the law", Didn't Sue Ertmer and many of the other clerks investigate the machine? Yes they did. Hardly blindly following the law. The county board is to follow laws, and not interpret or make laws. Do you think we should disobey laws we do not believe in. I hate the speed limit of 65 so I cna drive 80 now? We are a country of laws. If our local government does not follow them how can we expect our citizens to. When the city does not follow a law you are the first one to jump on them. So is what you are saying the city and county need only follow the laws YOU agree with?
Mel, Without law we have chaos. Your idea is we just make our own rules locally? Fine, how do you like what Castle, Wollangk and Kraft are doing. They seem to do what they think is best for the city without reguard for law. You can't have it both ways.
Very clever, New Voice. Of course you know the phrase you mentioned does not appear in the Constitution. But Supreme Court opinions, using the First Amendment, have clearly and securely established that principle (first written by Thomas Jefferson contemporaneously with his construction of much of the Constitution) as law of the land.
As much as I am appalled by the thought of an angel in the park, I would defend any church or member from interference by government into their worship in their church, synagogue, living room, vacated service station, tent or mosque. I WANT devout souls to have un-threatened places to do whatever they feel it necessary to do.
I do not want angels in parks or audible prayer in schools or the Ten Commandments on public property. Such things are bad for all of us. Imposing religion by force is certainly contrary to my understanding of Christianity. How can you ever hope to command a heart to love? How can wedging religious symbols into secular spaces speak anything positive about the faith?
I give you that your particular phrase is not in the Constitution...just as the "right" to bear arms is not spelled out except in the MOST LIMITED OF CONTEXTS.
Ahh, the Angel debate Melanie. Just put the Angel in the park says Bill Castle. He thinks it is ok, to hell with the law. Damn government has always been corrupt. Our city council isn't going to blindly follow the law.
Her pal Paul Esslinger thinks the angel in the park is okay too...Guess it's fine to break laws we don't agree with.
I finally figured it out. We should obey the law when Melanie and TOny say we should. Like the no-bid bathrooms and the open meetings laws and the confidentiality agreements. But when the they think the law is bad, then we should disreguard it. Have you ever sat back and listened to yourselves? Who the hell do you think you are?
I read the federal law and I did not find any place where it said voting machines like Winnebago County currently has would have to be replaced. The following is an excerpt from the law:
SEC. 102. NOTE: 42 USC 15302. REPLACEMENT OF PUNCH CARD OR LEVER
VOTING MACHINES.
Use of funds.--A State shall use the funds provided under a payment under this section (either directly or as reimbursement, including as reimbursement for costs incurred on or after January 1, 2001, under multiyear contracts) to replace punch card voting systems or lever voting systems (as the case may be) in qualifying precincts within that State with a voting system (by purchase, lease, or such other arrangement as may be appropriate) that--
(A) does not use punch cards or levers;
(B) is not inconsistent with the requirements of the laws described in section 906; and
(C) meets the requirements of section 301.
SEC. 301. NOTE: 42 USC 15481.VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.
(a) Requirements.--Each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
(1) In general.--
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the voting system (including any lever voting system, optical scanning voting system, or direct recording electronic system) shall--
(i) permit the voter to verify (in a private and independent manner) the votes selected by the
voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted;
(ii) provide the voter with the opportunity (in a private and independent manner) to change
the ballot or correct any error before the ballot is cast and counted (including the opportunity to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter was otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error); and
(iii) if the voter selects votes for more than one candidate for a single office--
(I) notify the voter that the voter has selected more than one candidate for a single office on the ballot;
(II) notify the voter before the ballot is cast and counted of the effect of casting multiple votes for the office; and
(III) provide the voter with the opportunity to correct the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted.
Also the law requires a "permanent paper record":
From SEC. 301. NOTE: 42 USC 15481. VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.
2) Audit capacity.--
(A) In general.--The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system.
(B) Manual audit capacity.--
(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.
How's that for research Melanie?
The machines do not have to be replaced. We need to provide voting for the handicapped. The proposed machines would provide that. The method we use now does not. Understand?
It is posts like that that make me glad Thiel is off the school board. She really does not have a clue. Wrong law!
Can anyone explain how flawed machines help the handicapped? I don't always agree with Melanie or Tony, but on this they are making a good point. I'm shocked that a county clerk would support buying a machine that hasn't been proven to be reliable.
You would have to ask Sue Ertmer and all the other clerks. They tested the machine. It allows the handicapped to vote in privacy. Often with the paper ballot the voter is helped and the poll worker may know who they voted for. Thus the new law.
Wrong law? Really! Why don't you enlighten us with where we can find the correct one then.
This is about access for handicapped voters. Section 301(3) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Does that enlighten you? Maybe now some of you will understand. You should not try to comment on things you know very little about.
And that is exactly what part of this is about. Thanks for helping prove our point.
Anonymous 4:58pm why don't you go back and look at what I posted, in there you will see... Section 301 of the Help America Vote Act so how was it the wrong law? I said I posted an excerpt (it is a rather long Act, I didn't think anyone would want the whole thing posted). And exactly how would a visually handicapped person or someone who is paralyzed use the touch screen without help? What does the touch screen allow handicapped people to do that our current system doesn't allow?
Citizen, Jody, New Voice,
Thomas Jefferson wrote the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Hardly contemporaneous with the Constitution. Actually the First Amendment is the one about the government neither endorsing nor establishing religion. Jefferson was in France as an ambassador when the Bill of Rights was being drafted and ratified. His comments about the wall between church and state had to do with Connecticut having the Protestant religion as their official state religion and wrote it into their state constitution. He sympathized with the baptists who were being discriminated against in government because of this. Jefferson also stated in other documents, as did many signers of the Constitution, that our founding documents were meant to be living documents, allowing them to change with the people of this great land.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court uses the Lemon Test to determine if a body of government is establishing or endorsing one religion over another. Recently members of the Supreme Court have stated that the Lemon Test is unreliable.
Currently, there are 62 Angel statues across the country with dozens in the works. They are placed on private land, in cemetaries, at public memorials, AND in public parks. The few that have been quashed were because of the threat of expensive lawsuits, NOT unconstitutionality of the statue. Erecting a statue neither endorses one religion over another nor establishes a religion.
"Angel" means "messenger" in Greek and is indicative of the Greek god Hermes who was also worshipped by the Romans. Angels appeared in Judiasm long before Christianity. Angels appeared in Christianity about the same time as they appeared in Islam. One can also find angels in New Age belief systems, Zoroastianism, and Japanese mythology. Angels are fairly universal, thus incapable of being pinned to one religion or secular use.
As for guns, that argument is usually whether or not we have the right to possess firearms, not what consitutes a firearm. I am pretty sure the statue will be unarmed.
If you have questions about how the machine services handicapped voters I suggest you contact Sue Ertmer. Also I am not suggesting this is the ONLY machine that will work as incorrectly stated by Tony in the most recent thread. This machine is compadible with what we currently have.
The Constitution became effective in 1789, the Bill of Rights in 1791. Jefferson's comment in his letter 1802. I call that contemporaneous. If your youth is such that eleven years seems a lifetime then I congratulate you. I will not quibble.
Please find below text from a SCHOLARLY discussion of Jefferson's letter:
"It is myth that Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a mere courtesy and should not be regarded as important.
Religious Right activists have tried for decades to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury
Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note
designed to win the favor of a political constituency. But a glance at the history surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.
As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and
state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a
summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the
First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the
Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision
the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted
almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"
It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack
by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of
church and state.
(Some Religious Right propagandists have take to outright
fabrications in order to refute the Jefferson metaphor. They
sometimes claim that Jefferson described his wall as "one-
directional," forbidding government intervention into religion, but allowing church intrusion into government. In fact, Jefferson used no such language, as the text of the Danbury letter attests.)"
I have no idea how the establishment clause might be shredded after George Bush's and Jerry Falwell's court gets through with it. However, at this moment, Christmas Box Angels in public parks are verboten. As they should be.
Your comment on the second amendment noted. As someone else stated: "Keep your day job".
Mrs. Monte provides a nice history lesson but as Citizen has pointed out, is incorrect in her presentation. Her use of the word quash is also confusing. She states that of the 62 angel statues across the country, "the few that have been quashed were because of the threat of expensive lawsuits, NOT unconstitutionality of the statue." So did those few cases go to court or not, Mrs. Monte. In order for something to be quashed in the true legal sense of the word, it must be overthrown, annulled or vacated by judicial decision. In order to get to that point a civil action would had to have been filed. So what really happened in those cases? Was litigation filed or was it not?
Citizen,
Although you try to be the foremost expert on everything, you aren't. The Jefferson letter makes very little difference in this discussion. Things like this are left to interpratation. It will depend on the text you are reading. You seem to think that because a 'scholar' wrote that opinion we should follow it as gospel.
If that is the case, the Bible can be referred to in regards to the statue. In the Bible, a winged creature was that from Hell and represented Satan. According to the Bible Angels do NOT have wings. So, what religion is THIS Angel meant to represent?
This statue is NOT meant to be a religious symbol. You are seeing it through tunnel vision. I have to ask one question;
Have you read the book yet?
//Target//
If the statute is not a religious symbol then why is Jerry Falwell agreeing to pay for any lawsuit? Please no reasonable person really believes that an angel has no religious connotations, if they did, there would be no controversy.
I believe a scholar's opinion takes precedence over mine in most cases and, perhaps, even over yours.
Contrary to your accusation I DO NOT have any interest in being "the foremost expert on everything". My comments emerge from a long life of inquiry and are rooted in my own prejudices and perceptions. I plead guilty to having formed what I hope are informed opinions on many subjects but which, in the end, have no more value than those of any of us who write here.
The book to which you are referring must be THE CHRISTMAS BOX ANGEL. I have not read it and have no intention of doing so. Let us just say it is not my kind of literature.
May I refer you to a website:
http://www.angelslight.org/bibleangel.html
Seems those folks think angels are, indeed, symbols of Christ and Christianity.
New Voice,
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
* * *
While an angel statue is not an actual law, within itself, this situation does fall under the wish of the founding fathers'to keep the government away from showing a preference or establishing a discriminatory policy concerning religon at large. This applies to a city government declaring a Christian monument in a public park legal. You know, law.
Now, a literal, simple-thinking person would probably hold that as non-Christians have not been officially outlawed, they have no right to whine. As one of the above-mentioned people, I could try to explain to you how it feels to see that my society doesn't care to recognize me, just as you don't, but in order for you to understand this, you would require a level of empathy and compassion, a view not blinded by your "self", that you apparently do not possess.
So I won't bother.
Citizen,
I wrote a paper on the angel issue for political science this past semester of grad school in an effort to analyze the issue from both sides. Jefferson stated in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association that “ believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” The rest of the letter refers to the state sanctioned protestant religion of Connecticut. Just as you can site scholarly research, I too can produce scholarly research (I do hope the actual quote is scholarly). I can also produce scholarly articles that point out that the "separation of church and state" movement gained steam in the 1840's as an anti-Catholic initiative. Later, the movement grew with the advent of the KKK expanding the anti-Catholic sentiments and pushing for complete separation in the 1920s, see an article called "Against Separation."
I would also point out that the framers of the Constitution came from a variety of religious backgrounds and Jefferson bordered on non-Christian/Pagan believing in a natural law as opposed to God's law. That comes out in the Declaration of Independence with a reference to "Nature and Nature's laws." Then there is the reference to rights endowed by our Creator.
Since Supreme Court decisions are only as reliable as the most recent interpretation, I would refer you to Lemon v. Kurtzman from 1971. It forbade government actions that "(1) have no secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or (3) foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion." As you can see, it is vague enough to open anything to interpretation.
We disagree, and each can support our arguments.
I would have to point out that in order for the statue to be "verboten," you must prove that an angel symbol is strictly religious to support the creation of a, in this case, city-sanctioned religion. Otherwise you must prove that the city placing the angel in a public park is an establishment of religion or a place of worship. Of course, I mean "you" in a very general sense. For the opposition to take this to court, the burden of proof falls on those claiming the statue is in violation. There are an abundance of websites and books about angels and their origins. Not all of them are religious, but I am sure if you keep trying you can find whatever you WANT to see in whatever you look at.
Anonymous, Quash also means to put down or suppress forcibly and completely. I would think threatening an expensive and lengthy lawsuit would be forcibly. It can also refer to legal action, but it does not have to involve a court hearing.
So were those cases taken to court or weren't they?
Thank you, Ms Monte, for the benefit of your scholarly endeavors. Of course you are right.
Citizen, while many would be ecstatic to hear those words (you are right), I look at discussions of controversial issues such as this one as learning experiences for all. You too brought up good points and research both sides should read. Maybe others on either side of the issue will put forth the efforts we have and find some middle ground. I think in this case, we are both correct.
As for court cases, my research revealed that the cases where court was threatened, there were several outcomes. I did not find any that actually made it to judicial judgment, but that isn't to say that there are none. Some cities dropped the issue as soon as court was mentioned, those were usually small municipalities with little means of fighting a lawsuit of any kind. Some cities compromised and donated/sold a small parcel of public land to the angel foundations. Some cities allowed the statues in public places and the communities welcomed them. There were cases of a few state governors and a few mayors endorsing the statues and their meaning to families that are grieving and declared official "Christmas Box Angel Days." The news articles for those cities cite the statues as unifiying their communities regardless of faith or lack of. The statues symbolize faith and love, universal themes.
(BTW Christmas Box Angel International formed to build houses for abused, neglected, and homeless children and their families in the hopes of stopping the cycle of abuse and poverty around the world. They have a website.)
Feel free to research the issue yourself if you are still interested in judicial judgments, I would be curious if any local courthouses ruled the statues unconstitutional.
Citizen, thank you for a spirited discussion. I did learn something about the opposing viewpoint, I had not found in my research.
Post a Comment