Supreme Court Denies Standing & Allows Costs Against Voting Rights Activist

ecotalk.org ^ | 4 April A.D.2006 | Lynn Landes

[Robert Drobot]

Washington DC -- April 4, 2006: In an alarming wake-up call to voting rights activists accross the country, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week a decision by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court ruled (Landes v Tartaglione, et al) that Philadelphia journalist and voting rights activist, Lynn Landes, had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of election laws which Landes claimed deny direct access to a tangible ballot and meaningful transparency to the election process.

Specifically, Landes challenged the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for public office. The defendants in the lawsuit were Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia; Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States.

Landes says that the court's decision does not mean that the use of obstructive and non-transparent voting processes or technologies is constitutional. But, it doesn't send a good signal, either.

[Robert Drobot]

A single citizen, a modern day Joan of Arc, was stopped in her effort to get court support for lawful accountability in the government's controlled and closed voting process.

She received no attention or support from any patriot organizations.

She received no attention or support from any conservative radio talkingheads - though they clearly know the process is a national disgrace and shame that makes Chicago vote counting as childs play.

She received no attention or support from any elected Democrat or Republican, but then that would be akin to seeking support from a fox to defend/protect chickens.

She received no attention or support from the black robes, because she was a lone citizen standing before men and women who have come to despise a citizen who would dare attempt to put a spotlight on the corruption of a 'system' they helped to put into place to control citizen scrutiny.

[HiTech RedNeck]

She received no attention or support from any elected Democrat or Republican, but then that would be akin to seeking support from a fox to defend/protect chickens.

Maybe because worries about sophisticated technical tampering are WAAAAY down the list of concerns from "pregnant chads" and the like. An aggrieved candidate would have to bring this kind of suit.

[Darkwolf377]

I fail to see how challenging absentee voting makes one a Joan of Arc.

[Darkwolf377]

This Presidency brought to you by Diebold?

Thanks for putting this ridiculous thread in perspective.

[Robert Drobot]

Who's Fixing Elections? Sequoia-Smartmatic-Unisys

by CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN

(Photo: Antonio Mugica, the 32-year-old Venezuelan
and Spanish citizen, who founded Smartmatic with
his childhood friend Alfredo Anzola, and who now sits
in Caracas as the chief executive officer of Smartmatic
and Sequoia Voting Systems.)

COOK COUNTY, Illinois -- Sequoia Voting Systems took a giant leap forward in June 2005, when the election authorities of Chicago and Cook County approved voting system contracts worth nearly $52 million allowing the small privately-owned foreign company to run elections in the second largest county in the United States.

Cook County has a population of some 5.5 million people and is second only to Los Angeles County in terms of population. The sudden and unexpected switch to Sequoia voting machines in the Chicago-area greatly increased the king-making power of the mysterious little company from Caracas, Venezuela, or wherever it's from.

Cook County is the only county in Illinois to use Sequoia voting machines, but the votes from Cook County largely determine the state's votes in the Electoral College.

[Robert Drobot]

You need to digest the highlighted part of the story. There no accounting for ballot counting. This FRiend was the thrust of her argument before the robes. Common sense compels one to agree with this rudimentary argument.

[Darkwolf377]

I read the whole story, thanks, and your Presidency by Diebold illustration helps put it all in perspective. This woman is no Joan of Arc to me.

[Darkwolf377]

"by Lynn Landes"

From her bio:

Lynn Landes is the publisher of EcoTalk.org and a freelance journalist who specializes in voting, the environment, and health. She is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues and is featured in the book, Black Box Voting by BEV HARRIS

[sd-joe]

>> "Cook County approved voting system contracts worth nearly $52 million allowing the small privately-owned foreign company to run elections in the second largest county in the United States." <<

Wow, just making the voting machines that Americans won't make.

[Darkwolf377]

For additional reading pleasure by this same writer:

Americans... Leading the Way... Destroying The Planet. What's The World To Do? by Lynn Landes 9/9/02 It wasn't enough for George Bush to boycott the Earth Summit. He sent negotiators flanked by big business to Johannesburg to destroy it. And Bush had other help as well. He had lots of support from ordinary folks back home. Average Americans are destroying the planet with their fossil fuel lifestyle. And they don't seem to care how it affects the world around them.

http://www.ecotalk.org/GlobalWarming-InternationalReaction.htm

from her site:

eb. 13: Was Cheney hunting birds? http://www.nytimes.com Was the news release delayed so that others could flee the scene? If the following is untrue, why doesn't Cheney sue? http://www.the7thfire.com

Two Republican-owned corporations (ES&S and Diebold) control the electronic counting of 80% of all votes in America!

So, why aren't Democrats making YOUR VOTE their top priority?

According to U.S.A. Today, 60% of corporate contributions go to Republicans and 40% to Democrats, keeping both parties on the hook.

That's some source you've got there.

[Robert Drobot]

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Communist Soviet Union Tyrant Josef Stalin

[baltoga]

What is the criteria to have "standing" in the eyes of the Supreme Court?

[sportutegrl]

Yeah, like the current system in Philly is so fair and unbiased. Personally, i trust a machine more than a human to fairly count ballots.

[baltoga]

Found the answer why Landes had "no standing"

Quote:
- - - - -
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you and I are watching an Opening Day game in the National Football League, say, with the San Francisco 49ers playing the Atlanta Falcons at Candlestick Park. (Given the state of my bank account, let's also say that you bought the tickets.) The Falcons have the ball at midfield. Quarterback Michael Vick heaves the ball into the air in a perfect arc. Falcons wideout Peerless Price makes a circus catch at the back of the end zone, right in front of where we're sitting. However, the referee signals that the pass is incomplete because Price had one foot out of bounds when he caught the ball. The crowd is silent, waiting to see if the Falcons head coach will challenge the ruling on the field.

From where you and I sit, it looks as though the referee got it wrong, that Price had both feet inbounds when he caught the ball. If Atlanta head coach Jim Mora Jr. appeals the decision, the instant replay will likely show that Price did make the catch legally for a Falcons touchdown. However, if the referee doesn't find "conclusive" evidence to overturn the call, the Falcons will have wasted a valuable timeout. It's a tough decision.

However, there is no question that it's Coach Mora's decision to make. Even though you and I, from where we sit, have the best angle on the play, a better angle even than the official who made the call, we can't make the decision to challenge the play. The same goes for the most rabid Falcons fan watching back home in Atlanta, or the announcers up in the booth, or the post-game pundits on television. All of us may have an interest in the outcome of the play, but none of us have the right to appeal the decision. The only person on the planet who has the standing, or the legal authority, to challenge the play is the head coach — and, not coincidentally, the head coach is also the person who will be held responsible for making the choice, and who will be accountable if the replay shows that the receiver did, in fact, step out of bounds.

This common-sense example serves to illustrate the legal doctrine of standing, which was illustrated most recently, and perhaps most famously, in the recent Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case involving the constitutionality of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. "Standing" is simply the legal right to effectively pursue a legal claim against another party. It is not simply the right to sue; anyone who can get by the twin barriers of common sense and the filing fee can bring a frivolous lawsuit. A potential litigant has to show the court that she has a claim that may be litigated, and that she possesses the proper standing to litigate that claim. "In every federal case," the Newdow Court wrote, "the party bringing the suit must establish standing to prosecute the action."
...
- - - - -
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/edmonds200406230903.asp

[Robert Drobot]

Your argument is self-serving. Rather than focus on the purpose of this thread, vote counting fraud and more importantly, how to stop the very thing that is at the heart of the Trojan Horse created by politicians lacking any kind of foresight, you dear FRiend, chose to attack the fact that Ms. Landes is an environmentalist.

Put aside she did something you and me, wouldn't, couldn't, but should have done. It took an immigrant to stand up for America's right to verify a vote count.

And you dare chastise her, not for her singular bravery, but rather her perhaps misplaced concern for nature and such.

Shame on you.

[jimtorr]

In order to have standing in a lawsuit, you need to be able to demonstrate and injury of some kind, caused fairly directly by the people you are suing.

[Darkwolf377]

Your argument is self-serving.

Whose arguments aren't--your whole thread isn't self-serving?

Rather than focus on the purpose of this thread, vote counting fraud and more importantly, how to stop the very thing that is at the heart of the Trojan Horse created by politicians lacking any kind of foresight, you dear FRiend, chose to attack the fact that Ms. Landes is an environmentalist.

Please note ONE attack on her.

ONE.

Put aside she did something you and me, wouldn't, couldn't, but should have done. It took an immigrant to stand up for America's right to verify a vote count. And you dare chastise her, not for her singular bravery, but rather her perhaps misplaced concern for nature and such. Shame on you.

Shame on me for posting the credeentials NOT of the woman who is the subject of this article but of the writer of this article?

Shame on you, no friend of the truth, for lying--unless you can show me where I did anything but post this writer's OWN words without ANY words from me.

[baltoga]

Thanks. Reading more into the definition of "standing" leads me to believe that Landes could have filed a friend-of-the-court brief to state her position, but she indeed had no standing to challenge the mechanism for voting.

[Darkwolf377]

P.S. I find it ironic that such a self-righteous lover of "transparency" has castigated me for telling the truth about the source of this article.

I guess your outrage at those who don't do things out in the open is highly selective.