Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Beware Activist Judges Trying To Influence U.S. Elections
Human Events ^ | 5/11/04 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 05/11/2004 8:17:52 AM PDT by pookie18

How votes in the November 2004 general election will be counted broke into the news recently when California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned the use of 14,000 touch-screen voting machines because of security and reliability concerns. He "decertified" 28,000 others until steps are taken to upgrade their security.

Shelley declared all touch-screens "defective or unacceptable" because they provide no "meaningful recount of the vote" and are unsecure, unstable and technologically demanding for poll workers.

That's quite a slap at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled 3-0 in 2003 that the California recall election should have been postponed because there was a likelihood that the American Civil Liberties Union could prove in a trial that the new touch-screen voting machines would be more accurate than the system California had used for decades.

That's what the judges said, but with the recall election already under way and absentee ballots being counted, everyone knew that the real reason the court tried to postpone the election was to help save former California Gov. Gray Davis from political liquidation.

To try to justify their decision, the 9th Circuit Court judges said the recall should be suspended in order for the United States to show "our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos" at a critical time when we are trying to persuade people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. The implication was that if California didn't postpone the recall to give time to install touch-screen machines, America would be setting a bad example for Iraq and Afghanistan.

As further justification for their reasoning, the 9th Circuit Court judges used meaningless buzzwords to suggest that California urgently needed a new high-tech voting system. The court's decision stated "the fundamental right to have votes counted in the special recall election is infringed because the pre-scored punch-card voting systems used in some California counties are intractably afflicted with technologic dyscalculia."

It really was the activist judges who were afflicted with the urge to render a political decision to help the Democrats, and the touch-screen system that was afflicted with the problem of counting the ballots accurately. Shelley said that the touch-screen machines "jeopardized the outcome" of the March 2004 California primary election because thousands of San Diego voters were turned away from polling places when touch-screen machines malfunctioned.

Fortunately, when this political decision was appealed, the full 9th Circuit Court allowed the recall election to proceed as scheduled. The voters then recalled Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger in a fair election with ordinary ballots.

Since the 2000 presidential election, states and counties in California, Florida and elsewhere have spent millions of dollars to go high-tech by buying tens of thousands of touch-screen voting machines. Now they find that the touch-screen machines may have more defects than the systems they are replacing, and those defects can be concealed because there is no paper trail to document the ballots.

In a special election in Florida in January 2004, 134 votes weren't counted, apparently because people didn't use the touch-screen machines properly. The result of the election was that Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff, a Republican, was elected to represent District 91 in the Florida House of Representatives by just 12 votes.

With surveys showing that the 2004 presidential election will be a cliffhanger, the Democrats are desperately searching for new constituencies they can harvest. For example, giving the franchise to the nation's 4 million convicted felons could be enough to elect John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Realizing that former Democratic Vice President Al Gore might have carried Florida in 2000 if convicted felons had voted, Democratic lawyers and lobbyists hope to give felons the franchise before the November presidential election. They are trying to get activist judges to throw out or rewrite state laws that restrict the ability of convicted felons to vote.

In New York, Democratic officials, labor unions and pressure groups are promoting the outlandish notion of allowing legal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens to vote. New York City has 1 million legal immigrants of voting age who are not citizens, more than enough to swing any election.

In addition to trying to gather the votes of convicted felons who have been released from prison and the votes of non-citizens, will the Democrats also be trying to round up the votes of prisoners? Six current U.S. Supreme Court justices have stated that they will look to foreign courts for guidance in interpreting U.S. laws, so we should be on guard against a possible next step in the Democrats' search for new voting blocs.

In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, ruled that laws preventing convicted prisoners from voting in elections are a breach of their human rights. The court ruled that it couldn't accept "an absolute bar on voting by any serving prisoner ... "

In the United States, Republicans are spending tens of millions of dollars to promote their message. It is just as important to prevent activist judges from rewriting our election laws and from interfering with ongoing elections.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; aliens; democratscheat; electronicvoting; felonvote; judicialactivism; kerry; phyllisschlafly

1 posted on 05/11/2004 8:17:54 AM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pookie18
I will have to read this carefully. But I fear that "all bets are off" when it comes to how judges involve themselves in the upcoming election. Sad.
2 posted on 05/11/2004 8:35:01 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pookie18
On the topic of voting machines rather than judges, electronic voting would be a HUGE mistake. I'm honestly surprised that the Democrats are protesting it, because I thought they put them through in the first place so they could cheat more massively and tracelessly.
3 posted on 05/11/2004 8:40:24 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pookie18
Six current U.S. Supreme Court justices have stated that they will look to foreign courts for guidance in interpreting U.S. laws

The only ONE I know about is o'connor...who are the other 5?

FMCDH

4 posted on 05/11/2004 8:43:10 AM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pookie18
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Run for the hills! We need a better way to select judges. The RATS know that they will soon be out of Congress so they have chose to destroy our country from the bench.
5 posted on 05/11/2004 8:48:17 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pookie18
California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley banned the use of 14,000 touch-screen voting machines because of security and reliability concerns. He "decertified" 28,000 others until steps are taken to upgrade their security.

Since when did government employees become experts in technology? About the same time they became experts in everything from healthcare to transportation?


6 posted on 05/11/2004 8:49:27 AM PDT by unixfox (Close the borders, problems solved!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Maybe, as usual, the opposite is happening. Maybe the machines are so good that the RATS can't figure out how to cheat with them so they will disallow them.
7 posted on 05/11/2004 8:50:39 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Some are listed here:

http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/rowles/20030716.htm

8 posted on 05/11/2004 9:06:19 AM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pookie18
Bush's first executive order should have been voting machine availability wherever our military are. On ships, in mess halls, every corner of the globe. It's not too late.
9 posted on 05/11/2004 9:20:05 AM PDT by T. Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. Jefferson
Yes it is too late. Also, there is not a 'national' election for those individuals in the military services in which to vote. There are 50 States which hold elections for local races, US House, usually US Senate and of course presidential electors (and the District of Columbia for presidential electors). The point being that the votes HAVE to go to the State of residence of the military service member to be counted which means an absentee ballot at this time. No machine installed on a ship or installation will be certified by all the States as being an acceptable method of transmitting and validating a vote.


dvwjr
10 posted on 05/11/2004 10:27:34 AM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson