NewsMine — cabal-elite — election-fraud — electronic — Viewing Item

More state of the art machines not chosen { June 17 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1055856699,48458, http://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1055856699,48458, Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Voting systems under review By CASSANDRA KOWALCZYK/Special to the Daily Press SAN BERNARDINO — Days after the chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors criticized the Registrar of Voters' choice of electronic voting machines, the county's purchasing agent on Monday said the selection will be reconsidered. The process now calls for John Goss, assistant county administrator for economic development/public services, to create a panel to determine whether the appeals have merit. The county expects the panel to render its decision in early July. Diebold Election Systems and Maximus filed appeals of the registrar's selection of a voting machine developed by Sequoia Voting Systems. Last week, Board of Supervisors Chairman Dennis Hansberger questioned why Diebold and Maximus were called "more state-of-the art" and "more flexible" in the registrar's report to the board, but not chosen. County Purchasing Agent Aurelio De La Torre did not evaluate the county's selection process, only whether the objections raised by the potential vendors fell into categories outlined in the process. On June 10, following an exhaustive proposal and selection process, county staff recommended supervisors select Sequoia Voting Systems to provide the county with an electronic voting system. The state has ordered San Bernardino County and other counties to replace punch-card voting systems in time for the 2004 presidential election. Diebold Election Systems and Maximus appealed county staff's recommendation.

2004-general 2004-primaries dissent franklin-county rollout voting-disputes About election systems and software inc Companies close relationships election officials { August 4 2003 } Compuware testing ohio machines Control voting machines { January 31 2003 } Convincted felons work for voting companies Crooks in control { September 16 2002 } Diebold backs of legal challenge Diebold ceo committed to bush { November 9 2003 } Diebold ceo to help bush Diebold glitch not affecting scan equipment { September 30 2003 } Diebold maryland reviews elections systems software { March 17 2006 } Diebold stops executives from making political donations Diebold sues over california voting systems Electronic voting paper trail idea attacked { December 21 2006 } Field grows for voting machines Goldwater voting machine { November 16 2002 } Grand jury grants chico ca machines How bush wins 2004 Judge denies electronic voting challenge to march elections Left accused of vote machine fraud before 2006 election { October 29 2006 } More state of the art machines not chosen { June 17 2003 } Pentagon program for internet voting insecure { January 22 2004 } Republicans will take care of the vote counting { November 15 2004 } Selections committee violated provisions { July 14 2003 } Sen hagel connections { January 29 2003 } Seqouia prices higher than others { September 10 2003 } Sequoia comments on diebold Sequoia prints recall ballots { August 12 2003 } Sequoia software unprotected Sequoia threatens legal action ohio Task force finds voting machines easily manipulated { June 27 2006 } Two voting companies two brothers count eighty percent { April 27 2004 } Urosevich brothers run two top vote machine companies { April 28 2004 } Vote machines rothschilds Voting machine companies refuse disability access Voting machines ensure bush victory Files Listed: 36

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.