Nationwide, several activists have challenged the validity of elections since the advent of computerized voting. Simple common sense supports the notion that our suspicions surrounding these conspiracy allegations should be considered very carefully. After all, if teenage computer hackers can break into AT&T, The Veterans Administration, the CIA, the NSA and the FBI, then why should our computerized election process be considered any less vulnerable from tampering and fraud?
Since the Presidential election debacles of 2000 and 2004, many Americans are awakening to the fact that there are serious questions regarding the safeguards of our voting practices. Perhaps for the first time in American history, Americans across the country are wondering if their votes are honestly and accurately being tabulated. Are there really nefarious forces lurking behind computer screens monitoring key elections, nationwide, and with movement of a keystroke, reversing the true will of the people and fraudulently determining the winner? A short time ago, I would have thought election fraud and manipulation was the topic of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Yet, the recent data and the curious actions of politicians, like Jan Brewer, have given me pause to reconsider the issue of election integrity.
Computer programmer, Clinton Eugene Curtis, has a distinguished record of writing computer code for NASA, Exxon and the Department of Transportation. In 2004, Curtis testified before the House Judiciary Committee, that in October of 2000, he wrote source code for then Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Tom Feeney [R-FL], which would flip the election vote 51-49% in favor of the candidate of choice in any race. Curtis further testified that the fraud would be literally undetectable. According to Curtis, for the voter fraud to be successfully carried out, only one centralized, controlling machine would have to be altered. According to Curtis, this in turn would flip the results of all other machines in the interconnected system. Curtis further cautioned the subcommittee that if the exit polls deviate substantially from the final election results that he would be highly suspicious of the integrity and rigor of that particular election process. In Ohio, it has been established that voter fraud was rampant and the final presidential results significantly differed from the exit polling. The Curtis testimony can viewed at the following URL: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=009429
After viewing the video of the Curtis testimony it is hard to believe that any American will vote again without using anything other than an absentee ballot. Further, any Arizonan, who votes to re-elect Jan Brewer obviously does not care if their vote makes a difference or not.
Enter Ernest Hancock, the former Maricopa County Party Chairman of the Libertarian Party, and more importantly, Jan Brewer’s chief opponent in the upcoming election for Arizona Secretary of State. Mr. Hancock filed suit in the Arizona Supreme Court (Special Action CV-06-0252-SA filed July 25th) against Jan Brewer for failing to force compliance with a manual validation of 2006 election law just passed. Hancock’s suit merely wanted to force Brewer to validate the election results with a hand count in compliance with the law. The court agreed with Hancock. Then why is Brewer so afraid of openness in government? Hancock warns there is no intention on Brewer’s part to comply with the law as she is falling back on the ”we don’t have time to do this" argument.
Jan Brewer’s behavior is highly suspicious at best. Her insistence on “fully standing behind our optical scan equipment…..” and, “It all comes down to faith and trust in your election officers,” is downright frightening. A government that does not operate in the open and refuses to be audited ceases to be a democratic republic.
Arizonans need to be careful to not confuse the right to vote with the right to choose. IF Jan Brewer is re-elected, Arizonans potentially lose the right to choose because of her insistence on trusting her and the system. The “system” has already come under suspicion in several instances. And now, with all that we know about voter fraud, are we really supposed to sit back and trust the system? Imagine if Richard Nixon was allowed to get away with this argument. Did the Communists actually burn down the Reichstag? Did the Shah of Iran actually win his first election?
“Shhhh! Trust us!”
The chief function of the Secretary of State is to ensure election fairness and accuracy in our States’ election and to do so in as open of a manner as possible. With Jan Brewer, we have a government official whose unofficial campaign slogan is “shut up and trust us.” This carries the ring and all the sincerity of an authoritarian used car salesman. Brewer has made it clear that she will do just what she wants and when she wants to do it. A vote for Jan Brewer is a vote for continued government secrecy, complicity in potential election fraud and would serve to validate her political arrogance where she is putting her will above the people and the courts. With Ernest Hancock, we have a private citizen who believes in the openness of government and his efforts in restoring the integrity of the election process. Hancock’s efforts have been completely selfless and transparent. The choice for Arizona Secretary of State is an easy one.
Although Mr. Hancock and I find ourselves in different political parties, I am publicly endorsing the candidacy of Ernest Hancock for Secretary of State. We need someone who has demonstrated true concern for our democratic ideals. In a conciliatory gesture, I would like to compliment Mrs. Brewer for engaging one of the most clever campaign tactics of this political season. I find it absolutely brilliant that she placed the face of her granddaughter on all of her campaign posters.
In the upcoming election for the Arizona Secretary of State, if Brewer prevails by a 51-49% margin over Hancock, Arizona will join Ohio in the annals of rampant voter improprieties.