Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2-22-12 DEFEND the VOTE Agenda at the Illinois State Board of Elections Board meeting

2-22-12 DEFEND the VOTE Agenda at the Illinois State Board of Elections Board meeting

Ratings: (0)|Views: 201|Likes:
Published by Defend the Vote
This is the agenda that we used when speaking to the Illinois State Board of Elections Board meeting on 2-22-12. Sharon Meroni spoke.
This is the agenda that we used when speaking to the Illinois State Board of Elections Board meeting on 2-22-12. Sharon Meroni spoke.

More info:

Published by: Defend the Vote on Feb 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Agenda: February 22, 20121)
Defend the Vote and Ballot Accessa.
Citizenship and the Illinois Constitution (
10 ILCS 5/10-8 - 5/10-10)i.
Problem: US and Illinois law requires candidates for office to be USA citizens.ii.
Illinois statute does not provide evidence in the public record that this requirement is met.iii.
No one in Illinois checks for this requirement. The ISBE has denied citizens the right to check.iv.
Action Point:
Carry this issue to the Illinois Assembly with a recommendation for a code revision;1.
All candidates will provide a birth certificate, or naturalization papers or document proving they meet the US and Illinois citizenship requirement as part of their nomination papers to qualify for office 
Apparent Conformity
: Illinois State Board of Elections refuses to enforce Apparent Conformity despitethe Court ruling they have this DUTY.i.
Appellate Court Decision: Druck V ISBE (No 08 CO EL 000008)
This Court has held that theelection official with whom the nomination papers have been filed herein the SBOE, has a duty,before he or she certifies a candidate
s name for placement on the ballot, to examine thenominating papers to determine whether upon their face they are in apparent conformity with theElection Code. (Jenkins V Mcllvain, 338Ill. App 3d 113, 117 (2003): North V Hinkle. 295, Ill.App.3d 84 (1998) Nominations petitions that on their face lack the number of signatures requiredfor ballot access in section 10-2 are not in conformity of the Election Code. 10 ILCS 5/10-2 (West2006). Section 10-14 of the Election Code empowers the SBOE to certify and, therefore, toprevent a candidate
s name from being placed on the ballot if his nomination papers are not valid.10 ILCS 5/10-14 (West 2006): Also see Jenkins, 338 Illl App. 3d at 117; Hinkle: 295 Ill. App.3d at87. By requiring an election official to certify nomination papers for ballot access, the SBOE, likethe objector can prevent a candidate from gaining access to the ballot. Accordingly, section 10-8makes it clear that there are conditions precedent that must be complied with for nominationpapers to be valid, and section 10-14 makes it clear that election officials must certify acandidates nomination papers as valid in order for the candidate
s name to appear on the ballot.Jenkins. 338 Ill. App.3d at 117: Hinkle 295 Ill App 3d at 87.ii.
Decision is included.iii.
Action Point
: Adjust ISBE practices to be in conformity with the law and with related Courtrulings. Enforce Apparent Conformity Standards statewide.
Current practices are not Fair and Equal or lawful and are subject to further legal challenges.3)
The Voters:a.
Voter Registration Rolls:
Section 7 of the Federal Voters Right Act requires voter registration rolls to bepurged.i.
What has Illinois done to purge the historic dead from the registration rolls?ii.
What is ISBE doing about the 16 election jurisdiction with over 100% voter registration?iii.
Action Point:
Address the issue of the integrity and security of our voter registration lists.4)
Casting the Ballota.
Early Voting:
What protocols are in place for auditing early voting?i.
The use of employees to administer early voting has resulted in non-citizens being responsible foradministering the vote in, at least, Chicago.ii.
Action Point:
Recommend that the law require employees who administer at early votingfacilities will be US Citizens and registered voters.b.
I-9 Forms
: The I-9 forms of these employees are not in compliance with the law. I-9
s forms for
75% ofthe early voting employees that staff sites in Chicago are not filled out correctly.
The Chicago Board of Elections has not responded to my FOIA asking them for current 1-9
Action Point:
Send communication to Chicago Board of Elections about their non-compliancewith Federal employment law. Follow-upc.
The Audit:
Vulnerability Assessment and Security Audit
of the Chicago Board of Election’s
Election Day
procedures. This surprise audit was conducted after multiple irregularities in security in Chicago’s
November 2010 and February 2011 Elections were observed.
findings document serious flaws in Chicago’s election system.
In Chicago, on Election Day inApril 2011, we evaluated 239 polling places on 11 security measures which were taken out of the 2011Illinois (and Chicago) Election Judge Training Guide. 215 (91%) precincts failed in one or more measures.
139 (59%) precincts were documented with unsealed ballot boxes.
 Our report summarizing this audit was peer reviewed and published in Argonne NationalLabor
October 2011 edition of the prestigious Journal of Physical Security..The peer-review team consisted of experts in physical security and some with election security expertise.Dr. Roger Johnston,  Ph.D., CPP, is head of the Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT) at Argonne National Laboratory and Editor of the Journal of Physical Security.
Dr. Johnston found that the security protocol
s in place were “wholly inadequate” and essentially
100% ineffective in promoting a tamper resistant voting environment.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->