In an update to a press release on Dr. Laura Pressley’s historic election contest appeal posted here back in March, video has surfaced demonstrating how an eSlate machine can print a paper record of your vote. This damning video lays to waste one of the claims that printing a paper record of your vote takes so long to print.
But first a brief background.
Back in June 2015, Dr. Laura Pressley filed an appeal of a district court decision in her contested District 4 Austin City Council run-off race against Greg Casar in December 2014. Upon noticing numerous election irregularities including more ballots than voter names as reported during early voting, she requested a recount in January 2015.
“The ensuing process led to a disturbing revelation that the Travis County paperless electronic voting system may be operating in violation of Texas election law, and, according to court filed documents, it appeared that Travis County may not have employed some of the administrative safeguards designed by the Secretary of State to protect the integrity of the voting process”
“What we discovered is that the very pillars of our Constitution – specifically voting rights and our system of checks and balances – were not being followed regarding electronic voting systems. As we attempted to verify the results, some official election records came up missing,” Pressley said. “The Texas Legislature put in place specific laws that were intended to help ensure the integrity of the voting process, and Texans deserve to know that their votes are counted correctly,” said Pressley.
“When Pressley asked Travis County to produce statutorily required “images of ballots cast” from the Hart InterCivic voting machines for the recount, the clerk was unable to produce the ballot images that voters saw in the election booth. Instead, what she received were Cast Vote Records (CVRs), which are computer-generated templates of tabulated votes — not the statutorily required ballot images required for manual recounts of electronic voting machines.”
Her election contest also revealed documents showing the Texas Secretary of State office approving waivers from following sections of the Texas Election Code for counties using Countywide polling places (cough cough—FORT BEND used Countywide polling places), including waiving the printing of a complete results tape (see #6) “which provides information on how many votes have been cast”.
The reason cited in paragraph 2 was printing the tape takes too long.
“Each zero tape and each results tape will consist of all the candidates and measures for each Election Day precinct within the county and each tape can take several hours to print.”
Does any evidence exist that an eSlate voting machine has the ability to print a paper record of your vote that doesn’t take several hours to print? Why yes there is!
Scroll to the 2:15 minute mark of THIS training video from San Mateo County:
“Pressing CAST BALLOT will prompt the printer to display a record of the actual choices you have voted in each contest. Carefully compare your selections on the Verification Page with the PRINTED record displayed.”
Printing a paper record of your vote would not take too long if this eSlate voting machine was certified for use in the State of Texas.
And it’s not a partisan “liberal agenda” item for Texans to demand confirmation that computers are accurately recording the voter’s intentions.
That’s what Dr. Laura Pressley’s case is all about.