20070628 Linda Lamoned – again and again and once again

Linda Lamoned – again and again and once again

June 28^th, 2007 by Kevin Dayhoff

On Tuesday, June 26^th, 2007, Kim Zetter, a journalist working for “Wired,” broke the story on Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator Linda Lamone seemingly “endors(ing) Diebold machines in marketing materials.”

Re-read the previous sentence. It is important.

When you read her piece, “Maryland Election Official Endorses Diebold Machines in Marketing Literature;” one can easily see that she spent a great deal of time on it, used cultivated sources, investigated it thoroughly, knew the issues and she broke the story. A story all of the rest of the vaunted mainstream media missed in Maryland. She nailed it.

Did you know that she broke the story?

Chances are great that you did not. Everyone is using her work, yet, except for one buried credit, “The use of her statements in the Diebold brochure was first reported Tuesday by wired.com, the Web site for Wired magazine;” the mainstream media and the Maryland blogosphere – for shame – is not giving her credit.

And this is wrong.

And the one credit she did get is buried so far in an article that if you did not know the issues, or care, and did not purposefully look for it – you would have easily missed it as the article in question was not overly forthcoming that the writer used Ms. Zetter’s work; almost paragraph by paragraph… - in the beginning as a springboard…

In the article, Ms. Zetter’s name was not mentioned and the “credit” was so off-hand and casual, the almost all readers would not be aware of all her hard work – and that she broke the story.

On another front, the crazier thing of it all is that if the Maryland blogosphere treats a colleague in this manner how are we to expect the mainstream media to treat us better?

For other posts about the phenomena of on-line journalists working hard and breaking stories or adding insight to a fast moving story; only to have the main stream media pick it up and not properly attribute the material – click on: Media Commentary MSM Give credit where credit is due.

Now – click on: “Maryland Election Official Endorses Diebold Machines in Marketing Literature” by Kim Zetter and then click on: “Election official criticized over ad” by Melissa Harris – and do a side-by-side comparison. Print them out if you need to. I’ll remain relatively agnostic - - you draw your own conclusions.

To Ms. Harris’s credit, she took the story and ran with it. She did a great job diving-in and bringing forth more information to our attention. But why not give Kim Zetter credit for breaking the story in a prominent manner at the top of the story?

And maybe it is not Ms. Harris’ oversight. For all we know perhaps her original copy did appropriately feature the person who did the original work and an editor messed with it.

Some of the additional depth of Ms. Harris’ coverage piques one’s curiosity… For example, the matter of the YouTube video… But that information has been out there for a while and I, for one, am willing to toss it up to the fact that perhaps Ms. Harris decided to give the matter that extra effort – that has been lacking on the part of the institution for which she works, in the past. Ms. Harris obviously worked hard on her piece… where other reporters were more willing to give Ms. Lamone a pass…

In an e-mail exchange with Ms. Zetter, she was extraordinary gracious and professional.

She wrote, in part:

“I'd much rather they write about the subject and not credit me than that they not write about it at all. And the Baltimore Sun reporter did do a good job with her piece.

“What's more, it was only because a number of reporters started calling

the governor's office that he asked the ethics commission to look into

the matter. I'm not sure my blog post alone would have achieved that.”

Methinks that Ms. Zetter is being a bit humble. That said, her professionalism in this context is to be applauded. Many other journalists have not been so magnanimous…

And again, to emphasize - - with the teamwork of Ms. Harris working the story and Ms. Zetter’s initial hard work - things happened. That is the way it should be.

It also would be important for the mainstream media give “the on-line partner” all the credit they are due. In a side-by-side comparison of Ms. Zetter’s story and Ms. Harris’ story, wouldn’t you think that perhaps a few more attributions were in order?

I guess, we should reward Ms. Harris and the Sun for giving Ms. Zetter the fleeting credit they did give her. It’s progress…

Nice work Ms. Zetter – and Ms. Harris…

Moving on to the Linda Lamone matter itself; this is a train wreck.

During the previous Republican administration, the Baltimore Sun was loath to attribute any problems to the darling of the Maryland Democratic Party and the Democratic leadership in the Maryland General Assembly…, Ms. Lamone.

In previous coverage of any number of synthetic (and real) problems during the previous Republican administration, the Baltimore Sun “owned” their coverage. The Sun read like a talking points memo of the Maryland Democratic Party.

Now that challenges persist in spite of campaign promises, many of the articles; on say the hiring and firing of state employees, or the electric rates matter, now feature that “Republicans are saying,” or Republicans charge….” Not that the problems have their “own” legitimacy, as in under the previous coverage of the previous administration…

Delving more into the Linda Lamone train wreck, it will curious as to whether or not she will be held responsible for her alleged job performance issues or for that matter, her conduct on the job. After all, she has been taught for four years that she can do whatever she darn well pleases and the Baltimore Sun and the Maryland Democratic leadership will cover for her and protect her.

Click on “Linda Lamone.” Or read my September 20, 2006 Tentacle column, “Lamoned, again.”

The conduct of Maryland's primary election on September 12 is a national disgrace. We've been "Lamoned!" Linda Lamone, that is. You know - the Democrats' state elections administrator for life.

[…]

You can bet the farm that if the state elections administrator had been appointed by Gov, Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., there would be screaming from the front page to the last, criticizing the governor and calling for the administrator's head.

[…]

The Sun was quick to say in a September 14 article: "Lamone, for her part, said she was "horrified" by the problems that snarled the start of voting on Tuesday but she attributed most of the problems to the largely autonomous local election boards - especially in Montgomery County and Baltimore - not anything that her office or its staff did wrong."

But then, in the same article The Sun says: "The state Board of Public Works did not approve the final order for all of the necessary equipment until July 26, a vote that was delayed by questions raised by board members Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., and Comptroller William Donald Schaefer."

Darn it - well, of course. How could we all be so stupid? It was the governor's fault after all.

Remember, Ms Lamone, "appointed by the State Board of Elections with Senate advice and consent," essentially has a job for life as a result of the 2005 Maryland General Assembly's "Linda Lamone - appointment for life legislation." Remember: 2005 SB 444/HB 675: "State Elections Office and State Elections Advisory Committee" sponsored by Sen. Paula Hollinger and Del. Shelia Hixson?

Blair Lee, in a March 3 Gazette column, "Paybacks are hell," puts it into perspective best. He calls to our attention a Sun article of February 21, "Voting-System Debate Colored By Party Politics."

In the article the paper editorializes on a comment by Governor Ehrlich: ''I no longer have confidence in the state Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006."

The Sun suggests that this "was Ehrlich's shabby attempt at intimidating the board and suppressing voter turnout... and replacing the state elections administrator, Linda H. Lamone, with someone the administration favors."

Mr. Lee writes, "From time immemorial, state law allowed governors to appoint the state elections administrator - the person who oversees state elections. And for decades, Democratic governors appointed loyal Democrats who could be trusted to keep an eye on the party's interests."

"When Ehrlich became governor in 2003, the Democratic legislature changed the rules . now Linda Lamone can only be removed by an 80 percent supermajority of the full elections board and even when removed she keeps her job until her successor is approved (if ever) by the state Senate, controlled by Democrats!

"In other words, at the prospect of a GOP governor the Democrats installed a Democratic elections-administrator for life. Yet, none of this made it into the Sun's story about ''playing politics" with the elections board. Which raises this question: at what point do reporting omissions create an untruth?"

The answer to our problems is to have the United Nations, former President Jimmy Carter - and perhaps representatives from Zambia, Serbia or Thailand - be official observers for the upcoming Maryland general election.

[…]

The Linda Lamone story will no doubt be continued.

Meanwhile, increasingly, Marylanders get their cutting edge and breaking news from the blogosphere. When a journalist picks up a story, most responsible journalists are quick to link and credit the mainstream media covering the story.

We only ask that the courtesy be reciprocated. Is that too much to ask?

####

20061106 Four Statewide Ballot Questions

Four Statewide Ballot Questions

For those in a hurry my view is: 1 (NO); 2 and 3 (Yes) and 4 (NO).

The official ballot language and background is located on the State Board of Elections website:

http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/questions/index.html

I’ve been getting quite a few last minute questions and commentary on the four statewide Maryland ballot questions.

I’m not aware if any of the Maryland Blogger Alliance members did anything on this – if they have, call it my attention and I’ll link it…

On Thursday, October 20^th, 2006, the Washington Post (WaPo) did an editorial about the four questions – and a colleague also did an analysis…

- there appears to be some varying views on question number 1(WaPo – Yes; Me – NO; and my constitution-scholar colleague – NO). I’ve been told that Governor Ehrlich supports – says Yes to question No.1. The Governor supports this amendment because it memorializes the statutory requirements that already exist. I guess my suggestion to vote NO comes from being a former elected Chief Executive Officer who grew tired of legislative bodies that have enough votes to usurp and/or intrude upon executive function. It is already statute…;

;

And some firm consensus on the questions 2 by all three of us… (Yes); 3(Yes) and 4(NO).

_____

Actually, questions number 2 and 3 really are housekeeping and everyone ought to consider Yes on both questions.

As far as question 1, it just seems to me that if the governor were to be a Democrat, the Maryland General Assembly would have never passed the bill requiring the question… It just seems like so much of the situational ethics employed by a Maryland General Assembly pre-occupied with gotcha politics.

Question number 1 involves the perception that “Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s (attempted) to sell a parcel owned by the state to a business executive…”

In 2003, Governor Ehrlich asked state agencies to review all state assets to identify surplus assets that could be disposed of because they were no longer essential for state use. It is a typical management technique taken by any executive searching for greater efficiencies in operations.

I have had too many folks, who are strait-shooters; whose judgment I accept as objective, say that question number 1 is all about gotcha politics and making a mountain over a molehill.

_____

The Washington Post suggests Vote yes on the first three, no on the fourth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501664_pf.html

Four Maryland Questions

Vote yes on the first three, no on the fourth.

Thursday, October 26, 2006; A24

MARYLAND VOTERS face four statewide ballot questions this year -- three constitutional amendments and a decision on whether to retain changes the General Assembly made this year to election law. The amendments should all pass, but voters should reject the election law changes.

Question 1 asks voters to approve a constitutional amendment to prohibit the Maryland Board of Public Works from allowing the sale of state land without the approval of the General Assembly.

Following an uproar over Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s attempt to sell a parcel owned by the state to a business executive, the legislature passed a law requiring that it sign off on land transfers.

Writing the rule into the constitution represents a basic check on the authority of the board -- an authority that is itself a part of the constitution. The amendment is far from onerous, allowing the General Assembly to delegate this power to a committee. Its adoption makes sense.

Questions 2 and 3 are both judicial housekeeping measures that ought to pass.

Question 2 makes constructive technical changes to the state's appeals process.

Question 3 ups from $5,000 to $10,000 the amount a plaintiff in a civil case has to seek in damages before he can demand a jury trial in a circuit court rather than a trial before a judge in a district court.

Question 4 deals with changes to election law that were so controversial that the state's highest court has already thrown out their centerpiece, an early voting system.

By the time the court acted, however, opponents of the measure had already gathered enough signatures to put the law on the ballot -- meaning voters get to decide whether to ratify its residue, which has already gone into effect.

They should vote it down.

The most important provision remaining requires the State Board of Elections, which has five members, to act on all matters by supermajority vote. This could disable the board from doing much of anything, requiring bipartisan agreement for every step. The law also gives the elections administrator, Linda H. Lamone, new powers to go to court to force local election boards to comply with the rules.

The cumulative result would be to shift power into Ms. Lamone's hands. As the General Assembly already has to go back to the drawing board on early voting, it makes sense to start over with the rest of the bill, too.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

_____

The colleague who made the most understandable analysis on the four questions says: - No on question number 1; - yes and questions 2 and 3; and No on question number 4. I have pasted that colleague’s analysis here:

Understanding the Statewide Ballot Questions

The November ballot has four statewide ballot questions. The first three of the questions are Constitutional Amendments passed by the General Assembly and referred to the public for adoption. The fourth question is a referred bill on election law that was successfully petitioned to referendum by Marylanders for Fair Elections.

The official ballot language and background is located on the State Board of Elections website: http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/questions/index.html

Statewide Question 1 – Constitutional Amendment - Disposition of Park Lands

This question is a totally political ploy by the Democrat Party to stick it to Ehrlich. The policy is currently in place by statute.

There is no reason for it to be incorporated into the State Constitution.

But the Democrats wanted a rallying cry to bring the environmental community out to the polls against Bob Ehrlich in 2006 – so they made the bill a Constitutional Amendment.

In 2003, Governor Ehrlich asked state agencies to review all state assets to identify surplus assets that could be disposed of because they were no longer essential for state use.

It is a typical management technique taken by any executive searching for greater efficiencies in operations.

Over the last four years, the Democrats in the legislature placed a premium on finding issues to make the Governor look bad. They made sure that the Governor’s slots initiative did not pass. They spent over $1 million to determine that at-will employees were legally dismissed from their positions.

And they exaggerated the circumstances under which surplus land sales were being considered, including one instance in St. Mary’s County, in order to undermine the Governor’s significant accomplishments with the environmental community through his Chesapeake Bay initiatives.

The Governor supports this amendment because it memorializes the statutory requirements that already exist.

But it is simply surplusage to add it to the Constitution, it restricts Gubernatorial powers, the policy adds a layer of bureaucracy through General Assembly intervention into executive decision-making and it is on the ballot only for it’s value to turn out anti-Ehrlich vote.

It deserves a big “AGAINST” the referred law.

Statewide Question 2 – Constitutional Amendment – Circuit Court In Banc Decisions

Typically, a case heard in a county circuit court is heard by one judge. The Constitution provides that a party may appeal a circuit court decision to the circuit court sitting “in banc.” “In banc” literally means the entire bench but in contemporary practice provides for an appeal hearing before a panel of three circuit court judges. In the early history of Maryland, “in banc” review saved the time, travel and expense of traveling to Annapolis for an appeal before the Maryland Court of Appeals.

While making some substantive change to appeal rights in Maryland, this Constitutional Amendment can be characterized as housekeeping. When the Court of Special Appeals was created as an intermediate appellate court in 1966, it left a question that has not been addressed until this bill. If you are a party in a circuit court case and the other party appeals for an “in banc” review, you could lose your right to appeal the “in banc” decision because it would go directly to the Court of Appeals where the appeal is not automatic but instead is discretionary by certiorari. This bill guarantees the party that did not request an “in banc” review to have an appeal right to the Court of Special Appeals.

Bottom line: this amendment is needed to insure that the party that did not request the “in banc” review continues to retain an automatic appeal right. Vote “FOR” the referred law.

Statewide Question 3 – Constitutional Amendment – Civil Jury Trials

This is another bill that can be characterized as housekeeping. In 1998, the General Assembly increased the amount-in-controversy threshold under which one is entitled to request a jury trial in a civil case from $5,000 to $10,000. However, in a recent case, the Court of Appeals ruled that there is a common law right to a jury trial and that the General Assembly did not have the authority to establish the amount-in-controversy threshold because of a conflict between the Constitutional language and the common law in the Declaration of Rights.

This bill resolves this conflict and would allow the General Assembly to pass a bill next session to set the threshold – more than likely at $10,000. Some people would oppose this bill on the premise that anyone should be allowed to request a trial of one’s peers no matter what is at controversy.

However, under a greater efficiency in the courts rationale – I say vote “FOR” the referred bill.

Statewide Question 4 – Statewide Referendum – Election Law Revisions

Don’t let the preface to this bill fool you! Many of you signed petitions to bring this bill to referendum so that it could be defeated.

Even though the biggest atrocity in the bill – early voting – was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, there is still bad stuff in this bill for which the rest should be struck down by the voters.

Again, the Democrat leadership of the General Assembly injected pure partisan politics into our election laws.

The bill requires a supermajority vote (4 of 5 members) for the State Board of Elections to make any decisions – with 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats on the board, it means that the Democrats totally control any actions at the State level. It also handcuffs the Board’s powers thus yielding greater power to the incumbent State Administrator (who was given a job for life by an earlier bill passed by the Democrat leadership).

The law also consolidates considerable new powers in the State Administrator to be able to sue local election boards, to hold veto power over basic decisions made by local election boards and assist registered voters to sue their local boards.

Need we also remind you that this bill requires that every polling place be outfitted with the epollbooks that performed so poorly for the Primary election.

TrueVote Maryland and other good government election’s organizations say vote “AGAINST” this law – and so do I.

####

20061016 Gov to St Elections Brd Resolve NAACP concerns

Governor to State Elections Board – Resolve NAACP concerns

Posted October 16, 2006

[For previous posts on Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator and the Maryland primary election fiasco, please see: “20060923 The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic” and “20060917 Cartoon MD Primary Election Voters What Voters” and “20060915 Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco” and “20060923 Lamoned again and again.”]

_____

Speaking today with Bruce S. Gordon, President & CEO of the NAACP, Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich has called upon the Maryland State Elections Board to resolve he NAACP’s concerns about Maryland’s upcoming general election.

Of course, since the “state elections administrator for life” has been protected from any lack of performance of her duties by Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., (D - 27, Calvert & Prince George's Counties) and House Speaker Michael Erin Busch (D - Dist. 30 Anne Arundel County); what does she care about any request from Governor Ehrlich.

Remember, Ms Lamone no longer works for Maryland’s executive office as it has for decades and decades. She is now “appointed by the State Board of Elections with Senate advice and consent;” which means she essentially has a job for life as a result of the 2005 Maryland General Assembly’s “Linda Lamone – appointment for life legislation.” Remember: 2005 SB 444/HB 675: “State Elections Office and State Elections Advisory Committee” sponsored by Senator Hollinger and Delegate Hixson?

Oh, anyway, below please find a press release about the Governor’s interest that the State Board of Elections address the concerns of the NAACP - - and the Governor’s letter to NAACP president Gordon:

Governor Ehrlich Calls on State Board of Elections to Resolve NAACP Concerns

ANNAPOLIS – Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. today called on the Maryland State Board of Elections to expeditiously resolve concerns held by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Governor Ehrlich about Maryland’s elections process. Governor Ehrlich spoke today with Bruce S. Gordon, President & CEO of the NAACP, about Maryland’s election environment.

“The NAACP and I share strong concerns about Maryland’s current election system, including the reliability of electronic poll books, the dependability of electronic voting machines, and the training and supply of election judges,” said Governor Ehrlich. “To ensure that every Marylander has access to a fair and accurate election system, the State Board of Elections must act expeditiously to address my concerns and those of the NAACP.”

Mr. Gordon encouraged the State to 1) hold demonstrations of the new voting machines in key precincts statewide; 2) formulate a contingency plan to use in the event voting machines malfunction; 3) ensure the electronic poll books are updated; 4) make certain there are adequate numbers of trained election judges who arrive at the polls on time and remain for the entire day; 4) verify that each precinct has a sufficient number of provisional ballots; 5) maintain privacy for citizens whether they vote using tough-screen or paper ballots; 6) ensure that voters fully understand how to cast an absentee ballot.

Governor Ehrlich supports the NAACP’s efforts and is encouraging the State Board of Elections to expeditiously resolve them. The Governor’s letter to the State Board of Elections is attached.

----- #### -----

20061016 Dear Mr. Gordon

Mr. Bruce S. Gordon, President & CEO
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21215-3297

Dear Mr. Gordon:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak by telephone about Maryland’s election environment. Please know that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and I share strong concerns about the integrity of the General Election to be held on November 7. To be sure, I support your request for key actions to be taken prior to the General Election to ensure a fair, accurate and accessible election process and I call on the State Board of Elections to take those actions.

The problems encountered by the citizens of Maryland during the September 12primary are unacceptable. Marylanders deserve an election process that provides free, open and unfettered access to cast a ballot and that gives voters confidence that their vote will be accurately counted.

Regrettably, the leadership of the General Assembly has dramatically altered the administration and oversight of the state’s elections over the past four years. Local elections administrators throughout the state have been overloaded with complex legal changes and questionable technology, among other problems, all of which led to the Primary Election fiasco this past September.

In addition, the General Assembly since 2003 has insulated the State Elections Administrator from accountability to the Governor’s Office and, in many respects, to the State Board of Elections. The General Assembly passed legislation that makes it impossible for the State Board to fire the State Administrator, even for actions of illegality and gross misconduct, unless the State Senate confirms a successor, thus virtually eliminating accountability at the top level of the state’s elections system. The General Assembly also handcuffed the State Board’s decision-making process by requiring a super-majority vote (4 of 5 members) before it can take any actions.

Unfortunately, state law does not grant me authority to require the State Board of Elections to perform the six specific items delineated in your letter. Nonetheless, I support the actions you are requesting and, in fact, have called for many of these actions over the course of the past several weeks and months. I can assure you that these topics, especially the contingency plan for voting machine malfunctions and the upgrading of e-pollbooks, are priorities that I have stressed with the board and the State Administrator in public meetings of the State Board of Public Works.

Last year, I appointed a bipartisan elections commission chaired by former U.S. Attorney George Beall, consisting of 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans. This panel made a number of improvement recommendations and forewarned that the local elections boards were not prepared for rapid changes in elections administration and that more resources from the State Administrator were necessary to plan for the implementation of new laws (early voting) and new technology (e-pollbooks). In their rush to gain every political advantage, the leadership of the General Assembly ignored these warnings and created the unstable elections system that we saw in the Primary and still face in the General Election.

In direct response to your Maryland Election Protection Operation effort, I will send a copy of your letter and my response to Mr. Gilles W. Burger, Chairman of the State Board of Elections, and request that they provide a full and complete response to your six proposals within the next week.

Again, I sincerely appreciate the leadership and initiative of the NAACP in protecting the elections process for all citizens of the state and look forward to your continued cooperation in this effort.

Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor

####For previous posts on Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator and the Maryland primary election fiasco, please see:

“20060923 The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic” and “20060917 Cartoon MD Primary Election Voters What Voters” and “20060915 Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco” and “20060923 Lamoned again and again.”

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20060926 Take your pick Absentee ballots or purple thumbs

Washington Examiner Editorial: Take your pick: Absentee ballots or purple thumbs?

September 26^th, 2006

http://www.examiner.com/a-311406~Editorial__Take_your_pick__Absentee_ballots_or_purple_thumbs_.html

The Washington Examiner editorial for September 26, 2006 calls to our attention that “Maryland's elections boss, Linda Lamone, isn't addressing the very real and fundamental problems with those Diebold voting machines.”

Editorial: Take your pick: Absentee ballots or purple thumbs?

Sep 26, 2006 5:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Gov. Robert Ehrlich is urging all registered voters in Maryland to cast absentee ballots for the November general election after technical glitches and human error marred the state’s Sept. 12 primary. The governor says he’s lost confidence in the Diebold touch-screen voting machines purchased for use in all Maryland counties in order to comply with the federal 2002 Help America Vote Act.

Just two months ago, a trio of nationally recognized computer science experts directed harsh criticism at the Maryland State Board of Elections for its failure to alert the Federal Elections Commission about Diebold’s serious security vulnerabilities. In a July 24 op-ed, “The Diebold Bombshell,” Stanford Professor David Dill, the University of Iowa’s Doug Jones and retired IBM executive Barbara Simons disclosed the fact that Diebold “included a ‘back door’ in its software, allowing anyone to change or modify” it. Amazingly, there are “no technical safeguards in place to ensure that only authorized people can make changes.” So anybody who knows how to can literally hijack an election.

But that’s not all.

Read the rest here.

For more of my view, please see: (UPDATE: To see more on Ms. Linda Lamone – please click here.)

20060923 KDDC The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic

23 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic. © Kevin Dayhoff September 23 rd, 2006. Linda Lamone unveils her plan for Maryland’s Nov. 2006 general election. ####

Kevin Dayhoff - http://www.kevindayhoff.com/index.html

20060923 KDDC Lamoned again and again

23 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

Lamoned again and againSeptember 23rd, 2006Photo credits: left photo, “Linda Lamone answers questions at the Board of Public Works meeting (Photo by WBAL's Scott Wykoff)†Right photo: YouTube: “Linda Lamone: I’m the boss.†Much ...

Kevin Dayhoff - http://www.kevindayhoff.com/index.html

20060917 KDDC Cartoon MD Primary Election Voters What Voters

18 Sep 2006 by Kevin Dayhoff

Cartoon by (c) Kevin Dayhoff September 13, 2006 State elections administrator Linda Lamone and Maryland General Assembly Speaker of the House, Mike Busch engage in a spirited conversation about the Maryland primary elections on ...

Kevin Dayhoff - http://www.kevindayhoff.com/index.html

####

20060923 The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic

20060923 The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic.

The Linda Lamone Vote-o-matic.
© Kevin Dayhoff September 23rd, 2006

Linda Lamone unveils her plan for Maryland’s Nov. 2006 general election.

####

For previous posts on Maryland State Board of Elections Administrator and the Maryland primary election fiasco, please see:

“20060917 Cartoon MD Primary Election Voters What Voters” and “20060915 Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco” and “20060923 Lamoned again and again.”

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20060923 Lamoned again and again

Lamoned again and again
September 23rd, 2006

Photo credits: left photo, “Linda Lamone answers questions at the Board of Public Works meeting (Photo by WBAL's Scott Wykoff)”

Right photo: YouTube: “Linda Lamone: I’m the boss.”

Much has been written about the elections meltdown in several jurisdictions in Maryland during the September 12th, 2006 Maryland primary elections.

Throughout it all, Maryland state elections administrator Linda Lamone has remained relatively unscathed by the awkward series of events.

In my Tentacle column on Wednesday, September 20th, 2006, “Lamoned, again,” I noted: “The Baltimore Sun is quick to say in a September 14th, 2006 article: “Lamone, for her part, said she was "horrified" by the problems that snarled the start of voting on Tuesday … but she attributed most of the problems to the largely autonomous local election boards -- especially in Montgomery County and Baltimore -- not to anything that her office or its staff did wrong.”

I also called to the reader’s attention: “Then in a letter to the Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran (D), (on September 13th, 2006) Ms. Lamone says, “As you know, the local election boards are gubernatorial appointments, the local boards appoint the local directors and they are locally funded…””

Last Wednesday, September 20th, 2006, Ms. Lamone was asked to address the election challenges with the Board of Public Works in Annapolis. WBAL Radio carried an article about the meeting on its web site: “State Election Director Grilled; Schaefer Says 'This Is The Dirtiest, Stinking Game I've Ever Known’” by WBAL Radio's Scott Wykoff.

In Mr. Wykoff’s piece, he reported, “Tough questions Wednesday for the state elections chief who went before the Board of Public Works.

Linda Lamone and other election officials have been criticized for widespread problems on primary election day.

Lamone was questioned for more than a hour by Governor Ehrlich, Comptroller Schaefer and Treasurer Kopp.”

As far as responsibility for the election problems, the WBAL article said: “When asked by Comptroller Schaefer who is to blame, she said she was not here to point figures.”

WBAL went on to say: “Meanwhile, new audio has emerged from testimony Lamone gave before the Virginia legislature in July 2005. Testifying about elections in Maryland, Lamone told lawmakers there, "...in Maryland, the authority to run elections is centralized. I am the boss. The buck stops with me. I'm the one who gets in trouble when anything happens. The counties have to use the voting systems that the state selected. They have to follow state procedures."

Lamone's comments seem to conflict with statements she's made since last week's primary election. Lamone has been saying elections in Maryland are decentralized and local boards have the most authority.”

WBAL Radio’s web site has a link to the audio of Ms. Lamone’s presentation in Virginia in July 2005 - - but now, [Hat Tip: TSL, September 22nd, 2006, “Marbella Misses Lamone Concession”] a video has surfaced.

It is on YouTube: “Linda Lamone: I’m the boss.” It is a very enlightening snippet of her presentation.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org http://www.thetentacle.com/ Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report http://www.thewestminstereagle.com/ www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20060917 Cartoon MD Primary Election Voters What Voters

MD Primary Elections on September 12, 2006: "Voters? What Voters?"

"Voters? What Voters?"

Cartoon by (c) Kevin Dayhoff

September 13, 2006

State elections administrator Linda Lamone and Maryland General Assembly Speaker of the House, Mike Busch engage in a spirited conversation about the Maryland primary elections on September 12^th, 2006: “Voters? What Voters?”

For a previous post on Maryland’s primary election fiasco, see my post on September 15th, 2006: “20060915 Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco.”

####

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org http://www.thetentacle.com/ Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report http://www.thewestminstereagle.com/ www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

20060915 Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco

The eyes of the nation are on Maryland’s election process

© Kevin Dayhoff September 15th, 2006

Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s primary election fiasco

Crablaw is staying on top of Maryland’s election fiasco. Please visit his site for the blow-by-blow and intelligent commentary. Bookmark his web site and check back with him in the coming days as hopefully the etiology of the mess is uncovered and measure taken to prevent it in the future.

To paraphrase one of Bruce Godfrey’s, Attorney and Editor in Chief, Crablaw Maryland Weekly, comments; we should all, no matter what political persuasion, support the right of each and very candidate in Maryland to be afforded a fair and honest election process.

Whether the candidate for office is a conservative or a liberal, the voters of Maryland deserve to have their collective decision respected – and each and every vote needs to count and be counted.

Maryland is once again on the keyboards and lips of political and business observers from throughout the nation and our great state is not being portrayed in a positive light.

We should all be ashamed.

Crablaw reports: 09/14/2006: The Election Fiasco - Beyond "Raging" Against the Machine

Yes, Maryland progressives and all fair-minded people are angry about the uber-fiasco in Montgomery County and similar farces in Prince George's County and the City of Baltimore.

Yes, we should be furious. But that is not enough.

We should support and applaud all efforts to uncover the truth about what happened in the different jurisdictions that effected such a large disenfranchisement of literally tens of thousands of Marylanders, of American citizens.

We should support everyone who supports fair process and sunshine upon this fiasco.

Read the rest here.

14 September 2006:

Sun (AP): Montgomery County Election Board Hires Outside Consultant to Review Fiasco
In fairness to (Montgomery Elections Director Margaret) Jurgensen, it seems fair at first glance to allow the Elections Center to produce an independent report before anyone gets fired, unless that will put the reliability of the general election in meaningful doubt.

Read the rest here.

Sun: Maryland Election Day Fiasco Blame Game

Mr. Godfrey writes:

There is an article in the Baltimore Sun, September 15, 2006, on the current mutual recriminations regarding the Baltimore part of the election Fiasco between Maryland Elections Administrator (and long-time target of Bob Ehrlich) Linda Lamone, Ehrlich ally Gene Raynor, the Baltimore City Council and others. The article did not discuss the larger problems in Montgomery County.

WaPo article on Montgomery Election Fiasco

Mr. Godfrey writes:

This looks interesting.

Of Paul Valette, Mr. Godfrey writes: “Maybe this man deserves be fired. Maybe he does not deserve to be fired at all. I don't claim to know. Valette is a former military office and an attorney, two professions where standards and responsibility are supposed to matter. In Valette's case, sounds like they do matter to him. His straightforward response is most refreshing; it may or may not be sufficient.”

There are many more posts – check out his web site…

Thanks for the excellent work Crablaw.

Oh PS: The Baltimore Reporter also has a post worth reading: “The Mess in Montgomery.”

####