Isn't it odd how news organizations seem to be the last to hear the news?

The experts .... concluded in a report issued yesterday that it would take only one person, with a sophisticated technical knowledge and timely access to the software that runs the voting machines, to change the outcome.

But don't get over-excited by electronic voting fraud. The greatest manipulation of the vote has just been given the approval of the Supreme Court. Justin Levitt and Lisa Sandoval write,

Yesterday the Supreme Court took another step in demoting itself from reluctant referee to irrelevant bystander in the battle by which district lines are drawn and politicians are elected.
....

Yesterday ... the Supreme Court refused to set ... a boundary. Indeed, a majority of the justices acknowledged no real federal limits governing when and how often districts can be redrawn. When one party controls the state Legislature, it may constitutionally redraw district lines for maximum advantage — as often as may be convenient. And it may draw these new lines with old data, packing districts with disfavored voters and minimizing their voice — as often as may be convenient. As far as the court is concerned, the world of unfettered re-re-re-redistricting has arrived.

Related posts
The blind leading the blind (6/17/04)
A slender reed (11/7/04)
Bev Harris vs. Keith Olbermann (12/3/04)
Voters' rights organizations questioned (12/21/04)
Bev Harris: The Carrie Nation of Blackbox Voting (1/21/05)
Miami-Dade considers tossing its touch-screen voting system (4/12/05)

Tags: * voting machine voting Diebold fraud redistricting gerrymander Supreme Court decision