FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Eric Matthews Formal Withdrawal of Election Contest
June 18, 2010
Initially the intent in pursuing an election contest was to ensure election codes that had been violated were enforced thereby protecting and preserving the sanctity of the vote. It was concluded that without full disclosure of the items requested the ability to pursue enforcement on the basis of the evidence on hand would not be possible outside of a Court of Law. Additionally, the financial cost to the City and County resulting from a drawn out legal battle in Court would far outweigh the outcome and not be in the best interests of the taxpayer. Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my contest of the May 8, 2010 City Council Election.
I had hoped that after Robert Parten, the Parker County Elections Administrator had admitted to violating election law, assurances in the form of full public disclosure of everything that had been done properly and not done properly would have been given by the County since the County had been contracted to run the election. This would have removed all doubt from the public that the sanctity of the vote had been honored and every vote had been counted properly.
Instead the requests given for information under the Open Records Act were only partially honored and removal of all doubt was replaced by political posturing, stone-walling, and non-disclosure.
Although I am disappointed in the response from the County and City, the results from the investigation were not entirely unfruitful. I am now aware after visiting with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, and the Texas Ethics Commission that the Hart InterCivic Electronic voting machines used by Parker County and in various other parts of the State are only 80% reliable. This is why election codes pertaining to testing and procedural requirements were written and needed to be met. This is a fact that is well known by Robert Parten over his years of experience in working with the Hart Intercivic voting machines. Additional research and investigation also revealed the fact that because of the problematic reliability of these machines there are numerous ongoing lawsuits occurring throughout the Country over similar concerns that have been raised in this case. These can be viewed on the internet by performing a simple google search.
Bottom line, it is my hope that the pursuit of this matter has raised awareness in our elected officials of the concerns relating to voting machine reliability and paper ballots are utilized in the future until more reliable voting machines can be produced. If we allow our freedom to vote and the sanctity of the vote to be tarnished then are we really telling all those brave service members who have spilt their blood and gave up their lives on battlefields throughout our history that your sacrifice was for nothing?
In closing, I would like to thank the Weatherford Democrat for allowing me and the other candidates an opportunity to give our side of the story. This exemplifies the fair and balanced reporting that is a part of the way the Weatherford Democrat conducts business.
Eric Matthews
Candidate for Weatherford City Council Place 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following excerpt from the Texas Election Code is provided for your convenience:
ELECTION CODE
CHAPTER 127. PROCESSING ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM RESULTS
SUBCHAPTER D. TESTING TABULATING EQUIPMENT
§ 127.091. TEST OF TABULATING EQUIPMENT REQUIRED. The
automatic tabulating equipment used for counting ballots at a
central counting station shall be tested as provided by this
subchapter.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.092. TESTING AUTHORITIES. The programmer,
tabulation supervisor, counting station manager, and presiding
judge of the central counting station shall prepare and conduct the
test jointly.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.093. TIMES FOR CONDUCTING TEST. (a) The test shall
be conducted three times for each election.
(b) The first test shall be conducted at least 48 hours
before the automatic tabulating equipment is used to count ballots
voted in the election.
(c) The second test shall be conducted immediately before
the counting of ballots with the equipment begins.
(d) The third test shall be conducted immediately after the
counting of ballots with the equipment is completed.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.094. DESIGN OF TEST. (a) The test must be designed
to determine whether the automatic tabulating equipment accurately
counts ballots and otherwise functions properly.
(b) A group of test ballots shall be counted with the
equipment using the program prepared for processing the ballots
voted in the election. The test ballots must be printed on the same
stock as the official ballots for the election.
(c) The group of test ballots must contain a predetermined
number of valid votes for each candidate and for and against each
proposition on the ballot for the election. The test group must
also contain ballots with votes in excess of the allowable number
and with other improper votes.
(d) The same test shall be administered each time the
equipment is tested for the same election.
(e) The secretary of state may prescribe additional
requirements for the test.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.095. DETERMINING SUCCESS OF TEST. (a) A test is
successful if a perfect count of the test ballots is obtained and
the automatic tabulating equipment otherwise functions properly
during the counting of the test ballots.
(b) The testing authorities shall determine whether a test
is successful.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.096. CONDUCT OF FIRST TEST. (a) The custodian of
the automatic tabulating equipment shall publish notice of the
date, hour, and place of the test conducted under Section
127.093(b) in a newspaper, as provided by general law for official
publications by political subdivisions, at least 48 hours before
the date of the test.
(b) The test is open to the public.
(c) The automatic tabulating equipment may not be used to
count ballots voted in the election until a test is successful.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 728, § 50, eff. Sept. 1, 1993.
§ 127.097. CONDUCT OF SECOND TEST. (a) The automatic
tabulating equipment may not be used to count ballots voted in the
election until a test conducted under Section 127.093(c) is
successful.
(b) If the initial test is unsuccessful, the presiding judge
shall prepare a written record of the changes to the program,
adjustments to the equipment, and other actions taken to achieve a
successful test. The record shall be retained with the test
materials.
(c) When a test is successful, the presiding judge shall
certify in writing that a test was successful and the date and hour
the test was completed. The certification shall be retained with
the test materials.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
§ 127.098. CONDUCT OF THIRD TEST; VOID BALLOT COUNT. (a)
If the initial test conducted under Section 127.093(d) is
unsuccessful, the count of ballots voted in the election obtained
with the automatic tabulating equipment is void.
(b) If the initial test is successful, the automatic count
of ballots voted in the election is valid for the purpose of
certifying the election returns prepared at the central counting
station. The presiding judge shall certify in writing that the
initial test was successful and the date and hour the test was
completed. The certification shall be retained with the test
materials.
(c) If the ballot count is void under Subsection (a), the
testing authorities shall follow the procedure prescribed by
Section 127.097. When a test is successful, the ballots to be
counted automatically shall immediately be counted. Immediately on
completing the automatic count, the equipment shall again be
tested, and if the initial test is successful the automatic count is
valid for the purpose of certifying the election returns.
Otherwise, the automatic ballot count is void.
(d) The procedure prescribed by Subsection (c) shall be
repeated until a valid automatic count is obtained or the testing
authorities determine that obtaining a valid automatic count is
impracticable. In that case, the ballots shall be counted
manually.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
Mr. Matthews – I appreciate your continued dedication and hardwork in making sure the interests of the Citizens of Weatherford are safeguarded.
At times the journey may seem difficult and overwhelming but when the roots of our tree of Democracy are continually watered it is my belief that tree will once again flourish and be a bright and shining light of hope for all to see.
Keep your chin up and continue to press on and know what your doing is appreciated by many.
May God Bless you, your family, and our Nation.