If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by John Charlton

The homepage of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (click image to access)

(Dec. 21, 2009) — Earlier this month, Obama made his first official move to corrupt and undermine the 2010 elections.  The move consisted in the little noticed appointment of a technical adviser to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

The importance of the appointment was explained at The Brad Blog last Monday.

The Official Press Release of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission read as follows:


1225 New York Ave. NW – Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20005

For Immediate Release

December 11, 2009


Jeannie Layson

Sarah Litton

(202) 566-3100

New Technical and Scientific Experts Appointed to EAC’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee

WASHINGTON- The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) today announced the appointment of four new technical and scientific experts to its Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), which is charged under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) with assisting EAC in developing federal voluntary voting system guidelines that are used to test and certify voting systems.

The following new members were appointed jointly by EAC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST):

Thereupon it lists a series of advisers appointed, among whom is:

Edwin B. Smith, III, vice president of compliance and certification at Dominion Voting Systems. Before joining Dominion Voting Systems, Mr. Smith was vice president of manufacturing, compliance, quality and certification at Sequoia Voting Systems. He also served as the operations manager at Hart InterCivic and the senior director of operations at K*TEC Electronics. He holds a Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Science in engineering technology from Texas A&M.

Both Sequoia Voting Systems and Dominion Voting Systems have been at the center of infamous voting irregularities in different elections across the country, according to Brad Friedman’s article on the subject, which appeared in the Gouverneur Times at the end of November.

At his Blog, Brad Friedman explains who Edwin B. Smith is:

Smith is the guy who, after years of paying a crackpot contractor named Mike Gibbons to do this and that for Sequoia with loads of federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) tax-payer cash, assigned him to do an “independent” analysis of Sequoia’s touch-screen machines after they failed in NJ’s 2008 Super Tuesday election. That was just after Smith had sent a letter threatening two Princeton computer scientists with legal action “to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis,” if they performed the actually independent analysis of the machines as they were tasked by NJ election officials to do. (Additional outrage/irony shortly thereafter uncovered by The BRAD BLOG: Sequoia didn’t even own the Intellectual Property rights to the machines in question. Rather, the IP rights were, and are still to our knowledge, owned by Smartmatic, a Venezuelan firm tied to Hugo Chavez. Sequoia lied to both federal investigators and state election officials about that relationship.)

After The BRAD BLOG exposed who Smith’s friend Mike Gibbons actually was — a Sequoia insider, as well as a drunk and a philanderer with an obnoxious Facebook page seeking a “well endowed blond nymphomaniac,” only to change the page after we’d outed him to feature a photo of him and George Bush Sr. and a professed love of Jesus Christ instead — Gibbons was fired. (He would be found dead a few months later, the actual cause of which we’ve never been able to ascertain.)

Smith was severely reprimanded at Sequoia for the embarrassing incident, and has now been rewarded by moving on to Dominion, which is in partnership with his old friends at Sequoia to supply the new, failed e-voting systems recently deployed, disastrously, for the first time in last November’s election — the one where the results of the NY-23 Special Election for U.S. House will now forever be in question. The Sequoia/Dominion contract to supply faulty, secret vote counting machines to NY-23 is worth some $20 million federal tax-payer dollars.

The Post & Email notes that the other appointees to the Technical Committee have qualified liberal connections:  Iowa State Elections Commission and the University of Columbia.  Neither are experts in computer software, or the forensic investigation of computer hacking.

A copy of the official Commission’s Press Release can be read at Brad’s blog.  The Commission describes itself and its importance in overseeing the counting of votes in elections across the country, thus:

The EAC is an independent commission created by the Help America Vote Act. The EAC serves as a national clearinghouse and resource of information regarding election administration. It is charged with administering payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment. It is also charged with developing and maintaining a national mail voter registration form. The three EAC commissioners are Gineen Beach, chair; Gracia Hillman, vice chair; and Donetta Davidson. There is one vacancy on the commission.

The appointment makes the commission much more able to “assist” the 2010 Elections, but not in the sense you and I mean by the word “assist.”

UPDATE:  See the Comments Section for an important notice on this article.

Finally, you can read the exchange between the president of Sequoia Voting Systems and Brad Friedman in the comments section of the article he wrote at the Gouverneur Times.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Brad, how nice it is that you can come to this blog and voice your opinion and even offer a correction and NOT be chided or called names for doing so. Which is more than I can say for the way guests are treated on your blog.

    I apologize for this comment being off topic, but I’ve just about had it with blogs that allow, support, and even egg-on such treatment of fellow Americans that are simply voicing their opinion, which last time I checked, was a right granted to me by the Bill of Rights.

    1. Sally, being allowed to comment is not a free speech right; every blog or publication is a private affair, not a public forum. Here at The Post & Email I welcome all men and women of truth. Others don’t get their comments posted, and they are more upset than you are, I assure you. But all have to understand that being allow to comment on private non governmental site is a courtesy not a due.

      Let’s be civil AND truthful.

      1. Thank you, John. Couldn’t have said it better myself. That said, “Sally Hill” has been commenting lately at The BRAD BLOG, exercising that “free speech”, where she is more than welcome to do so. It would be nice, however, if she bothered to get any of her facts correct before doing so, but that’s not within my control and certainly not a matter for your site.


  2. John – I’m on the road and so with very little extra time for the next coupla weeks to dig into such things, but I’d *certainly* invite you to do so if you were interested. If not, you can also make a public records request via email for any emails, meeting transcripts, etc. where Smith was discussed in regard to his nomination to the tech advisory committee.

    It’s possible that the Dem on the committee made the nomination, but as far as I’m concerned, in truth, I couldn’t care less. Smith is about as inappropriate a person for such a committee as anybody could possibly come up with, no matter who nominated him, and it makes little diff to me whether it was Dem, Rep or Indian Chief whodunnit.

    Issues concerning election integrity transcend Left/Right politics, and are matters of Right/Wrong instead, as far as I’m concerned. If we can’t oversee our own elections, and if we allow the continuing outrageous takeover of our public elections by private companies like Sequoia, Dominion, Diebold, ES&S, etc. and charlatan characters like Ed Smith and Michelle Shafer et al, then we might as well toss the idea of self governance (and the Constitution along with it), out the door.

    Please don’t fall for the schemes of partisan scoundrels who would play such concern for political advantage. We either have self-governance via public elections, or we don’t. Anything short of that is an outrage, and it’s up to US to speak up and DO something about it. So I hope you will!


  3. Thanks for covering my article on this important matter, John. However, I feel it necessary to make a correction to your coverage.

    Though the EAC is an Executive committee, in fact, Obama had nothing to do with the shameful appointment of Smith. That was done by the 3 commissioners (2 Republicans, 1 Democrat) currently heading the EAC. There remains one vacancy on the commission, the other Dem commissioner, which Obama has yet to fill.

    The three sitting commissioners were all appointed by Bush, and of the Republicans on that committee currently serves as its chair.

    The EAC, formed during the Bush Adminstration, is a disastrous failure on all sorts of levels, and Obama has not yet done anything to correct that failure (to his shame), but the appointment of Smith, as horrible and embarrasing as it is, can’t be blamed directly on Obama, and certainly couldn’t be seen as a move by him to “undermine the 2010 election” as you suggest.

    Nonetheless, this is a VERY important matter, and I much appreciate your coverage of my coverage, as well as linking to my additional history and background for all of this (and the disaster that is Sequoia Voting Systems!) over at the Gouverneur Times.

    Brad Friedman
    The BRAD BLOG (www.bradblog.com)


    Mr. Charlton replies: Thanks Brad for the comment; it’s an honor to receive it.

    Actually, if Republicans did this on their own, then it’s even more shocking.

    But let’s not presume that the Republicans were the one’s to nominate him. We ought not discount the possibility that the single Democrat nominated Smith.

    Can you find out who nominated him? By “nominate” I mean brought the issue of his selection as an advisor up to the Commission and motioned his addition.

    Readers will have to judge for themselves, if I am wrong here or not; I ask forgiveness if I have a very dark view of Obama; I will candidly admit that I do.

    I therefore warn readers of the article, to read this comment of mine; I will leave the title as is, so that it will serve to indict me, if I am wrong; and to Indict Obama if I am right.