3. fixes the timelines to be reasonable for election officials to replace existing DREs which do not meet the requirements for durable paper ballots which preserve voter anonymity; and
4. fixes the funding to be more than adequate to replace all DRE voting machines and conduct audits; and
5. removes any requirement for text conversion technology - it gives the choice of allowing voters with disabilities to verify their vote by conversion of either the text or the marked ballot; and
6. fixes the Internet connection clause to prohibit connections to vote tabulating or ballot programming devices, as well as to vote casting devices; and
7. changes the make up of the state audit boards to give states more flexibility for appointing independent auditors as long as they meet the GAO requirements for independent auditing; and
8. removes the extension of funding authorization for the Election Assistance Commission; and
9. requires that paper ballots be available at all polling locations for any voter which requests one and in case of problems with electronic voting systems, and requires that those paper ballots are counted with the other ballots cast on Election Day.
I am happy that so many of the amendments election integrity activists recommended were made to HR811, and that the bill is now reasonable for election officials (allow sufficient time and funding), and comes close to accomplishing what we all want - verifiably accurate election outcomes.
Please make up your own mind to support HR811/S559 based on actual facts.
Untrue rumours about the amended HR811 are being spread by a prominent "election integrity activist", whose final recommendations are consistently the same as election officials who are against any mandated independent audits of election results and against any federal legislation which would force election officials to replace current voting equipment. Please keep in mind that some "election integrity activists" may have financial or other incentives to "not" quickly solve our country's election problems and may be attempting to kill any and all federal election reform legislation by employing disingenuous, illogical arguments.
In order to replace all digital recording electronic (DRE) voting machines by 2010, full software disclosure cannot be required because implementing voing systems which use fully disclosed software would take at least 4.5 years to develop, test, do federal and state certifications, purchase, do training, and implement.
In other words, there is a clear choice, either:
1. require full voting system software disclosure and wait 5 years to replace all existing DRES due to the time it takes for development, testing, certification, training, and implementation cycles; or
2. leave software disclosure essentially the same as it is today (as the amended HR811 does), and immediately replace (by 2010) all DREs with existing optical scan paper ballot systems that are already federally certified
Some election officials and voting machine vendors are actively fighting against the revised Holt bill for two reasons:
1. many election officials do not want election results to be subjected to independent audits (even though election officials neither have to pay for or conduct the audits - although they must participate and secure the ballots), and
2. voting machine vendors want to be able to sell DRE electronic-ballot voting machines which are more profitable for them than selling paper-ballot optical scan systems.
According to the literature of "The Election Technology Council", voting machine vendors cannot develop and implement any new voting systems by 2010.
The same people oppose HR 811 no matter what, hoping no one remembers their previous complaints, especially when those complaints are resolved:
"For instance, some of the opponents of HR811 formerly opposed full software disclosure requirements in the original HR811, yet now are opposing HR811 because it does not require full software disclosure.
As we get closer to a workable solution, there are some people who would rather that states like GA, VA, MD, SC, IN, TN, and more go through the next presidential election on the same paperless voting machines that let us down in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
They are like Lucy and Charlie Brown, every time Charlie tries to kick the football, Lucy pulls it back, and Charlie falls on his ----.
by
ncvoter (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 86 comments)
on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 8:43:21 AM
