Tags for This Article:

Electronic Voting (2840)  Election-Voting Issues (2063)  Voting Technology (1902)  Voting Machines (1467)  Election Reform (1103)  Voting Reform (1049)  Election Law (379)  Election Reform HR 550 (241)  Election Throw The Bastards Out (128) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
June 5, 2007 at 12:59:11

Headlined on 6/5/07:
HR 811 (The Holt Bill): Time to put us out of its misery

by Nancy Tobi     Page 2 of 4 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

His office has consistently engaged in the practice of misdirection and disinformation rather than meaningful dialogue, and has intentionally shut out all dissenting voices.

Politicians in Washington may well be used to these kinds of strategies running their political campaigns. But this is not a political campaign, and those of us ordinary citizens engaged in this struggle deserve better thatn the disinformation campaigns and swiftboating of American citizens simply because they hold dissenting opinions about this legislation.

As a result of the stonewalling and closed circuit deliberations, Holt's office has released a bill that is extraordinarily controversial in nature and opposed by a wide swath of the American citizenry, including all major representational organizations of election officials and state legislatures.

At this point in time, I am no longer conducting clause by clause analysis. I will point out the fundamental problems with the bill, which may be used as benchmarks for anyone wishing to continue to attempt to point out the flaws of the bill. I simply do not believe that this bill can be the vehicle for effective and meaningful election reform.

If the bill fails these fundamental benchmarks for democratic elections as defined below, then the bill should not pass. Period.

There is no negotiation and no compromise on defending our democracy.

So here are the most important problems with this bill, which are the benchmarks for improvement and change in order for HR 811 to be considered as a serious contender for our support.

1) It is designed to protect technological e-voting industry interests rather than our democracy.

2) It is overly complex, overly prescriptive, relies on “experts” and “qualified” persons, rather than ordinary citizens. Our elections must be straightforward, able to be run by ordinary citizens, 100% observable, and publicly owned.

3) It replaces the constitutional, historical, and irreplaceable democratic requirement for OBSERVABLE elections with VERIFIABLE elections. These are not equivalent. Providing voters with opportunities to allegedly “verify” computer vote counting--which is inherently impossible anyway because nobody other than the programmer knows what is going on in the trade secret software—is not equivalent to protecting our RIGHT to conduct observable elections.

4) It replaces our right to secure, observable FIRST COUNTS of the votes on election night, with the opportunity to conduct post-election AUDITS. Auditing machine results is not equivalent with our right to hold free, fair, open and democratic elections with observable vote counting of the first count before any winners are announced and peremptorily sworn in (a la Bilbray, San Diego, 2006), or any chain of custody or other issues may arise.

5) It fraudulently represents machine-generated records as “ballots” thereby undermining our time honored system of elections, which use voter marked paper ballots as the vote of record. This obfuscation of terminology has both legal and conceptual implications.

6) It requires new technology for every polling jurisdiction in the nation: the text converter technology. Drafters of the bill have progressively been changing the language of this provision and making claims as to how it might be fulfilled in various ways. The fact is the language is obscure and, if passed as is, interpretations will be thrown to the courts as every interested person sues their state for using one solution over another. The current text reads the requirement to “convert ballot selections into accessible form.” What does this mean? It’s anyone’s guess. Common wisdom in the industry and certainly in the EAC is that voting systems must provide technology conversion of ballot text into many multiple forms of “accessible media” such as audio, pictures, and multiple languages. Given the obvious confluence of EAC standards and Holt Bill text, it is not inconceivable to interpret the provision a la the EAC interpretation. New technologies as defined by the EAC and passed into law by bills like the Holt Bill will cripple local and state economies, place further complex technological walls between the voter and his vote, between citizens and our elections, and the costs will be unacceptably borne by the decline of freedom and democracy and crippling property taxes.

7) The bill is underfunded and rides roughshed over state laws. Drafters of the bill followed the unacceptable practice of using figures brought them by a lobbyist (VoteTrustUSA), rather than conducting honorable due diligence with an eye to county, town and state budgets and legal requirements. In stark contrast to the lobbyist budget inserted into the bill, estimates by diligent state officials indicate that the bill is up to 3-4 times underfunded actual budgeted costs for implementation. Additionally, the bill actually articulates its recommendation for states to follow the prescriptive requirements of the bill and only later enact legislation to support these actions, rather than honoring the sovereignty of state legal infrastructures, which should not be peremptorily overrun in order to satisfy federal legislation.

8) It has unworkable and conflicting requirements and effective dates. The combination of incomprehensible requirements, conflicting timelines, no safe harbor language, and limited ability for states to interpret the bill, all add up to a lot of open doors for litigation and election outcome challenges. This is extremely destabilizing and dangerous to the nation, as we learned in 2000 when only ONE state had a legal challenge to the election outcome. More information on this here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070522_the_real_threat_from.htm

And here: click here

9) HR 811 makes permanent the Election Assistance Commission (EAC): The EAC consists of four white house appointees who, through their power to design the software and hardware specifications of voting equipment to be used in America (and they have now expanded their purview even to designing our paper ballots), control the counting of votes in the United States. This is unacceptable. This Commission MUST BE DISSOLVED. Its very existence threatens our 231 year constitutional republic by shifting the ultimate power – that of counting our votes - to the Executive Branch. This is the destruction of our democracy. The drafters of HR 811 have disingenuously removed the clear directive to make the EAC permanent (each successive version has obfuscated their intention to do so). Early versions of the bill clearly called for the “Permanent Extension of the EAC”. Then they removed the word “Permanent” and now they have removed the actual provision itself. But these are games they are playing. The current version of HR 811 mentions the EAC, giving it authority and responsibility, more than 32 times in the 62 page bill. It also appropriates to the EAC in perpetuity 5 times the current budget. This, my friends, is a duck. It walks and quacks, and it is a duck. More information on the EAC here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070526_voter_intent_trumps_.htm

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

Nancy Tobi is cofounder, former Chair, website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH), and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit," and "Hands-on Elections: An Information Handbook for Running Real Elections, Using Real Paper Ballots, Counted by Real People". Her article about election reform fallacies is included in the April 2008 book "Losers Take All" edited by Mark Crispin Miller.

Nancy believes in the principles embodied in our Constitution, and that groups like Election Defense Alliance and DFNH can play a unique role by empowering ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

Founder of the NC Coalition for Verified Voting.We passed a law to require VVPB on August 2005 after years of work. NC Coalition for Verified Voting is an all volunteer organization that does not solicit or accept donations.
ncvoterFounder of the NC Coalition for Verified Voting.We passed a law to require VVPB on August 2005 after years of work. NC Coalition for Verified Voting is an all volunteer organization that does not solicit or accept donations.

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?

After years of work to get a bill to the floor that would get rid of paperless voting, you want to stop that?

Its ironic that anyone would want to oppose positive election reform and help the anti paper forces maintain their strangle hold over so many states.

Its worse that anyone would push for a bill that ensures that the Democratic National Committed does not get its wish for internet voting!

I am from a state that passed a verified voting law modeled after the older Holt bill, and we have had two post election audits and several recounts across the state. 

Because of how our elections have improved, I support HR 811 and look forward to all 50 states having paper, audits and recounts.

Read this great blog about HR 811

Your vote at risk: why you must care about HR 811

There’s a very important bill that will reach the floor of the House of Representatives soon. Its very importance may well be the reason you haven’t heard of it. The political and media forces that brought us an illegal, insupportable, and immoral war in Iraq can hardly be counted on to tell you how best to protect your vote....

by ncvoter (16 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 107 comments) on Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 9:53:59 PM
 


Nancy Tobi is cofounder, former Chair, website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH), and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit," and "Hands-on Elections: An Information Handbook for Running Real Elections, Using Real Paper Ballots, Counted by Real People". Her article about...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Nancy TobiNancy Tobi is cofounder, former Chair, website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH), and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit," and "Hands-on Elections: An Information Handbook for Running Real Elections, Using Real Paper Ballots, Counted by Real People". Her article about...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Anti paper???

Our proposal, which maybe you have not read, although it is simple and straightforward, and unlike the 62-page complexity called the Holt Bill, is easy to read and understand, fully supports paper ballot elections and offers a simple, straightforward way to achieve that by 2008: Federal BUYOUT.

In contrast, the bill you support will not achieve this by 2008, and does not even strive to achieve it. It strives to achieve phony paper "records" instead of real paper ballots.

I am tired of this bullshit propaganda about the bill that you and others continue to spew.

Just as you and others continually say "there is no other plan!"

In fact, there IS another plan. It is clear, straightforward, workable, and embraces the democratic principles brilliantly articulated in the US Constitution.

The Holt  emperor has no clothes, and I fail to understand why anyone who wants paper ballots and real election reform continues to support it.

by Nancy Tobi (71 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 8:48:20 AM
 


Founder of the NC Coalition for Verified Voting.We passed a law to require VVPB on August 2005 after years of work. NC Coalition for Verified Voting is an all volunteer organization that does not solicit or accept donations.
ncvoterFounder of the NC Coalition for Verified Voting.We passed a law to require VVPB on August 2005 after years of work. NC Coalition for Verified Voting is an all volunteer organization that does not solicit or accept donations.

A Florida Activist speaks out in favor of HR 811

There is a segment of the "e-voting" activist community who are directly opposing the federal bill, H.R. 811: The Voter Confidence & Increased Accessibility Act.This bill would mandate voter verified paper ballots in all states for 2008, and replace any thermal printers on touchscreens with durable ballots by 2010.

Susan Pynchon, of Florida Fair Elections Coalition, writes why she supports HR 811 after just passing a verified voting law in her state. With permission posting in full her letter  

#

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure it is right."  Learned Hand (1872-1961)  Famed American Judge

Dear Colleagues,

We learned some hard lessons about legislation and about political realities in our fight for paper ballots in Florida. We ended up supporting a truly terrible bill with regressive provisions simply because it gave us paper ballots. We weighed the pros and cons and decided to support it because we felt that paper ballots were necessary in order for future changes to occur. Essentially, all the Florida bill does is introduce the concept of audits, but that in itself is a big step for Florida. Now that "audits" have been introduced as necessary, we will educate our legislators over the upcoming year and fight for better audit provisions in next year's legislative session.

I have read and re-read HR811 in its entirety. Many of the things that people are complaining about can be fixed in the Senate version or fixed next year in the next legislative session, or the year after that. Meanwhile, please allow me to tell you the positive things that I believe HR811 will do for our country (Please correct me if I get any of these wrong):

At the very least, HR811 does the following:

It introduces the concept that audits are important. Audit provisions can be strengthened over time.

It introduces the concept that there are certain times when it is appropriate to examine election-related software and disclose the results of that examination. Better disclosures can be achieved over time.

It requires that all voters be offered the option of voting on a paper ballot. This is a major shift and cannot be underestimated as to its importance.

It clearly states that uncertified voting equipment may not be used in any election.

It provides many protections and guarantees of equality for disabled voters.

It will prevent the introduction of Internet-based voting in any state or by the military. This is also an important preventive measure that should not be underestimated. For example, the Florida Democratic Party is currently exploring internet primaries. This would stop them from pushing for that option, and save us from having to fight against it and other such misguided efforts up the road.

It introduces the concept that wireless technology is not appropriate for elections. These provisions can be strengthened over time.

It addresses secure chain-of-custody and emphasizes the importance of that security. Many Florida counties have non-existent or very poor chain-of-custody, and just the recognition of its importance would be very helpful.

It allows any person aggrieved by a violation of HAVA Sections 301, 302 or 303 to file a complaint with the Attorney General. This is such an important provision.

It allows for the observation of ITA testing (although limited to observation by one person). The observation of testing can be expanded over time.

It requires the ITA to disclose all test protocolsl, results and communications between the ITA and the vendor to the EAC.

It puts a small dent in the opportunity for kickbacks and bribes by preventing direct payment to the ITAs by the manufacturers

It requires the EAC to notify the public as to which ITA conducted testing on which system, immediately at the conclusion of testing.

It requires the EAC to immediately notify Congress, the chief election official in a state, and the public if an ITA is de-certified, re-certified or has evidence of a significant security failure at any ITA.

It funds grants to develop better voting systems.

Of course it is not perfect, but it takes several important steps in the right direction. It also takes some wrong steps, so, yes, we have future battles ahead and more educating to do --
Can any of us guarantgee that it will help more than hurt our country,or vice versa?
Can any of us guarantee how easy or difficult it will be to implement?
Can any of us guarantee the exact effects it will have on our elections?
Can any of us guarantee there will be no unforeseen problems?

The answer to all of the above is probably "no."

I suggest that everyone re-read the latest version of HR811 in its entirety. If you have never read it from beginning to end, then IMHO you have no business commenting on it one way or the other.

If you have read it thoroughly and do have concerns, articulate them clearly and get them to Rush Holt and Diane Feinstein asap. Better still, submit specific revised language to help support your concern. For example, I think it's tragic that any portion of $1 billion may be wasted on DRE technology. But the science is in on DREs and now it's just a matter of time before our legislators realize it. We have a lot more educating to do!!!

Once the majority of legislators realize how terrible these machines are, they'll just have to allocate more money. Is it a waste? Yes. But it's better than what we have now. Because if HR 811 doesn't pass, we may be stuck with paperless DREs and toilet-paper printers for years to come.

As far as HR811 is concerned, I stand with Justice Learned Hand and his quote above -- I'm not too sure I'm right, and this has been a painful process for us all.

Best regards,
Susan
---------------------------------------
Susan Pynchon
Florida Fair Elections Coalition



 

by ncvoter (16 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 107 comments) on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:09:36 AM
 


Born in 1942 in NE Oklahoma, educated and raised in NE California, joined the Navy at 17 and was shipped to Yokosuka, Japan. There I was able to buy all the books that were banned in the USA. Married & divorced twice, AA degree in Lib. Arts. Now disabled w/ COPD, I live in the house that my mother left me and spend a lot of time on the computer and reading.
Chuck GarnerBorn in 1942 in NE Oklahoma, educated and raised in NE California, joined the Navy at 17 and was shipped to Yokosuka, Japan. There I was able to buy all the books that were banned in the USA. Married & divorced twice, AA degree in Lib. Arts. Now disabled w/ COPD, I live in the house that my mother left me and spend a lot of time on the computer and reading.

Advice from a fellow Tar Heel

Not me, but I seem to remember the "nc" stood for North Carolina, and it's quite apparent that "ncvoter" hasn't visited the website of a fellow Tar Heel named Chuck Herrin, Republican computer expert, member of Mensa & NRA and successful businessman whose livelihood comes from companies that hire him to hack into their security systems. He states unequivocally that there is no computerized system of voting that can't be hacked- he even puts on a PowerPoint slide show to demonstrate how you too, can get the results you want in easy to learn step-by-step instructions. I wish everybody would make this website part of their "favorites" list so I wouldn't have to keep posting it.

<a href="http://www.chuckherrin.com/archive.htm">Hack the Vote</a>,

and I expect a full recantation from ncvoter after she has absorbed everything that can be found on Mr. Herrin's website. There's a lot there. 

by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 11:58:07 PM
 


John Burik is an election integrity activist and researcher in Cincinnati, OH. He was an early joiner of Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections (CASE Ohio). CASE successfully advocated for one of, if not the first, verified voting bills in the country, and kept paperless Diebold machines out of Ohio in 2004. John is on the CASE steering comittee, the board of directors of CASE America, and services on the advisory council of Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner's Voting Rights Institute.
John BurikJohn Burik is an election integrity activist and researcher in Cincinnati, OH. He was an early joiner of Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections (CASE Ohio). CASE successfully advocated for one of, if not the first, verified voting bills in the country, and kept paperless Diebold machines out of Ohio in 2004. John is on the CASE steering comittee, the board of directors of CASE America, and services on the advisory council of Ohio SOS Jennifer Brunner's Voting Rights Institute.

Incremental change

I am well aware that a handful of states will likely benefit with the passage of HR 811 (as written or as amneded/substituted). Christine Jennings in FL or Cynthia McKinney in GA would probably agree. But I remember two things.

Ohio passed HB 262 in 2004 to become one of -- if not THE first -- state to mandate a voter verified paper audit trail. Then we learned around ten percent of the paper trail rolls could not be used, memory cards went missing, and recounts in all but two counties failed to follow procedure. Thus our well intentioned and hard work went for naught.

Similarly, HAVA had the nominal intention of protecting voters' right to vote with provisional ballots, yet the reality in Ohio in 2004 was to force some 200,000 voters to vote provisionally, of which 22 percent were rejected.

So call me a cynic but Holt II didn't meet my basic requirements; the revisions watered it down; and the Feinstein bill in the Senate further dilutes its effect. Some may suggest not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but Holt's just not good ENOUGH for me.

--John Burik, CASE Ohio

by John Burik (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 11:13:40 PM
 

 

6 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Special Message for Tibetans Living In and Outside of Tibet Posted by Stephen Fox

Keith Olbermann Broke Up With Me! by Shannyn Moore

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety Posted by sadelaine

SO SAY THE BANKERS: Learn to Love the 'AMERO' by Patrick Henningsen

Getting Through the Coming Depression by Bernard Weiner

Obama is Already Stirring Controversy by The Old Codger

Kucinich is Still Rockin' My World Toward Peace by Meryl Ann Butler

Senate testimony by police captain reveals 9 sticks of missing dynamite in 'Omaha Two' bombing case by Michael Richardson

Tim Robbins: An Open Letter to the New York City Board of Elections by Tim Robbins

This is funny! Good for a chuckle... Posted by Kathryn Smith

Go To Top 50 Most Popular