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

View Ratings | Rate It

HR 811 (The Holt Bill): Time to put us out of its misery

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg

Tell A Friend

By Nancy Tobi (about the author)     Page 2 of 4 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

If Congressman Holt is indeed the only leader on the Hill then I respectfully submit his leadership in this area is sorely lacking in the area most important for building good legislation: consensus building.

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

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

www.democracyfornewhampshire.com

Nancy Tobi is co-founder, former Chair, and website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH). She is also a founder and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "Election Law Reform"
Effort to reform L.A. election law has failed.(Column): An article from: Los Angeles Business Journal
by Susan R. Estrich

$5.95

Number of pages: 2
Publisher: Thomson Gale

Election law reform: Problems and proposals
by Richard J Carlson


Number of pages:
Publisher: The Author

Election law reform in Utah,
by Douglas R Haddock


Number of pages: 39
Publisher: Hinckley Institute of Politics, University of Utah

Expanding California's electorate: Progress and promise in election law reform (California Government series II)
by Edmond Costantini


Number of pages:
Publisher: Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? by ncvoter on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2007 at 9:53:59 PM
Anti paper??? by Nancy Tobi on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 8:48:20 AM
A Florida Activist speaks out in favor of HR 811 by ncvoter on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 11:09:36 AM
Let's try this again: Holt doesn't work by Nancy Tobi on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM
Advice from a fellow Tar Heel by Chuck Garner on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 11:58:07 PM
Incremental change by John Burik on Thursday, Jun 7, 2007 at 11:13:40 PM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum