1
1
1
It is far too costly, unreliable, insecure, and legally contestable to depend on any kind of post-election vote counts after we've already spent our time and money on the election itself. Not only that, our Constitution mandates elections, not audits.
Holt's proposal to stake our election results on post-election counts turns our elections into a charade.When elections are real--in the way that banks taking money are real--anyone proposing an audit scheme to verify or revise an election outcome, would be thought to be engaged in a criminal conspiracy. Just like risking being charged with attempt to defraud the bank in the example above.
The Holt Bill's approach to election reform is all wrong and its focus on computerized voting machines counting votes in secret is at odds with our constitutional voting rights. And to make matters worse, Congress has now re-routed the bill away from the committee focused on voting rights to a committee focused on technology.
The 2009 version of the bill has been referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology. In 2007, the same bill was correctly referred to the House Administration Committee, whose purview is elections.
Is sending the bill to a new committee simply a political ploy to avoid possible failure by sending it back to the same Committee where last session it ultimately floundered and died under intense public pressure in opposition?
Or does the US Congress actually believe that election law is best handled by a committee that deals with science and technology?
Defining election reform in terms of technology is a false paradigm that eludes the real issues. The Germans have already figured this out, based on their constitution, which itself used the "public elections" model found in our own U.S. Constitution! (4)
Consider the Holt Bill provisions:
- Section 103 contains a concealed vote counting provision that allows access to voting machine software only to "qualified" experts and only if they sign a nondisclosure agreement. The Holt Bill will make concealed vote counting federal law. If Holt's bill passes, it would be a federal crime for public evaluation as to whether or not voting machines are properly counting votes!
- Section 102 mandates the use of high cost, high tech, as yet non-existent technologies that are allegedly designed to enable "accessibility" to disabled voters. This is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that enriches the e-voting industry and bankrupts the democratic process, making our elections completely opaque and under the control of corporate high tech industries. It is already possible to achieve accessible voting without the use of complex, high cost, opaque, technologies.
- Section 325 places a White House agency between the states and their certification of election results. White House involvement in election certifications opens the door to dangerous executive power, placing election results in the hands of the Executive branch and possibly even the Judiciary, which may once again be called upon to decide election outcomes.
- Title III replaces open counting on election night with post-election sampling. HR2894 states "Each audit conducted under this section shall be conducted in a manner that allows public observation of the entire process" but it requires nondisclosure of the software counting the official election night results! This is like the bank manager saying it's okay to invite people to watch you count your cash at home but you have to take the teller's word about it when they give you the cash at the bank. It doesn't work in the real world.
Our elections, the very mechanism of our democracy, deserve the public scrutiny, security, accuracy, and checks and balances at least as good as those found in our banking systems. And we deserve at least the same open elections that we imposed on the defeated country of Germany after WWII.
HR2894 does not provide this. And Congress is under a sworn duty to not allow it to pass.
Let Congress know that We the People are watching, and saying "No!" to secret vote counting and corporate claims of ownership of our elections.
Contact your Congressional Representative: Click for Congressional Contact Information (5)
Contact the House Committee on Science and Technology. Remind them that this bill must be evaluated not as a technology issue but as a voting rights (6) issue. While this issue may be outside their jurisdiction, it is nonetheless the oath and the duty of every congressional representative to uphold these constitutional rights.
2321 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington,
D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6375
Fax: (202) 225-3895
Committee Members:
BART GORDON (Tennessee), Chair
