OpEdNews » At Least Do No Harm

Support OEN
With Your
Tax-Deductible Donation

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
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): Election Reform; Election Reform HR 550; Electronic Voting; Federal Agency EAC; Voter Disenfranchisement; Voting Integrity; Voting Laws Federal HAVA; Voting Machines; Voting Reform; Voting Technology
Add to My Group

February 14, 2007 at 22:51:08

Headlined on 2/14/07:
At Least Do No Harm

by Bev Harris Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

By email, I've been asked if I think there is anything valuable a federal body like the EAC can do. My response:

There are useful things it could do. There are useful things we can hire anybody to do. Just finding useful things to do is not the point, the objective is to get real election integrity, which means focusing
on getting the person installed in office that the voters actually voted for (as well as making sure eligible people can vote).

AT LEAST DO NO HARM

We need to be more careful about that old physician's adage, "at least, do no harm." And the first thing we need to be concerned about is harm to the foundation of our democracy, with harm to the election integrity process coming next.

THE REAL DANGER: UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE EAC HAS THE POWER TO
MAKE POLICY

One thing to do might be to put the EAC under the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. That way, it can make recommendations but can't make policy. That was originally what HAVA was supposed to
do but gee, somehow it ended up under the Executive Branch instead. At the time, hardly anybody realized the significance of that and after all, they were going to sunset the Commission in 2005 anyway.

Except that now they're not going to sunset it after all, they're making it permanent, in the unintended form, with POLICY MAKING /CHANGING authority, and all this is where it is least scrutinized and requires the fewest people, under the Executive Branch.

By extending the EAC in its present form -- simply by allowing the EAC to continue under the executive branch, the Holt Bill grants it the ability to MAKE AND CHANGE POLICY. That is very dangerous, and even if the specific policies in the beginning are okay.

REMEDIES?

I dunno. If there is a federal authority, consider setting it up as a 50-state representational body, in which case the policy making powers have more checks and balances. Or it can be set up as a recommender of
policy, by putting it under the legislative body.

DANGER: HOLT BILL INADVERTENTLY AUTHORIZES A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN POWER

That's what people are referring to when they screech like scalded cats about extending the EAC.

WHAT MIGHT A FEDERAL BODY DO THAT'S HELPFUL?

CIVIL RIGHTS

Well, one thing federal bodies do well is enact civil rights legislation. But that's best done by congress and the courts, not by a policymaking body under the president, who can giveth -- and taketh away -- quicker and with fewer people involved and fewer remedies than congress or the courts.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MINIMUM STANDARDS

1 | 2