![]() |
|
|
May 28, 2007 at 09:25:27
HR 811 (The Holt Bill): Let the debate begin by Nancy Tobi Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
We who oppose believe anything that stands to so dramatically transform, and possibly violate, the nature of American democracy deserves robust public debate, based on facts and principle. Congress has already held its so-called public hearings on the bill, but those hearings were stacked with many pro-811 witnesses, and the few opponents of the legislation were not debating what we oppositional citizens believe are the real issues that need a good, public airing: Unfortunately, in what appears to be a desperate desire to keep the rhetoric flying and the facts suppressed from any public discourse, supporters of the bill have refused every offer for real public debate. Some of the more vocal supporters of the bill state that if we opponents are questioning the confusing language of the bill, it must be that we are not as "intelligent" as they are. Sort of like the way a sales person for an exclusive item will look down his nose and tell you, "if you have to ask what it costs, you obviously can't afford it."
If we have to ask what this bill means to our democracy, we are obviously in the wrong shop.
I, for one, would like to see robust debate on the merits of this complex bill. For one thing, the principles of democracy are at stake.
The American people deserve to hear honest debate on if and how this proposed election reform supports the fundamental principles of American democracy without which our elections are nothing but a sham.
As well, the language of the 62 page bill is so dangerously ambiguous in so many critical areas, that we ought to expose the ambiguities to the light before HR811 becomes the law of the land and our elections are thrown to the courts to decide what means what.
And finally, public debate is called for because of the complex, often conflicting, and seemingly impossible and impractical requirements of the bill. These requirements are outrageously expensive, the costs of which will be borne in large part by American property taxpayers as the nation's towns, cities, and counties struggle to meet the bill's unfunded high tech mandates.
And a careful analysis of the bill's timelines, equations, and reporting requirements indicates they just don't seem to add up to anything that will actually work in the real world. This fundamental flaw in the bill puts every state in the nation at risk if it forces them to try to run legal elections when the law itself is unsupportable.
This is not the birthright of democracy the framers of the U.S. Constitution bequeathed us.
The Holt Bill, in its former incarnation as HR 550, languished in committee under the former Republican majority, and was never released to the full House for a vote. With the Democratic takeover, the bill resurfaced in its current incarnation, HR 811. Within days of the November 2006 victory, Dem leaders were predicting the swift passage of election reform. They were going to "own" the issue that had been stymied under the Republican rule.
Unfortunately, the new leadership was stuck holding the same moldy bag of election reform that had been decaying in the former Republican majority's pantry. And time was not kind to the Holt Bill. As it languished, its unpleasant odor wafted through the ranks of citizen activists, many of whom, one by one, began to experience an unmistakable squeamishness about the bill.
When HR 550 was whisked out of the pantry, washed down, spiced up, and placed on the table of the House Administration Committee in its new form as HR 811, many former supporters found they could no longer stomach the bill, even in its shiny new form. One might even say, especially in its shiny new form.
The ranks of ordinary citizens, who laboriously studied the bill and its implications, the nation's election officials, counties, legislators, and even the e-voting industry itself, uniformly rose in loud and raucous opposition to its passage.
HR 811 quickly became a disputed and controversial bill, left only with its primary supporters being well funded lobbying groups like Common Cause, MoveOn, TrueMajority, Verified Voting and VoteTrustUSA.
1 | 2
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Oppose the Holt Bill as written!
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 3 comments |
|
well said
Thank you, Nancy. It's worth asking why those in favor might not want a national debate. Who might benefit from the passage of a law with such far-reaching consequences? What is there to hide? If the proponents of the bill are so sure about its worth, they should seemingly welcome a thorough consciousness-raising so that the entire voting public can get behind it too. We simply cannot afford another boondoggle like HAVA which could bankrupt many municipalities and make transparent elections with true citizen oversight even more distant a memory. Does Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people" perhaps refer to American citizens running our elections in a public way so that our fellow citizens can participate, witness and approve the exercise of our most democratic of values: fair elections? Further selling our collective souls to the electronic voting machine vendors and four political appointees (the EAC) does not seem to be a step in the right direction. Joan Brunwasser, voting integrity ed., OpEdNews by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 751 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 10:11:58 AM
|
|
Probably a better job than I could have written!
We need to, and the Founders directed us to, frequently recur to fundamental principles as a way to determine if proposed changes make sense for our system of representative democracy. If we don't, our rights and freedoms get eroded or violated by not even being considered. That's how we come up with bills like HR 811 (the charitable view). Then there's the corrupt view as to how our elections get corrupted.... by Paul Lehto (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 4:34:35 PM
|
|
Correction to one little piece of information
James Madison signed the Declaration of Independence, and he lived longer than any other signer of the Declaration. That being said, I received the above "ring-bolt" quote in a mixture of Madison and Fredrick Douglass quotes, and the ring-bolt quote according to my recent research is a Fredrick Douglass quote and not a Madison quote. Douglass was a powerful orator, and gave a famous, spontaneous eulogy for Lincoln at his funeral memorial.... by Paul Lehto (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 11:11:11 AM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |