Big ticket items unaccounted for in the HR811 technoelection bill
Executive Summary
HR811 is being sold to the American people as a "paper trail" bill. But 811 (aka the Holt Bill) is nothing more than an e-voting vendor's dream. This bill cements the use of high tech, low democracy, equipment in our voting systems, protects the "rights" of private corporate interests to "count" our votes using proprietary, trade secret software, so that only they and the White House know how or if our votes are being counted at all.
HR811 , of which NH Congressman Paul Hodes is a sponsor, also has several big ticket items that have not been adequately budgeted for in its $1BIL appropriation. The costs of this bill to NH property tax payers will be unacceptably high, taking money from our cities and towns that could be used for other, more important things, rather than to support an e-voting industry that has proven itself time and again to be corrupt, and which, in any reasonable analysis, has no place in the running of democratic elections.
These costs are defined in detail below, but the summary is found here.
Removal of Safe Harbor
Wikipedia defines safe harbor as
"a provision of a statute or a regulation that reduces or eliminates a party's liability under the law, on the condition that the party performed its actions in good faith. Legislators include safe-harbor provisions to protect legitimate or excusable violations. An example of safe harbor is performance of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by a property purchasor: thus effecting due dilligence and a "safe harbor" outcome if future contamination is found caused by a prior owner."
HR811, with its broad reaching and complex mandates for our state election systems, does not include any safe harbor language for its mandates. Unlike the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which it seeks to amend, the Holt Bill does not include a state planning process by which states can interpret the bill’s requirements. Additionally, it broadens citizen’s rights to sue a state for noncompliance.
Some folks may think this is a good thing, that we should be able to sue the pants off any electoral jurisdiction we feel is in violation of the law.
But the cost of lawsuits in electoral challenges is quite high both financially and in the incalculable costs to our democracy, as we all saw in Florida's 2000 presidential election.
HR811 directs states to comply with its requirements, while simultaneously granting the Executive branch broad oversight, removing necessary checks and balances by centralizing control in the Executive branch, and further complicating and compromising states’ ability to administer independent and fair elections, and further raising the risk of legal interventions caused by differences of interpretation for compliance. The lack of safe harbor applies to every provision in the bill, the most significant of which are listed below.
* Executive Commission is the authority defining what constitutes a federally compliant voting system and accessible voting system , and its definition is quite far reaching * States’ only chance for “safe harbor” is to comply with The Commission voting system standards * Compliance with The Commission standards is virtually impossible and cost prohibitive * Mandate for a new ballot text read back technology that is untested, uncertified, and most likely nonexistent * New responsibility for states to administer costly voting system certification function * Chain of custody procedures and documentation * New responsibility for states to administer costly auditing and reporting function
New Added Step in the Voting Process
With the new mandated read-back technology (“convert ballot selections into accessible form”), this technoelection bill integrates one of the higher cost requirements from The Commission’s VVSG I: ballot text read back. This will have the following costs and impact:
* Increased administration and software configuration and testing workloads between the primary and the general elections * Increased ballot configuration and software complexity, increased costs both in configuration and election management (training, implementation, etc.) * Possibly nonexistent technology to meet requirement * Possible false claims that existing technology can meet requirement * Conservative estimate of at least $1.5 BIL in the first year alone for states to meet this single requirement. (In 2010 costs will increase as equipment needs to be updated to meet new executive commission guidelines)
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.
It's been hard to write about this bill in sound bites. It's a highly complex bill. The answer to your question is, if we have lost our mechanism to throw the bums out - to oust the criminals occupying our halls of power - then we have lost it all. To regain our land of the free and the brave, we have to stop them at this game of taking over our elections.
Congress and the White House are colluding with private interests to control our elections. This has to stop.
It is a criminal act in and of itself.
Our Consitution guarantees us the right to a republican form of governance. This is defined as the citizens - the voters - controlling the government and not the other way around.
Because Congress and the White House want to turn this upside down, where they are controlling us - via our elections - they are committing unconstitutional acts.
Nothing new, right? But this is the very mechanism we have that controls everything about the country.
We need to fight this. Just as the founders fought the monarchy and gave us the documents that laid the foundation of our free country. The documents and the rule of law established therein that Congress and the White House are violating.
Unfortunately, they make it pretty complicated. Hence my six page article. We have to plow through a lot of horse manure to get our fields to bloom again.
by
Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments)
on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 8:36:55 AM
This link is to the Republican Office of Vernon J. Ehlers (House Administration)
Why aren’t we seeing this link posted on this site with some commentary? It would seem that this should be big news to those in opposition to DREs, as it is the latest in requests for amendments to HR 811, by the DRE companies.
We have written extensively about the vendor influences
This particular article does not deal with the issue of DREs or corporate influence, but numerous articles in opposition to 811 have noted the unholy alliance between Congress and the vendors.
Most notably in 811, this is manifested in Congress's obscene concession to their industry masters, which resulted in the insertion of language enshrining trade secrecy for vote counting software into federal law!
You have to wonder, who do these so-called public servants think they are! Putting secret vote counting into federal law.
How stupid do they think we are anyway?
by
Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments)
on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 5:10:56 PM
