http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-939
'(B) VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- Any direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system described in subparagraph (A)(iii) shall use a mechanism that separates the function of vote generation from the function of vote casting and shall produce, in accordance with paragraph (2)(A), an individual paper record which--
'(i) shall be used to meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(B);
'(ii) shall be available for visual, audio, and pictorial inspection and verification by the voter, with language translation available for all forms of inspection and verification in accordance with the requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
'(iii) shall not require the voter to handle the paper; and
'(iv) shall not preclude the use of Braille or tactile ballots for those voters who need them. The requirement of clause (iii) shall not apply to any voting system certified by the Independent Testing Authorities before the date of the enactment of this Act.'(C)
REQUIREMENTS FOR LANGUAGE MINORITIES- Any record produced under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the extent such section is applicable to the State or jurisdiction in which such record is produced.'. ---------------------------
That's right folks. A voting booth with audio, visual, pictorial, capabilities. The possibilities are endless. If I am musically inclined perhaps they can convert my ballot to a symphony too. (Lest anyone think I am heartless and insensitive, let me just say that the rights of the disabled, illiterate, etc. are part and parcel of a functioning democracy. We just do not believe those rights need to be protected at the cost of the democracy itself.)
Of course, it is no accident that the conversion language appears in the newly revised Holt Bill. In fact somebody has been planning this for some time now. We can trace its origins back at least a year and a half. We even know many of the players. We know, for instance, that PFAW lobbied hard for inserting the conversion technotoy into the Holt Bill. In fact, a December 2006 draft verions of the bill did not even contain this provision. Many reviewers of the draft legislation didn't even know about it. I, myself, saw a December draft version, and this provision was not included. It only appeared very late in the drafting process, just in time to be released to the public in February and to defuse any competing support for HR 939. Tubbs Jones is now a cosponsor of the Holt Bill.
But lobbyists alone do not legislation make. We can therefore assume that there is some industry maven rubbing his hands with glee at his imminent entrance into a multibillion dollar technoelection industry.
What is clear is this: somebody stands to make a bundle off this thing, and on top of that its implementation will succeed at further obscuring the integrity of the paper ballot and our democratic processes. So let's follow the historical timeline for the new technoelection dream toy.
TEXT-TO-AUDIO TECHNOELECTION TOY TIMELINE:
August 2005
The EAC Standards Board meets to review the recommendations for the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which will become the basis for federal recommendations, testing, and certification of e-voting equipment.
In the link here you will find the resolutions from the EAC Standards Board August 2005 meeting, in which they recommended removing all language referencing text conversion from the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). Remember that the Standards Board, unlike the Commission stacked with partisan hacks, is a 50-state representational body of top state and local election officials.
You know, people who actually UNDERSTAND how elections work.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
