Holt proponents claim that the EAC is ineffective and benign. But we have already seen that EAC "guidelines" are easily transformed into the law of the land through bills like H.R. 811.
Holt proponents like to say that the EAC is only an advisory committee. A look at the TGDC's discussion tells us otherwise. The TGDC discussion around the use of two words: should and shall, reveals the extent to which the EAC understands its inherent regulatory nature. Bear with me on this slightly esoteric jaunt down a linguistic pathway.
In statutory language, should is very different from shall. Shall is mandatory, but should is recommended. During the discussion, TGDC member Paul Miller, representing the Standards Board, made the statement,
“If you make this a ‘shall’ there are implications because it [equipment meeting this requirement] doesn’t yet exist’.”
Changing the language to shall effectively means the “voluntary” guideline will apply to all electronic voting systems and not just “accessible” systems. It means that should another bill like the Holt Bill come along, this requirement for talking and walking paper ballots becomes the law of the land.
In practical terms, it means further complexification of our elections, further nontransparency of the vote casting and counting processes, and expanded costliness of high tech voting equipment.
And it also means, for all intents and purposes, the death of the simple hand count paper ballot voting system.
Despite Mr. Miller's acknowledgment that they were mandating something that doesn't even exist, a nearly unanimous vote (with Mr. Miller voting in assent and only one dissenter) adopted the statutory “SHALL” rather than “SHOULD".
At the heart of this discussion we can see clearly that the TGDC, as they craft their expensive and possibly non-implementable, and therefore destabilizing to our election systems, “voluntary guidelines” are fully aware that their use of language can easily transform their “voluntary” system to statutory given the right conditions (such as federal or state law, or even just the industry product development meeting those EAC requirements).
So now you see how, just like a Gopher Bash, with a permanent EAC, technovoting requirements can keep coming back to haunt you. You can knock down as many gophers as you want, but the EAC can keep making them pop up again.
And the gophers will have ruined your country. Game Over.
Take action to Halt Holt. Election Defense Alliance has complete information and action pages. Click here!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
