5) It fraudulently represents machine-generated records as “ballots” thereby undermining our time honored system of elections, which use voter marked paper ballots as the vote of record. This obfuscation of terminology has both legal and conceptual implications.
6) It requires new technology for every polling jurisdiction in the nation: the text converter technology. Drafters of the bill have progressively been changing the language of this provision and making claims as to how it might be fulfilled in various ways. The fact is the language is obscure and, if passed as is, interpretations will be thrown to the courts as every interested person sues their state for using one solution over another. The current text reads the requirement to “convert ballot selections into accessible form.” What does this mean? It’s anyone’s guess. Common wisdom in the industry and certainly in the EAC is that voting systems must provide technology conversion of ballot text into many multiple forms of “accessible media” such as audio, pictures, and multiple languages. Given the obvious confluence of EAC standards and Holt Bill text, it is not inconceivable to interpret the provision a la the EAC interpretation. New technologies as defined by the EAC and passed into law by bills like the Holt Bill will cripple local and state economies, place further complex technological walls between the voter and his vote, between citizens and our elections, and the costs will be unacceptably borne by the decline of freedom and democracy and crippling property taxes.
7) The bill is underfunded and rides roughshed over state laws. Drafters of the bill followed the unacceptable practice of using figures brought them by a lobbyist (VoteTrustUSA), rather than conducting honorable due diligence with an eye to county, town and state budgets and legal requirements. In stark contrast to the lobbyist budget inserted into the bill, estimates by diligent state officials indicate that the bill is up to 3-4 times underfunded actual budgeted costs for implementation. Additionally, the bill actually articulates its recommendation for states to follow the prescriptive requirements of the bill and only later enact legislation to support these actions, rather than honoring the sovereignty of state legal infrastructures, which should not be peremptorily overrun in order to satisfy federal legislation.
8) It has unworkable and conflicting requirements and effective dates. The combination of incomprehensible requirements, conflicting timelines, no safe harbor language, and limited ability for states to interpret the bill, all add up to a lot of open doors for litigation and election outcome challenges. This is extremely destabilizing and dangerous to the nation, as we learned in 2000 when only ONE state had a legal challenge to the election outcome. More information on this here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070522_the_real_threat_from.htm
And here: click here 9) HR 811 makes permanent the Election Assistance Commission (EAC): The EAC consists of four white house appointees who, through their power to design the software and hardware specifications of voting equipment to be used in America (and they have now expanded their purview even to designing our paper ballots), control the counting of votes in the United States. This is unacceptable. This Commission MUST BE DISSOLVED. Its very existence threatens our 231 year constitutional republic by shifting the ultimate power – that of counting our votes - to the Executive Branch. This is the destruction of our democracy. The drafters of HR 811 have disingenuously removed the clear directive to make the EAC permanent (each successive version has obfuscated their intention to do so). Early versions of the bill clearly called for the “Permanent Extension of the EAC”. Then they removed the word “Permanent” and now they have removed the actual provision itself. But these are games they are playing. The current version of HR 811 mentions the EAC, giving it authority and responsibility, more than 32 times in the 62 page bill. It also appropriates to the EAC in perpetuity 5 times the current budget. This, my friends, is a duck. It walks and quacks, and it is a duck. More information on the EAC here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070526_voter_intent_trumps_.htm And here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070414_the_eac_gopher_bash.htm 10) Vote counting secrecy: The most egregious bait and switch for many activists supporting the bill is that the original language calling for full disclosure in the bill has now been replaced with full nondisclosure, as well as adding requirements for public officials to sign nondisclosure agreements with private corporations in order to keep secret from the American people the manner in which our votes are being counted. 11) HR 811 imposes overly burdensome and cumbersome auditing and reporting requirements, many of which will not conform to current state practices and traditions. This is another area where the bill uses complexity and “experts” rather than simplicity and citizen oversight. It places the EAC between the state and the state’s certification of election results. It is ambiguous as to the reporting requirements and EAC authority in obstructing state certification of election results. It inappropriately involves an executive commission of four white house appointees in the process of certification of state election results. 5-Point Alternative Proposal for Meaningful Election Legislation with Checks and Balances 1. In support of the principle of checks and balances and citizen oversight: Jurisdictions will ensure that a sufficient supply of paper ballots be available, that notice of the option is provided, that the ballots are treated with equal dignity provided to other ballots, including canvassing/counting those ballots on election day, and that consequences are provided for violations. In the event of violations related to the provision, canvassing, and handling of paper ballots, any citizen eligible to vote in the jurisdiction will have standing to go to court to require compliance and authority for the court to grant immediate relief. Funding for training and documentation for election officials and election workers in the proper hand counting methods and election administration using paper ballots will be appropriated to support this provision. Prior to election certification, appropriate protocols must be implemented to ensure the integrity of election results as authenticated by transparent vote counting methods. (Compliance to be determined by each state in a state plan process that supports the standards for democratic elections, those being citizen oversight and security, and which process includes diverse stakeholders group including citizen representation, published plans, and consequences for noncompliance. State Plans will be published in the Federal Register.) (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Plus Incentives for Real Paper Ballots and Hand Counts
Require that Paper Ballots be Offered and Provided Voters at the Polls—
The appropriate election official at each polling place in an election for Federal office shall offer each individual who is eligible to cast a vote in the election at the polling place the opportunity to cast the vote using a pre-printed paper ballot which the individual may mark by hand and which is not produced by a direct recording electronic voting machine. If the individual accepts the offer to cast the vote using such a ballot, the official shall provide the individual with the ballot and the supplies necessary to mark the ballot, and shall ensure (to the greatest extent practicable) that the waiting period for the individual to cast a vote is not greater than the waiting period for an individual who does not agree to cast the vote using such a paper ballot under this paragraph.
