Power of Story Send a Tweet        
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
General News

Who is Supporting and Who is Opposing Current Election Reform Legislation?

By       Message Kathy Dopp       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 2946
- Advertisement -

Will Congress pass election reform legislation by early 2007 in time to be in effect by the 2008 general election? Will The U.S. Congress Pass Any Election Reform Legislation?

Election reform bills have been proposed by U.S. Congressman Rush Holt and Senator Bill Nelson (HR 811 & S559) and by Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Hillary Clinton (HR1381 & S804). These bills all require improvements to voting technology; strengthen the roll of the US Election Assistance Commission; and require the same election audit protocols.

Who is FOR these election reform bills?

The same organizations which pushed through the Help America Vote Act in 2002 also support the Holt and Nelson bills. Common Cause, MoveOn, and People for the American Way (PFAW); plus a new group called VoteTrustUSA , and a few computer scientists such as Ed Felten of Princeton University, and Avi Rubin of John Hopkins University publicly support the Holt and Nelson proposals. The ACLU supports the Clinton and Tubb-Jones bills.

- Advertisement -
The opponents of current Congressional election reform proposals include strange bedfellows: election integrity activists, election officials, and voting system vendors.

According to Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections, "Congress got it wrong when it passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and there is a high probability that HR 811 in its current form could create another form of expensive mischief that could interfere with efficient administration of elections."

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) wrote a joint letter on March 19, 2007 urging members of Congress “to oppose H.R.811, S.559 or other legislation that would require dramatic changes in state and local election laws”.

- Advertisement -
Doug Lewis, Founder and Executive Director of the Election Center, opposes having elections subjected to independent manual audits. Lewis told Congress that “Humans count large numbers of ballots less accurately than voting equipment” because “their minds wander” and if outside agencies conducted audits that would “turn the process of live ballots over to people who … will be handling the ballots without the training of what to look for or what to do if there are problems with the ballots.” and “there is unlikely to be sufficient time with the audit process specified in HR811.”

Is Lewis right? Should we trust his representation of election officials? Not according to Engineer Charles Corry, former member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) voting system guidelines committee. According to its web site, The Election Center brings local election administrators together with suppliers of election products and services and conducts training and certification programs for election administrators and vendors. The Election Center served as an incubator for the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) until 1989. In fact, Lewis is a former director of the Voting Systems Program for NASED; and set up a lobbying meeting in 2003 to help voting machine vendors convince the public to accept their products. Other co-founders or board members of The Election Center include:

* Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) since 2005 and a former chair of the NASED Voting Standards Board, a past-president of the NASED and past chair of NASED’s ITA Committee; and

* Donetta Davidson, Chair of the EAC served with Wilkey and Lewis on the board of The Election Center and also was on NASED's Voting Standards Board while Wilkey was the Chair.

Davidson, Wilkey, and Lewis were largely responsible for the control, selection and oversight of the voting machine test labs and the certification of voting machines, most of which were not secure and not independently auditable. Even after the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as technical advisor to the EAC, reported that "the DRE provides no independent capability to detect whether fraud has not caused errors in the records. In principle, a single clever, dishonest programmer in a voting machine company could rig an entire statewide election" and said that the NIST research staff "do not know how to write testable requirements to satisfy that the software in a DRE is correct”; and the Carter-Baker Commission, the US Government Accountability Office and the League of Women Voters recommended auditing election results, Davidson, Wilkey, and Lewis continued to oppose independent audits of election results.

Many groups of long-time election integrity activists also publicly oppose provisions in the Clinton and Holt bills and have written extensively of the flaws of these election reform bills that need to be fixed.

- Advertisement -
Kathy Dopp of the National Election Data Archive showed that the proposed election audits would result in low minimum 10% success rate for detecting vote miscount that could alter an election outcome despite the fact that the election audit costs of these bills is from 50% to 95% more than an election audit that is 99% effective.

Nancy Tobi of Democracy for New Hampshire and Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite showed that the US Election Assistance Commission had not accomplished any of its functions and that it would be dangerous to our form of government to cede so much power over elections to the federal executive branch, let alone give it more authority like the Holt and Clinton bills do.

Computer technicians and computer scientists wrote papers showing that the time frames that these election reform bills require for developing and implementing new requirements for voting equipment are unreasonable, and would be virtually unenforceable and could cause a repeat of the HAVA-like buying cycle of voting equipment prior to when standards and proper certification and enforcement procedures could be established.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Founder and President of US Count Votes, dba The National Election Data Archive and volunteer for honest, accurately counted elections since 2003. Masters degree in mathematics with emphasis on computer science. Has written numerous academic and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

MSM comes out against computerized voting, finally

Avoid Another HAVA Train Wreck: Software Disclosure Requirements

Who is Supporting and Who is Opposing Current Election Reform Legislation?

It Is Not Whether Or Not To Audit Elections, But HOW!

ES&S Opti-Scans Found Miscounting by 4% (8% margin-swing)

What do the Experts Say About Electronic Voting?