BBV: Ask Gov Schwarzenegger to Sign SB1438 Into Law

[Bushfire]

Alert: Ask Governor Schwarzenegger to Sign SB1438 Into Law

Good news to report! Thanks to your efforts, the Assembly Appropriations Committee released the bi-partisan Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) bill SB1438 from its suspense file and onto the Assembly floor where it passed 73-0!! It is now also through the Senate (31-0!).

This bill would require there to be an accessible voter verified paper record of every ballot cast by the next statewide election, in March 2006.

Your calls, faxes and emails helped make this happen... but we have one more step to take!

Now the paper trail bill has passed the legislature, the Governor has thirty days to sign it or veto it. He needs to hear from YOU as soon as possible to let him know you want this law.

TAKE ACTION:

Contact Governor Schwarzenegger: ask him to please sign SB1438 into law.

WRITE:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

PHONE: [phone]

FAX: [phone]

EMAIL:
A) Click here: http://www.govmail.ca.gov You'll see an email form.
B) Choose "OTHER" for the subject line, and then
C) Enter "SB 1438" in the new subject line box and complete your
message to the governor.

Here's a sample letter you could use:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

California's voters deserve the best voting systems available.

Paperless electronic voting systems used in many of our
counties do not provide for a meaningful recount as specified
in our elections code, and have known security flaws.

This problem is mitigated by adding an accessible, voter-verified
paper audit trail (AVVPAT). This means each voter can confirm
their vote was recorded accurately, and it also means every
election official has a way to conduct a meaningful recount.

California took the lead nationwide by being the first to
establish standards for AVVPAT. Now we must be first to
require legitimate voting systems that are both accessible
and auditable.

Please sign SB1438 into law today.

Sincerely,



linked from http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2664

anybody else knew CA was voting on this? are there loopholes to this?

[CrispyQ]

1. May I ask why your flag is upside down?

Is there significance to that? Just curious.

[Bushfire]

3. I just sent you a PM

I'd rather this thread stay on topic, and keep my personal views of my avatar not in a public forum.

[RedEagle]

2. 2004 or 2006?

I thought Shelley had mandated 2006. Wasn't this bill supposed to make a voter verified paper ballot immediate?

[ParanoidPat]

4. Here's the history and text of the bill.

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery?bill_number=sb_1438&sess=CUR&house=B&author=johnson :evilgrin:

[Bushfire]

5. Pat, are there any loopholes?

I can't believe these passed unanimously, but it would look bad for the gropenator to veto this with so much support. Is this the bill with the 2006 deadline, or can we hope for Nov 2004?

[ParanoidPat]

6. Two things strike me as possible problems......

......First, If you read the following,

<Snip>

Article 4. Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems

19250. (a) On and after January 1, 2005, the Secretary of State
may not approve a direct recording electronic voting system unless
the system has received federal qualification and includes an
accessible voter verified paper audit trail.
(b) On and after January 1, 2006, a city or county may not
contract for or purchase a direct recording electronic voting system
unless the system has received federal qualification and includes an
accessible voter verified paper audit trail.
(c) As of January 1, 2006, all direct recording electronic voting
systems in use on that date, regardless of when contracted for or
purchased, shall have received federal qualification and include an
accessible voter verified paper audit trail. If the direct recording
electronic voting system does not already include an accessible
voter verified paper audit trail, the system shall be replaced or
modified to include an accessible voter verified paper audit trail.

<More>

The way this is worded allows the Secretary of State to certify any DRE system without a printer until the end of the year and then gives the Counties a full year to specify and order them! Those systems won't have to comply with the law until after Jan. 1st 2006. If Kevin Shelley is removed from office on some trumped up charges I would assume whoever steps in as 'acting' S.o.S. would also have that power.
This bill does nothing to address this election.

Second, In section 19251 (c), they define "Voter verified paper audit trail" as follows,

(c) "Voter verified paper audit trail" means a component of a
direct recording electronic voting system that prints a
contemporaneous paper record copy of each electronic ballot and
allows each voter to confirm his or her selections before the voter
casts his or her ballot.

And then go on to define "Paper record copy" as,

(e) "Paper record copy" means an auditable document printed by a
voter verified paper audit trail component that corresponds to the
voter's electronic vote and lists the contests on the ballot and the
voter's selections for those contests. A paper record copy is not a
ballot.

As Andy is always so astutely trying to point out, there is a legitimate reason to demand the term "paper ballot" be used. That reason being that there is a large body of election law, both at the State and Federal levels, that dictate how ballots are to be treated during a recount. All of that legal precedent is useless when referring to a "Paper record copy" unless there is specific language which regulates the treatment of the "Paper record copy" as to be the equivalent of a ballot.
IOW, If the "Paper record copy" were to prove that the electronically stored ballots were wrong, most laws would force the electronic count of the ballots to stand as there is nothing in the law that states the "paper record copy" has any legal standing.

[Bushfire]

7. Thanks for pointing that out!

Your knowledge in election law rocks! :yourock: