No Senate Dems on Voter Verification legislation - Legislative Alert!

[OzarkDem]

I suppose I'll try reposting this here. For some reason, the mods decided that a legislative alert about Verified Voting belonged in this forum. If its locked here, well, at least I tried.

I'm posting this here on the assumption that supporters of verified voting are also interested in making sure the legislation guaranteeing it gets passed. I could be wrong. I don't understand much of what's posted at DU. As a loyal Dem, a lot of what happens here is pretty much a mystery to me. As much as I'd like to alert everyone to this problem, I don't have a lot of time to play musical chairs with posts. If this one is locked or deleted, I'll assume no one at DU is intersted in the issue and will bypass you on further updates.

If anyone on this forum is truly interested in getting verified electronic voting, we need to make sure these bills get passed. Otherwise its just a fantasy.

***********

Thought it was time for a legislative alert on the Voter Confidence Act introduced in the House by Rush Holt (HR 2239) and in the Senate (S. 1980) by Bob Graham. It's "A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes."

The House version has 118 co-sponsors, and the Senate version has

NONE

Why haven't any of the Senate Dems signed on as co-sponsors of this incredibly important legislation?

Time is running out - we need to get a majority of members in the House and Senate to co-sponsor it and move it to the floor for a vote - NOW. Otherwise, none of what we do to get Dems back in the WH or Congress makes any difference. All the donations, campaigning, phone banking, etc will count for nothing if we can't ensure that electronic voting is legit and backed up by hard copies for recounts.

Where is Daschle, Edwards, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Corzine, Stabenow, Carnahan, etc. Kerry & Edwards both should be talking about this on the campaign trail.

Starting next week, we need to call our senators, especially Dems, and tell them to sign on to S. 1980 as co-sponsors IMMEDIATELY. They can call Grahams's office at 202-224-3041 and sign on as a co-sponsor.

Then call Daschle at [phone]

and DSCC chair Corzine at [phone]

and tell them to start earning their paychecks and get senate Dems lined up as co-sponsors on this bill, PRONTO!

I'll not vote for any Dem senator who doesn't co-sponsor this bill, nor will I contribute to any campaigns or the DSCC until all Dems are signed on.

Don't rely on email - Make phone calls or fax only!
Get your senator's number here:

http://congress.org/congressorg/home /

I'm going to call Graham's office on Thursday afternoon and see how many Dems have signed on as co-sponsors and will report back here. I want at least 20 Dems on S. 1980 by the end of the week.

Feel free to pass this around and post on other sites.

Let's get these bills passed!



'Intentions are good. But it's not intentions that count. What counts is action,' - Paul Wellstone

[revcarol]

1. Our Senator candidates may be weaseling out, but our Congressman

candidate ISN'T. Kucinich has the people in mind.

[MaineDem]

2. I got my Dem Congressman to sign on

I don't have a Dem Senator but I'll do what I can.

[cornermouse]

3. Carnahan lost in 2000

to Talent, a repub. Republicans made her one of their targets, brought in outside money if I understood the papers correctly, and had Bush, Cheney, and the whole gang in the state.

[diamondsoul]

4. Because Kerry is waiting to

take the benefits that come his way from the effing corrupt machines before he takes any action.:grr:

[Cocoa]

5. evidence for that accusation?

[stickdog]

6. What is his excuse, then?

What is the excuse of ANY Dem Senator for not rushing to support this?

[diamondsoul]

7. His own statments quoted in this thread-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=334231

"When I'm the nominee of the party, I intend to put together a legal team across this country. And we are going to prechallenge some of these automatic machines -- the Diebold machines -- where there have already been problems."

[Cocoa]

8. how is that evidence that Kerry is crooked?

the accusation was that Kerry is not cosponsoring this legislation for dishonorable reasons. That quote does nothing to support that smear.

[maddezmom]

9. kick

:kick: commercial break in the debate. :)

[Edwards4President]

10. Edwards isn't on this bill because he co-sponsored a better one!

Edwards is the sole co-sponsor of Hillary Clinton's "Protecting American Democracy Act of 2003," (S.1986) which is similar to Graham's bill but is much stronger because it goes much further. Like Graham's bill, PADA requires a voter-verified permanent record, but it does not limit this to paper, leaving open the possibility of other technologies that could be superior to a paper trail. And, unlike S.1980, it also mandates improved security safeguards.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1986:

[OzarkDem]

11. Not enough

Edwards is the only co-sponsor. Where is everyone else? Two votes won't get it passed out of committee, let alone through Congress.

When are Senate Dems going to get going on this issue? What are they waiting for?

These bills are absolutely necessary to provide funds that R's are trying to restrict to prevent purchase of printers with electronic voting machines. Without adequate regulations and funding, Dems are in big trouble in November.

BTW, what technologies would be superior to voter verified hard copies of votes?

[snoochie]

14. I'm curious too

What technologies does Edwards think are superior to hard copies?

This is upsetting to say the least!

[Edwards4President]

20. There are several voter verification technologies that may be as good as

or superior to paper ballots, such as votemeters, modular voting architecture, and/or encrypted votes.

While limiting voter verification methods to paper trails may seem like a good idea at first blush, it effectively closes off any other technologies - either existing or likely to come into being in the future - that could be better. Interestingly, many experts - as well as the League of Women Voters and a number of civil and disability rights groups - are staunchly opposed to requiring paper trails, for several reasons, including concerns that the technology is untested and unproven and mandating paper trails does not enable voters with physical disabilities or language or literacy problems to verify their vote without compromising their right to cast a secret ballot. http://www.civilrights.org/issues/voting/Voter_Verification.pdf

Voter verification is the important goal here - paper ballots are just one way to do that. Clinton's bill takes this into account. It requires that voting systems "provide a means by which each individual voter must be able to verify his or her vote at the time the vote is cast, and shall preserve each vote within the polling place on the day of the election in a manner that ensures the security of the votes as verified for later use in any audit."

Clinton's version requires that "{a}ny method used to permit the individual voter to verify his or her vote at the time the vote is cast and before a permanent record is created shall use the most accurate technology, which may include voter-verifiable paper ballots, votemeters, modular voting architecture, and encrypted votes, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner."

Under Clinton's approach, if a paper trail is the best method, the locality is required to use it; if it is not, a better, more accurate system must be used. Graham's bill, on the other hand, simply mandates a paper trail, without allowing for circumstances where other, better technologies may be available.

For this reason, Clinton's bill is superior to Graham's - that's probably why Edwards co-sponsored it instead.

[OzarkDem]

23. Stalling

this approach gives opponents too many reasons to stall and obfuscate. Graham and Clinton need to resolve this issue pronto.

There's not a lot of time left to get this done. The issue is finally making the mainstream media during the last couple of weeks. If Dems aren't on record supporting the House and Senate bills soon, it will not happen.

[Edwards4President]

25. I don't know about the others, but Edwards has stepped up to the plate n/t

[For PaisAn]

27. 2 problems with the Clinton/Edwards Bill

1) Wouldn't it be preferrable to have a uniform method of verification? Allowing different localities to have different verification systems would open up lawsuits, confusion, opportunity for fraud, etc.

2) Wouldn't it be prefferable to have the Senate Bill most closely match the Congressman Holt Bill? Time is of the essence and if the Bills differ it would more likely lead to a stall in conference as they try to reconcile them.

[Edwards4President]

29. Response

1. At this point, it is not preferable to force each state and locality to use the same verification system. Just as different states use different voting systems - which in and of itself is not a problem - they need to have some flexibility in what verification system they use. Forcing them to use a paper ballot, which in many instances is more problematic than other, more sophisticated verification systems could cause serious problems. One serious problem is that many states have already begun to put into place verification systems that go beyond paper ballots. Requiring them to use paper ballots would not only make them have to waste time and money going back to an older system, it does not give them any leeway to try to improve on the technology they are using. This would cause substantial delays and wreak havoc.

No bill mandating to states precisely what kind of verification to use will ever pass - even the Democrats won't insist upon that since such a provision is counter-productive to what they're trying to accomplish.

The problem with our voting system today is not that various states use different systems but that the systems within states are not always equitable. The Clinton Edwards bill helps to alleviate that. The Graham bill - which is nearly identical to the Holt bill in the House - sounds good on paper, but it is not workable in practice. That may be why no one has signed on to it, although I suspect that the lack of co-sponsors is more likely the result of the fact that both the Clinton and Graham bills were introduced on the last day of the session and got lost in the shuffle.

2. I don't think this would speed up the process since the Holt bill doesn't have a prayer of passing the House, so there will be no reconciliation problem. As I said, even civil rights groups hate the Holt/Graham versions, believing that they would unnecessarily complicate and delay voting reform and substantially violate the rights of individuals with disabilities, language minorities and semi-literate or illiterate voters.

The better course would be to either pass the Clinton Edwards Senate bill and send it over to the House where it could be passed as is or to amend the Holt bill to include the security safeguards and technological considerations contained in the Clinton Edwards bill, which has a much better chance of passage.

While the Holt/Graham versions are no doubt well-intentioned and seem like good ideas at first glance, they are actually superficial quick fixes that will do little to remedy the essential problem and will likely, in fact, make things worse. The Clinton Edwards version, while not perfect, is much more preferable.

[1971]

19. This link works for Clinton's S.1986 bill --

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01986:@@@L&summ2=m&

S.1986
Title: A bill to amend the help America Vote Act of 2002 to require voter verification and improved security for voting systems under title III of the Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 12/9/2003) Cosponsors: 1
Latest Major Action: 12/9/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


From the above link you can click on the links to:

Titles, Status, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments, Cosponsors, Summary

[genius]

12. Everyone I know is pushing it.

However, here in California, the Democratic leaders (with the sole exception of Phil Angelides) have thrown away all their Democratic values and have fallen in love with Arnold. I cannot believe they are backing 58, which will only hurt everyone but the rich.

[dusty64]

13. Puzzling and

disturbing. :kick:

[snoochie]

15. Wake up KICK!

:kick:

[snoochie]

16. Would you believe this is actually important?

Not by the response.

This really needs to be in GD.

:(

[snoochie]

17. I'm going to keep kicking this because it's that important.

:kick:

[1971]

18. Citizens Call For Secure Electronic Voting System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 11, 2004
9:19 AM
CONTACT: TrueMajority.org
Tyler Prell or Jason Dring 202-518-8047

The Computer Ate My Vote
Citizens Call For Secure Electronic Voting System


WASHINGTON - February 11 - Citizens Call For Secure Electronic Voting System

What: Press conference launching grassroots campaign for Voter-Verified Paper Trails in U.S. Elections.

Who:
Ben Cohen, co-founder, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream and president of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities and TrueMajority.org.
Dan Wallach, PhD, Rice University, computer security expert who has published 40 papers on the subject since 1995.

When: Tuesday, 17 February 2004, 11:00 AM EST

Where: In front of National Association of Secretaries of State annual conference,
Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave. NW
Washington, DC

<snip>

"TrueMajority is encouraging secretaries of state to use their authority to require computerized voting machines to produce paper records, to be verified by voters and kept for audits and dispute resolution."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0211-04.htm

[Edwards4President]

21. kick

[texasmom]

22. Thank you Demgirl! Very disturbing.

Thanks so much for posting it. I am trying to do everything I can, and now you've given me something else tangible to do. I will definitely call Daschle and Corzine and others.

I just got an email from a friend that Ben of "Ben and Jerry" was interviewed on CNN Headline News tonight about the grassroots movement to get paper trails. Unfortunately I missed it, but maybe they'll replay.

Thanks again!

[KoKo]

24. This will get lost here, but thanks for the "heads up!" Will fax on this

and thanks for the post reminding us!

[ngGale]

26. Kick

Important--keep the focus--

[For PaisAn]

28. This is imperative

"Time is running out - we need to get a majority of members in the House and Senate to co-sponsor it and move it to the floor for a vote - NOW. Otherwise, none of what we do to get Dems back in the WH or Congress makes any difference. All the donations, campaigning, phone banking, etc will count for nothing if we can't ensure that electronic voting is legit and backed up by hard copies for recounts."

You're 100% right. We can argue all we want about who the best candidate is but it will be a waste of time if this isn't resolved.

I will call my Senators tomorrow. May not help since they are Clinton & Schumer, but I'll call anyway.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. I think I understand NOW

why the Democrats were not jumping on this to co-sponsor it. THEY needed the flawed machines for the Primaries to get their candidate chosen. Pay close attention people. AFTER we have a/THEIR nominee we will have a TON of co-sponsors....Just watch!

Our government is corrupt...in case you didn't know that. :(

[Edwards4President]

32. Not hardly

Even if every Dem in the Senate got on the bill the day it was introduced - which never happens - and the bill was fast-tracked through the Committee process, voted out of both houses by the Republican majority in the three weeks since Congress came back into session and signed into law immediately by W, it STILL would not have had any effect on the the primaries since the deadline it sets for compliance is November 2004.

You're reading way too much into this. Legislation takes time. Everything is not a conspiracy to hurt your candidate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. Kick

:kick:

[kiahzero]

33. I don't think any of the current candidates should be actively pushing

this bill on the trail. Maybe I'm a little cynical, but it seems to me that if a Presidential candidate is talking about reforming the way votes are counted, our media would tear them apart as trying to "steal the election."

Just a thought.

[Edwards4President]

34. kick

[OzarkDem]

35. Kick

I'll try to give a status report tomorrow. Post if you've gotten any kind of response from a Dem senator.

Note: On an issue like this, its acceptable to call a key senator, even if they're not yours.

[texasmom]

36. Kick n/t

:kick: