NEW CONYERS LETTER: PREVIEW OF UPCOMING LEGISLATION

[Wilms]

<http://www.johnconyers.com/>

Here in it's entirety:

February 1, 2005

Dear Friend:

As 109th Congress convenes, I write to thank you for the energy and resources you continue to commit to the pursuit of a just electoral process. Once again, I am indebted especially to the internet activists and the members of the alternative media whose enduring efforts shed light on an issue that too few in the mainstream media have been willing to discuss. There is a new fight ahead, the fight for comprehensive election reform legislation, and I write to ask for your help.

To this end, I will be pushing a package of reforms to the electoral process and machinery. First, I am proud to introduce on Wednesday, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act as a means to comprehensive election reform on a national level. Among other things, the VOTER Act mandates clear regulations for audit capacity and periodic audits, voter verification, and the use of paper records in recounts. The legislation requires every state to establish a same day registration process, permitting any eligible citizen to register and participate in a federal election on election day. And it calls for increased protections of your civil rights, uniform standards for absentee and provisional voting, elimination of the disparity between machine allocations between urban and suburban areas, and early voting opportunities in all fifty states. I am proud that the Senate companion to this bill has been sponsored by Senator Chris Dodd on behalf of the Senate Democratic Leadership. There is no doubt in my mind the VOTER Act represents a renewed commitment to an electoral process that is both just and crystal clear.

Second, and of equal importance to me, I will also be vigorously supporting Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s proposal for a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee every citizen the right to vote. In the past, I have been hesitant to support new amendments to the Constitution, but I am now convinced this amendment is a worthy exception. In the infamous case Bush v. Gore, a narrow majority of reactionary Supreme Court justices declared "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States" unless that right is conferred by that citizen’s state legislature. I do not believe that such a radical interpretation of the Constitution should stand, where our most basic rights are subject to the whims and vagaries of a state legislature or reactionary judges. I will, therefore, urge this Congress to protect the enfranchisement of every citizen with the strongest means at our disposal.

Third, the lack of standards for voting machines and the partisan activities of machine manufacturers resulted in a substantial number of concerned citizens concluding that we simply should forgo the use of machines at all, and should instead simply use paper ballots and hand counting of such ballots. I most recently heard this proposal at my Ohio hearings and have read it often in your correspondence, and I believe it should be taken seriously. This week I am writing to the Election Assistance Commission and formally requesting an official review of the security and reliability of electronic voting systems, including an examination of whether such systems should be used in any event.

Fourth, while I look forward to fighting for these changes, the simple passage of Inauguration Day cannot make me forget the past. I continue to press both the Department of Justice and the Republican leadership to investigate Ohio voting irregularities and bring to justice those who would defraud the public of their most basic rights. I have once again requested the raw polling data used to justify a Republican victory in Ohio despite its inconsistency with actual voter turnout on November 2. I have also written to every county election official in Ohio, asking for their review of my 102 page election report; I have asked the FBI to investigate the additional evidence of voting irregularities in Clermont County, Ohio; I have asked the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to investigate the misuse of the "great seal" by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell in a recent fundraising solicitation; I have written to Ohio Attorney General Petro expressing alarm over his apparent partisan attempt to sanction those attorney who sought to legally challenge the results of the Ohio presidential election; and I am working on an amicus brief before the Ohio Supreme Court on this matter as well. Here, too, your efforts have made all the difference. We have received over 30,000 emails offering your support and detailing hundreds of individual abuses. With that kind of advocacy, even our most partisan opponents will stop and listen.

Fifth, it is clear to me that election fraud is a national problem. I have instructed my staff to begin compiling preliminary information about election day incidents across the country, and I have also asked the Congressional Research Service to conduct a survey of recent voting irregularities in all fifty states. In addition, I am awaiting the report of the General Accountability Office concerning systemic failures in the 2004 election. We will work to catalog and preserve a record of the disruptions that plagued the 2004 Presidential election, and apply what we learn to make voting more efficient and fairer for everyone. To be sure, in a number of states, good faith efforts by election officials averted egregious irregularities, but in others, the process appears to have serious deficiencies.

Sixth, we must not forget the near complete disenfranchisement of our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia. It is simply inexcusable that concerns about the partisan makeup of the House and Senate have led the Republican majority to deprive the District of a Congressperson or Senator with full voting rights in the United States Congress. I will strongly be supporting D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s bill, H.R. 398, to correct this injustice. I also plan to cosponsor other reform bills when they are introduced, including Rep. Green’s legislation to eliminate the electoral college, Rep. Holt’s bill concerning voting machine paper trails, and Rep Sabo’s bill concerning same day registration.

As we move forward with these changes, I will continue to solicit your opinions and ideas. I owe a special thanks to the thousands of supporters who have participated in our online survey on election reform. The results are truly encouraging. 87 percent of those surveyed advocate the expansion of early voting programs. 95 percent favor the creation of a public campaign to educate voters on voting rights and anti-intimidation laws. Nearly 99 percent have asked us to ensure that every voting machine has a verifiable audit trail. Your conviction that the electoral process can and will improve continues to inform our best policies, and I have made your concerns the center of my efforts.

To help me in these efforts, I would ask that you help me get out the word concerning the importance of these efforts, particularly in the face of stiff opposition by Republicans. Among other things, please forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues so that they may learn of my efforts, encourage them to sign up for my email alerts at www.johnconyers.com and to visit the site for more updates. You can also complete a petition on my web site, which seeks support for the Conyers/Dodd omnibus election reform legislation.

Thanks again for your help.

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.

On Edit:

DU Thread here, among others dealing with this issue:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x310888>

[LynzM]

1. Excellent!

I'm SO glad to see that once we've gotten the fires lit under some people, not all of them are going out!!

[zann725]

46. Glad to hear at least ONE Rep. is NOT giving up on prosecuting EF

Conyers is 'the Man!'

[burythehatchet]

2. remarkable that one of the oldest members of the House

is tapped into the new media. Its wonderful.

[New Earth]

3. OMG

tears in my eyes, he just said ELECTION FRAUD, clear as day :bounce: :toast:

[AtLiberty]

4. But didn't Andy tell us that the Republican bill actually...

...provide more protection than Dodd's bill? I'm very concerned that we present a united front and fight for a single bill.

[4democracy]

5. That is a good question, it is very confusing! n/t

[teddyk23]

8. Conyers bill is a COMPANION bill to Dodd

That means similar, but not exactly the same.

[Wilms]

10. Do say more. And...

A few questions, Ted (and Andy, if you're out there).

Might Conyers Bill fill-in what we percieve as the gaps in both Dodd and/or Ensign?

Is it really an either/or choice between the Dem and Repub bills?

I don't have an idea of how it all works but, could Conyers/Dodd and Ensign/(is there a Republican Companion Bill?) work in bi-partisan fashion?

On Edit:

Can they incorporate Ensign's articles that we like?

Might we ask Ensign to give us more, then we'll back him, etc.?

[teddyk23]

13. to answer

I think it fills in gaps and goes beyond Ensign in the area of paper trail. I'll let you judge after you read the bill, though. I am confident that I will be able to point you to specific things that address the concerns being kicked around here, but I don't want or expect you to take my word for it.

Not an either/or choice, just a question of where you devote your energy.

Could work in a bipartisan fashion. Does incorporate stuff you like. You could ask Ensign to do that.

A tactical question for thr group. A base text will be brought before the Senate, probably as an amendment to another, unrelated bill. Do you want the bill to be as comprehensive as possible (both voting rights reforms and technology safeguards) or do you want to start with just one part and try to add the other stuff in, vote by vote, amendment by amendment. Remember, each time a good amendment is offered, a bad one will be offered and you have to fight those off too.

From a tactical standpoint my view is to shoot for the stars and maybe you hit the moon.

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. Sung to the tune of Happy trails

Some trails are happy trails
others not so fun.
It's the way you use the trail that counts
rigging vote machines is fun.

Paper trails to you
So we can steal your vote.
Paper trails to you
We do it by remote.

Cryptographys' Hipocracy it's secret
what we really want a paper ballot
Paper trails to you
so you'll think you won.

[Wilms]

19. I bumped into a neighbor last night...

...a "Proud to Be" Republican kind of guy.

I asked him for his thought on voting systems and procedures.

It sounded like he read or even wrote some of the posts on this issue. I couldn't find an area where we disagreed.

[Andy_Stephenson]

25. My Die Hard Republican Brother In Law is

the same way. Republicans get it.

[Wilms]

28. Lot's of "The People" get it.

But none of the Bills we've seen, so far, show the breadth of "The People's" knowledge. Not Dodd nor Ensign.

That's why I think we should hound ALL the Bills' authors and tell them what we want, and let our representitives know what we know.

[understandinglife]

29. Definitely what I've been doing and will continue doing until they...

....get all software and software-based networks out of the voting and vote tallying process.

It's just my opinion, but it's the one I'm pushing and no one has come close to making a reasonable case for even one line of code coming between a voter and a valid outcome.

Peace.

TBO;24/7

[Wilms]

31. "(Not) one line of code coming between a voter and a valid outcome."

That's too beautiful.

[understandinglife]

33. Thank you -- that's my mantra and I'll repeat it until it happens ;-)

TBO;24/7

[MadisonProgressive]

63. Ah, I thought you said 'not one line of coke'...

We don't want to discriminate against addicts.

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. As much as I admire and respect Mr Conyers...

I will not support his or Dodd's bill. The verification it is mandating does not come into play until 2009, and can come in many forms...including cryptography. I am still on board with Senator Ensigns' bill. It is the better of the two bills as it mandates voter verified paper ballots NOW and mandates paper from all machines retroactive to 2002 when HAVA was passed.

I have been in Washington the last 2 days lobbying for Ensigns billl I believe in Ensigns bill...it is better.

Dodds bill is not great and infact when asked by a Democratic Senator to cross out what I thought was bad...well there was only 1 paragraph left. Sorry folks...I am a Democrat and I wish ta hell the Democrats could have come up with a bill as good as Ensigns. But they didn't. The need for paper verification is the overriding concern to me right now. We get that...everything else will come together around it.

I am on a borrowed computer so I prolly will not answer much tonight...Just wanted to check in and say hi.

Andy

[AtLiberty]

11. Thanks Andy!

[teddyk23]

12. Andy -- you are wrong

and I wish you wouldn't say these things until you have seen the bill. You have been a crusader for these things and I can't for the life of me understand why you would make assertions about a bill that hasn't been introduced, and that isn't even completely drafted.

And to say you will not support a bill you have not seen? Wow.

For one thing, the conyers bill does not say 2009, how can you say it does?

Many of the other contentions are also not true with respect to the Conyers bill.

It seems like you are bending over backwards to support the Ensign bill and diminish the other bills.

Mr. Conyers has been fighting for voting rights since before I was born. Shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt?

The need for a paper trail is very very important, but will not do a bit of good in addressing lots of other things that happened in 2004 and 2000.

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. I have read Dodd's Bill...if Conyers is the same I will not support it...

I would be more than happy to come and visit with you and read the bill. If Mr Conyers bill calls for a "paper trail" I will not support it. We must have and demand "voter verified paper ballots" as the ballot of record.

Unfortunately you yourself are talking paper trails. Paper trails are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I understand the need for reform and the need toaddress the issues of what happened. But I also understand that without a paper ballot everything else is window dressing. You can have my ballot when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Andy

[teddyk23]

21. In your view

Does the Ensign bill provide for voter verified paper ballots?

It says: "(i) permit the voter to verify the accuracy of their ballot (in a private and independent manner), by allowing the voter to review an individual paper version of the voter's ballot before the voter's ballot is cast and counted"

So the voter reviews the paper version, but it is the machine version that is cast and counted NOT the paper.

It says: `(iii) All electronic records produced by any voting system shall be consistent with the individual permanent paper records produced by such voting system. In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast."

But there is no requirement that I can find that there must be any comparison (audit) on election day between the paper and machine, so that such an inconsistency or irregularity would trigger the counting of paper ballots.

It says: `(iv) The individual permanent paper records produced under clause (i) shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.'.

Here again, no requirement of an election day audit means thaat paper records will only be used in the event of a recount, if there ever is one, if someone pays for it or asks for it and state officials decide to actually follow the law and conduct a fair one.

[Andy_Stephenson]

23. As I have said before...Ensigns bill is not perfect...however it

mandates paper ballots now. Dodd's bill is weak and the instruments he supports as verification opens holes in HAVA wider than they are now.

As for Audits...they are not done now...but is Georgia, Maryland and many other places there is NO paper to count even if we wanted to. Does Mr Conyers bill mandate paper now? Does it mandate Audits? Does it call for paper trails? I would love to discuss this further...but I am on a borrowed computer. Email me a number I can call you at and perhaps we can set a meeting for tomorrow. I would love to discuss this further.

you can email me at [e-mail]

Email me a number and I will call.

Andy

[WHAT]

42. That's how I read it...

it's like sabotage. (no pun intended)

[Wilms]

22. Andy, there may be either a terminology problem, and/or

a problem with the definitions of "Paper Trails" and "Paper Ballots".

My thought is, while they're still working on the Bill, we might both explain and ask for what we want. :shrug:

see Teddy's post:

{http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=310888#312188]

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. I agree. But any bill that calls the ballot

a paper trail...is unacceptable.

It never will be acceptable. In fact I am rapidly getting annoyed with the Dance We The People are forced to do. So annoyed in fact...well...that is another thread.

[Wilms]

26. I agree. But any proposed bill that calls the ballot a paper trail...

must be changed until it becomes acceptable. And Conyers is expressing a willingness to hear us out.

I'm not arguing to accept a paper trail. Hell, I'm a "neo-Menonite" engineer that wants the machines gone.

But, I'm also saying let's dance a little more if that'll help.

[Andy_Stephenson]

27. I am reasonable...and I understand what your saying...

But Dodd is going to be a tough nut to crack...he has been vehemently anti paper for a long time. I don't see him changing now.

Andy


Edit:

Why not go in with the strongest language possible? That way if it is watered down in Committie...you might get a reasonable facisimilie of what you want?

[Wilms]

30. The Disabled

I read here that Dodd has a disabled brother. One of my childhood hero's is disabled.

I think Dodd wants to accommodate the disabled, as do I, but has confused their needs as mutually exclusive of paper.

I don't know if that has to be.

If that's Dodd's trip with paper we need to give him a Disabled Person Ready machine that makes paper.


On edit answer to your On edit comment (LOL):

"Why not go in with the strongest language possible? That way if it is watered down in Committie...you might get a reasonable facsimile of what you want?"

That's why I'm still shoving. The language in Dodd and Ensign are not strong enough for me yet, especially prior to committee diluting.

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. here

www.automarkts.com/Main.htm

[Wilms]

34. Most Excellent.

I'll post to Teddy.

[MadisonProgressive]

65. It all starts with a paper ballot

The paper ballot is filled out by the voter. This is then input into the validation and counting process (still to be determined). In case of a recount, the paper ballot is used (hand counted).

That is the bottom line. Now the second issue is how are they validated and counted. The third issue is how are they accumulated and reported on.

All three areas must be addressed and must ELIMINATE most potential for fraud.

[Wilms]

35. Teddy, please look at posts 27, 30, & 37 on this thread

We're trying to hook Dodd up with Disabled Friendly Polling Stations.

[Alizaryn]

45. Conyers also asks clearly for communication from us, if we

see a 'hole" in his bill, I am sure he would welcome our opinions regarding any problems we noticed. Like someone said earlier, we need to come to a consensus about what points exactly are necessary to include in any bill and what points would be unacceptable. Then, this information needs to be shared in an ongoing way to all of us interested in the issue here so that we can in turn more effectively communicate and help.

[Cocoa]

51. Andy tells us a lot of things

[New Earth]

53. now that is just rude.

[understandinglife]

6. Nominated because everyone at DU needs to read this letter AND...

...understand the power of "We The People''''," and Congressman Conyers explicit recognition of "internet activists" in his first paragraph.

And, I am going to urge that the Congressman focus on what he describes in this paragraph:

"Third, the lack of standards for voting machines and the partisan activities of machine manufacturers resulted in a substantial number of concerned citizens concluding that we simply should forgo the use of machines at all, and should instead simply use paper ballots and hand counting of such ballots. I most recently heard this proposal at my Ohio hearings and have read it often in your correspondence, and I believe it should be taken seriously. This week I am writing to the Election Assistance Commission and formally requesting an official review of the security and reliability of electronic voting systems, including an examination of whether such systems should be used in any event."

The only legislation I support is legislation that explicitly prohibits the use of any form of software and software-based networks in the election process.

And, when I call the Congressman's office tomorrow to express gratitude for his exceptional leadership, I will reiterate what I have now written to him several times -- paper ballots, paper tally sheets, people counting, people observing and filming the counting and tallying process at the precinct, at the county and at the state levels.


Peace.

BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION; 24/7

[teddyk23]

16. gotcha

I think you will not be supporting Conyers bill, in that case (or any other bill I have seen to date). It does not eliminate electronic voting, but I get (and he gets) where you are coming from and we plan to devote a lot of time, as you have already obviously done, questioning first principles and figuring out whether we agree or disagree with you.

[understandinglife]

20. Couldn't ask for more; genuine, robust due diligence and I'm ...

...confident you will conclude that any form of software in the election process is not wise.

What I do know is that I trust Congressman Conyers to continue to defend our American franchise of democracy from those who seek to continue undermining it, as they have in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Thank you.

TBO;24/7

[quiet.american]

7. John Conyers, Jr. is a true inspiration of courage and tenacity. n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

15. Thank you monitor for allowing the letter in complete form

This day has been made great by the inclusion of this letter so I would like to thank the poster for it's appearance here on DU. My happiness knows no boundaries that Rep. John Conyers fights onward for our right to vote and to have it count. I would like to see a Jessie Jackson Admendment as well to protect our right to vote. Power to the People and their right to vote.

:kick:

[Wilms]

40. Uh-oh! Letter. Entirety. Me shouldn't do?

And I just got pulled over the other day for posting too many paragraphs of a news item.
I'm rackin' up the points on my DL. :scared:

[Carolab]

17. Be sure to help him!!!

To help me in these efforts, I would ask that you help me get out the word concerning the importance of these efforts, particularly in the face of stiff opposition by Republicans. Among other things, please forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues so that they may learn of my efforts, encourage them to sign up for my email alerts at www.johnconyers.com and to visit the site for more updates. You can also complete a petition on my web site, which seeks support for the Conyers/Dodd omnibus election reform legislation.

[Peace Patriot]

36. Great praise for Conyers, BUT...

Conyers is THE elected official who kept this matter alive. He is an American hero! And so are all of us and all electon fraud workers. BUT, but, but...

Some cautions...

I felt great dismay when J. Jackson Jr. , his father and others--and now Conyers--started talking about a Consititutional amendment. It's just the sort of thing BushCons might jump onto, KNOWING that enforcement is everything. We already HAVE a Voting Rights Act. It. is. not. being. enforced. And just how great is enforcement going to be with torture-memo Alberto Gonzales as A.G.?

Democrats will be able to pat themselves on the back Republicans (if they are smart) will join in and pat themselves on the back. And NOTHING will change. NOTHING.

----

I don't see ANY understanding in Conyers' letter that it is WALLY O'DELL and H. AHMANSON who are counting all our votes--in secret, behind a "Wizard of Oz" curtain!

We CANNOT have secret, proprietary source code--owned and controlled by BushCons--tabulating all our votes. No paper ballot cannot overcome it. Recounts and audits are EXPENSIVE, and are greatly resisted. THEY announce the results--and we have to run ragged, run mad, go to our deaths with exhaustion, trying to catch up with them, trying to count the goddamn ballots before the TV NETWORKS ANNOUNCE THE WINNER, BASED ON THEIR ELECTRONIC TALLY, AND SHUT DOWN THE ELECTION STORY.

Yes, a voter verified paper ballot is ESSENTIAL, as Andy says. No bill without it is worth anything to us. And I understand his arguments that this is an essential first step--and it is urgent. States are buying paperless systems NOW. And the Ensign bill, as an amendment to HAVA, can get enacted immediately. All to the good. I think we should support the Ensign bill--and absolutely OPPOSE the Dodd bill.

But what I'm getting at is: The PERILS of this situation. A Constitutional amendment letting people off the hook. Lame bills that make things WORSE--that invest yet more resources in electronics and provide no secuity, no transparency. A lack of understanding of the essentials in the halls of Congress--or outright hostility to majority rule (honest elections) which will give us "poison pills" (such as taking away peoples' power at the state level to demand a return to paper, reducing state power, bribing states with money for electronics only). The apparent ignorance and gullibility of the Democrats (criminy...look at what they let happen with HAVA), AND their lack of power, and lack of votes. All the money ($3.5 BILLION so far)--and no doubt, rampant corruption.

I'm convinced that there is NO WAY this BushCon Congress is going to give us back our right to vote. We have to do this at the state level. And if Congress does anything, it will likely make things worse.

I am VERY GLAD Andy and others are ON this, are vetting the bills, and getting information out.

Just...beware. That's all. Beware.

[Wilms]

37. Great points.

I'd definitely email them to Conyers or hang a reply onto one of Teddy's posts.

[Andy_Stephenson]

38. The Devil is truly in the details

isn't it?

[meganmonkey]

39. "It. is.not.being.enforced."

Exactly! There are laws to protect voters from a lot of things that ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was not enforced in 2000 or 2004. THAT is the problem. This is an important issue, and hopefully continued investigations by the GAO, the Arnebeck/Fitrakis legal team and the House Judiciary Committee will effectively address this. And we need to stay on top of it to make sure it happens. But more laws that are not enforced will not help with this problem.

We need to make sure the protections that are TOTALLY lacking are provided ASAP (voter verified paper ballot). That's what needs to be addressed in a bill right now.

I am in NO way trying to imply that I won't consider Conyers bill. I will read it in its entirety, as I have HAVA, Dodd, and Ensign's bills. I will judge it based on its merits. And I hope it is everything we want it to be.

[Bill Bored]

41. Can't we all just get along?

Teddy, Andy, Wilms, P P, UL, et al,

Cooler heads must prevail if we are going to sort this out. But I think we are CLOSE!

I hope Andy can Contact Teddy and meet to discuss further. That would be a great step forward!

In the previous thread, Teddy said in response to one of my posts that these bills are NOT mutually exclusive. I said I was VERY relieved to hear him say that. If it's true, why can't we:

a) incorporate Ensign's language (or something close/better) into Conyers' bill, which I admit we haven't read yet or;

b) get the VVPB passed ASAP in whatever bill can be brought to the floor first to fix the machines that are out there already and that will be purchased shortly and;

c) have someone speak to Dodd about the Automark, which I admittedly haven't researched yet (but I trust the people who have);

d) work on the rest of the reforms in earnest.

There seems to be a willingness on Conyers' part to do this since he has mentioned other House Bills, e.g., Holt's, which also requires the VVPB. As I understand it, the only deficiency in Holt's bill vis a vis Ensign's was that it didn't include a provision prohibiting the voter from removing the paper from the polling place. See: <http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5072>

I know Congressman Nadler has also expressed reservations concerning paper ballots, but I hope these can be addressed by having adequate security for paper ballots at the polling places. One thing we do know, is that the security of these electronic machines and the data they contain has been shown to be woefully inadequate. At least human eyes can tell when someone's stealing the paper!

As to the die-hard paper-only-hand-count (POHC) contingent, I'm not sure what to say, except that Conyers' has said he'd look into it. The issue of ballot complexity would have to be resolved before this could happen, and in a way so as not to limit democracy by having to limit ballot complexity (number of issues, parties, candidates, etc.) due to the hand counting process. I think the jury may still be out on that, but I could be wrong.

I'll get off my soapbox now, but let's not get so divided over this stuff that nothing gets accomplished, OK?

Oh, and I'm not in favor of early voting, because of security concerns. Go for the national holiday instead.

[understandinglife]

43. I sense active dialogue, not division. We're all listening to each other..

...and I agree with you that it is important that we continue to do so.


As to 'ballot complexity', a simple solution is to not attempt to vote on all issues on one day. Do Pres/VP, US Senate and US HR on one day. Wait 1 month, do State, county, city elections and 'initiatives' and other issues on a separate day. Educate our fellow citizens that the importance of who they select to WORK FOR THEM deserves a bit of attention.

Until rigorously demonstrated otherwise, one line of software code between a voter and the declared outcome of an election is unacceptable. I will continue to listen to any proposition to the contrary, but I've yet to hear or read one that even comes close to the hacking realities of software and software-based networks.

Peace.



TBO;24/7

[Wilms]

48. Martin Luther King Right to Vote Day

Thanks for dropping by with a six-pack, Bill.

I appreciate that as I do all the determination around here to get a good job done.


I don’t know how the horse trading goes on in Washington so this may be uninformed commentary on my part. But what really struck me about your post was the comparison of Holt vs. Ensign, and your comment that Teddy didn’t think (we won’t hold him to it) these Bills were mutually exclusive.

Well, hang on…

The National Ballot Integrity Project Press Release, which I posted about here:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x310888>

said.

“Three competing election reform bills are being introduced in the Senate in the next two weeks.
But only ONE of them deserves YOUR SUPPORT!”

It say’s no more about a third Bill in the Senate. It does say they’re competing, though. The critique of Dodd and endorsement of Ensign, in two completely different types of essays, both referred to as “analysis”, was awkward for me. I’ve got problems with Dodd (that I wonder if he can fix), but where is Holt’s Bill? I realize it’s Congressional, but it took you to point out it’s merit. Plus, we haven’t even discussed King’s Bill.

The two following links need manual help. I'll have to ask the mods. Click on it (you'll get a dead page) then add a colon : to the url and hit enter. That worked for me.


Here’s Holt’s version from last year:

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.2239:>


Here’s King’s version introduced this year:

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.278:>


I agree with you’re a, b, c, d, points.

Paper vs. Electronic Ballot is a tough one. If it’s electronic, it’s hackable, period. If you can’t, at least randomly (plus 5 or 6 cherry-picks) audit precincts as a condition of vote certification, your at their mercy. Period.

But even if we agreed on a Paper Ballot based voting system, the idea of implementing anytime soon is, indeed, just as sobering.

Summary of Voting Systems used in the US

<http://www.electiondataservices.com/VotingSummary2004_20040805.pdf>

And thanks to Dzika:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission Annual Report

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x313412>

Here’s the pdf itself by go to dzika’s post and kick.

<http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Annual%20Report%20FY04%20pdf%20file%20for%20Printer.pdf>


What may not be as formidable is for new code written (open source, peer reviewed, certified) to run those machines, and then regularly certify them. The deli’s scale and the local gas station pumps have stamps on them. Obviously, these machines need to have their smog checked.

An interesting note to last year’s Graham-Boxer-Clinton Bill that didn’t pass. In Committee, they dropped Boxer’s provision which disallowed felons from being involved with writing software. So if you’re an ex-felon, you can’t vote in Washington State and Florida, but you can work on the software that holds 30% of the nations vote. And that’s even if your conviction is for software tampering.

<http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6912004.html>


I’d love a National Election holiday. It could mean more people available to work the polls. Maybe we can get the use of Post Offices’ space for precincts, and also as a secure location for the depositing absentee ballots.

Maybe we can call it “Martin Luther King Right to Vote Day”. :)

Bill, don’t be gone long, now. Ya hear?

[Bill Bored]

85. Wilms, I'm here and I PMed you earlier.

Working my way through the rest of the thread now, but I did pick up on the inconsistency between the "competing" and "not mutually exclusive" bill descriptions. I still don't know what the third one is in the Senate, but presumably, it's the Clinton, ex-Graham, whoever bill, formally S2313. There were a lot of holes in that one too, waivers for the states that don't want to comply, etc. Not good.

<http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5074>

[Wilms]

88. See the Conyers pdf

He's covering a lot of ground.

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreformbill.pdf>

[Bill Bored]

96. got it

Hey, how'd you get so many posts up in such a short time? I thought I was addicted to DU!

[Wilms]

98. Kickin' the good threads.

Somedays I feel like the "Catcher in the Rye" kicking good threads before they're lost in all the spam we have on this board.

[Wilms]

100. All those Bills are last years versions.

Ensign 2005 may be the same but the others don't exist in 2005 form.

I'm hearing we may get stuff from Clinton and Holt so we'll see.

But right now, there 2005 offerings from Ensign, Dodd, Conyers, and King.

[Alizaryn]

44. "amicus brief before the Ohio Supreme Court "

What is an amicus brief?

[Carolab]

47. Amicus curiae

Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case.

"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest."

[Alizaryn]

49. Thanks Carolab... I should have looked it up BUT

I had over staying my time to be awake and think sanely.

[Carolab]

61. Happy to do it for ya! n/t

[AtLiberty]

50. Urge Oprah to commemorate the 40th anniversary march for voting rights!

Please write Oprah and urge her to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery, March 3-12. Ask her to invite John Conyers to address massive voter suppression and his remarkable work on meaningful election reform.

(Thanks to those who have already suggested writing Oprah here; I'm taking it to the next level, tying it with a historical event.)

Oprah
Harpo Studios
1058 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60607

E-MAIL:

www.oprah.com/email/reach/email_showideas

INFORMATION ON THE ANNIVERSARY MARCH:

http://www.crmvet.org/anc/0503selm.htm

[IndyPriest]

52. "On behalf of the Senate Democratic leadership"

I'm a dunce on senate procedure. Are we to assume from Conyers' letter that Dodd's bill is THE Democratic response to election issues? Is there, or could there be, a process for compromise with the language of the Ensign bill? How does this work, having competing bills in the senate? How does one bill get priority over another?

[teddyk23]

87. not a dunce on anything, good question, hard to answer

It is the bill the senate leadership is backing as introduced. But there is a long way to go and changes are made if and when the bill goes though committee and reached the floor of either the House or the Senate. Then, the House and Senate try to work out the differences between the bills.

If the Dodd/Conyers bill were to move (because it had the most support) I would assume Ensign would try to amend it with his language and there would be a vote, and vice-versa.

[Cocoa]

54. BBV vs. Conyers

I love it.

Gee, it's so hard for me to decide who I think is more credible on voting reform.

Do I go with the gag Clinton cigar sellers, and the rabid Kerry-bashers, or do I go with John Conyers?

[Bill Bored]

55. Teddy, please see this thread

to see why the VVPB is SO important!

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x310796>

Have you been in direct contact with Andy yet? We are dying to know the outcome of any discussion! Hope to read your bill today too if it's available.

If I've failed to mention this, perhaps you can ask Congressman Nadler for some comments on why he has such problems with paper ballots too.

Thanks!

[AtLiberty]

56. Conyers' bill does not call for VVPB until 2007

WE CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG, PEOPLE! I GREATLY ADMIRE REP. CONYERS, BUT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE MORE POWER IN 2006!

[Wilms]

57. Actually, Conyers Bill hasn't come out.

So write to him (as he asked in his letter) and tell him what you want.

[Bill Bored]

58. 2006 vs. 2007

We need to read it because Teddy suggested that this won't matter because the HAVA money has to be spent by 2006. Still, there could be a loophole. The requirement for the VVPB should really be RETROACTIVE!

[Wilms]

60. I don't know what to read.

Conyers Bill is pending.

Are you referring to Dodd?

Or one of the other proposed/submitted/to be re-submitted Bills?

Yeah, it makes me head hurt.

[meganmonkey]

69. Apparently it IS identical to Dodd's

http://www.johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={CAAC2381-7698-403F-97BA-9257E7DE8484}

He is asking for people to sign a petition on his website.
I guess he didn't take any of the suggestions to change it..

So I will have to stick with the Ensign bill and hold out for more comprehensive legislation.

[Wilms]

70. Hang on, Megan.

Yes, he's is asking for people to sign a petition supporting Dodd/Conyers. But we haven't yet seen the Conyers version.

Once we do, we'll know more.

Teddy (from Conyers staff) is watching this thread so lay out what you want. :)

[meganmonkey]

71. I don't understand why he is asking for support without disclosing what

we would actually be supporting...:shrug:

I am going to continue to support the Ensign bill, since it is supposed to be introduced in the next week. I will not support the Conyers bill until I see it. I have read the Dodd bill, and I have some problems with it.

My BIGGEST concerns, to lay it out, are that we need a voter verified paper ballot that overrides any electronic machine count (on edit: we need that part NOW - not in 2007 or 2009); and we need ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS! Many of the issues of disenfranchisement are totally valid, but there are already laws in place that are supposed to protect from most of them - making MORE laws that will also not be enforced will not make a damn bit of difference.

I fear that the passing of a theoretically comprehensive bill right now will lower the chances of proper legislation being passed by educated legislators. I would prefer getting the Ensign bill passed now, so as to ensure paper ballots in the 2006 election, and take our time developing a bigger bill. There are a lot of major issues that need a lot more discussion - like having truly nonpartisan people running each state's election - not an SoS who is also a campaign chair. And the issue of Voter I.D.

[Wilms]

72. I'm not supporting anything until I see all the cards.

But I agree with all else you said, particularly if the Conyers Bill and the Holt Bill don't improve on Ensign.

[Bill Bored]

91. I'm leaning in this direction and I'm already supporting Ensign's bill

If Conyers or Dodd want to incorporate some of that language, that's fine too. FYI Holt's was the original bill and he "gets" the VVPB idea. He was way ahead of the pack on this, so maybe he can work with Conyers. Teddy dropped Holt's name here. Holt's bill was originally introduced way back in May 2003! And yet today, here we are. This shows what can happen if we don't get bi-partisan support.

[garybeck]

102. Where does he ask us to write to him?

I don't see that in the letter.

I was actually disappointed with his last survey because there was no way to include a comment. He talks about our inputand I've even heard him say on the radio that he's solicited people's ideas. But unless I'm missing something he has not provided a way to submit our general comments suggestions and ideas. Even if you go to his website johnconyers.com the contact info goes to "friends of john conyers"

I don't mean to put him down but his support of the Dodd bill makes me think it would be good if he were more in touch with the experts and advocates in the field.

Gary

[Wilms]

103. I've used his webform

Plus got a response from emailing "Friend's" where they said they'd forward cause they take it seriously.

[Nictuku]

59. John Conyers is an American Patriot (nt)

[Bill Bored]

62. Definition of Ballot

This is semantics, but it's very important. Read Andy's signature comment at the end of his posts. The word ballot is taken to be the official vote. If it's not in the legislation, then "trail", or whatever substitute there is, needs to be explicitly defined in the bill. Ensign's bill does this Teddy, and it does use the word "ballot."

From Andy:
>>
When no statutory definition for a term exists, the first fallback in all courts is to consult the definition in Blacks Law Dictionary. a compelling case can be made for the fact that ballot is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary...Paper is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary but "Trail" is completely absent. Collectively the definition for ballot and the definition for paper generate a clear and easily understood legal definition of the paper ballot needed to ensure the integrity of our vote. Paper trail produces no such record.
>>

As far as auditing, of course I agree with you but consider this from Ensign:

"All electronic records produced by any voting system shall be consistent with the individual permanent paper records produced by such voting system."

It then goes on to explain what happens in the event there are any inconsistencies. But the way I read this, the simple fact that an inconsistency exists is already a violation of the law, and so vendors would have the incentive to avoid it and get the code and the counting right! In other words, it requires the code to conform to the law and to the paper ballot. This is very strong and I hope any other bills include similar language. Perhaps there should be some penalties for non-compliance too.

Comments?

[Wilms]

80. It has arrived.

Here's Conyers Bill. A 49 page tomb. Let's dig in.

Careful, it's a pdf. (I don't miss dial-up.)

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreformbill.pdf>

[garybeck]

64. Experts agree: do NOT support the Dodd bill!!!!!

it would actually prevent any legislation that requires a paper ballot.

Conyers is well intentioned but this is bad legislation and it will not solve anything.

See this:

http://www.ballotintegrity.org/action.html

[Wilms]

66. I agree that Dodd's is a dud.

But Conyers version has not been released.

And Holt's wording, I think, satisfies this requirement.

Please have a look at post #41, plus the Holt Bill, and share your thoughts?

[teddyk23]

67. wilms, sorry to be so late today

Will post here lost of info in a few

[Wilms]

68. I'll be here hitting the refresh button. n/t

[teddyk23]

73. so here it is for you to read yourself and here is the info

First, since you asked about my conversation with Andy. I did talk to him briefly (a busy day for both of us), the first time we have talked, and he seemed like a really good guy, who is trying to do the right thing. His past advocacy really speaks for itself. Some of his comments were helpful and easily implemented, others weren't easily implemented, and others I disagree with.

The first area of disagreement is that Andy thinks all other reforms will flow from a voter verified paper ballot. I do not agree. To me, it doesn't matter how great the system is if Ken Blackwell can shortchange democratic precincts of that technology, or can create hurdles to registering in the first place, or thug political operatives can send aroung fliers telling you that you can't vote.

The second area of disagreement is what a new requirement of voter verified ballots should contain. I will first walk you through the draft of the Conyers bill (you can read along at www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats -- the bill will be posted in a few mins)

First, turn to section 5 located on page 17, line 20 and titled "Verified Ballots; Preservation." Turning to page 18, lines 6-13, the bill says it is mandatory that all voting systems "provide an independent means of voter verification which meets the the requirements of subpara (B) and which allows each voter to verify the accuracy of the ballot before it is cast and counted, and to correct any errors before the record of the ballot is produced and preserved" as described later in the bill.

The intent of this is to produce a separate record of the vote and if the separate record is incorrect, the voter can correct it on the machine and then get a new separate record which, hopefully, is correct.

What kind of things would qualify as a separate record? On page 18, line 14 through line 4 on page 19, the bill says a paper record, an audio record, a pictorial record, an electronic record. I know people here don't like anything other than the paper option -- two points (and I'll use caps here) (1) THE VOTER GETS TO CHOOSE and (2) Disabled voters have specifically asked for the other kinds of verification (I know there are paper means, but that is not what they have asked for) and Mr. Conyers believes they are entitled to that choice. One other concern about paper ballots is the use of cryptography and you will note that page 19, lines 10-12, prohibit any use of cryptography.

Andy will no doubt speak for himself but I know that he thinks that in no event any electronic records should be used.

Now what is done with those records? Do they just sit there? Two answers: (1) they are used for recounts or audits (page 20, line 1) and (2) (unlike the Ensign bill) They are used for partial audits on election day of machine returns (page 21, lines 5-12). If in any of these three instances, a discrepancy exists between the voter verified paper ballot and machine tallies, the bill requires the use of the tallies from the paper ballots, that includes the official returns on election night.

When does this have to happen? 2007 (page 18, line 5). Why 2007 and not right now? A bill will not pass that quickly as much as I wish it would, not the ensign bill, no bill. A bill naming a post office takes months. After the bill passes, states need adequate time to get their machines up to code.

Andy thinks we need the bill to take effect immediately so that it can impact the Congressional elections.

Does this apply to machines already in place? Yes. NO machines are "grandfathered."

Now I will turn briefly to some of the other provisions in the bill, but are not in the Ensign bill.

First, the bill requires open source software for all voting machines and creates a public right to inspect the code. (Page 43, line 21). A few more, but not all:

(1)Section 3 (page 4, line 8 through page 13, line 9) creates a new criminal offense for the thug-like tactics of trying to trick people from exercising their right to vote (the fake fliers and fake official letters) and allows private citizens to take offenders to court.

(2) Section 4. National write-in absentee ballot. This would essentially allow any voter to cast a vote by paper by mail.

(3) Section 6. Requirements for counting provisional ballots. Essentially reverses the Blackwell rule that prohibited the coutning of valid provisional votes if the voter voted in the wrong precinct.

(4) Section 7. Puts in place minimum standards to make sure there are enough voting machines for voters and to avoid Ohio's ten hour lines.

(5) Section 8. Allows any otherwise eligible voter to register and vote on election day.

(6) Section 9. Protects against Katherine Harris-style purges by requiring public notice of such purges and personal notice to the voter with due process in advance.

(7) Section 10. Allows two weeks of early voting in every state.

(8) Section 11. Requires a prompt study of whether election day should be a holiday

(9) Section 12. Mandates that punch card systems will meet the requirements of all other systems.

(10) Section 13. Disallows voter registrations from being tossed on technicialities, by processing registrations where a voter affirms that they are a citizen but forgets to check a box.

There it is. The bill is there for you to read. I'll check back in the next day or so to see what questions are out there.

[Wilms]

77. Thanks, Teddy.

It seems like the sticking points are:

1. The record produced by the disabled.

2. The 2007 date.


Are there any advocacy groups for the disabled endorsing the verification scheme as Conyers will outline?

Are you saying that Ensign's 2006 deadline unlikely to be achieved?

[teddyk23]

78. you got questions, I got answers (kind of)

1. Disability groups -- not yet known, but I am honestly not hopeful. They are afraid that once the train leaves the station. meaning once any bill moves, the process will be out of their control and the "no machines, even if you want machines" advocates will win the day. One of the little noticed parts of the much maligned HAVA was that -- for the first time -- disabled voters were given the right to cast a private and independent ballot with assistive technology. They view this as a tremedous step forward: to no longer havd someone standing over their shoulder in a voting booth watching them vote and they do not want to lose it.

The provision is not in there to win their support but because it seemed to Mr. Conyers, to be the right thing to do.

2. 2006 -- From a veteran of these battles, passing a bill of the magnitude of Ensign's or Conyers' is a tough thing. I may be proven wrong, but it is inconceivable to me that Ensign's bill could pass the Senate this year. (with all the right wing judges, social security, more money for Iraq war that will eat up their time) In a best case scenario, I think it passes in mid 2006. Then you have maybe a couple of months for all 50 states to buy or retrofit all machines. Doesn't strike me as likely.

[Wilms]

79. I want the disabled to have what they want.

And I appreciate John look out for them. I've got a big soft-spot for the disabled, so to hear their endorsement would be good.


Hopefully, Andy will weigh-in, but do I understand correctly this issue? Are the disabled-friendly machines the only ones exempt from the VVPB ideal (if the user chooses the paper-less option.)?

Even if a disabled person selects "audio verification", can these machines never-the-less spit out a paper ballot?

[teddyk23]

84. I'll try to answer

I think I understand your question.

Disabled friendly machines will spit out a paper ballot, if the user asks for one, but will not if the user chooses some other modality. That modality must also be preserved as if it was paper, however.

In other words, the machines are the same, no machine is exempt from being capable of producing the paper ballot if it is chosen, and the user chooses what the machine will do. My gut is that most users will want the paper ballot and they will no doubt be well educated by you guys as to why they should get one.

[Wilms]

86. How 'bout their choice, PLUS a Paper Ballot?

Perhaps the disabled voter would be ok with having a paper ballot produced AND whatever other of the 3 choices they'd make.

Then we'd have both, though the primary legal record would be the form chosen by the particular voter.

Would that make all parties comfortable?

[teddyk23]

89. in that instance

What would be paper ballot be used for?

[Wilms]

92. Back-up and...

Back-up for Paper Oriented Re-Counters andif there were any questions about the accuracy of a given machines "electronic" verification. "

Electronic is not secure.

A given voter choosing it is one thing, but I'd like a Paper Record regardless, even if it was considered a back-up to the voter chosen electronic verification.

[Bill Bored]

99. Bingo! (I think.) nt

[Wilms]

81. Where is Holt's Bill in the scheme of things?

Is it that he won't reintroduce it?

Will I find it's point in Conyers proposal?

[teddyk23]

90. My understanding is that Holt

will be intoducing a new bill shortly that he believes represents an improvement on his bill in the last congress, which conyers cosponsored. Conyers is waiting to see whether he will suport the new version.

[Wilms]

93. What from Holt was not covered in the new Conyers? n/t

[teddyk23]

95. I do not know what the new Holt bill is...

It focuses on VVPB and not on the other things in the Conyers bill. But I haven't read it yet.

[Wilms]

97. Understand the answer.

But I was wondering if anything from Holt's previous offering was not covered in Conyers 2005.

[teddyk23]

108. In my view, no.

The Conyers bill, while not word for word identical to the last iteration of the Holt bill, accomplishes the same things. But that is a question for interpretation, whether you think the words in Holt's bill accomplish what he intended, and whether you think the words in the Conyers bill accomplish what he intended.

[Wilms]

106. New thread, Teddy.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=314989&mesg_id=314989>

[meganmonkey]

82. Thank you! That is what I needed to see.

I still don't understand why Conyers had a petition online before we could read the bill. The way it was presented, it seemed like it was identical to the Dodd bill, and that worried me.

Teddy, I want you to know I am very grateful you are posting here. Lots of people will have lots of questions and concerns, and I am reassured at this level of accessibility. I will warn you that I will have a million questions for you and I thank you in advance for answering at least some of them. I also want to apologize if I ever come across as blunt (it is difficult to express and perceive the nuances of attitude online!). I am just very passionate about this and very detail oriented. I am ready to work hard on this issue, and I want to make sure I know what I am talking about and working in the right direction.

So, a couple of question about the process ahead (that can't be answered by Schoolhouse Rock ;) ) :

---Regarding the differences between Conyers' and Dodd's bills - will Dodd's bill change to reflect these differences? Or, assuming passage in both sides of Congress, will a compromise between them be reached?

---Will this be seen as an Ensign vs. Conyers/Dodd, partisan situation? Do you know of other bills in the works for Election Reform? If there is a major Republican bill introduced (e.g. more comprehensive than Ensign's) will there be a big battle? In that case, I doubt this bill will pass. Even without that possibility, IS THIS BILL PASSABLE? I need to know that. For it to pass, there would have to be bipartisan support, is that possible in the climate in Congress right now?

Thanks!!!

[teddyk23]

94. your two questions

(1) We will just wait and see. I don't know which changes Dodd agrees with, which are sticking points, or what can be the subject of a compromise. They have an excellent working and personal relationship and I am sure they would reach an agreement.

(2) It may be viewed that way by some. The ohio challenge certainly was. Our view is to put the best ideas out there, and if the grassroots and netroots agree, the bipartisan support will come. This bill is unlikely to pass as it is written now, but no bill is likely to pass exactly how it starts. It is a long road and changes are always made that somehow leads to a consensus. Couldn't tell you whether it is possible in this climate, I wonder if anything couold be accomplished and there are so many big issues out there, including this one.

[meganmonkey]

107. Thanks teddy!

[AtLiberty]

74. Surely...we can find some common ground here

2007 is unacceptable. Just another opportunity for the GOP to steal more power. It would take decades to overcome the damage that could be done in 2006. NO CAN DO!

[teddyk23]

76. If any bill moves quickly enough so that this can get done sooner

Mr. Conyers is all for moving up the deadline. 2007 represents his view of what is possible, and his obligation not to overpromise. We know it would make a lot of people happy if we said "right now" but can't in good conscience do that, knowing it is very unlikely.

Remember, too, that an introduced bill (which this is) is not written in stone. As the legislative process advances, the author often makes changes based on input and new information.

[rumpel]

75. My problem here is the "same day registration", this could open up a

great can of worms!
..and I will write him on that. Thanks for the post.

[McCamy Taylor]

83. Go Conyers!

:toast:

[Bill Bored]

101. This will take a few days to go thru, but here are some initial comments

on Conyers' draft. Please let me know if anything isn't clear.

First, how would the auditors and recounters count so many different kinds of ballots? Are they actually going to sit there and listen to audio files or tape or look at the photos to count the votes? Wouldn't this make the auditing process a lot more cumbersome? And this process is in fact the key to verifying the vote. You don't want to discourage auditing, do you? Has this even been considered?

What is a voter-verified pictorial ballot? If it's photographic, it could be either chemically (on paper) or digitally preserved. The other non-paper formats would still be preserved ELECTRONICALLY, JUST LIKE WITH THE CURRENT DREs. And so would the pictorial ballot if it were digital. Electronic records are NOT independent of the software in the machines, but paper is! Anything stored electronically is hackable by someone who knows how. These other electronic ballot formats, while they may appear to be verifiable, are not immune to tampering.

Frankly, I get the feeling that the authors of this section are really just grasping for straws. They are more concerned with allowing the disabled, the non-English-speaking and the illiterate to vote than they are with verifying the vote. We need to do both but verification of the vast majority of votes has to take precedence!

As far as the auditing, there is no direct mention here of the requirement or the methodology. If it's not in HAVA somewhere, it may never be done. I think you should either specify a MINIMUM Federal, requirement for random, unannounced audits, or leave it up to the states. The states should also be allowed to exceed the Federal requirement and audit even more if they want to. And you should use the same (paper) ballot standard for all the audits.

Now, I realize that the last sentence above makes the disabled, who choose to use other ballot formats, second class citizens again because they have now way of knowing whether e.g., the audio, matches the paper. But this is the road you're going down by allowing these other ballot formats. Sorry but I don't think this was very well thought out.

I'm open to any opposing comments, but I'm not yet convinced that this section does very much to ensure that ALL the votes will be verifiable.

The best compromise I can see is to print ALL the ballots on paper AND let the voters who CAN verify them do so. The other formats can be used only in addition to the paper for each vote. The disabled you are trying to protect are unfortunately out of luck when it comes to audits and recounts if they can't verify what's on the paper. But you could give them the ability to use paper with a device such as the Automark (one per precinct) as I understand it, and this is what the people who think about this stuff "for a living" actually advocate. Otherwise, just say in the law that the other ballot formats must also match the paper and TRUST (but NOT VERIFY) that they do.

Source code: It's fine to make it public, but then what guarantee is there that it won't be altered on Election Day? Do you have I.T. security requirements in the bill to prevent alteration of the code? And won't there be massive opposition from the corporate rights advocates? I'd rather see the code public than not, but this alone doesn't prove that this is the code the machine is actually running on Election Day, or on any of those Early Voting Days you're advocating! (You know my feelings about Early Voting already.)

Please let me know what you think. In the immortal words of our so-called president, "It's HARD WORK!"

[Wilms]

104. I started a new thread. Should we move over there?

B Back Soon.

[Bill Bored]

105. yeah, I'll repost my last one nt