I opened it up last night and read the article about the election reform bill in the Texas Lege and I knew exactly WHO the Sonia S was that they were quoting! Now, if only I had it with me at work today, I'd post the paragraph. Anyway, just wanted to say: Go you! :yourock:
Edited to add: I found it online!
VOTING DOWN OPENNESS It’s getting to be that frenzied time late in the legislative session when devious little provisions hidden in humongous bills slip unnoticed into Texas law. Take House Bill 2465 by Aubrey Republican Mary Denny. A few lines of text that found their way into the legislation would wall off from public view the state’s certification of touch-screen voting machines.
The Secretary of State’s office must certify all electronic voting software before it can be used in Texas elections. State examiners poke and prod each system in closed-door sessions, looking for flaws or security risks in the software. The examiners then recommend which e-voting systems the Secretary of State should certify for use in Texas. The Secretary of State’s office has argued that the e-voting examinations are exempt from the Open Meetings Act. The ACLU of Texas sued last year to gain access to the examinations, arguing that the sessions should be open to the public. The ACLU won the first round in court. In January, a Travis County district judge ruled that the e-voting sessions fall under the Open Meetings Act (see Political Intelligence, February 18, 2005).
Denny’s trying to undo that. Her HB 2465 purports to make the e-voting examination process more open by allowing for public comment on e-voting systems. And initially, the ACLU supported the bill. After HB 2465 was heard in House committee, however, a tiny provision was quietly inserted into the bill stating that all e-voting examinationsæpast, present, and futureæare not open meetings and closed to the public. Citizens would still have a chance to comment on the e-voting machines, but the meaningful work would take place out of public view.
Ann McGeehan, with the Secretary of State’s office, told a Senate committee that the meetings should remain closed because the examiners discuss private companies’ proprietary software. “Our concern was that if completely open, the inspectors would not want to ask the frank questions they normally would,” she said. “This is really meant to clarify that these are not open meetings.”
The ACLU’s Sonia Santana responded that the public has a substantial interest in which voting systems are used in Texas elections and should have access to the examinations. “ feel very strongly that the deliberation and certification of electronic voting systems is exactly the kind of thing the Open Meetings Act was specifically written to address.”
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1962
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
