Republican lawmakers in favor of paper trail for voting.

[johncoby2]

In a surprise to many, Representative Larry Taylor of Galveston County and John Davis of Harris County agreed that a paper trail is necessary for recount purposes and suggested they would support a bill to do just that in 2005.

This was stated at a town hall meeting and was greeted with loud clapping.

A welcomed surprise!

[liberal N proud]

1. I am sure the bush regime will persuade them to change their tune

We can't have any trail now.

[ChicanoPwr]

2. I wonder

I wonder if the Republicans who did not take a vote yesterday did so because they fear they will be attacked just like Sen Spector. So instead of standing with the Dems, they did not vote at all.

[NoPasaran]

3. Weird...

Republican legislators wanting a paper trail...
Dewhurst calling for televised meetings and recorded votes...

What's their game?

[johncoby2]

4. On recorded votes

All votes can be recorded, if the author of the bill asks for it.

But some will vote for the bill IF the author does NOT ask for a record vote. So I am a bit confused on the matter.

But I do wonder what Dewhurst is up to. A paper trail is common sense.

[sonias]

5. John we don't want them to have a choice on votes

We want all votes on record like they should be. Our Legislature should have the ability to tell us what kind of legislative voting record our Reps have. That is essential to open and transparent government. No backroom deals, we get to see where they stand in plain site.

You're correct that a vote can be recorded if asked for now, and that many bills may actually pass only if some of these votes remain secret. I say hogwash to that. Let the chips fall where they may. Either you stand behind your votes or you don't belong in the House or Senate. You need to show your constituents that you're representing them. Records them become more of a campaign issue as they should be. No more secrecy and protected seats in our Lege. If everyone has to play by the rules I think they'll get used to the idea.

Sonia

[errorbells]

12. Just maybe they are hip to the fact that it...

will/can happen to them.

[crispini]

6. We need to make sure that it's not paper "trail," it's paper BALLOT.

Otherwise, it's not recounted, and what would be the point?

Even the one that's in there now says this, and it's wrong.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/billtext/HB00166I.HTM

Did they say anything about Pena's bill?

[johncoby2]

7. good point

The paper "trail" should be used in case of a recount.

For instance, if the race is within margin a recount should take place using the paper ballot as opposed to the electronic version.

Is this what we want?

[sonias]

8. Dan Wallach the e-voting computer expert says...

I've seen several bills along these lines and I think none of them go
far enough. We need legislation that will:

- overhaul the certification procedure for new machines
- this is where you have language about a voter-verifiable audit trail
- mandate rigorous procedural safeguards for managing elections
- there is virtually no state oversight into how counties operate their elections
- mandate detailed data be captured in each election (concerning HAVA compliance, among other things) and sent back to Austin
- get rid of explicitly partisan election officials

The bill language that you wrote seems worse than nothing. The
language in section B(2) is broadly written and vague.

Here is that section in HB166
(B2)creates a contemporaneous auditable paper record
copy of each electronic ballot that allows a voter to confirm the
choices the voter made through both a visual and a nonvisual method,
such as through an audio component, before the voter casts the
ballot.

Part B(2)(b) is exactly wrong. The paper record copy should be considered to be *the* ballot of record, and should mandate its treatment as such. If other records exist, there should be provisions to safeguard those as well, and to reconcile the different records against one another.

Here is that section in HB166
B(2)(b) The paper record copy must list the contests on the
ballot and the voter's choices in those contests. The paper record
copy is not a ballot.

Dan Wallach
Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston
-----------------
I got this message he sent to Aaron Pena through the PPC. (progressive Populis Caucus of Democratic party) I provided the parts of HB166 in bold from the bill.

Sonia

[derby378]

9. I think Dan Wallach is trying to do it the hard way

Here's what I want to see our legislators adopt:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to forbidding the use of direct recording electronic voting machines.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 129, Election Code, is amended by adding
Section 129.002 to read as follows:

Sec. 129.002. DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES.

(a) A voting system that consists of direct recording electronic voting machines may not be used in any municipal, county, state, or Federal election in the State of Texas.

(1) Direct electronic voting machines disqualified under Sec. 129.002 include but are not limited to:

(A) Diebold Accu-Vote TS,
(B) ES&S Ivotronic,
(C) Danaher ELECTronic 1242,
(D) Microvote MV-464 and Microvote Infinity,
(E) Sequoia AVC Advantage and Sequoia AVC Edge,
(F) Shouptronic 1242,
(G) Hart Intercivic eSlate,
(H) Fidlar Doubleday EV 2000, and
(I) Unilect Patriot.

(2) Knowingly and intentionally approving any direct electronic voting machine enumerated in Sec. 129.002(a)(1) for use in at least one municipal, county, state, and/or Federal election in the State of Texas shall be considered a third-degree felony punishable as per Section 12.34 of the Texas Penal Code.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect January 1, 2006.

[crispini]

10. Bwahahahaha!

Well, that'd be easy.

[derby378]

11. I know - maybe TOO easy

But at least I had to get it out there... :headbang: