The Nashua Advocate: VIVA Versus VOTER -- Which Do You Support?

[nashuaadvocate]

We're trying to take a survey of sorts to see what other election reform activists think.

Our article, with links to both bills, can be found here.

But we want to know what you think -- check in under the "Comments" section at the end of the article and let us (and our hundreds of visitors a day) know what you think!

We think folks in the know are supporting VIVA, and rightly so. Are we right?

Cheers,

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate

***
Excerpt from the article:

Battle of the Bills: G.O.P. Election Reform Bill Now Before Senate Considered By Progressive Activists to Be Better Than Democratic One; Sun Explodes

By ADVOCATE STAFF

Here at The Advocate, we call it like we see it -- and what we see as we look out on the election reform movement today is two competing and mutually exclusive election reform bills in the U.S. Senate.

And we prefer the Republican one.

...

[meganmonkey]

1. I got a NOT FOUND error from your link

And I Really really want to read it!!!!!

[nashuaadvocate]

2. Try it now, it will work. n/t

[meganmonkey]

3. Thanks!

[mdhunter]

4. I still support VOTER, I think

VIVA, while being enacted earlier and allowing paper trials is lacking the nationwide standarization measures VOTER takes. I think the disparity of systems costs us as many, or more, votes than does the lack of paper trails.

[meganmonkey]

5. As the advocate points out, a comprehensive bill will still be

needed, ideally based on VOTER. But I agree with the advocate that we need a bill passed now so counties/states won't keep buying touchscreen machines with no paper ballot. That doesn't mean the other provisions of VOTER aren't important and necessary, just that we need to nip this in the bud before the whole country spends all their HAVA money on touchscreens. These bills aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

[nashuaadvocate]

7. Megan, good point...

...I should hasten to point out (to everyone, that is, not to Megan particularly) that the Advocate, in supporting VIVA over VOTER, didn't analyze *every* election reform bill that's out there, because many are not competing with one another: for example, either the Senate will support the Feinstein Bill (seeking abolition of the Electoral College) or it won't...there isn't exactly an "alternate plan" (or bill) out there.

Same with the Conyers Bill -- it wasn't included in the analysis because I'm not sure it is going to end up "competing" with the Senate bills.

I think the Ensign and Dodd bills are "mutually exclusive" *at the moment* -- meaning, only one will likely pass in the next few months. Or perhaps even in this session of Congress. The Ensign Bill (VIVA) also has a better chance because it is "bipartisan." I just don't see this Republican-heavy Senate passing *two* election reform bills.

I think there will be time in the fall, or even in the next session of Congress, to make the sort of fixes Dodd rightly seeks -- but first we need "paper audits" in time for the 2006 elections!

Without them, the G.O.P. will likely just increase its majorities in both Houses of Congress.

One thing I hope folks will take from our article -- VOTER is *not* a bad bill. It just isn't the *first* bill we need to get passed. We need a quicker fix than Dodd is offering.

-- TNE

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. So your going to support a bill

that is going to give us more DRE's right now...that will be grandfathered never to have paper. Good move.

Sorry...I am supporting Ensign's bill. It is better and has a chance of passing. Dodd/Conyer's does not.

[garybeck]

8. there are now 5 bills, not just 2

you might want to include all of them in your discussion

conyers
king
holt
ensign
dodd

[skids]

9. WRT the blackwell article...

I'm not about to sign up at blogspot, I have too many accounts already.

The second article about Blackwell is dead on in that his actions are suspect. However I don't think you did a good enough job at filtering this meme coming from the BOEs that DRE is better than optical scan. No voting system is secure in Blackwell's hands -- I can just see another "ballot printing mishap" like Colorado's on the horizon -- but the precinct-count variety of optical scan equipment *does* prevent overvotes (if administered correctly) and *does* provide a voter verified paper ballot (though one, we have seen, that at least one county BOE has some expertise in defrauding.) And, it *is* much more cost effective than DRE's because the voters fill out their ballot in a booth for 5 minutes, then spend 30 seconds at the scanner feeding the ballot in -- the result is one machine can serve many more voters.

I too am loathe to see Diebold and ES&S getting contracts. But let's not allow the facts to be muddled by individual county BOE officials who have a hard-on for gadgets.

[Amaryllis]

10. Holt deals with crucial e-voting issues that the others don't. Still need

Ensign as emergency measure for the reasons Andy and NA state.
Holt will get huge resistance also; will take constant pressure like we did to make Jan. 6 happen to get anywhere with it. IF we could get enough of Tom Delay's constituents to demand it, maybe we could get a hearing. I wonder if the ones who have been fraudulently elected just figure they don't have to pay any attention to their constituents any more. If they have the elections rigged, why bother?


This was just released from Verified Voting. This is an updated version of HB 2239, which Delay blocked from ever getting a hearing. I think we still need to back Ensign because it has the greatest chance of passing in time to prevent states from purchasing hundreds of thousands of DREs. THen go for Holt. My senator said IF we can get a MASSIVE grass roots effort, we can get election reform.


Regarding Holt bill, note in particular:
"Banning the use of undisclosed software and all wireless and concealed communications devices in voting systems, and prohibiting the connection of any voting machine component to the Internet"

AND:

At the request of voting experts and voting rights advocates, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005 also includes some new protections that:

6) Require manufacturers and election officials to document chain of custody with respect to the handling of software; prohibit the use of software or software modifications that have not been certified or re-certified; and prohibit political and financial conflicts of interest between and among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.

7) Establish procedures that must be followed in the event that there is a discrepancy between reported results and audit results, and preserve the rights of individuals and the Attorney General's authority to pursue legal resolution of the discrepancies.

Announcement from Verified Voting --
http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

"The "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005" was introduced on February 2, 2005, by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey. This is an updated and expanded version of a similar bill (H.R. 2239) that Rep. Holt introduced in the previous session. We will post the text and number for this new bill as soon as it appears on the Library of Congress web site. VerifiedVoting.org supports this bill and encourages all members of the House to become cosponsors."


Key provisions of this bill include:

1) Strengthening HAVA's current audit trail requirement - "a permanent paper record" - by requiring that the voters, rather than the voting machines, verify the accuracy of what is printed on it. States are not permitted to pass laws that would render the voter verified paper records irrelevant

2) Requiring that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits, commencing in 2006 in accordance with HAVA's original deadline. (Funding of $150 million is authorized to help states meet the cost of implementing this requirement.)

3) Preserving HAVA's existing access requirements for voters with disabilities; clarifying and enhancing the security requirements demanded of systems to be used by voters with disabilities; and adding the requirement that an accessible voter-verification mechanism be provided. That mechanism may use paper (such as a tactile ballot sleeve or an automark device), but is not required to.

Banning the use of undisclosed software and all wireless and concealed communications devices in voting systems, and prohibiting the connection of any voting machine component to the Internet.


5) Requiring random, unannounced, hand-count audits of the voter-verified paper records (conducted by the EAC) in 2% of all jurisdictions, including at least 1 precinct per county. Such funds as may be necessary are authorized to fund the expense of the audits. (The percentage of jurisdictions to be recounted has been increased from H.R. 2239's 0.5%).


At the request of voting experts and voting rights advocates, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005 also includes some new protections that:

6) Require manufacturers and election officials to document chain of custody with respect to the handling of software; prohibit the use of software or software modifications that have not been certified or re-certified; and prohibit political and financial conflicts of interest between and among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.

7) Establish procedures that must be followed in the event that there is a discrepancy between reported results and audit results, and preserve the rights of individuals and the Attorney General's authority to pursue legal resolution of the discrepancies.

From: Mulder, Michelle <mailto:[e-mail] >
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Holt paper trail bill number: HR 550


Original cosponsors (there are more) --

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 2/2/2005 Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 2/2/2005

Rep Baird, Brian - 2/2/2005 Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 2/2/2005
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 2/2/2005 Rep Capps, Lois - 2/2/2005
Rep Case, Ed - 2/2/2005 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 2/2/2005
Rep Cole, Tom - 2/2/2005 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 2/2/2005
Rep Cooper, Jim - 2/2/2005 Rep Davis, Tom - 2/2/2005
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 2/2/2005 Rep Dicks, Norman D. - 2/2/2005
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 2/2/2005 Rep Farr, Sam - 2/2/2005
Rep Filner, Bob - 2/2/2005 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 2/2/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 2/2/2005 Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 2/2/2005
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/2/2005 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 2/2/2005
Rep Kind, Ron - 2/2/2005 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/2/2005
Rep Lantos, Tom - 2/2/2005 Rep Lee, Barbara - 2/2/2005
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 2/2/2005 Rep McDermott, Jim - 2/2/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. - 2/2/2005 Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 2/2/2005
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. - 2/2/2005 Rep Moore, Dennis - 2/2/2005
Rep Moran, James P. - 2/2/2005 Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/2/2005
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/2/2005 Rep Obey, David R. - 2/2/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 2/2/2005 Rep Payne, Donald M. - 2/2/2005
Rep Price, David E. - 2/2/2005 Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 2/2/2005
Rep Sanchez, Loretta - 2/2/2005 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/2/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. - 2/2/2005 Rep Scott, Robert C. - 2/2/2005
Rep Sherman, Brad - 2/2/2005 Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 2/2/2005
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 2/2/2005 Rep Wexler, Robert - 2/2/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 2/2/2005 Rep Wu, David - 2/2/2005

Michelle Mulder
Counsel
Congressman Rush Holt
50 Washington Road
West Windsor, New Jersey 08550
[phone] (tel.)
[phone] (fax)