Holt's Bill is strengthened & reintroduced

[SmileMaker]

Dear Coalition for Peace Action Contact,

We are very proud that our Representative in the US House of Representatives, Rush Holt, has recently reintroduced a strengthened
version of his bill to mandate voter verified paper backup for all votes cast in the U.S. This is an extremely important measure to
make sure every voter's vote is counted accurately and in an auditable manner, so that voters have the confidence to which they are entitled.

See a press release about the bill below my name. Also, below that is a list of the 50 current co-sponsors. If your Representative is not
on that list, I urge you to contact her/him and urge them to sign on! You can use the link below to find out who your Representative
is and how to contact them. Just input your zip code in the space about half way down the page and click on "GO."

http://www.peacecoalition.org/action/index.html#urgentaction

The Rev. Robert Moore
Executive Director
Coalition for Peace Action &
Peace Action Education Fund
40 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ 08542
[phone] Phone
[phone] Fax
http://www.peacecoalition.org


Holt Reintroduces Bill To RequireVoter-Verified Paper Trail

(Washington, DC) - Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) this week reintroduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R.
550 (the successor to H.R. 2239 of the 108th Congress), which would amend the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to require a
voter-verified paper record for all votes cast in federal elections.

"Last November, as many as 50 million voters (and as many as one million in Ohio's ten largest counties alone) cast their
ballots on electronic voting machines that lacked a voter-verified paper audit trail" said Holt. "As a result, there is no way to
resolve questions about reported tallies. Passing this legislation would restore confidence in the outcomes of elections and in
our electoral process generally."

The bill was introduced with 50 original cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats. Election reform advocacy groups-such as
VerifiedVoting.org, Audit the Vote, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation-have also endorsed the bill.

The bill would:

Strengthen the HAVA current audit trail requirement - "a permanent paper record" - by requiring that the voters have
the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the recorded vote.
Require 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.)
Require random, unannounced, hand-count audits of the voter-verified paper records (conducted by the Election
Assistance Commission) 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.
Preserve HAVA's existing access requirements for voters with disabilities; clarify and enhance the security
requirements demanded of systems to be used by voters with disabilities; and add the requirement that an
accessible voter-verification mechanism be provided.
Ban 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.
Require manufacturers and election officials to document the 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 among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.


The new bill expands on HR 2239 (the version of the bill in the 108th Congress) by establishing procedures to be followed if
there is a discrepancy between reported results and audit results, and preserves the rights of individuals and the Attorney
General's authority to pursue legal resolution of the discrepancies.

"Anything of value should be auditable," said Holt. "Votes are valuable, and each voter should have the knowledge-and the
confidence-that his or her vote was recorded and counted as intended. Passage of this bill will be a big step in restoring that
confidence, which is the very foundation of our democratic republic."

###

Original cosponsors
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

[AtLiberty]

1. I'm pleased with progress, but...

...that word "trail" makes me nervous.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. You said it

Trail, Record. pffffft.

voter verified paper ballot!

[Bill Bored]

2. Here, here!

I haven't even read it, but the original was pretty damn good! Any improvements would, I assume, be better. Is this a companion to any of the Senate bills? Do Dodd, Conyers and Ensign know about it? What about King's bill in the House, HR278?

We need to stay on this like a cheap suit!

[meganmonkey]

3. Okay - I can't wait to read this in detail after work...

"...Require 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."

COMMENCING IN 2006 - That is promising!

Hmmm....

[meganmonkey]

4. kick!

[BeFree]

5. Some officials I know

All have said "There needs to be a paper record", so this bill has a damn good chance of busting through the republican walls.

Of course, this bill requires a huge compromise from us - allowing the e-voting to continue. The only thing favorable to that is that a federal commission would do a manual recount-audit in each and every county. But look at the obstruction the vote faced in Ohio and Florida, and Nevada, and........ There is no provision overcoming that huge obstacle.

Paper ballots, hand counted, is anti-E-vote, this bill is nothing but a hand-job, polishing and waxing, the e-vote. Like lipstick on a pig.

[Amaryllis]

6. This bill does some very important things that none of the others do:

GEts rid of proprietary software, and financial conflicts of interest!


Ban 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.
Require manufacturers and election officials to document the 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 among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.

[BeFree]

7. Hell, half that is law already

But it ain't enforced!

The problem is: Big Money has it's hands in the cookie jar, and it ain't letting go. You can pass all the tough sounding laws you like, but with 50,000 voting machines, there is no way they can keep track of the shenanigans.

These are the same guys who got us into this mess, sorry, I don't have faith they know how to get us out of it.

[Amaryllis]

8. There is nothing currently banning proprietary software or wireless or

internet connections. What I really want is paper ballots hand counted. Everyone keeps saying no way we will get that, and this is the first bill that even addresses these issues.

[BeFree]

10. Do away with e-voting

And we won't have to worry about internet connections, eh?

Yeah, who are these people saying that the best way to cast and count is never gonna happen? What? Are they mystics or something? Are they the same people who told us Kerry lost?

This was the third election stolen. And some people want to continue allowing the burgulars to keep their tools, just polished up a little different.

Dear Amaryllis, you are correct about the paper/hand, don't let them back you off from that.

A paper vote for Kerry was as good as two e-votes for b***.

[marions ghost]

12. agreed!

...considering what we've seen to date, DREs in any form cannot be made to work anywhere near as cheaply, as accurately, and as easy to audit as Hand-counted paper ballots (Personally I would allow use of optiscan, but only with random hand count checks, like Canada).

We just have to keep pushing for that IMHO.

Nobody has EVER come up with a good reason WHY we have to have touchscreens over paper ballots. (The only argument I've seen is disabled access, discussed elsewhere).

WHY WHY WHY???? NO real good reason. NO advantage.
ONLY 1 reason = because somebody wants to make a lotta money off them. (they cost roughly 4 times as much as paper/optiscan). And of course it makes corporate control of the voting process that much easier...

[Wilms]

13. I'm guessing touchscreens make multi-lingual ballot creation easier.

So we have to keep that in mind.

[marions ghost]

14. not sure that was really the biggest problem

for disenfranchised non-English speakers whose registrations got "re-routed," etc.

OK, Print ballots with instructions in English and Spanish at least.
And then provide some training for poll workers in dealing with any other non-English speakers. Non-English speakers can study sample ballots ahead of time and figure it out.

I understand you're just throwing out reasons that might be argued by DRE proponents, Wilms. I'm not really arguing with you here...just thinking out loud on it. Thanks, mg.

[Wilms]

18. I'm not sure it really isn't a big problem

(At least for the BoE's.)

Not bi-, or tri-, but multi-.

In LA, over 30 languages have to be administered.

Of course, it's doable. But it also wouldn't surprise me if the Boards of Elections are drooling over not having to print/check/distribute paper ballots in many languages to key precincts, blah, blah. Software/Touchscreen makes that easier. That's what I "argued" we might keep in mind among the array of challenges.

And I know you ain't arguing, mg. :)

A lot of problem-solving, education, correction, and refinement, goes on around here. I've had my mind changed on things. I like when that happens. So, please, argue with me!

[Bill Bored]

20. Ah, but there can be pictorial VVPBs that can also be OpScanned! nt

[Amaryllis]

17. Do you know the history of how difficult it has been to even get

legislation passed for a paper TRAIL, let alone a paper ballot, let alone any other security measures, in congress? The ENsign, Holt, and Graham-Clinton bills were introduced and designed to go into effect in time to protect us from what happened in this last election. ALL proposed election reform legislation was been blocked from even gettting a HEARING by repubs in house and senate. So are we going to plant our feet and hold out for the ideal legislation while the whole country is taken over by DREs, or are we going to work with what has a chance of passing and then continue to work for what we really want?

[marions ghost]

23. How about work for everything that has a chance of passing quickly

--that we can live with, of course--AND ALSO hold out for legislation that embodies our ideal?

We don't really know what support we might find among thinking repubs, if enough average voters actually did understand what's going on and a good case addressing all the problems could be presented to them.

Right now the whole system is kind of paralyzed and dysfunctional, and because it's already so corrupt all the players have a big stake. It's voters vs. an oppressive corporate government (with a paltry few sticking their necks out for us and we KNOW who they are...). Not many in this whole messy scenario are untainted except the voter. We the voters should insist on nothing less than a fair and free election system in every way. It seems that Canada, Australia, many parts of Europe, Venezuela and Ukraine are able to manage it...just to name a few examples).

[Wilms]

9. Republican walls? Don't forget the DEM walls.

Dem Dodd is no Paper Ballot fan.

But Repub Ensign is.

And the freepers seem pretty interested in getting rid of DRE's, and using paper instead.

Rather than overlooked, or worse, the Republican urge to make the same changes that we want deserves our awareness and support.

[BeFree]

11. Good news, Wilms

Thanks for that.

Amazing, ain't it, that freeps and other assorted republicans are all for paper/hand? Do they know something SOME of us don't?

Have you a link to the Ensign bill... anyone?

[Andy_Stephenson]

16. "This bill is nothing but a hand-job, polishing

and waxing, the e-vote. Like lipstick on a pig."

In a manner of speaking.

Yes.

[Bill Bored]

21. Hey Andy,

Don't you think this is better than Ensign's and King's though?
It's all relative! We should see if the magic word (ballot) is in there but, from Holt's original, HR 2239:

"(A) The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B)."

And from subparagraph (B):
"`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used."

Is the word "record" acceptable in this context?
Are you saying this precludes the use of OpScans?

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. If it is a paper "ballot" you wnat.

ask for a paper ballot. Nothing more...nothing less.

Words are important in the law.

A paper record is not a paper ballot.

[Wilms]

19. These two parts seem a move in the right direction.

Require random, unannounced, hand-count audits of the voter-verified paper records (conducted by the Election
Assistance Commission) 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.

Require manufacturers and election officials to document the 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 among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.

But it be nice to see something about dealing with the tabulators.

edit sp

[Bill Bored]

22. Tabulators

Yes. In every letter we write from now on, I think we have to mention this. There needs to be some cross checking between precinct totals and tabulator counts. But how?

100 precincts per county may not require any auto-tabulation. But 1,000 precincts totals per state would. So do we let the county people add up the precinct totals and the state add up the county totals, or what?

[Bill Bored]

25. kick nt

[Bill Bored]

26. Has Conyers talked to Rush Holt about this? nt

[pauldp]

27. A kick for Rush Holt n/t