Fixing America's Broken Elections

[JohnGideon]

In today's Progressive News there is an article by Rep. John Conyers.
http://progressivetrail.org/articles/050208Rep.JohnConyers.shtml

Let me be clear that I am extremely supportive and appreciative for what Rep. Conyers has done these past few months with regard to the Nov. election. He is a true hero in my book. However, he is misguided in his new legislation. The aforementioned article shows how misinformed he is.

I would like to point out three paragraphs from that article to show how
dangerous his proposed legislation is:

"To some, a voter-verified paper ballot is only acceptable means of
creating an auditable record of votes. They are rightly concerned that any
form of verification that is not written as ink on paper may be tampered
with in the same manner as the original machine vote. However, disabled
voters have strongly argued for different and accessible modalities of
verification, such as an audio ballots. In the last Congress, this dilemma
helped prevent the passage of any legislation. Besides being the right
thing to do, unless we reach a satisfactory solution for disabled voters,
no bill will pass in this Congress either.

"My bill proposes a simple solution: Let the voter decide. Under my bill,
before casting a ballot, a voter could obtain a paper version of the ballot
that reflects the voter's selections for each office. That ballot will be
kept in a secure manner at the polling place. In the alternative, a voter
could obtain another modality of verification and have it retained in a
secure manner. Others have suggested that a disabled voter be given access
to his or her preferred modality of verification and the machine should
produce a paper record duplicating that. I am open to considering any and
all means that simultaneously produce a voter verified ballot and protect
the rights of the disabled.

"But that right to a voter-verified paper ballot is meaningless unless the
paper ballot is used. My bill requires election- day audits of voting
machines and, if discrepancies are found between paper and machine totals,
the use of paper ballots for the official count. In addition, paper ballots
would be used for audits and recounts."

First, Rep. Conyers ignores the fact that Federal Courts have already found
that the use of a voter verified paper ballot does not affect the right of
disabled voters to vote. In the decision the court rightly found that just
because a very few voters were not able to verify a ballot should not
remove the right to verify from the rest of the voters. Rep. Conyers is
bowing to the lobbying efforts of the disabled lobbiests and to the efforts
of Sen. Dodd.

Rep. Conyers would allow the voter to choose the type of verification they
want but then he shows his ignorance of the issue in the second paragraph
where he states that he is open to considering types of verification. He
wrote the bill; how can he now be open to consideration?

In the third paragraph he says that the paper ballots will be used to audit
the voting machines and then would become the official count in cases where
there are discrepancies. How does Rep. Conyers expect to use paper ballots
if the voter has chosen not to have a paper ballot. Remember, he wants to
give the voter a choice of verification systems and some would not include
a paper ballot. You cannot do an audit without the paper.

[helderheid]

1. That part about a choice

confused me as well.

[Wilms]

11. About choice.

In the disabilities community, there has been a desire for forms of verification, other than a Paper Ballot. We can argue with that, and show DOJ opinions and court decisions, etc.

Will that convince opponents? Probably not.

Is this a major obstacle to reform? Seems so.

Does the word compromise exist in the current political climate? That, in part, is up to us.

In the original post John Gideon wrote:

"Rep. Conyers would allow the voter to choose the type of verification they want but then he shows his ignorance of the issue in the second paragraph where he states that he is open to considering types of verification. He wrote the bill; how can he now be open to consideration?"

Gideon may have misunderstood. Perhaps I can help.


Conyer's is saying that he supports the idea that the disabilities community will have a choice of verification. He's also said the following,

"Others have suggested that a disabled voter be given access
to his or her preferred modality of verification and the machine should produce a paper record duplicating that. I am open to considering any and all means that simultaneously produce a voter verified ballot and protect the rights of the disabled."

Conyer's, rather than showing ignorance, is demonstrating a willingness to modify his bill so that we can satisfy the need for a Paper Ballot AND to satisfy the diabilities community.


How do I know this? The "others have suggested" part of this idea of a "Paper Ballot" in ADDITION to the disabled voter's choice refers to us here at DU. In a series of exchanges with one of Conyer's staffers, "TeddyK23", we had offered that very idea. (Can't find the thread right now.)

So we're unintentionally dismissing his effort on our behalf.


It's not a perfect solution. And Gideon's right about that. While the paper ballot back-up could be used for the audit of a machine, using it for a recount may (but I don't know for sure) not be ok with the disabilities community.

If that's the case, could brain-storm a way to iron the wrinkle? Or should we just tear the fabric?

[truckin]

2. John or anyone else, could you reference the federal court case that..

says that VVPBs do not affect the rights of disabled voters to vote? I am part of a group that will be speaking to our state legislators in CT to encourage them to pass a bill that would require VVPBs in all elections in CT and this information would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

[helderheid]

4. here ya go

VVPB does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act
Some people are concerned that providing different verification methods to sighted and blind
individuals would be a violation of the law. The United States Department of Justice disagrees. It
issued an official opinion, through its Office of Legal Counsel, stating that including a voterverified
paper audit trail as a feature for a Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting machines would
be consistent with both the Help America Vote Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, so
long as the DRE voting system provides a similar opportunity for sight-impaired voters to verify
their ballots before those ballots are finally cast. 188

188 Memorandum Opinion For The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
October 10, 2003; http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/drevotingsystems.htm

[truckin]

5. Thanks Helderheid

[truckin]

6. JohnGideon mentioned a federal court case. Is there actually a case or

is there just a DOJ opinion? Thanks all.

[helderheid]

8. This is what I got from the Myth Breakers document

I don't have any further info but I bet John Gideon does. John?

[JohnGideon]

9. District Court In California

found that "the disabled weren't likely to prevail in their arguments of irreparable harm and were "substantially outweighed by the advancement of the public interest.""
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2449

For all downloads of statements and briefs and etc.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/california/benavidez/

Actually, I did mis-speak when I said Federal Courts but this case gets pretty close to the same decision and a lawyer could probably get this to stretch of the voter verification issue.

[truckin]

38. Thanks John, that's very helpful.

[JohnGideon]

7. The Key Words.....

"so long as the DRE voting system provides a similar opportunity for sight-impaired voters to verify their ballots before those ballots are finally cast."

This means that sight-impaired voters can use the voice assist on the voting machine as their verification.

[corbett]

51. Kick!

A very healthy debate!

[rock]

3. How are you going to fix its penis?

Oh wait. You said elections. Nevermind.

[teddyk23]

10. the process wrote the bill; how can he now be open to consideration?

"He wrote the bill; how can he now be open to consideration?"

It's called the legislative process. There hasn't ever been a bill of any importance that has passed in an identical form to how it was introduced. Bills are refined and changed after hearings and markups. The author of a bill often refines his own bill through what is called a "manager's amendment". Introducing a bill is akin to starting a conversation, putting concepts on the table, and getting commentary on those concepts. Calling it dangerous sounds kind of alarmist to me.

It certainly seems strange to me that we are now citing opinions by the outrageously bad civil rights division in then-John Ashcroft's Justice Department as an authority for sound legal opinion. This is the same DOJ that said Mississippi's redistricting plan did not violate the voting rights act, that Tom DeLay's re-redistricting in Texas was fine, and has completely dropped the ball on employment discrimination. Ralph Boyd, who headed the division at the time, is probably the worst asst atty general for civil rights ever. See here for scores of examples: http://www.watchingjustice.org/offices/office.php?docId=58

So Conyers, who helped write the Voting Rights Act and its amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act, is misinformed, but this guy knows what he is talking about? I mean, it just seems strange that a good Democrat like you would cite to this guy just because you agree with him THIS TIME.

Case citation on the case you refer to please?

[Wilms]

12. Nice to see you. Please check my post above.

Did I get that right?

Thanks Teddy, I really appreciate it.

[teddyk23]

13. exactly exactly right

That sentence would not be in there without your suggestion.

[JohnGideon]

19. Thank you for the clarifications on this bill...

I fully understand that a bill is a living, breathing document until it is finally through the legislative process and signed by the Pres.

As far as the DOJ decision, it was a good decision for the voting activists. Remember even though Asscroft was in charge there are a lot of dedicated career people who make decisions based on legal opinion and not based on political opinion.

I guess the unfortunate thing is that Conyers' bill was introduced as the companion with Dodd's bill. Dodd is not a friend to verified voting activists and his bill is not worthy of any votes from any Senator.

The District Court case that I mentioned is:
Peter Benavidez (Riverside County) et al. v. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley Riverside County's Board of Supervisors voted on May 4, 2004, to sue the state's top election official to regain the right to use electronic voting machines in November. Supervisors in Kern and Plumas counties voted on May 11, 2004, to join the lawsuit against Shelley, followed by San Bernardino County on May 25, 2004. The suit, filed by the counties and some disabled rights advocates in federal court, alleges that Shelley's order requiring certain conditions for use of electronic voting machines violates state and federal law and disenfranchises disabled voters. After a preliminary ruling against the plaintiffs, the counties have settled the lawsuit. Legal documents: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/california/benavidez

[Wilms]

22. Maybe it's good that Conyers' was introduced as companion to Dodd's

If we can work with Dodd, and offer him the safegaurds he wants for the Disabilities community, and meet the security needs of the electorate, we make a greater case for the legislations support.

[JohnGideon]

41. I Like A Lot Of What Is In Dodd's Bill

The provisional ballot is finally defined as being of use for a voter anywhere in the state and not just in a precinct. However, that's going to make big problems for poll workers to ensure the voter gets the correct ballot. It's a hurdle that needs to be gotten over.

Remember, on the subject of a paper ballot, Dodd is one of the four authors of the "Dear Colleague" letter that went around last year to every member of Congress and that warned them all not to sponsor any legislation that asked for a voter verified paper ballot. Dodd is a proud winner of an award from the National Federation of the Blind just after they got $1M from Diebold so they would drop a lawsuit against Diebold for their ATMs. Dodd is choosing to be ignorant on this issue so he can continue telling untruths.

[Eric J in MN]

14. I hope someone else writes the bill.

Conyers doesn't seem clear that the whole purpose of a voter-verified paper ballot is that it can be audited to get an accurate count.

[Wilms]

15. Actually, he does.

In the letter, Conyer's states,

"But that right to a voter-verified paper ballot is meaningless unless the paper ballot is used. My bill requires election- day audits of voting machines and, if discrepancies are found between paper and machine totals, the use of paper ballots for the official count. In addition, paper ballots would be used for audits and recounts."

Help me if I'm missing something.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Yes, that part is good.

I just didn't like the part where he implied it might be acceptable for a hndicapped person to cast a vote which doesn't produce a paper ballot.

Maybe he'll write a great bill. Time will tell.

[Wilms]

17. The Disabilities community asked for alternatives to paper.

They really want that.

So, Conyer's said,

"Others have suggested that a disabled voter be given access
to his or her preferred modality of verification and the machine should produce a paper record duplicating that. I am open to considering any and all means that simultaneously produce a voter verified ballot and protect the rights of the disabled."

Doesn't that help?

There's more discussion on this, on this thread.

[Eric J in MN]

18. I went to a demonstration of the AutoMARK

which lets blind voters and voters with limited mobility fill out the same optical-scan ballot as other voters.

This was the reaction of the blind voters:

Judy Sanders, Secretary of the National Federation of the Blind Minnesota, said, "This machine seems to do everything it needs to do for blind people-for the first time in our lives-to have private voting."

"And it meets the Minnesota requirement of a paper trail. So I have a very favorable reaction."

Jennifer Dunnam, Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind Minnesota, had tested the AutoMARK machine that evening. She said afterwards that it's "easy to use; exciting that I don't have to tell someone how I have to vote next time."

With the AutoMARK, we can have paper ballots and accessibility.

My article on the AutoMARK is at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_18_voting_rights_tuesday_i_went_to_a_demonstration_of_the_automark.asp

[Wilms]

20. Magnificent...the machine, and your article.

Thanks for posting it, EJ.

I noted Dickson's concern. Do I have it right? Is he saying the inability to load an empty ballot into AutoMark is a drawback.

OK. I'll agree. But you point out that assistance could be offered.

I agree with that, also. But I'd like to stress that "Privacy" is a real concern for the Disabilities community. I support that.


Now Dickson has to show why it's immodest to have someone load a blank ballot for you.

[Eric J in MN]

23. My interpretation

of Jim Dickson's remarks is that AFTER a person with limited mobility uses the AutoMARK to fill out an optical-scan ballot, that person may have to give the ballot to a poll worker to put into the optical-scan machine.

My answer is that other people hand things to poll workers (for example a man registering to vote on Election Day would generally hand his driver's license to a poll worker). It's not a big deal.

If you liked my article, please email a link to someone interested in voting issues.

I'm trying to raise awareness of the AutoMARK.

[Wilms]

24. Actually, it's a fair concern.

Showing your ID, and revealing your vote are incomparable.


We need a modified AutoMark that spits ballots into a lock box.

[Eric J in MN]

25. The poll woker doesn't have to look at the ballot.

It isn't a valid issue.

It's a bogus issue to prop up paperless electronic voting.

There is a poll worker standing near the optical scan machine anyway. Theoretically, a poll worker could have gotten a glimpse of my ballot. I don't care. The poll worker near the optical scan machine doesn't know or care who I am.

If privacy is an issue, the poll worker can immediately place the ballot inside a folder, and feed the ballot into the machine in a manner which doesn't let him or her see the selections.

[Wilms]

26. Eric. Of course, the poll woker doesn't have to look at the ballot

But if a blind person is concerned of the possibility, and a lock box modification can solve it, and we can move legislation through, I'm less concerned if it's a bogus issue or not.

[Eric J in MN]

27. This issue isn't about

blind people.

Blind people can feed the ballot into the optical-scan machine.

The issue is that someone who lacks mobility in his arms may not be able to feed the ballot into the optical-scan machine.

In such a case, a poll worker, who doesn't have to look at the selections, can put the ballot into the machine.

[Wilms]

28. But a poll worker 'could', conceivably, look at the ballot

And if someone who lacks mobility is concerned of the possibility, and a lock box modification can solve it, and we can move legislation through, I'm less concerned if it's a bogus issue or not, which I really don't believe it is.

My arms didn't get blown off in some insane war. I get a secret ballot.

Now how 'bout the Vet who asked for one?

Better. What is the problem with making accommodation for another?

[Eric J in MN]

34. Someone

with no arms has at least 4 options:

1) vote by absentee
2) vote in person, and use an artifical limb or one's mouth to put an ballot into the optical-scan machine
3) vote in person, and give the ballot to a poll worker to put into the optical-scan machine
4) vote in person, and give the ballot to a friend or relative to put into the optical-scan machine

[Wilms]

35. What is the draw-back to what I suggest?

1. Absentee is fine, but we're discussing Polling Stations accessable to those with disabilities.

2. Those options can work for some, but perhaps not the 'mobility impaired', you helped identify.

3 & 4. Are not options. Secrecy is not optional, it's mandatory. Is that not clear?

This is why I suggested a lock box into which a completed and voter verified ballot could be dropped. Another value, the ballots would be segregated as a result, and therefore conveniently available for the proposed mandatory audit.

What is the draw-back to what I suggest?

[truckin]

40. Thanks for this information, Eric J

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. Good threaas John...

Thanks for starting it.

Andy

[Bill Bored]

29. Hi all!

I started a discussion about this on the DU Disabilities Forum. Haven't looked there today, but it was going well, although not many posts as of last check.

Teddy, thanks for bringing up our suggestion. If the Automark is still problematic, and I'm not saying it is, perhaps we can talk more about how to implement the VVPB along with the other formats.

One way would be to print the paper ballot along with storing the other formats, e.g., audio. The voter verifies his preferred format and this is compared to the paper at a later time to verify the paper. In effect, all votes cast by disabled voters will be 100% audited. I doubt they'd have a problem with that. At this point, the paper ballot will become the ballot of record, as for all other voters. Since the number of disabled voters is relatively small, it's possible to audit all of their ballots and certify the paper versions and still keep their ballots secret. It seems to me that the language in the bill about this could be fairly straightforward.

There are only 2 small problems with this, as I see it:

1. It requires separate machines for the disabled, say one or two per polling place. But this would save money if the rest of the machines were paper only, or paper with OpScan.

2. What would be the procedure if the paper ballot count did NOT match the other formats when audited? (Of course the very idea of a 100% audit would be a huge incentive for the vendors to get their machines to count correctly! Sort of a win-win situation, I hope.) But in the unlikely event that there is a discrepancy, either the paper or the other format would have to be counted and the bill would have to specify this.

Comments please? I'm glad we're discussing this here again.

[Wilms]

30. I like the paranthetical in #2.

One way to keep someone from cooking the books is to check the damn things!

[Bill Bored]

31. In a way, this can serve as a form of auditing.

It won't be all that random however since the special machines will be known in advance. But at least it will force the development of a robust system.

[Wilms]

32. Yeah. And let that "mandatory audit" migrate to any other machine.

[Rich at TrueVoteCT]

43. reaction to bill's two points...

1) Isn't this consistent with HAVA anyway? At least one accessible machine per precinct, others not specified. And if the other (opscan) machines are cheaper that would be a plus with registrars and republicans!

2) We should always strive for paper as the ballot of record and the one to be used for recount, correct?

Hi! I'm new on this DU forum. I'm with TrueVoteCT, a grassroots coalition working to ensure passage of VVPT. Dodd scuttled same bill last year so we're trying to neutralize objections about a) accessibility for disabled being incompatible with paper ballots and b) "wait for federal standards".

[Wilms]

45. Greetings, Rich.

With regard to item 1, I agree with you, and I think Bill would, also.

With #2, that, I think, needs to be worked out with the Disabilities community, but I suspect we can work through that question easily.

Point is, if there is a 100% audit of the machines, and the required paper ballots don't jive with the voter verified ballots...there's a bit of a large problem (but a problem caught) whatever ballot is the one of record for recount purposes.

[Bill Bored]

52. Welcome Rich!

Just saw this 2 days later, sorry!

1. Yes. It's consistent w/HAVA.

2. I agree. Make the paper the ballot of record. But what would Dodd say?

Something else occurs to me:

If the Automark allows blind voters to mark and verify paper ballots, so would the Multimedia DREs. The difference is that the DREs actually COUNT the votes, using a separate, unverifiable process! The Automark does not. It doesn't actually count anything. And OpScans count paper ballots so they are safer.

It's clear that the DREs are the biggest risk. Not necessarily the touch screen part, but the unverified counting part.

My head hurts!

[Wilms]

54. Yikes! What I needed to say in post 45

The Disabilities Community wants the voter to be able to
CHOOSE THE FORM OF VERIFICATION THEY WANT.

That's what started the pie-fight in the first place. ;)

I'm asking, if we can give that to the disabled voter, AND AND AND

GENERATE A "P A P E R B A L L O T", AND

"A U D I T" using the Paper Ballot to check the DRE tally.


EVERYBODY WINS. NO??

Please, tell me if I'm wrong.

We need also to keep in mind that the blind are only among the American's with various disabilities we must enfranchise. It is, in fact, a huge problem, greatly simplified (and yes, left unsecure) by DRE's as a general class of machine.

For that reason I'm urging for a method that uses DRE's for the disabled, but also audit's each and every tally.

What have I missed?

[Bill Bored]

55. Only one thing:

Let's say there's one machine per polling place for the disabled (and a backup).
Let's say the voter is blind.
Let's say she chooses audio ballot (record).
Even if paper is printed concurrently, tachnically the paper isn't voter-verified, only the audio ballot is and THAT can be hacked.
So to rob votes, every time a voter chooses audio, you hack the paper in real time to print a vote for your preferred candidate, assuming the voter won't read it because she's using audio. Then you hack the audio record after it's verfied, so it matched the already printed paper.

Only risk of getting caught is that a voter who can see, also happens to like audio and votes against your candidate and compares the two formats in real time and notices the difference.

So, how do you make sure the machine can't print a different choice on the paper than the one made using audio. etc?

[Wilms]

56. That's easy, sort of.

The paper ballot could pass through an independent, 'modular', ballot reader as it’s shuttled to the lock-box.
(I think that's in essence what is done now.)
(And mixing the audio from the two machines, to feed the headphones, can be done unhackably.)

But the shuttling of this ballot must done mechanically so as to provide 'access with privacy' to a mobility impaired voter.

The other problem is that, whatever the other choice they've made, and verify, they'd need to verify this record, too.

Deal Breaker??

[Bill Bored]

57. Here's what I think you missed:

Your solution is a lot better than what Conyers' bill says now. But the process by which the DRE PRINTS the PB from the Multimedia, has to be rigorously tested.

In the case of the blind voter using the DRE, the VVPB is NOT voter-verified. If it's the ballot of record, it should be voter-verified, no?

Suppose the machine is hacked to change the vote on the paper so that it doesn't match the audio? When you audit the machine, you will change the vote to match the paper because the paper is the ballot of record. But you'd then be changing the blind person's vote if the machine is correct and the paper is wrong. You wouldn't know! Remember, with DREs the paper is really just a printout. It can be altered by software too. It's the voter-verification that makes it Kosher. Blind people can't do that with paper. :(

Now technically, the same could be true of the automark; I'm not sure exactly how it works. It's probably much safer though because it doesn't actually store or count the votes. The paper and OpScanners do that. The only opportunity for fraud is if the AutoMark somehow doesn't obey the voters commands, and physically marks the wrong circle on the OpScan ballot. That's pretty easy to test and certify, as opposed to the DREs. I guess I'm saying that the AutoMark isn't really a computer, is it? Need more information.

Anyone have a copy Hillary/Boxer's bill yet?

I don't like being asked by Hillary to co-sponsor a bill we haven't read yet. It's downright condescending!

[Wilms]

58. Thanks, Bill.

1. Yes. Rigorously tested.

2. Hang on. VVPB MUST ALSO be verified, using a ballot reader. That's the "modular" bit I referred to. That good?

3. #2 might address this paragraph, except the "Ballot of Record issue" but let's do that on another thread later.

4. #2, again and yes, I'm not familiar with security issues vs. AutoMark.

[Bill Bored]

59. Ballot reader.

So it just scans the text and reads it audibly? Are these already commercially available for the blind as off the shelf products? If so, you'd see a lot more scanned documents that don't look so photographic. Instead, you see PDFs of scanned docs that look, well, scanned, if you know what I mean. You can't do word searches on them, etc. They are really image files.

If the voice generator is reading an OpScan, then you're back to the AutoMark.

In any case, how do you put this into the law? Voter-verified disabled-accessible paper ballot (VVDAPB)? I'm not kidding about this, in case anyone thinks I might be!

[Wilms]

60. I believe these ballot readers are in use.

I think it scans marks put on the ballot, not text or pictorials. It could be a mark put there by a touch screen "Ballot Marker", or a pen.

So a mark next to Candidate A, makes the machine speak "Candidate A".

For pictorials, we'd need a mark next to the picture so that the voter sees the mark next to the pix of their desired choice.


Does that make sense??

[Bill Bored]

33. Teddy, is this statement correct?:

Conyers: "My bill requires election- day audits of voting machines and, if discrepancies are found between paper and machine totals, the use of paper ballots for the official count. In addition, paper ballots would be used for audits and recounts."

I was under the impression that the voter's choice of verified ballot, whatever that may be, would be the ballot of record. This is why I suggested cross-checking each multimedia ballots with the paper ones and THEN making the paper the ballot of record. (In the case of a blind voter, the paper ballot is not voter-verified, but a sighted person can certify it without revealing the voter's identity as mentioned in my previous post.)

[Bill Bored]

36. Wait a minute, Automark is Multimedia!

OK, maybe I'm a bit dense, but the Automark not only uses OpScan ballots, but it has a touch screen and it's Multimedia too! It's got audio!
<http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html>

It seems that it has everything the disabled voters need without actually COUNTING the votes!

I think this really is the answer. The ballots are paper, they can be the ballot of record, AND there are other formats available for the disabled. So how do we get this legislated, or will "the marketplace" have to decide?

[Wilms]

37. See my exchanges with Eric J, above.

He indicated that Dickson, with (I think it is) AAPD, didn't like the machine for the mobility impaired. A lock box into which the completed ballot drops, might solve the issue.

But Eric seems to be arguing either for this specific machines adoption, or against trying to bridge the gap with AAPD, or both.

Either, I argue, is a dead end.

[teddyk23]

39. not sure I get Dickson's comment

When I voted in NC, we had opscan, I think. We were given a security envelope (just a manilla envelope, really) to put the ballot in for the five or so feet between the cubicle and the tabulator. Then we would feed it into the tabulator. Sure, that could be difficult for someone with cerebal palsy for example, but as I recall the ballot only had wirting on one side, so couldn't the tabulator be configured so ballot would be inserted face down and disabled voter would only need assistance withe putting in into the tabulator (in a worst case scenario).

[Wilms]

44. In Post #23, Eric J wrote...

"My interpretation of Jim Dickson's remarks is that AFTER a person with limited mobility uses the AutoMARK to fill out an optical-scan ballot, that person may have to give the ballot to a poll worker to put into the optical-scan machine."

So, in Post #35, I said,

"This is why I suggested a lock box into which a COMPLETED and voter verified ballot could be dropped. Another value, the ballots would be segregated as a result, and therefore conveniently available for the proposed mandatory audit."

And thanks for the added inspiration, Teddy. A childhood family-friend/hero of mine is a guy with CP who worked very hard to to interface with the world.

It taught me a lot of little things, including patience and a concern for others with special needs. My participation here, in part, is in honor of that old friend.

[JohnGideon]

42. Privacy Of The Ballot

There is a lot of discussion in this thread about privacy and Jim Dickson's concerns (I think false and borne out by his being funded by the ITAA and therefore the vendors and also by his love of notoriety).

First, a blank ballot is just a piece of paper with no privacy needed. Why is he worried about having to have someone load it into the ballot marking device? He is just throwing stones in hopes of hitting something.

Do we, who are sighted, not deserve secrecy in our vote?? DREs by their design are NOT secret. The touch screen on most machines sits verticle to the machine. The voting booths don't have privacy screens on them. Anyone standing behind a voter can look over that persons shoulder and see every move made by the voter. There is NO secrecy in that.

[Wilms]

46. Privacy with regard to COMPLETED ballots, seems Dickson's issue

And that's reasonable.

And a lock-box, as I proposed above, would take care of that.

Let's just give that to Dickson, and move on. We'd have what we need, he'd have what he needs. Problem solved.

Seems everyone is more interested in THEIR vision, as opposed to A VISION that will solve the crisis.

The manufacturing of crisis' are not the domain of only special interests. Our intransigence is a leading cause, as well.

[JohnGideon]

48. I Do NOT Believe...

that anything short of DREs in every state with no paper ballots will satisfy Dickson. He's a paid lobbyest for the vendors and only representing his constituency because he has to.

[Wilms]

49. John? Do we KNOW that Dickson's position is immovable?

Has he been presented with this idea of dual ballots with auditing?

Now, I don't KNOW, but I BELIEVE, that crossing our arms doesn't cut it. We have to reach out, over and over again, if that's what it takes.

[minorjive]

53. John, could you give some context for your unfriendly feelings towards

the disabilities community?

I'm aware of this debate, but I'm not well informed about it.

However, it makes me very uncomfortable to dismiss the stated needs of folks with disabilities because they conflict with our agendas.

In my book, every dimension of this fight is about voting rights and voting access. If different communities have conflicting needs for voting access, shouldn't that challenge our own ideas about what the solutions are?

fyi, minorjive= Ben who did that bit of Florida research with Ellen.

[Bill Bored]

47. How about this:

Put something in the legislation to outlaw concealed counting processes. Doesn't matter whether it's proprietary code, central tabulators, multimedia ballot, etc. The real problem is that the counting process is concealed. This is just the germ of an idea, but perhaps it can spread into some kind of epidemic! Some simple language in all these bills that says whatever the counting process is, it has be visible and auditable by human observers. Force the vendors to prove that they're not counting votes in secret.

[tommcintyre]

50. Kick for a very useful thread n/t