Association of SOS opposing election reform legislation

[rumpel]

Open Letter to Members of Congress
New Election Reform Legislation Would Undermine Progress and Interfere with States' Rights
Dear Members of Congress:
Soon, you will be asked to consider legislation that would dictate national standards for administering elections. The
passage of any such law would undercut the states' ability to effectively administer elections and interfere with the
progress they have made in implementing election reforms. Perhaps most importantly, it would discount our country's
unique political philosophy -- the belief in the division of authority between state and federal governments.
State governments enjoy a close connection to the people. When it comes to the way elections are run, that
connection means that state governments are best prepared to decide what is right for their residents. What works in
New York City, for example, may not be the right solution for a small town in rural Idaho. In this case, uniformity does
not equal success. Each state government, on behalf of the residents of that state, should have the right to decide
what election administration policies work best within its borders.

full letter posted at

http://www.nass.org/Open%20Letter%20to%20Congress2.pdf

sorry if duplicate post

[shance]

1. There are no signators on the pdf file.

Need to find out who specifically supports this.

This could blow up in their face with all the election problems that have occured.

[marions ghost]

15. yes it would be good to know

who signed this.

[Wilms]

2. "State governments enjoy a close connection to the people."

And what is the nature of that relationship??? Witness Harris 2000, and Blackwell 2004.

I agree with them,

"What works in New York City, for example, may not be the right solution for a small town in rural Idaho. In this case, uniformity does not equal success".

But, the SoS's have no one to blame but themselves.

We want Voter Verified Paper Ballots, and we want them counted.

[Amaryllis]

9. Have you figured out how we want them counted? We keep being told we

can't have hand counting but I have not seen an alternative I feel comfortable with yet. Have you?

[tommcintyre]

11. The BOEs want DREs, not hand counting

My Hawaii experience (typical for other BOEs?): They like the fact that the count is so efficient (they claim) with DREs. Also (in Hawaii's case) they have already invested in one DRE per polling place (for disability access), and don't want two systems. (are other states in a similar "boat"?) Overall, they are looking to make their jobs easier, and not give up local (State) control to "outsiders" (3rd party inspectors, fed govt rules, etc.).

I believe our main obstacles to meaningful election reform are NOT partisan, but bureaucratic.

Other thoughts on this from an earlier post I made:
"It may take several sessions of Congress to really get it completely handled.

Many forces are at work here, and partisanship may NOT be the biggest problem.

For example, the HAVA economic incentive of a 20 to 1 funding ratio is driving BOEs to replace their old equipment with new. (Hawaii: A $350k investment yields $7,000,000!) If the states don't take advantage of this windfall, they will have to replace their own equipment over the next few years to the tune of millions out of their own (State's) pocket.

Also, the states may see replacing with DREs as a way to simplify their procedures. (Whether this is completely true is another issue, as is the view that adding paper negates this "improved efficiency".)"

I would prefer hand counting too, but it is not likely to happen. The momentum is to replace with DREs; and, at best, a reasonably valid automatic random audit. Most likely, this is what we have to work with - whether we like it or not. They won't automatically hand count ALL the VVPBs. That would negate the perceived efficiency of the DREs.

To answer your question: "...alternative I feel comfortable with yet?"

"Reasonably" comfortable (NOT preferred):
- VVPB
- automatic random audit (2% OK, 5% preferred)
- open source code (optional, but HIGHLY preferred if it doesn't interfere with getting the first two. Otherwise, we can go for this in the next session, or another bill?)

[Wilms]

16. The BoEs ARE a big part of the equation.

Let's add multi-lingual ballots to the list of their headaches.

Your points make the most sense to me. But I wonder if we could push for, at least, (Non-DRE) TouchScreen Ballot Markers. The TS is great for the BoE's, the Paper is good for us.

I'm concerned that the audits are done in a good way.

Though, I do like the idea of the DRE's having to print ballots. Hopefully, we can shut down the DRE function, and just use the paper.


Mostly, of late, I'm really concerned about tabulators...

[tommcintyre]

19. Some more thoughts on this

"I wonder if we could push for, at least, (Non-DRE) TouchScreen Ballot Markers"
I wonder if the push for DREs is more of a problem of misinformation or "politics". If its the former, we can educate 'em more. (Although the Hawaii BoE all have copies with Mythbreakers - with a summary sheet attached - and they still want DREs.) So what else can we do to educate them? (I don't think its realistic that they will be forced to abandon DREs.) If its a matter of politics, I think the situation is even worse (corrupt lobbying, etc.) So, with the information I have right now, I'm guessing we will be stuck with DREs in most States. So we need to figure out how to "make the best of it".

"I'm concerned that the audits are done in a good way."
THIS is really the key, isn't it?. If we can figure out how to "do it right"; it doesn't matter so much how the votes are initially recorded.The audit would catch the discrepancies, and "keep 'em honest".

"I'm really concerned about tabulators..."
ME TOO! That's most likely how Florida was stolen, even with optical scanning. I think a REALLY tight audit function will shut down this avenue of election theft also. I think it can be done, but the procedures will have to be laid out in detail, and ALL States compelled to follow them. (This is why I feel we MUST have a strong Federal law.)

"Hopefully, we can shut down the DRE function, and just use the paper."
So you want to turn the DREs into "$3000 pencils" (a quote from Invisible Ballots)? ;) Who knows? As time goes by, maybe they will get so sick of the redundancy, etc., they will just count their paper "receipts" (as the BoE in Hawaii refers to the VVPB in testimony). I don't think so. They will have to justify all the millions spent on them. <Who knows. Maybe they can convert them to slot machines? On second thought, no - the casinos would never want them - too inaccurate and unreliable. ;) (Bill Maher's solution to election fraud: "turn it over to the "slot machine people", they NEVER lose a nickel!")>

[Wilms]

21. A $3000 pencil. Ahhh, but what a pencil.

As I'm seeing (guessing) it, one of the advantages BoE's see in DRE's is the relative ease with which they can administer an election in multiple languages.

So even if the DRE capability is left out (Touch Screen Ballot Marker) or abandoned, they still enjoy that benefit.

Perhaps that is something each side can live with.

[Amaryllis]

24. have you read what Chuck Herrin says about open source? I can;t find

it at the moment but he doesn't feel even that is secure enough.

[tommcintyre]

25. I think is a case of "ideal" vs. "reality"

I don't trust DREs for many reasons, but I think the battle will be won or lost with the effectiveness of the audit oversight - regardless which inevitable non-totally-handcounting system we employ. I think the open source code is just another layer of protection, and could be even traded off (for this session); providing we get VVPB and the "right" audit oversight.

[Wilms]

26. We gotta get a handle on the tabulators, too. n/t

[tommcintyre]

27. Don't you think the "right" audit will shut down tabulator cheating too?

If the automatic random audit is legit/effective, wouldn't it catch any significant discrepancies, no matter where they occur?

[Wilms]

28. I'm not sure if it would.

Sorry, no links. But I've read here that it's possible to conduct audits of individual DRE's, yet still suffer a theft via central tabulation.

[Amaryllis]

32. But all the audits in the world aren't going to help if you have crooks

running the show who don't follow the audit procedures. Blackwell and his ilk are not going to follow the law. THey have no reason to do so; nothing happens when they break it since the courts are corrupt too.
Which brings us back to needing a system that is more secure so we don't need so many audits,checks and balances, etc.

[tommcintyre]

34. I'm afraid if the laws aren't enforced, NOTHING will help

As you know, from Votescam, election theft has been commonplace long before the dawn of Evoting. What this new technology has done is make such theft potentially easier and more potent. That's clearly bad. But even without Evoting, theft at the tabulator level is available with ANY initial voting method (I doubt the tabulators are going to disappear in this modern efficiency-oriented world we live in.)

So without an "effective" (including strict enforcement) audit/oversight procedure, were screwed no matter what.

Personally, I can't wait to see "expert" evaluations of how realistically "air tight" the audit/oversight procedures are in the various bills proposed. A bill can have the nicest looking VVPB component; but you're right, it will totally fail us if we get a repeat of the flagrant violations of audit procedures we are getting right now in Ohio.

<BTW: A BIG advantage of a federal law is that you don't need to rely on the State courts to enforce it. A good example is the Civil Rights Act of the early 60's. AG Bobby Kennedy called in the National Guard to desegregate the schools in States that refused to do so.

I don't think it would come to that, but being a Federal law carries a lot more weight than a State one. That's probably why the national SOS org. is lobbying so vehemently against ALL the Federal election reform proposals. They must be shaking in their boots over the Clinton bill!

Writing this makes me realize that without such voting irregularity changes as the Clinton bill proposes, considering the parity of recent elections (coming down to one state), all the "macro" changes (VVPB, audits, etc.) could easily be in vain if there are still 10 hour waits to vote, etc. They could still steal an election "the old fashioned way" (like 1960?). So maybe the obvious seriousness of the Evoting threat could work on our favor, to force the needed change on a Federal level, to reasonably clean up our elections once and for all.

I hope so.>

[Amaryllis]

29. Have you given them Mythbreakers yet? I just finally read it and was

really impressed. Wish I read it three months ago. What really comes across is that DREs are not only the lease secure, they are pieces of crap. THey break down, don't start, freeze, require the most maintainance, the most poll workers, the most poll worker training, are the most expensive, and on and on. This speaks to election officials. And there are a number of alternatives for handicapped voters that are far superior. I am going to see that everyone in my state even remotely connected with elections gets one, and then keep bugging them till they tell me they've read it!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=292271&mesg_id=292271

[tommcintyre]

35. They all have a copy (with a summary sheet) and still want DREs :(

Let's keep kicking that thread forever ,eh? (At least until the 3rd edition is released.) ;)

<Maybe their enthusiasm for DREs will fade once they see that VVPB's are inevitable? I certainly hope so.>

[Q3JR4]

3. ....

States have an obligation to decide how they want to administer elections, but the federal government has an obligation to make sure that every vote is counted, that the process itself is open and honest and that everyone regardless of race has the equal right to vote.

Simply put, a vote against the legislation outlined in the freeper's letter is a vote against american values and our american form of democracy.

[tommcintyre]

4. Very interesting. This is why broad bills like Clintons may get in trouble

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton Bill triggered this letter. It goes into many issues on the State level. Such as a SOS couldn't chair a re-election committee. I imagine Dem Sos's will be against this too, since I read that 39(?) SOS were also chairs. I think this is going to get "very interesting".

More info on the Clinton Bill here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=329523&mesg_id=331877&page=

<A quote from the NYT article posted at the above link:>
"It would bar chief election officials, including secretaries of state, from engaging in partisan politics."

[Peace Patriot]

5. Ye gods! What a snakepit this all is!

It's kind of like the Bush Cartel argument (the Bush Pod People USED THIS on the floor of the Senate and in its hallways) that mass murder planner Condoleeza Rice should be approved for Secretary of State BECAUSE she is an African-American woman, and that torture memo writer Alberto Gonzales should be approved for Attorney General BECAUSE he is Hispanic--and that DEMOCRATS who opposed them were doing for RACIST REASONS.

The raging hypocrisy of it!

So the problem is that I happen to AGREE that there is a serious danger of the Feds stripping us ordinary folks of the ability to achieve honest elections through the state rules, either with an outright grab of power or through poison pills or later changes to the legislation.

And quite frankly I don't trust the Clintons at all (they gave us NAFTA--the real culprit for job outsourcing).

Basically, I don't think there is a chance in hell that the BushCon Congress is going to give us back our right to vote, or do anything that will mean majority rule in 2006, or any time soon. They have their vote manufacturing machinery in place--all deliberately set up for fraud, and well tested now--and they are not going to give it up.

So I don't expect ANYTHING to pass that will be any damn good. I don't think the BushCons are shameable. They don't care what people think.

On the other hand, I don't see that having a nonpartisan in charge of elections is a bad rule. I don't see how it can hurt people power--and it might help. It's just that, if we place our hopes and energies into something like that--or anything at the federal level--we are going to be disappointed, if not outright betrayed yet again.

Also, it's the creepy, sneaky things I worry about.

For instance, say they all agree on a VVPB by 2008 (not good enough, but something), but they ALSO include another 3.5 billion dollars only useable for electronics, money that will pour into the pockets of Wally O'Dell and H. F. Ahmanson (and thus some portion of it into future Bush Cartel election campaigns), and that will cripple local efforts to get paper ballots/hand counts, by committing the states even more to electronics (who will salivate over the money). And they DON'T solve the problem of secret source code.

Bad, bad, bad. I would rather they forget it, and let us fight it out in the states (VVPB's, etc.).

AND, the above scenario could LEAD TO forbidding paper ballots down the line--or any number of horrible things. (Forcing Diebold and ES&S on us, even after states have thrown them out--with no bid contracts, federally mandated. Don't think it's impossible!)

But neither do I trust the Sec's of State. What a bunch of corrupt bastards they are, as a whole. (And we see what happens to any of them who are honest--such as our anti-Deibold SoS in Calif.--backstabbings, poisonings!). NOTHING they say should be given any credence. They just want to hang onto their power for their state political machines--and either plan their campaigns for governor, or go work for Diebold when they retire from "public service."

Even the good ones have made pacts with the Devil. The public interest be damned.

And so now, after extolling the rags to riches stories of their anointed African American and Hispanic liars and crooked sticks--and talking about Rice growing up in "the era of segregation" and all that rot--they are NOW going to turn around and use STATES' RIGHTS to kill any and all useful election reform?

Oi!

[kster]

8. Agreed

Holt,Dobbs,Clinton which one do I pick, NONE. They are taking us all off track. I,m not the smartest guy in the room,but we all agree on paper ballots, then why the hell can't we agree on how to count them.

Some want them hand counted.That would be me.Some want them added to voting machine's,the same machines that are owned and operated by our opponent's. Thats where I have the problem.

Why would we fight for paper ballots, only to let our opponent's do all the counting again ? The way I see it the only way to break this sh*t up is take the thiefs tools away and go back to paper ballots ,hand counted.

[brindis_desala]

22. That's why it must be a two pronged approach.

State legislators are ones that decide (in most cases) on the voting equipment so far the public (asleep as usual) has had no input. It's up to us to get involved with our individual SOS and state governments and demand paper ballots with transparent counting.
Use the argument of more reliability and less cost and write your local newspapers till you're out of ink.

[Amaryllis]

31. Give Mythbreakers to every single person in your state even remotely

connected with elections! What really comes across is that DREs are not only the lease secure, they are pieces of crap. THey break down, don't start, freeze, require the most maintainance, the most poll workers, the most poll worker training, are the most expensive, and on and on. This speaks to election officials. And there are a number of alternatives for handicapped voters that are far superior. I am going to see that everyone in my state even remotely connected with elections gets one, and then keep bugging them till they tell me they've read it!
http://www.votersunite.org/takeaction/mythbreakerssecondedition.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=292271&mesg_id=292271
for John Gideon's thread on the subject.

[rumpel]

6. btw, check also their corporate affilliate page

http://www.nass.org/corpaffiliates/roster.html

I tried to check what a corporate affilliate is, but it takes me to the Kansas SOS, page not found

[mod mom]

10. un-f-ing-believable! We are letting the foxes guard the hen houses!

I understand about state rights, but the constitution guarantees equal protection. We did not have equal protection in 2000 and certainly not in 2004. I just don't get why the dem leadership didn't all follow Conyers/House Judiciary/Boxer in an outrage protest. I keep hearing it is because they have to work with them for the next four years. Work with them-how? The dems can't even hold hearings. These repugs so lack scruples, that they are willing to destroy our democracy, our environment and our economy. The complicit dems are allowing a fraudulent administration break the backs of the working poor and middle class. Outsourcing is being used to feed the war mongering, which in return fills the pockets of halliburton and other war profiteers. Our own party is allowing this to happen! How can they work with these______(fill in the blank)?

[msongs]

7. an association of political whores who want to protect

their own bloated bureaucracies and turf, and refuse to admit they served the voters and not the other way around. we have a mob of those types in Riverside Count CA

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Helga Scow Stern]

12. Why do they retire after they get DRE's?

from California Voter Foundation:

Monday, February 14, 2005
San Diego's registrar to retire
Sally McPherson, registrar of voters for San Diego County, announced last week that she will retire effective March 17. This brings to five the number of California registrars that have resigned or retired after purchasing paperless, electronic voting systems. Other registrars who left their posts after the equipment acquisition include Scott Konopasek (San Bernardino), Mischelle Townsend (Riverside), Laura Winslow (Solano), and Ann Reed (Shasta).

http://calvoter.org/news/blog/index.html

[GettysbergII]

14. Maybe starting a new career with a paperless electronic voting ..

machine company?

[Amaryllis]

30. That is mighty suspicious! Any theories?

[GettysbergII]

13. Those SOSs are SOBs and need to be strung up from the nearest trees

[Helga Scow Stern]

17. You've got that right.

[Helga Scow Stern]

18. Please nominate this! It is damned important. n/t

[tommcintyre]

23. Good idea, but damn! I just missed the 24 hour deadline. n/t

[Amaryllis]

33. You could start a new thread with it.

[tommcintyre]

37. I'm definitely considering it...

should DUers from the appropriate State blast some emails at them (and their bosses - Governors) letting them know we not only expect them to NOT oppose this type of Federal legislation; but actually SUPPORT it?

If someone wants to collect the appropriate email addresses, I would be glad to set up a blaster like one of the following for it:

http://www.independentmediasource.com/voteintegrity.htm

http://www.independentmediasource.com/voteintegrity_tell_cspan.htm

http://www.independentmediasource.com/other_email_tools.htm

[NationalEnquirer]

20. Why am I not surprised.. n/t

[femme.democratique]

36. Bottom line: Federal Elections, Federal Regulation

The argument for states rights in this case are weak. State elections can be handled uniquely by each state, but federal elections....well, Katherine Blackwell has abused that privilege!