Getting rid of HAVA altogether

[BeFree]

So, the leaders still say that HCPB is a no go. Of course, only a few leaders expressed an opinion about that... maybe they are for HCPB but afraid to say so?

So, all we have to protect us is HR550, an amendment to HAVA, a bill which may not pass, and if it doesn't pass, we are right back where we were in 2004.

What if we try get rid of HAVA? What if we make a stink about the money wasted, the crappy machines HAVA has bought and everything else HAVA is bad about?

At least we get attention focused on HAVA, and at best it never gets passed again.

All that would be left is HCPB.

[diva77]

1. The only reason I have ever heard for opposing HCPB is that people are

impatient to get the results asap. How 'bout a survey to determine where/how many of the impatient ones actually exist...

[Wilms]

2. Good one.

We can walk up to any idiot and ask, Do you want an accurate election, or one with near instant result?

Like accessibility. I'm a big supporter, but I gotta wonder sometimes.


Survey: Disabled prefer absentee ballots

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x422273

[nicknameless]

4. Canada hand counted all of their paper ballots within 4 hours.

(That stat was from the election prior to the last one. I haven't heard how long they took last time)

Australia counted within 5 hours.

With all of the disasters and complaints stemming from the use of our vote-trashing machines, we're obviously not saving time by using them.

[Patsy Stone]

5. That line was always a crock

How long did we wait for the Iraqi results? Who needs to know that day? Last I checked, we had until January 20th before it was imperative to find out the winner.

[BeFree]

12. Speaking of surveys

Wouldn't it be nice to have a professional poller take the pulse of America with a poll finding out who trusts e-voting?

[Land Shark]

3. and the majority of the disabled will still not be served

some things are simply being done in the name of the disabled; or maybe this is just the only "liberal" law being aggressively enforced by the Bush DOJ? I don't know...

[Wilms]

8. I've been thinking about it, lately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x422273#424025

[Steve A Play]

10. It's not that hard to understand

Have Diebold throw a million bucks to Jim Dixon's group (AAPD) to help "change the publics perception of the problems" :(

Who cares if it actually helps most disabled people as long as you get your slice of the 3.9 billion dollar HAVA pie! Everyone's happy! Right? :shrug:

Good for Government, good for business.

[Wilms]

11. There I'll have to ask for a citation.

I've been unsure of this whole AAPD/Diebold thing having seen varying reports.

What I read includes the following jumble:

Money to settle an ATM lawsuit prior to Diebold getting into election systems.

Money to another group

$26K

$1MM

Can you help solve that?

[nicknameless]

6. HAVA should be overturned.

It has wasted billions of dollars ... so far.
The maintenance costs for these machines -- especially the DREs -- are outrageous.
The machines are useful only for those who oppose clean elections.

HCPB is the ONLY answer -- AT LEAST for major races and issues.

[BeFree]

13. Federal elections can be/are controlled by congress

So you have three races at the federal level. Easily done with HCPB. No need to continue to throw billions thrown down the federal HAVA rat-hole, and states can do what they want with their elections. They can ask congress to finance their black boxes. Let them make their case.

Lets not forget HAVA was cooked up by the soon-to-be-departed Delay.

Delay is one small step from hell, and HAVA needs to be right behind him, riding his coattails.

[FogerRox]

7. You make some good points.

Ive been tossing around the idea of citizen lobbysts.

And a project for the ER Forum to tackle. That is somehow relavant to campaign '06.

Campaigns can run on Issues, right? So here is my nomination for the issue of Campaign '06: HAVA. Yeah sure, HAVA. Bunches went to DC recently to lobby. This is what citizen's do. It is their civic duty, it must be so, for a working democracy.

[EFerrari]

9. I have been making myself obnoxious locally, on Guv's model.

There are party leaders and Supes reading Mark's book. We're trying to beat the drum for Debra Bowen. And the next step is to hook our local guys up with Guv directly. It takes a little time but that's all right.

You can't just run up to your city fathers, grab their lapels and scream "WAKE THE FUCK UP!"

Or, it doesn't seem prudent.

lol

[BeFree]

14. Why not HAVA?

Can we get organized enough to take a stab at it?

Is there a congressman alive who wants to cut wasteful federal spending? Any other groups? HAVA is a heck of a lot of money. Seems like cost cutters could start right away on HAVA.

HAVA led us down this path of marriage to e-voting. It's Time for a divorce.

[autorank]

15. Excellent resource for help ing people get rid of HAVA

I second that emotion.

Go here on "Scoop"

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm

also on DU, from althecat of "Scoop"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x971363

I posted a notice at the end of the article lifting any copyright restrictings for reproduction. Go to the "Scoop" link, then clinck on the "print" option. That's the copy to send around full text, otherwise use the link above. It's an excellent resource and Land Shark is dead on target with his thinking on HAVA, as dead on as .... you know ... was on election fraud.


From:

Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA

Thursday, 20 April 2006, 10:44 am
Article: Michael Collins
SIMPLE QUESTIONS -- TROUBLING ANSWERS
Q&A Session with a Commissioner of the Elections Assistance Commission
Reveals Massive Violations of Citizen Rights
Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy

Special Report for “Scoop” Independent Media
First in a Series on HAVA and the EAC
by Michael Collins
Washington, DC



CITIZEN ACTION NOW

The EAC may have opened up the opportunity for civil rights litigation against government officials, forcing this dark age for democracy and leaving no basis for public confidence in elections. Concerning the civil rights of citizens, the United States Code says:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…

- United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Civil Rights, Subchapter I-
Generally. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.

When deprived of their rights by statute, regulation, or other means, individuals or groups of citizens can take their case to court. Citizens can defend democracy by reminding their elected officials and their bureaucratic employees of two important points. First, governments are instituted solely to secure and protect the rights and well-being of citizens. Second, it is the role of elected officials to be the guardians of democracy at all times. The necessary effects of EAC- and HAVA-driven purchase contracts for DREs should be noted clearly. If you complain about losing your rights through DRE secrecy and your government officials persist in instituting technology with secret vote counting, their behavior constitutes a violation of public rights that is then intentional, not simply negligent, because you have put them on notice. A certified letter pointing out some of the facts and legal realities here or those located in the complaint in the following link should suffice for starters and can be adapted to your jurisdiction by a lawyer if a lawsuit becomes necessary. Check and inquire about your state law as part of the process. See www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (complaint link).

The author asked Lehto to share his advice to citizens as they approach politicians and bureaucrats to demand their rights. This first article in a series on affronts to freedom through the evisceration of the voting traditions and practices ends with his comments:

If you are asked by elections officials what gives you the right to watch over the elections that grant all the legitimate power and money the government ever gets, and why a government official shouldn’t be trusted to count secretly the processes that determine the government’s own money and power, since you’ve got lots of things to do, just tell them “Thomas Jefferson sent me”. Remind them that our system of government is not based on trust; it’s based on checks and balances.

You will have plenty of energy and time to do these tasks to protect freedom and democracy, if you just remind yourself of what others have sacrificed so that you could enjoy democracy, and consider whether we have the right to allow democracy to literally disappear on our watch by our inaction. Then you’ll be a sentinel of democracy, one of democracy’s real defenders.
- Paul Lehto April 18, 2006

****** END ******

Contact for Paul Lehto. [e-mail]

Copyright notice: Please copy this article and distribute it freely with attribution to Michael Collins to anyone wishing to understand the reality we must confront to restore fair and open elections and democracy in the United States.

Editorial support provided by Jillian Hayroot.

[PeterPan]

16. HAVA already happened

HAVA is not a renewable or ongoing legislation - it doesn't need to "pass again". It passed in 2002, the bulk of the money appropriated has been disbursed to states, the dealines for implementation were Jan. 1, 2006 (though several states like NY failed to meet the deadline and are being threatened with lawsuits by the DOJ). There won't be another HAVA. Sadly, appealing though it might be we can't "get rid of HAVA", just like we can't "get rid of the invasion of Iraq". They already happened and, in both cases, we are suffering the consequences.

[BeFree]

17. Thanks, PeterPan

I was sitting here thinking I need to research HAVA more. Thanks for your's. Have ya got any more info?

From what you have said, it seems the $$$ has run out.... is that it? What about another appropriation? 550 has some money in it, forget how much.

Lets say there is no mo $$$. That means the machines now in place in my jurisdiction (which are leased) will not be funded again?

So after this election no federal funding will be available for another lease? That will p/o some of the folks at my BoE.

If true, that means HAVA was a one-shot deal.... good enough for several elections... just enough to steal two cycles and then let the money for the expensive machines run out?

Some how, I don't see that happening. There will be much wailing from BoE's if they get cut off of the free HAVA money next year.

[PeterPan]

23. HAVA was a once in lifetime windfall

for the voting industry - and they knew it. There was NO incentive to develop "better" machines and tons of incentive to sell the crappy machines they had - and to enter into contracts that they now can't fulfill (see PA, OR, etc.) and a ton of incentive to sell DREs which are vastly more expensive to maintain - creating an ongoing cravy train as evidenced across the country by counties that made the error of purchasing them.

In a perverse way, it may result in paper based election eventually - if we last long enough. All these compuetrs are going to break down (they alreay are) and when perennially financially-strapped counties are faced with replacing expensive voting systems with more expensive voting systems, without federal assistance, they may look favorably on less expensive and more reliable and accurate paper ballot optical scan systems. Wishful thinking perhaps...

The money appropriated (and remember appropriation and authorization are two different things - of the $3.8 million appropriated in HAVA, only $3 billion has ben authorized) in HR 550 is intended for those jurisdictions that spent their HAVA funds on paperless systems that need to be retrofitted or replaced with opscans to meet the requirement in the bill that all voting systems produce or require the use of a voter verified paper record of every vote.

To reiterate the funding available through HAVA for upgarding voting systems is already allocated. There is no more money coming from the federal government through HAVA, unless it is amended and further funding is appropriated and authorized.

[nicknameless]

18. But there are still provisions in HAVA that Counties are required to

comply with. Not all of them have HAVA-compliant machines in place. A lot of Counties are encountering problems with machines not being delivered -- or defective machines being delivered, and misprinted ballots being delivered.

There's the financial aspect of it. Lawsuits are being threatened by the Feds, if Counties don't buy this garbage. But the cost of upkeep is outrageous.

According to what I've read, CA's new voter-purging database was mandated by HAVA.

If HAVA were overturned, CA and other states could get rid of their disastrous machines, and could maintain voter databases that actually allow people to register -- even Democrats.

[PeterPan]

24. The have described the mess very well

HAVA-compliance, ill defined as it is, has not been achieved in all counties. How the DoJ will respond is not clear in all cases. The failure of delivery in many states is a huge problem - its ramifications are unclear, i.e. who is responsible if a county is non-compliant due to what is essentially a breach of contract?

Statewide registration databases were mandated by HAVA (with the exception of North Dakota where there is no voter regitration). the fact that California adopted procedures that resulted in rejecting valid registrations was not mandated by HAVA. Politically motivated voter purges took place before statewide registration databases and before HAVA.

[nicknameless]

26. The voter-purging database was created through an agreement with * and

our SoS. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=419862&mesg_id=419862

And was alleged to have stemmed from HAVA. But legal opinion now says that the SoS can fix it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x424403


On edit: I forgot to mention that the database is being created by .... DIEBOLD!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=419485&mesg_id=419713

[mod mom]

19. HAVA, written in Rep Bob Ney R-OH (really R-Abramoff) office as he chairs

the House Administration Committee. It was another GOP scheme to 1. control the outcome of votes and 2. Funnel vast amounts of money into GOP crony controlled corporations like Diebold, ES & S and Choicepoint to name a few. They gave it a rovian name "Help America Vote Act" which like the "Patriot Act", the name has little to do with the intent, but the name made it difficult to vote against. Who would be against helping Americans vote?

[Land Shark]

20. well, my take is I don't need anyone's help or assistance to vote

unless i'm disabled. so, hava in effect treats us all as "disabled" and needing machine assistance to vote. Gee, when we vote on touchscreens that's exactly the case.

[mod mom]

22. Do you support HCPB?

[BeFree]

21. Indeed, who would be against helping?

Seems we have a name for our movement!

Think about it... our issue is helping America vote, plus, help America count the vote Act, yes?

All the ideas.... a week long period to vote, a federal holiday, citizen accounting, same day registrations; all the ideas rolled into what we could begin to label as Helping America Vote.

We put it all together, poll DU members and use that vote as a democratic means of finding the best workable bill, write the bill up and start shopping it to our congressmen and women.

We can steal their label - but use it for far better means - and instead of getting rid of HAVA we just get it rewritten?

[PeterPan]

25. Ney had some help

The bill was co-authored by Ney (R-OH), Rep. Hoyer (D-MD), Sen. McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Dodd (D-CT).

No doubt the bill encouraged the purchase of DREs, though many states used HAVA money and still maintain statewide paper ballot optical scan systems (IDaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Alaska, Alabama, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, now New Mexico, etc.)

That money benefitted primarily: ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, and to a lesser extent AVS, Danaher, MicroVote, and others.

A majority of states either already had statewide voter registration databases or developed such databases within their state administration rather than contracting with a vendor.

Some states inetrated their database with the same vendor that provided voting techology - primarily Diebold and ES&S.

Contracts for statewide databases went to the following corporations: Accenture, Convansys (working with Aradyme and PCC Tech), Saber Consulting,Maximus,and Quest.

An out of date but nonetheless useful state-by-state list is available at electionline:
http://www.electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=288