The Count Every Vote Act

[Time for change]

Recommended by People for the American Way:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18049&tr=y&auid=1594985

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, along with others, recently unveiled a sweeping federal election reform bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

The Count Every Vote Act addresses an impressive number of the problems that Election Protection volunteers documented in 2004, and there's good reason for that. People For the American Way and the Election Protection coalition advised the bill's authors after spending weeks and months poring over the incident reports and voter testimonials which EP volunteers helped gather.

I have no legal training, so I am hesitant to recommend this (or any other) bill. However, from what I can tell it looks very good.

You can go to the above link to see a summary of the Act and a link to the full text of the Act. Here are some promising sounding parts IMHO:


To make hand recounts possible everywhere:

Require that all voting systems produce a paper record that can be verified by the individual voter and that would constitute the official record for any recount

To ensure that the counting of our votes is transparent:

Establish new security standards for voting equipment manufacturers, including a ban on using undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems

To prevent the kind of massive voter registration purging in Ohio 2004 that probably put George Bush in the White House:

Allow voters to register and cast a ballot on election day

Require states to act in a uniform and transparent manner when attempting to purge voters from state registration lists

Prohibit election officials from rejecting voter registration applications that are missing information which has no effect on the specific voter's eligibility

And to make election fraud a little less profitable:

Provide for the prosecution of those who engage in deceptive practices to keep people from voting in federal elections

Like I said, I don’t have the legal training to personally vouch for this, but if you want to support this bill you can go here.

[hedda_foil]

1. CEVA is a wholly Dem bill that can go nowhere in this Congress.

Most of it is excellent, but it will never be heard in a Committee of this Congres (2007 could be a completely different matter, but a new bill will have to be introduced for the new Congress.) The VVPB section is the worst part of the bill, as it's based on Dodd's language and is almost completely counterproductive. Both Verified Voting and VoteTrustUSA have analyses of that section of the bill online.

[PeterPan]

3. This is an accurate assessment of the chances for CEVA

in the 109th Congress - just below a snowball's cahnce in hell.

The VVPR language was actually based on a bill from the previous Congress that was introduced by Clinton, Boxer, and Clinton, which in trun was based in part on HR 2239 - an earlier version of the current HR 550. (the "VVPR" language in Dodd's bill S. 17 is much much worse). VoteTrustUSA and VerifiedVoting were allowed to review the VVPR language in CEVA at the last second and we were able to improve it but it still mandates technology that doesn't exist. But that really isn't a problem for a {"message" bill like CEVA. No one, no one in Clinton or Boxer's staff, no one in Congress thinks this bill has any chance of ever even being scheduled. Any bill with Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry's name on it is DOA in teh 109th Congress. This bill was introduced to get a lot of Democratic election issues on the table and to establish Clinton on the record as a champion of those election reform issues.

VoteTrustUSA analysis of Vote Verification Legislation in Congress
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=347&Itemid=377

[Time for change]

4. Thank you for the assessment

I received an e-mail from People for the American Way, calling my attention to this bill.

And they said "This bill is what we've been working toward since November 2, and it needs your support now", with a link to a petition to support it.

So, notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed or even scheduled, do you think that there is value in publicizing it, signing the petition, etc., in order to get the issues on the table and perhaps even to put Republicans in the position of having to oppose it, thereby hurting their chances in November?

[PeterPan]

5. Nothing wrong with supporting it

There's alot of good bills introduced every session that don't move.
For example
Feinstein has a bill to eliminate the Electoral College.
Lautenberg has a bill to prohibit State Election Administrators (mostly SoS) from partisan activity.
Hoyer has a bill that would mandate statewide acceptance of provisional ballots and also addresses public disclosure of voting system software.
Jesse Jackson Jr. wants to establish a constitutional right to vote (a novel idea)
None of these will move.
Republicans don't have to oppose these bills - no one, hardly even any activists, know they exist.
The only bill that has any chance of passage or even discussion is HR 550 - this bill has far more momentum - it has 179 co-sponsors (including 16 Republicans) and it avoids provisions that can be labeled as partisan. EDR or Ex-Felon Enfranchisement WILL result in a Democratic party advantage, Stricter Voter ID provisions WILL result in a Republican advantage. Measures to safeguard the accuracy of vote counting benefits neither party - it only benefits voters. And remember its Democrats that have successfully stopped voter verified paper records in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Georgia.

[Time for change]

6. I have to disagree with one thing you said

that measures to safeguard the accuracy of vote counting benefits neither party.

The voting machine companies are blatantly Republican, they fight tooth and nail to keep their vote counting codes proprietary and against this type of language in the CEVA bill:

Establish new security standards for voting equipment manufacturers, including a ban on using undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems

And, the Republicans are very much against measures that will make our elections transparent.

Why is it, for example, that of 179 co-sponsors for HR 550, only 16 are Republicans?

[PeterPan]

10. The ban on wireless and undisclosed software

is also in HR 550.

The fact that there are 16 Republicans on a bill with 153 Dems (and Bernie Sanders - the total co-sponsorship is now 180 with the addition of Doris Matsui yesterday) speaks volumes. Bills do not typically have 180 co-sponsors.

I guess my point is whether or not the voting machine vendors favor one party or another should not matter. We shouldn't have to trust anyone. The founders of this country did not establish a government based on trust - they may have trusted in God but in matters human they established a system of checks and balances and accountability. I shouldn't have to "trust" my county clerk, Secretary of State or the vendors they enter into contracts with - the entire process should be transparent and observable.

On the subject of Republicans and the vendors. Why are some of the fiercest opponents of verifiable elections Democrats?

Linda Lamone and the state senate leadership in Maryland.
SoS Cathy Cox in Georgia.
SoS Pedro Cortes in PA.
former LtG Peter Harvey in NJ.
SoS Susan Biciewycz in CT.

[Time for change]

11. I absolutely agree with you that we shouldn't have to trust anyone

with regard to our elections.

My disagreement was over your statement that "Measures to safeguard the accuracy of vote counting benefits neither party".

My contention is that if one Party is overwhelmingly the victim of election fraud then measures to safeguard the accuracy of the vote counting will benefit that Party -- in this case the Demcoratic Party.

Wally O'Dell promised to deliver the Ohio election to George Bush in 2004 -- and he did. Measures that would have prevented election fraud in 2004 would have prevented that from happening, and therefore would have benefited the Democratic Party. Same thing with the Georgia Senate and Governor race in 2002, and probably lots of other elections that we don't know about.

The fact that there are some some individual Democrats who oppose transparent elections does not change that. And I cannot explain WHY some individual Democrats oppose transparent elections. I suspect that anyone who opposes verifiable elections has something big to hide.

[Talismom]

8. On the contrary. If the dems acted with some insight and planned

well, they could make such a huge issue out of it and back the pukes against the wall, bringing attention to any unwillingness to insure that all the votes are counted. Call it unAmerican and question their patriotism and support for real democracy at home! If the positions were reversed you know that Rove could find the way to slam the opposition with a few sound bites. Where the hell is that fighting spirit?

[Time for change]

9. I tend to agree with that in general

Just like any other issue, Dems don't have to wait for a bill to be scheduled before they can publicize it. Perhaps the reason that nobody knows about these bills is because the Dems don't make much of an effort to publicize them.

Unfortunately, however, the CM gives us no help on this matter, so it's really an uphill climb for us.

[foo_bar]

2. it's also co-sponsored by Sen. Boxer and Kerry

Representatives from civil rights organizations and voting rights advocates have praised the legislation, including People For the American Way, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, NAACP, Common Cause, the National Voting Rights Institute, DEMOS and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

http://www.johnkerry.com/features/count/
http://ga4.org/campaign/counteveryvote

S. 450
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified
paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements
under such Act, and for other purposes.

‘‘(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY.—The per11
manent voter-verified paper record produced in
12 accordance with subparagraph (A) shall—
13 ‘‘(i) be preserved within the polling
14 place, in the manner, if any, in which all
15 other paper ballots are preserved within
16 that polling place, or, in the manner em
17 ployed by the jurisdiction for preserving
18 paper ballots in general, for later use in
19 any manual audit;
20 ‘‘(ii) be suitable for a manual audit
21 equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting
22 system; and
23 ‘‘(iii) be available as the official record
24 and shall be the official record used for
25 any recount conducted with respect to any
1 Federal election in which the system is
2 used.’’.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s450is.txt.pdf

Sounds good to me, but gary got flamed by the end-it-don't-mend-it school of thought.

[Time for change]

7. I decided to sign the petition - and here's why

As hedda_foil and PeterPan and foo_bar explain above in this thread, most of the bill is excellent, and it is widely supported by civil rights and voting rights organizations -- though it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passage in this Congress.

So apparently, organizations like People for the American Way are urging support for this bill now because they want to help get the issues on the table and because they want to see how much support there is out there for these issues. By signing the petition we can help them to accomplish those goals.