HR811 Markup - If You Want REAL ELECTION AUDITS, Now is the Time to Ask for Them!

[Wilms]

Please K&R this thread.

If You Want REAL ELECTION AUDITS, Now is the Time to Ask for Them!

by Howard Stanislevic

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

To learn why H.R.811 needs to be amended to allow probability-based audits, click here. Then come back to this post and take action!

Tell the House Administration Committee you want the States to be able to conduct more effective audits of federal elections than provided for by H.R.811 -- audits to actually CONFIRM THE OUTCOMES of ALL federal elections independently of software.

We are trying to get alternative audit language into Holt's bill, but there is no assurance that this will occur. The current language that allows for more "effective" audits is too vague to be interpreted by NIST or the courts. It was not written with an understanding of how to confirm election outcomes with audits, or an understanding of statistics or sampling. The following language, written by Larry Norden, Dr. Mark Lindeman, Dr. Ron Rivest, and me, addresses this problem and will allow the States to audit elections much more effectively than H.R.811 for about the same cost. Without it, the states may be handcuffed by Holt's language which would result in audits that fail to confirm the outcomes of many federal elections. We can do better!

Tell the House Admin. Committee to replace the language in the "Use of Alternative Mechanism" section in H.R.811 at the mark-up session tomorrow, March 29 with the following language -- but this has to be done ASAP!:

"(b) Use of Alternate Mechanism – Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State may adopt and apply an alternative mechanism to determine the number of voter-verified paper ballots that will be subject to the hand counts required under this subtitle with respect to an election, so long as the National Institute of Standards and Technology determines that the alternative mechanism is as transparent as the procedure under subsection (a) and is consistent with the guidelines set forth in Section X.

Section X -- GUIDANCE ON BEST PRACTICES FOR ALTERNATIVE AUDIT MECHANISM. Not later than May 1, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall establish guidance for States to establish alternative audit mechanisms. Such guidance shall be based upon scientifically reasonable assumptions for the purpose of creating an alternative audit mechanism that will:

(a) ensure with at least 99% statistical confidence, for each federal election held in the state, that a 100% manual recount would not alter the electoral outcome; or

(b) be at least as effective as section 322(a) in ensuring, for each federal election held in the state, that a 100% manual recount would not alter the electoral outcome."

The House Administration (full committee) is planning to markup Rep. Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (HR. 811) on Thursday, March 29th at 10am. Any letters in support of or opposition to this bill should be addressed to House Administration and faxed to them today or tomorrow so they can be inserted in the Record.

The fax numbers for the committee are listed below. The letters can be the same letters you have been sending to your Congressional delegation, simply readdressed to Chairwoman Millender-McDonald and Ranking Member Ehlers.


Members of the Committee on House Administration

Democrats – Fax Number 202-225-7664

Republicans – Fax Number – 202-225-9957

Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, CA-37,
Chairwoman

Rep. Vernon Ehlers, MI-3,
Ranking Member

Rep. Robert A. Brady, PA-1st

Rep. Dan Lungren, CA-3

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, CA-16th

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA-22

Rep. Mike Capuano, MA-8

Rep. Charles Gonzalez, TX-20

Rep. Susan Davis, CA-53

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-you-want-real-election-audits-now-is.html

[Einsteinia]

1. This is what I said. . . .

Subject: Amend HR 811

Members of the Committee on House Administration

Attn: Chairwoman, Millender-McDonald
and Ranking Member Ehlers

Dear Honorable Members:

Please consider, and enter into the record, the following issues that require amendment in HR 811 before moving forward:

1. REQUIRES computerized voting; specifically, not only does it allow computerized voting, but it requires it by insisting on computerized features; and, thereby, it explicitly precludes any low-tech non-computerized innovation, as well as elections exclusively conducted with hand-counted paper ballots.

2. Sets the oversight of elections under the Presidency; specifically, it strengthens the role of the politically appointed US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in combination with HR1381 to consolidate and strengthen power under the executive branch of government.

3. Exposes votes to internet mischief; specifically, HR811 permits network connections to election management systems, allowing remote manipulation of election results.

4. Defines Unproductive Audits; specifically, HR 811 asks for audits that are ineffective, administratively burdensome, and costly

5. Necessitates multi-millions in an unfunded mandate; specifically, there is curious language REQUIRING computerized ballot “read-back” technology that does not even yet exist

Thank you for not "throwing out the baby with the bath water," but instead making these necessary amendments.

Respectfully,

[Bill Bored]

2. Not bad, but how exactly does HR811 strengthen the EAC?

I realize this was a big problem with HR 550, but what do you think HR 811 does to strengthen the EAC? (Note that the EAC already has the power to certify, decertify and recertify any voting equipment they want for federal elections. HR 811 prevents them from certifying paperless ones and it gives the EAC no authority to conduct audits as HR 550 did.)

Please explain.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. thanks

I thank you for wanting to improve and not kill the bill.

And, I am a big fan of Howard's.

:applause: