Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 2-13-07: Agreement among groups as to... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Site_admin
Post Number: 662
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 2:48 pm: | 
|
Heavy lifting has been performed by many election integrity group leaders to reach agreement and propose language for revisions to current election reform legislation.
http://www.votersunite.org/info/HR811EssentialRevisions.htm
The following organizations and individuals agree:
Organizations - alphabetical order
- Black Box Voting
- Coalition for Voting Integrity (PA)
- Florida Fair Elections
- New Yorkers for Verified Voting (NYVV)
- Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections (SAFE)
- Voter Action
- VotersUnite
- Voting Integrity Alliance of Tampa Bay (VIA Tampa Bay)
Individuals
Teresa Hommel (www.wheresthepaper.org)
John Washburn, Certified Software Quality Engineer
Essential Revisions to HR 811
The groups and individuals endorsing this statement commend Congressman Rush Holt for all that is excellent in HR 811, the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007" -- such as the ban on wireless communications, requirements for disclosed source code and hand audits, and the mandate that testing labs be contractually independent from vendors. However, we cannot, with good conscience, give our endorsement to HR 811.
We believe we have a duty to call attention to the bill's unacceptable shortcomings and to call for the needed amendments.
1) We strongly object to the co-opting of the term "paper ballots," by inaccurately applying that term to a DRE printout (often called a "voter verified paper trail" or just a "paper trail").
The bill must be amended to require real, firsthand voter-marked paper ballots (counted by hand or by optical scanner) and to ban the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems, which have proven themselves to be dangerously unreliable and only produce secondhand machine-printed paper trails that require voter-verification as a separate step by each voter.
Florida's Congressional District 13 race and the report of conflicts between the paper trail records and the electronic ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are only two recent examples of how elections using DRE technology cannot be trusted and how confusing the technology can be to voters. Evidence overwhelmingly confirms that, even with the addition of a voter-verified paper audit trail, DREs cannot be made to serve our nation's need for universal citizen enfranchisement. It would constitute a grievous error to further codify the use of DRE systems, as is currently done by the redefinition of "voter verified paper ballot" found at the beginning of HR 811's Section 2(a)(1).
We believe that all voters should have equal access to accurate, secure, meaningfully observable, and verifiable election systems. DREs have been touted as providing this kind of election system, but America’s experience with hundreds of documented DRE failures and thousands of voters disenfranchised by them proves otherwise.
Any voter required to use a DRE is at once relegated to second-class status, given that other voters can vote on voter-marked paper ballots. Evidence shows that voter-marked paper ballots, combined with existing ballot-marking interfaces, provide both equity and parity to disabled and language minority voters in full compliance with ADA and HAVA.
Banning DREs would encourage the use of voter-marked paper ballot systems — currently available and deployed in many jurisdictions — and would provide America with a fair, consistent, unified, and superior method of conducting elections.
Conversely, HR 811 as written would require upgrading or replacing all DREs currently deployed and would foster a fresh round of DRE technology development, rushed to market and certain to continue the technology's historical pattern of disenfranchising voters as well as wasting taxpayer dollars.
Recommended revisions:
In the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(A)(i), after "created through the use of a ballot marking device or system," delete "or a paper ballot produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine."
At the end of subparagraph (i), add "Paper printouts produced by a direct recording electronic voting machine are specifically excluded."
In the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(D), change "voting machine" to "tallying machines", and change "voting-machine-to-voting-machine" to "tallying-machine-to-tallying-machine".
In the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(12)(B)(v), change "voting machine" to "voting equipment".
2) We support continued innovation, and we believe better alternatives will emerge more quickly when DREs cease to distract innovation. To foster this process, the bill must be amended to also allow the development of low-tech innovations to provide accessibility and verifiability to people with disabilities, rather than mandating that such verifiability be accomplished only through computerized means, as HR 811’s proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) currently does.
Recommended revisions:
Change the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(3)(B)(ii) to:
"(ii) meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) and paragraph (2)(A) by using a system that allows the voter to privately and independently verify the selections marked on the permanent paper ballot itself."
and delete subparagraphs (I) and (II).
In the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(13), regarding readability requirements for paper ballots, after "clearly readable by the naked eye," change the remainder of the paragraph to:
"and verifiable by a device equipped for voters with disabilities and minority-language needs."
3) Studies show that most voters do not verify the "paper trail" of their ballot, printed by a DRE. By contrast, voter-marked paper ballots are inherently verified by the voters, and thus provide a true record of voter intent. Since all computerized counting methods (including optical scanners) are vulnerable to error, statistically significant audits, conducted by hand counting the paper ballots, are essential for all elections counted by software.
All recounts must also be conducted by hand counting the paper ballots. However, as currently written, HR 811 (unlike its predecessor HR 550) contains a loophole that would allow hand counting to be bypassed in some situations when the hand counting is most important. HR 811 Section 327 provides an exemption from the audit requirements for an election in which a recount is triggered by State law due to a narrow margin. So, if the State only requires a machine recount, the election would be exempted from all hand counting of that narrow race.
HR 811's proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(B) must be amended to require all recounts to be conducted by hand-counting the paper ballots (as HR 550 did), including recounts mandated by State laws for races with narrow margins.
Recommended revisions:
At the end of the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(B)(iii), after "true and correct record of the votes cast", add ", and" and delete "and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used."
Add the following subparagraph to HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(B):
"(iv) the individual permanent paper ballots produced pursuant to subparagraph (A), and subject to subparagraph (D), shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used."
4) There must be no undisclosed voting system software. However, HR 811's proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(9), as currently written, fails to exempt software that is truly Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) from public disclosure. The bill must be amended to require true COTS software, such as the Windows operating system and standard printer drivers, to be escrowed and available to officials under confidentiality, but not publicly disclosed.
Recommended revisions to the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(9):
After "The appropriate election official shall disclose" insert "all system documentation and".
After "executable representation of the voting system software" delete "and firmware" and add ", firmware, and modified off-the-shelf (MOTS) software".
At the end of the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(9), delete the period and insert ", except that the system documentation, source code, object code, and executable representation of unmodified Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software shall be disclosed only under confidentiality agreement to persons authorized by the State."
5) Connecting voting system components to the Internet or transmitting system information over the Internet facilitates hacking. However, HR 811's proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(11), as currently written, would allow the central Election Management System (EMS) computer of a voting system to be connected to the Internet. The EMS computer of a voting system is arguably the component most critical to protect from Internet connection.
The bill must be amended to ban all Internet connections for all components of a voting system. In addition, the bill should include a ban on the Internet transmission of voted overseas ballots referenced in HR 811's proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(C).
Recommended revisions:
Change the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(10) to:
"No component of any voting system shall be connected, either directly or indirectly, to the Internet at any time."
In the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(C), after "the requirements of such Act and this Act,"
delete "except that to the extent that such protocols permit the use of electronic mail in the delivery or submission of such ballots, paragraph (11) shall not apply with respect to the delivery or submission of the ballots."
and add "and are in conformance with paragraph (11)."
6) We believe that the EAC has failed every part of its mission statement. We do not support extending the authorization of the EAC permanently. However, it isn't feasible to remove the EAC without having a structure in place to fill the gap. Therefore, the bill must be amended to extend the authorization through 2008 only, with provisions that enable and encourage the proactive oversight of the EAC by Congress and the public.
Recommended revisions:
In Section 4 of HR 811, change: "each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2003'' to "each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2008, contingent on the Commission's compliance with Section 202(7)."
Amend HAVA Section 202 by adding at the end:
"(7) publishing a report, submitted to Congress, made available to the public, and posted prominently on the Commission's website on the first day of every quarter, detailing the activities and actions of the Commission for the previous quarter, explaining how those activities and actions relate to the fulfillment of the Commission's duties and deadlines under HAVA, and including an appendix quoting complaints the Commission has received from officials and citizens regarding its activities and actions and the Commission's responses to those complaints."
7) Citizen oversight of the audit process is essential. The bill must be amended to authorize official complaints from the public when the audit process is violated.
Recommended revision:
In the proposed HAVA Section 401(b)(1), after "A person who is aggrieved by a violation of section 301, 302," delete "or" and insert "303, or the requirements of subtitle C of title III".
In addition to these seven essential amendments, we believe HR 811 would be significantly improved by the following.
8) The selection of the audit board should be amended to avoid conflicts with the authority of existing independent election oversight bodies in many states.
Recommended revision:
In HR 811, Section 321(a), change "chief auditor shall appoint" to "the state election oversight body independent of election administration, or where none exists, the chief auditor shall appoint".
9) The bill should state when the audits of precinct ballots should begin, as it does for absentee and provisional ballots.
Recommended revision:
At the end of Section 321(a)(1), add the following:
"The audits shall commence no later than 24 hours after the announcement of precincts selected for the audit."
10) Banning wide area networks would ban modem transmission of results. The bill should allow the use of dial-up or other hard-wire connections, with or without a modem, as long as they are not concealed.
Recommended revisions:
Change the proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(10) to:
"No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, or concealed communications device at all."
We urge the appropriate Congressional committees to incorporate these amendments into HR 811 and any companion bill introduced into the Senate.
-------------------------------
We, the following election integrity organizations and individuals, endorse the above revisions as vital to ensuring accurate, auditable, accessible, and transparent elections in the United States.
In alphabetical order:
Organizations
---------------------
Black Box Voting
Coalition for Voting Integrity (PA)
Florida Fair Elections
New Yorkers for Verified Voting (NYVV)
Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections (SAFE)
Voter Action
VotersUnite
Voting Integrity Alliance of Tampa Bay (VIA Tampa Bay)
Individuals
---------------------
- Teresa Hommel (www.wheresthepaper.org)
- John Washburn, Certified Software Quality Engineer |
Bev Harris
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Site_admin
Post Number: 663
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 3:10 pm: |
|
In any endeavor such as this, there will remain some areas of dissatisfaction. Following is an incomplete list of issues that will require further action and or increased vigilance by citizens:
a) The COTS provision, which allows Commercial Off the Shelf components, is still not entirely satisfactory. These COTS components can be used to destroy election integrity, and many obstacles remain to [a] getting the COTS source code on ALL components into escrow in the first place -- actually, this document says "software", not "source code", which is a potential concern; and [b] making sure it is actually the version used in the election, which is an exceptionally challenging task and current remedies lack both the requirement and the means to do this.
b) The EAC provisions are still perilous and will require extreme vigilance on the part of citizens and the US Congress. In addition, the EAC must indeed go away and never come back when the sunset date arrives. This may require an ongoing public education campaign.
c) Citizen oversight of the audit process is simply not meaningful under this bill; however, the extensions to both citizen oversight rights and citizen access to elections information will be best served in separate legislation.
d) If citizen oversight and access to information can be sufficiently improved, the audit measures, while still objectionable to some, can be supplemented to at least improve them.
e) Since ultimate changes may actually take place in the companion bill put forth by the US Senate, citizens and election integrity groups will need to take decisive action to scrap the bill. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3673
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 3:51 pm: |
|
quote:HR 811's proposed HAVA Section 301(a)(2)(B) must be amended to require all recounts to be conducted by hand-counting the paper ballots (as HR 550 did), including recounts mandated by State laws for races with narrow margins.
Consider a slight change--
Delete "for races with narrow margins" as surely we want all recounts done by hand, not just those the State requires "due to narrow margins". (What if a State widened its requirement to include elections where the margin was not necessarily "narrow"--whatever "narrow" means. Shouldn't those recounts also be done by hand? Same for if a certain percentage of recounts is requested by a candidate or for some other reason.) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3674
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 4:02 pm: |
|
quote:e) Since ultimate changes may actually take place in the companion bill put forth by the US Senate, citizens and election integrity groups will need to take decisive action to scrap the bill.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you trying to scrap the bill, or amend the bill? Should different actions be directed at the Senate than the House?
Is the idea to:
Amend the House bill AND
Scrap the Senate bill?
And/or, to scrap them both if the requested amendments aren't made?
It's a great document, good work by all involved; don't mind my nit-picking/questions. |
Bev Harris
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Site_admin
Post Number: 664
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 4:45 am: |
|
Sorry, should read:
quote:e) Since ultimate changes may actually take place in the companion bill put forth by the US Senate, IF THESE CHANGES DON'T SHOW UP IN THE SENATE VERSION, citizens and election integrity groups will need to take decisive action to scrap the bill.
I'll bet you the changes don't show up in the Senate version and never show up in the House version either.
The PFAW contingent is holding on to DREs for dear life, and they want that billion-dollars worth of text converters which, by the way, are currently vaporware. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5889
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 6:09 am: |
|
Senator Nelson (not Senator Feinstein, as some had expected) has put forth the senate version of the bill --
Text has not been released -- Watch it like a hawk to see if improvements are in it!
They had the information. If the Essential Revisions are not found in S 559 when they finally release the text, it's because someone didn't want it in there. It will be important to find out who.
S.559
Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot under title III of such Act, and
for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] (introduced 2/13/2007)
Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 2/13/2007 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Text not yet available but the bill is S-559
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.559:
Article on it:
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=269248
...
Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over the instruments of government we have created.
|
Patricia Gracian
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Patginsd
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:19 am: |
|
Are there any teeth in it?
E.g., if internet connections are found, or any other portion of this bill is not followed, upon such discovery, there shall be an automatic and immediate hand count of ALL paper ballots in the districts where the bill was not followed. All such mandated recounts must happen BEFORE any certifications or installation ceremonies are allowed. |
Bev Harris
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Site_admin
Post Number: 665
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 8:28 am: |
|
Thanks, Patricia.
Heck no, there are no teeth in it. And watch:
They won't even be able to muster the backbone to implement these toothless but essential revisions. |
Bev Harris
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Site_admin
Post Number: 675
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 2:26 pm: |
|
How a bill becomes a law
Now that Holt and Nelson have introduced their bills, you may be wondering what the process is to change the bill and move it along.
Here is a synopsis from About.com:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010899.htm
The Legislative Process
How Bills Become Laws or Not
Each session, the United States Congress considers thousands of bills.. Yet, only a small percentage of them will ever reach the top of the President's desk for final approval or veto. Along their way to the White House, bills traverse a maze of killer committees and subcommittees, debates, and amendments in both chambers of Congress.
The following is a very simple explanation of the typical process required for a bill to become a law. This is about as basic as it gets and Congressional gurus will find some details missing. If you would like a complete, detailed explanation, a great research source is... "How Our Laws Are Made" (Library of Congress) Revised and Updated by Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives. Many of the reference links below come from this great Web resource.
But here are the basics...
Step 1: Introduction
Anybody -- you, me, the President, can write a bill; but only a member of Congress (House or Senate) can introduce the bill for consideration. The Representative or Senator who introduces the bill becomes its "Sponsor." Other legislators who support the bill or work on its preparation can ask to be listed as "Co-sponsors." Important bills usually have several Co-sponsors.
Four basic types of legislation are considered by Congress: Bills, Simple Resolutions, Joint Resolutions, and Concurrent Resolutions.
A bill or resolution has officially been introduced when it has been assigned a number (H.R. # for House Bills or S. # for Senate Bills), and printed in the Congressional Record by the Government Printing Office.
Step 2: Committee Consideration
All bills and resolutions are "referred" to one or more House or Senate committees according their specific rules.
Standing Rules of the US Senate
Rules of the US House of Representatives
House Committees
Senate Committees
Step 3: Committee Action
The committee considers the bill in detail. For example, the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee consider a bill's potential impact on the Federal Budget. "Can we afford this thing?"
If the committee approves the bill, it moves on in the legislative process. Committees reject bills simply by not acting on them. Bills that fail to get committee action are said to have "died in committee." Many do.
Step 4: Subcommittee Review
The committee sends some bills to a subcommittee for further study and public hearings. Just about anyone can present testimony at these hearings. Government officials, industry experts, the public, anyone with an interest in the bill can give testimony either in person or in writing. Notice of these hearings, as well as instructions for presenting testimony is officially published in the Federal Register.
Step 5: Mark Up
If the subcommittee decides to report (recommend) a bill back to the full committee for approval, they may first make changes and amendments to it. This process is called "Mark Up." If the subcommittee votes not to report a bill to the full committee, the bill dies right there.
Step 6: Committee Action -- Reporting a Bill
The full committee now reviews the deliberations and recommendations of the subcommittee. The committee may now conduct further review, hold more public hearings, or simply vote on the report from the subcommittee. If the bill is to go forward, the full committee prepares and votes on its final recommendations to the House or Senate. Once a bill has successfully passed this stage it is said to have been "ordered reported" or simply "reported."
Step 7: Publication of Committee Report
Once a bill has been reported (See Step 6 a report about the bill is written and published. The report will include the purpose of the bill, its impact on existing laws, budgetary considerations, and any new taxes or tax increases that will be required by the bill. The report also typically contains transcripts from public hearings on the bill, as well as the opinions of the committee for and against the proposed bill.
Step 8: Floor Action -- Legislative Calendar
The bill will now be placed on the legislative calendar of the House or Senate and scheduled (in chronological order) for "floor action" or debate before the full membership. The House has several legislative calendars. The Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader decide the order in which reported bills will be debated. The Senate, having only 100 members and considering fewer bills, has only one legislative calendar.
Step 9: Debate
Debate for and against the bill proceeds according to the rules of the House or Senate.
Rules of Consideration and Debate
Step 10: Voting
Once debate has ended and any amendments to the bill have been approved, the full membership will vote for or against the bill. The vote may be a voice vote or a roll-call vote.
Step 11: Bill Referred to Other Chamber
Bill approved by one "chamber" of Congress (House or Senate) are now sent to the other chamber where they will follow pretty much the same track of committee to debate to vote. The other chamber may approve, reject, ignore, or amend the bill.
Step12: Conference Committee
If the second chamber to consider a bill changes it significantly, a "conference committee" made up of members of both chambers will be formed. The conference committee works to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. If the committee cannot agree, the bill simply dies. If the committee does agree on a compromise version of the bill, they prepare a report detailing the changes they have proposed. Both the House and Senate must approve the report of the conference committee or the bill will be sent back to them for further work
Step 13: Final Action - Enrollment
Once both the House and Senate have approved the bill in identical form, it becomes "Enrolled" and sent to the President of the United States. The President may sign the bill into law. The President can also take no action on the bill for ten days while Congress is in session and the bill will automatically become law. If the President is opposed to the bill, he can "veto" it. If he takes no action on the bill for ten days after Congress has adjourned their second session, the bill dies. This action is called a "pocket veto."
Step 14: Overriding the Veto
Congress can attempt to "override" the President's veto of a bill and force it into law, but this requires a 2/3 vote by a quorum of members in both the House and Senate.
That's the "simple" version? You start to wonder how any bills ever become laws. Fact of the matter is, not many do. The 105th Congress (1997-98) considered 13,882 pieces of legislation. A total of 354 became Public Laws. |
Karen R Searle
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Krose
Post Number: 6
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Is the Holt Bill, as is, better than what we have now? I see that all of our "liberal groups" are excited about it, and keep sending petitions for me to sign. Should I sign them? I sent an e-mail to PFTAW, and they wrote back saying that it is better than nothing. What do you think? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3687
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Have a look at Nancy Tobi's recent post here and you decide.
Do you think that federally mandated Ponzi schemes are a good idea?
In my opinion the proposed Holt legislation takes some of the biggest problems with electronic voting and guarantees to make them even worse and makes things even harder to observe or to fix.
There are a few items that are small improvements--but nothing to match the horror show of even more wasted taxpayer money and unending rounds of non-compliant, rushed-development, poorly conceived, impossible-to-test products, and even more elections whose outcomes are questionable and unverifiable. (Yep, even with that so-called audit requirement--the loopholes are large enough to drive a truck through.)
There would be even more places for would-be election manipulators to hide, as the bill requires development of even more all-singing, all-dancing, all-translating technology.
This bill would mandate certain kinds of technology that was ruled out by the committee whose job it was to make recommendations. Someone just ignored their work and re-inserted technical requirements throughout the bill (that info from the ballots be converted to digital format for processing to audio, visual, etc.).
As bad as the current law is, this bill would only make things worse. Just look at what it would do to the EAC, for example. Put our federal elections under the control of 4 presidential appointees. I don't care what president would make these appointments, this is a lousy idea.
Check up some of the other threads here that consider this bill section by section. While there are some sections that are improvements, there are many more that are appallingly dangerous. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 795
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 9:54 am: |
|
Catherine, Karen,
Like nearly any bill, there is SOME good stuff in Holt's new bill. But there are two kinds of problems. 1) There is some horrible stuff in there too. 2) The "something is better than nothing" argument is bogus.
It SHOULDN'T be bogus, but it is. Here's why. When a bill gets passed, it takes on a "Well, now we're done with that" flavor. Doubt that? Look at what happened when HAVA passed, all of a sudden after a holiday weekend, after being mired in committee for the better part of two years. It took on a "Let's see how this works out, before we start monkeying with it" status. In fact, you can almost read that in the four prime sponsors' "Dear Colleague" letter sent by Ney, McConnell, Hoyer, and Dodd to all the rest of Congress.
No, in the unfortunately real world of legislation, the "good" MUST BE the enemy of the "perfect". We need to get this done RIGHT, not RIGHT NOW. People in legislatures simply hate reopening things that have already been "decided". So we have to get a damned near perfect bill done this time. No "half a loaf". No "it's better than nothing". Get the damned thing done right, with as much consensus aa possible. And where no consensus is possible, we need to have a full and fair debate by all stakeholders, and then count votes in Congress, and let the winners win and the losers lose.
But I'll be damned if ANYONE should support another election bill that miraculously comes flying out of a Conference Committee in the seeming blink of an eye again. That's how we got screwed with HAVA.
Full, fair, open debate and deliberative process. Nothing less. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 108
Registered: 09-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 5:33 am: |
|
I'm sure I'm showing my naivete with regard to legislation, but another problem I have with the Holt bill is that it is too big, and it addresses too many issues in one piece. I have been part of a citizen's group providing input on election legislation in Massachusetts. The prototype bills we have produced, and the ones ultimately submitted by the legislators with whom we have been working, are short and address one area per bill, e.g., DREs, audits, accessibility. This makes it much easier to understand what they would do.
Bob |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 796
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 7:46 am: |
|
Bob (read the rest of this with the appropriate level of sarcasm included),
That would require a legslator to KEEP THINKING about an issue after a bill was passed on a given subject. When would they possibly have time to do all that, what with the need to raise funds from the industries that benefitted from the bill they just passed?
But in all seriousness, Bob, if the Mass. legislature will actually do business that way, then you are fortunate to have them. In Pennsylvania, we have a legislature that seemingly can't get an election bill out of a relevant committee without the thing being loaded with every piece of junk imaginable.
Same with Congress. Election bills open a particular piece of the "United States Code". 42 U.S.C. something. When that gets done, oh baby, bar the door! Here comes everything in one bill.
Ever hear of the infamous 60-some pound budget reconciliation bills? |
|
|
