Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Tuesday, 2/13/07

[Melissa G]

Here's to Foger Rox, My Valentine...
for all his Kick Ass work on the Holt Bill and getting Congressman Holt to chat with him on his Diary! :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:
:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

Here's to All the Election Reform Discussion Team that keeps this issue alive and kicking!:kick::loveya:
PS. We need recruits! PM me for details...


Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Tuesday, 2/13/07


All members welcome and encouraged to participate.



Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.


2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.


4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.




Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[Patsy Stone]

1. Here, here!

:toast:

[Melissa G]

15. Indeed, Pats! Always happy to drink a toast with you

Especially toasting Roj and all the great Election Reform Discussion Team! :toast::hi:

[Patsy Stone]

20. One of the best forums on DU!

I lurk, but I love y'all. :)

[Melissa G]

2. Foger's response to Congressman Holt

As Posted on Auto's thread yesterday.. here is Foger who Rox's post
and here is the link to auto's thread ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467567#467570

FogerRox
2. My response
Thank you Congressman Holt for stopping by. (4.00 / 1)
Your reputation of accessibility precedes you.
I out was protesting the Iraq war here in Montclair, just got back home and I see by your answers I have not effectively voiced my concerns or the concerns I have read about on the email lists I subscribe to. Forgive me. I do hope, here, to better clarify those concerns.

Congressman Holt wrote


First, the post states that my legislation does not require optical scan machines to produce a voter-verified paper ballot.


Roger wrote:


HR 811 has a specific opscanner exemption, no audit of paper


1) Congressman I think you missed the direction of stated concern. I understand that HR 811 labels Paper scanned ballots as VVPB. Thats good, very good. But does HR 811 mandate a VVPB audit for paper ballots scanned by optical scanners?


SEC. 2. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT PAPER BALLOT.
(a)(1)(A)`(i) The voting system shall require the use of or produce an individual voter-verified paper ballot of the voter's vote that shall be created by or made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast and counted. For purposes of this clause, examples of such a ballot include a paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand or read by an optical scanner...



I see inspection and verification. I don't see the word audit, I would offer this:


available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast, counted and audited as described in section 322.



Invoking the full weight of the improved "Holt Audit" for all VVPB's, as in section 322, leaves no wiggle room. I would prefer to see this in Section 2 clearly stated.

2)Washington attorney Paul Lehto who sued Sequoia, voiced his concern on the undisclosed software issue thusly.



My take is that the attempt even to escrow the source code will also fail. Analysis on that below (that's separate from open source development)
The Holt bill, while seeming to have a very broad duty on the part of state and local government officials to "disclose" source code and object code (etc) to the federal government, has very weak langage on how the local or state government officials are going to get their paws on all this source code in all jurisdictions in the first place. The relevant text simply states that manufacturers shall provide the appropriate election official with the information necessary for the official to provide information to the Commission . It does not say "all" information, and it does not specify source code, just the amount of "information" necessary for the official to provide some "information" to the Commission.

If the source code is to be disclosed then that trade secret "property" is being lost because it will be disclosed (these trade secrets) to all the world via public request and therefore no longer a secret. So the claim will be made by the manufacturers that (A) because the law abhors a forfeiture, the language should not be interpreted to require them to "forfeit" millions in investment in their view via losing their source code in the first place, and alternatively (B) if the language IS sufficient to command a forefeiture of their trade secret property, then their trade secret "property" worth millions has been subject to a "regulatory taking" such that they should be compensated. Their investment, they will argue, has been nationalized in effect, and they should be compensated handsomely for that.

I will be very surprised if the states and locals get their hands on all source codes for free. Instead, it appears that the local officials obligations to disclose are so broad (they arguably even include the source code on firmware embedded on hardware that the vendors literally don't control) that the state and local officials will be making at least a partial defense of impossibility, and they will probably also add that it was impossible for them to get a hold of the source code from the vendor like Diebold or Sequoia, in addition to the firmware or what have you on all the other hardware parts.

Here again, you'd think Holt II was providing us with source code that would be open, but it is unlikely to happen that way. Sequoia filed a declaration in my case claiming their trade secret investment was around $6M without considering lost profits from their purported 'investment."

Note also that in section 12, the state and local officials are required to document the secure chain of custody of the trade secret software, among other things. While chain of custody is a good thing for the election, this also has the effect of forcing the local government to document that secrecy has been preserved as to the trade secret software, which is the primary argument to destroy a trade secret once it is admitted to exist. This helps make the trade secrecy claims of the vendor stronger as well when they sue for damages or an injunction to stop the disclosure of their trade secrets to anyone not under a confidentiality agreement with them.

------------------------------------------

Compare Section (9)'s broad language for local officials:

9) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS.-No voting system used in an election for Federal office shall at any time contain or use any software not certified by the State for use in the election or any software undisclosed to the State in the certification process. The appropriate election official shall disclose, in electronic form, the source code, object code, and executable representation of the voting system software and firmware to the Commission, including ballot programming files, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, executable representation, and ballot programming files available for inspection promptly upon request to any person.

with section 12's weak language for vendors:

(i) The manufacturer and the election officials shall document the secure chain of custody for the handling of all software, hardware, vote storage media, and ballots used in connection with voting systems, and shall make the information available upon request to the Commission.

(ii) (ed. note: Only criminals not allowed in elections per this section are election, accounting, or computer security fraud criminals, but con men, national security felons, embezzlers and many others are very welcome).

(iii) The manufacturer shall provide the appropriate election official with the information necessary for the official to provide information to the Commission under paragraph (9).




Congressman on your 3rd point, please correct me if I am wrong. Since all DRE's would generate a VVPB, and opscan paper ballots are themselves VVPB. If a state holds a recount because of a close race, said recount will be counting said VVPB. Based on this sentence in Section 327:


Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to waive the application of any other provision of this Act to any election (including the ballot verification and audit capacity requirements of section 301(a)(2))



Am I citing the correct section in describing why no "close race" machine recount will be allowed under HR 811, that all "close race" recounts will be using VVPB as mandated by HR 811?
Previously I had just scanned this, but have now read this fully, sections 322 & 323 seem quite good, these sections are the "Guts" of the "Holt Audit", having a 10% audit rate in a close race is very powerful language. IIRC this is much stronger than HR 550. The "Holt Audit" is what garnered the term "The Gold standard". Now in HR 811 it might be the "Holt Audit" might be the "Gold Standard with decorative Platinum inlays and Diamonds".

After reading VVPB law from 13 states I get the feeling that parts of HR 811 are very well crafted, other parts are not, some are even vague and seem to be teeming with loopholes.

Impeach, Indict.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by: FogerRox @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 20:36:14 PM EST

< Parent | Reply >


Link to blog, to get the whole picture:

http://www.bluejersey.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3976

[Melissa G]

3. Latest version of Holt Bill

Thanks to L. Coyote for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467633
Tuesday, February 6

The Latest Version of the Holt Bill

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has introduced another version of his bill (H.R. 811) to require that all voting systems generate a "voter-verified" paper ballot. It would authorize $300 million for fisacal year 2007 to meet the new requirements. I've commented on the problems with this sort of requirement numerous times in the past, including here and here, and little would be gained by again replaying that debate. Suffice it to say that, whatever problems exist with electronic voting, it remains doubtful at best that attaching a printer will provide a workable and effective solution.

As with previous versions of the Holt bill, there are some good things here, most notably a provision clarifying that individuals may bring private lawsuits to enforce the technology and administration requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Also, the bill would extend the authorization of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Other aspects of the bill, however, are cause for concern.

One is a provision that the paper records aren't just to be used to audit the accuracy of machines, but to "be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount" of a federal election. This is asking for trouble, in my view, in places where the system used to comply with the bill is an electronic system with a paper printout. To take an oft-cited example, 10% of the paper records were compromised in Cuyahoga County's 2006 primary election. That may be an extreme example -- we don't really know since, as far as I can tell, no one's done any kind of systemic study of how often paper printouts are compromised elsewhere. But the reality is that, in any election, there are likely to be some printing problems, caused either by jams, other mechanical problems, or mistakes in loading the paper. It's thus possible that the electronic record may be more accurate than the paper record; yet under this bill, the paper record would control absent "clear and convincing" evidence, to be determined on a machine-by-machine basis.

I've previously noted the difficulties in actually counting the curled-up strips of thermal paper that contemporary DRE-with-VVPAT systems generate, but this is inviting a whole new set of problems and, most likely, post-election litigation. All of this might arguably be worthwhile if voters really checked the paper records ... but what little evidence is available indicates that they seldom do. As I've described here, it's difficult to do with contemporary systems even if one were so inclined.



MORE: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2007/02/latest-version-of-holt-bill.html

[Melissa G]

4. What's wrong with Holt II (HR 811)

What's wrong with Holt II (HR 811)
By Bev Harris
Online Journal Guest Writer


Feb 12, 2007, 01:18


You may have received one of the mass e-mails recently from Common Cause or People for the American Way (PFAW), urging you to support hurried passage of the new Holt bill. Below is a concise list of problems with the bill.

And you should know:

Common Cause and PFAW lobbied for HAVA (Help America Vote Act).


Common Cause and PFAW then lobbied for full funding of the direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine purchases.


Common Cause told its members to support Holt II (HR 811) two weeks before they knew what was going to be in the bill.


PFAW put deceptive bullet points on its Web site regarding the bill (but removed them when Brad Friedman confronted them on the deceptions).


Open Voting Consortium has publicly come out against the bill.


Black Box Voting has publicly come out against the bill.


Brad Friedman has publicly come out against the bill.


Jon Bonifaz (VoterAction.org / Demos) has publicly come out against the bill.


Paul Lehto has publicly come out against the bill.


Democracy for New Hampshire has publicly come out against the bill.


John Gideon of Voters Unite has refused to support the bill.
And there will be more.

Problems with the bill

1. Deceptive language. Calls a paper TRAIL a paper BALLOT.

2. Billion-dollar unfunded mandate: Requires text conversion technology in every polling place. At $7,000 per machine for 185,000 polling places, you do the math. See this article for documentation on the billion-dollar boondoggle.

more...
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1738.shtml

[Melissa G]

5. Civil and Voting Rights Advocates Call on Congress for Significant Reform in Wake of 2006 Flawed Ele

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 12, 2007
2:23 PM

CONTACT: Common Cause
Mary Boyle [phone]


Civil and Voting Rights Advocates Call on Congress for Significant Reform in Wake of 2006 Flawed Elections

WASHINGTON - February 12 - Civil and voting rights groups on Monday detailed systemic problems voters faced during the 2006 mid-term elections and outlined a federal legislative agenda for the 110th Congress to fix them. The forum, "Elections Looking Forward," was sponsored by the Center for American Progress, The Century Foundation, Common Cause and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

"Too many citizens could not vote in this past election either because voting machines weren't working, voter registration systems were confusing or inaccurate, or administrative failures led to unacceptably long lines at the polls." said Barbara Burt, director of election reform programs at Common Cause. "As a country we must do better."

A federal agenda of election reforms aimed at protecting voters and promoting the integrity of elections was released at the event. The document was authored by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Brennan Center and is being co-signed by a number of groups, including Common Cause. The agenda urges expansion of avenues for voter registration, and encourages ways to increase voter turn out and make it easier for citizens to determine their voter registration status.

At the forum, election experts urged Congress to take actions that would:

Expand the avenues for voter registration, encourage increased voter turnout, and make
it easier for citizens to determine their voter registration status.
Decrease the burdens on voters from inefficient or faulty voter registration procedures by
removing technical and other barriers to voter registration.
Enact protections to address security, reliability, accessibility, and usability problems with
electronic voting systems and to increase confidence in our electoral system.
Enact measures to prevent voter disenfranchisement on or near Election Day, including
by those seeking to thwart attempts by eligible voters to go to the polls.
Ensure that our systems of election administration have adequate resources and serve the
voters.
###

[Melissa G]

6. Radio Ralph: Voting Machines

http://www.am850.com/commentary/archives/2007/02/radio_ralph_voting_machines.asp
Radio Ralph: Voting Machines
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

It is a rare occasion when folks from the hinterlands, like those of us who live in North Central Florida, cannot only make decisions better than those from the supposedly sophisticated areas of the state down south, but can also gloat that we were absolutely right and they were absolutely wrong.

I am speaking, of course, about the little matter of voting machines. Four counties in the southern half of the state chose touch- screen voting machines, at a cost of many millions of dollars. Those of us in the northern half of the state, for the most part, chose to go with optical-scan voting machines.

The touch- screen machines do not produce a paper record of the ballot. The optical-scanners do. The touch- screen machines are cumbersome to move in and out of the voting precincts. The optical scanners aren’t. The touch- screen machines cannot be increased in number for elections with big turnouts, without there being huge equipment costs. The optical- scanner voting booths can be increased by adding a small folding table that costs peanuts. The touch- screen machines are a storage nightmare. The optical-scanners take up very little storage space, because they fold up into tiny tables.

And – and this is a big “and” – the touch-screen machines are very expensive. The optical-scanners are cheap.

People make slightly more mistakes with the optical-scanners than with the touch machines, but the mistakes can be corrected or checked later, because there is a paper record.
more...
http://www.am850.com/commentary/archives/2007/02/radio_ralph_voting_machines.asp

[Melissa G]

7. Groups call for e-voting paper trail legislation

Groups call for e-voting paper trail legislation
Problem is urgent but some say that other factors are equally to blame for slidshod voting procedures

By Grant Gross, IDG News Service

A coalition of voting rights groups on Monday called on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would require electronic voting machines to have printers attached as a way to audit the touch-screen results.

But the lack of a paper trail for many e-voting machines was only one problem among many during the 2006 U.S. elections, said speakers at the Elections: Looking Forward conference, sponsored by Common Cause, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups. Many of the problems attributed to e-voting machines were caused by a lack of training for poll workers or administrative mistakes, said Efrain Escobedo, director of voter engagement at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.

Poll workers observed by his group didn't know how to change the paper in machines with paper trails or didn't know how to reboot machines, he said.
Participants in the event also described several other problems not related to e-voting: poll workers demanding photo identification when it wasn't required by law, polling places lacking voting materials in languages other than English, polling places inaccessible to disabled people, and long lines.

But several speakers called on Congress to pass the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, which would require paper trail printouts with touch-screen e-voting machines. Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced the bill Feb. 5, after a similar piece of legislation failed to pass during the 2005-06 congressional session. The Holt bill has 183 cosponsors, close to half of the House of Representatives.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/12/HNevotepapertrail_1.html

[L. Coyote]

8. U.S. House Ethics Counsel Hired: = Former Cuyahoga Prosecutor

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467650

[Melissa G]

9. Vote by mail gets early stamp of approval

Today's editorial
Vote by mail gets early stamp of approval


Our position: General Assembly should authorize study of vote by mail system.


State Rep. Matt Pierce's proposal to let Hoosiers mail in their votes instead of showing up at polls on Election Day merits serious consideration.

Voter turnout in Indiana is consistently low. Only 40 percent of registered voters in Indiana cast ballots in the November election, even with three competitive races for the U.S. House and several close legislative contests. Municipal and school board elections attract even lower numbers of voters, despite the importance of such posts.

Pierce's plan is modeled after vote- by-mail programs already in use in Oregon and Washington. Voter participation in Oregon in November was 30 percentage points higher than in Indiana.
Beyond higher turnout, a case can be made that citizens who have time to study a mail-in ballot and ask questions about unfamiliar races, as opposed to spending a few minutes in a voting booth, are more likely to cast informed votes.

Embracing a vote-by-mail system also would relieve the constant struggle to recruit poll workers, end the old debate about keeping polls open later in Indiana, and eliminate concerns about the accuracy and fairness of voting machines.

more..
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/OPINION/702130325/1002

[Melissa G]

10. Our position: Congress should dump touch-screen voting for optical scan.

A better way

Our position: Congress should dump touch-screen voting for optical scan.


Posted February 12, 2007


Momentum is building in Congress for legislation that would require a paper trail for all touch-screen voting machines nationwide. But there's a simpler, better solution to restore trust in elections.

Dump touch-screens and replace them with optical-scan machines that count ballots that voters complete with a pencil or pen. That's what Gov. Charlie Crist has proposed for Florida, the epicenter of controversy over voting.

Florida rushed to embrace touch-screen voting after the 2000 presidential election debacle in the state, with its infamous hanging chads. Other states followed suit.

More than half of Florida voters now use touch-screen machines, but none operate with a paper trail. That fatal flaw led to the still-contested results in Florida's 13th Congressional District.

more..
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed12107feb12,0,1325526.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

[Melissa G]

11. It's time to pull the plug on high-tech voting systems

COLUMN

It's time to pull the plug on high-tech voting systems

By Wayne M. O'Leary

Sunday, February 11, 2007


About the Author
Wayne M. O'Leary is an Orono writer specializing in politics and economics.
As the world's greatest banana republic cast its election ballots this past November, it became immediately apparent that nothing much had fundamentally altered in the way American democracy carries out its supposedly solemn responsibilities.

On the surface, of course, there was plenty of change. Shiny, state-of-the-art voting technology was everywhere; an estimated 16 million new computerized machines had been installed in polling places nationwide for the 2006 midterms, and one-third of the people going to the polls were expected to have voted electronically by election night.

Sadly, it made little positive difference to the process. The same kinds of problems and irregularities that appeared in the previous several elections (delays, equipment malfunctions, lost votes, long lines, voter confusion, helpless poll workers) reared their ugly heads once more in at least 18 states. From Colorado, Texas and Utah in the West to Ohio, Indiana, Florida and Virginia in the Eastern time zone, tens of thousands of Americans were frustrated in their efforts to exercise their franchise.

SATIRE VERGES ON REALITY
To a remarkable degree, the difficulties encountered on Election Day were accentuated, not ameliorated, by the vaunted high-tech voting systems installed in the wake of the Florida disaster of 2000.
more...
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/insight/stories/070211oleary.html

[Melissa G]

12. Split Decision

Split Decision
By Andy Opsahl
Jan 29, 2007
The 2000 presidential election crisis sent states scrambling to buy direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines to eliminate hanging chads and other paper ballot hazards.

Yet several states endured a recent barrage of bad publicity from DRE voting malfunctions and security vulnerabilities. DRE voting typically allows a citizen to vote by touch-screen. The machine records and counts the votes electronically, which, according to advocates, makes it stunningly accurate and eliminates most voter errors.

DREs potentially resolve common paper-ballot errors, such as voters not voting in a particular race, or voters selecting numerous candidates for one position. However, before the 2006 midterm elections, poll workers in several states had trouble running the machines and often reported voting irregularities.

These difficulties lowered expectations for DRE voting in some communities, but the midterm elections passed without major problems.
http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.print.php?id=103603

[Melissa G]

13. Voting System Standards: An Exchange with the IEEE

Another of my Election reform team Valentines, Bill Bored explains this article at the DU thread here...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467611
Voting System Standards: An Exchange with the IEEE

By Justin Moore and Jeremy Epstein, IEEE members

February 12, 2007

One of the most high-profile engineering issues facing the public today is that of designing, building, and testing electronic voting systems. Just this month the front page of the New York Times carried the story of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) temporarily revoking the certification-granting credentials of a electronic voting
system testing lab. The whirlwind surrounding this issue will only grow as the 2008 elections approach.

We, the IEEE, should be a leader in this area, and on paper it appears that we are. The 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) adopted by the EAC was written almost entirely based on the work of the IEEE Voting Equipment Standards Project (P1583). The IEEE has a member on the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC).

-snip-

However, in reality through these channels we have done nothing but put an official face on entirely insufficient standards and procedures. While the list is long, the most recent instance is one of the most egregious. In December our representative to the TGDC cast the deciding vote against the eminently reasonable recommendations of NIST. These recommendations focused on software independence (SI); in essence, the official voice of the IEEE declared that it was unreasonable to ask the vendors to create a system whose
results could be verified by means other than the vendor's own software. The leadership ability -- and the very reputation -- of the IEEE has suffered as a result.

-snip-

The IEEE Response

Dear Mr. Moore and Mr. Epstein,

-snip-

In investigating your complaint, we have learned that the IEEE-SA Board of Governors, which convenes in late February, will be deliberating on this particular situation and on the representation issue in general. Further, a detailed report from the current IEEE representative on the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee
is expected.

Thank you again for bringing this matter to the attention of the IEEE Presidents.

Sincerely,

Leah H. Jamieson
2007 IEEE President and CEO

[Melissa G]

14. Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes - By Greg Palast

Thanks to the Magnificent ERD Team member kpete for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x197986

Original message
Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes - By Greg Palast
Florida By The Numbers
Al Gore Won Florida in 2000 by 77,000 Votes

Published by Greg Palast February 12th, 2007 in Articles
by Greg Palast

You like numbers?

Here’s how to estimate the effect of spoilage on the election outcome. For fun, let’s take Florida 2000. We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots “spoiled” were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming “spoiled” ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

OK, then, what about “Non-Black” voters, whose votes made up the remaining 46% of the spoilage pile? Well, frankly, you can ignore these, as these voters split their vote somewhat evenly between Gore and Bush. Sticklers wanting a closer exam would note that Gore probably won a majority of these votes as well. Moreover, the only large group of spoiled votes in a wealthy white county occurred in Palm Beach (due to “butterfly” ballots), a rare, rich white group of strongly Democratic voters.

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/#more-1574

[Bill Bored]

16. Voters Unite! Essential Revisions to HR 811 (the Holt bill)!

<http://www.votersunite.org/info/HR811EssentialRevisions.htm>

If you want to endorse this statement recommending amendments to
Representative Rush Holt's bill, HR 811, please email to John Gideon

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").

-snip-

There's a lot more but you have to read the whole thing before you sign it -- (unlike some of those who have been supporting this bill)! :banghead:

Discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467665
and elsewhere in the ER Forum, which is still alive and kickin' after all thanks to Congressman Holt! ;)

[Melissa G]

17. Foger Rox's 2005 voting machine demo movie available online

Thanks to FogerRox for the post and the DU discussion here..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467589

Original message
Finally our 2005 voting machine demo movie is available online


in the midst of fighting the purchase of the Seqoia Advantage in Essex County NJ, The Task Force helped organize a public voting machine demo July 27th, 2005. NJ had only DREs certified for use, we wantd to open up the process and provide impetus for opscans moving forward in the state certification process. 6 Vendors were invited.

Sequoia, with the Edge & Advantage DRE's, Liberty and Avante with their DREs. The section of the movie with the Avante is interesting as many are not familiar with this DRE.




Try clicking on this:

http://fogerrox.blip.tv/file/147600 /

If that doesn't work, go here:

http://fogerrox.blip.tv/
FDR 9-23-33, “If we cannot do this one way, we will

[L. Coyote]

18. COLUMN It's time to pull the plug on high-tech voting systems

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/insight/stories/070211oleary.html

By Wayne M. O'Leary Maine Sunday Telegram Sunday, February 11, 2007

As the world's greatest banana republic cast its election ballots this past November, it became immediately apparent that nothing much had fundamentally altered in the way American democracy carries out its supposedly solemn responsibilities.
On the surface, of course, there was plenty of change. Shiny, state-of-the-art voting technology was everywhere; an estimated 16 million new computerized machines had been installed in polling places nationwide for the 2006 midterms, and one-third of the people going to the polls were expected to have voted electronically by election night.
Sadly, it made little positive difference to the process......

MUCH MORE ....

[livvy]

19. Woot! Woot for Roger, and a K&R for a great thread! nt

[Kurovski]

21. Kick to the top!

Thank you dear Melissa G! And happy V-Day!:loveya:

[Melissa G]

22. Happy V-day to you too, Kurovski!

:loveya::loveya::loveya:

[Melissa G]

23. Way to go Texas Dems! Democratic Party sues state alleging electronic voting glitch

Thanks to TexasLawyer for the post and the DU discussion here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467689

Original message
Democratic Party sues state alleging electronic voting glitch
Democratic Party sues state alleging electronic voting glitch

AUSTIN -- The Texas Democratic Party sued the state's top election official Tuesday alleging that widely used eSlate electronic voting equipment doesn't properly record straight-party balloting.

The federal lawsuit over the voting machines made by Hart InterCivic claims straight-party votes cast with the equipment aren't fully tabulated if the voter goes through the ballot and selects certain candidates down the list as if to "emphasize" a decision.

In those cases, the vote for an emphasized candidate is lost, even though that might be the candidate the voter most wanted to support, said Buck Wood, an attorney for the party and for a Democrat in Madison County who is challenging an election he lost in which eSlate voting equipment was used. The equipment doesn't collect and record votes the same as other voting systems used in the state and thus violates the U.S. Constitution, the Democrats allege.

The Texas secretary of state's office and Hart InterCivic knew of the problem before the eSlate equipment was used in the November general election, Wood said. "They tested these machines. They knew that this was a problem," Wood said.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x467689