Kuninich abandons support for Holt Bill

According to Black Box Voting, Dennis Kucinich has announced via a conference call to Democracyfest that he'll be withdrawing his support from HR 811, also known as the Holt Bill. He also stated that he'll be reintroducing his bill formerly known as HR 6200, which provides for handcounted, paper ballots.

The Holt Bill would in many ways improve the current voting machine situation, but still it further entrenches the current crop of DREs and touchscreens.

As usual, Black Box Voting and BradBlog are on the job.

Amend the Holt Bill

Progressive Democrats of America has an Action Alert on their website where you can write a letter to your Congresscritter telling them you want amendments and changes to the Holt Bill that will ban DRE technology and require paper ballots.

As I've mentioned before, there are lots of reasons to like the Holt bill (HR 811), but it further entrenches the faulty DRE-type voting machines into the election system, AND it does't draw a clear distinction between a paper trail vs a paper ballot. Those are serious defects in the bill as it currently stands. A big enough "but" to keep me from enthusiastically endorsing the bill or signing the petetions being circulated about the issue by MoveOn and PFAW. I would strong support the Holt bill if it were amended as suggested in this PDA Action Alert. Once again, yay for PDA. They consistantly get it right.

These issues are also why Maxine Waters is withdrawing her co-sponsorship of the bill.

And since I've not mentioned it in a few days, here's a reminder to sign the petition asking Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, to investigate election practicies in San Diego that are outlined in this complaint.

The complaint reports on the violations of the certification requirements under state and federal law, the failure to properly test the machines pursuant to official procedures, the policy of undermining the right to vote on paper ballots, and the disregard of basic auditing principles in conducting the required one percent manual tally. - Ken Simpkins

All good reasons for the Secretary of State to take a closer look at the process.

The Holt bill....again.

I've been reading over the Holt bill which has been introduced in the House of Representatives as an amendment to the Help America Vote Act, which sorely needs amending. I'm not finished mulling it over, and I still have questions. You should see my marked up copy of the bill! That said, I think it smells like progress. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Some of the positive aspects include:

• It requires durable, archival quality paper ballots (more on that below)
  
• It addresses the need for a system that can be used by the disabled, non-native speakers, and those with literacy problems.
  
• It prohibits the use of "undisclosed" software in voting systems
  
• It prohibits the use of wireless communication devices in voting systems. (hello? No brainer.)
  
• It requires a chain of custody of the voting machines be tightened up, and that election officicals shall:
  

"ensure that all voting machines and related supplies to be used in the election shall remain secured within storage facilities arranged for by the election official and shall not be removed from such facilities until such time as they are to be delivered to the relevant polling place and secured at the polling place until used in the elections."

Long story short: No Sleepovers.

• It says emergency paper ballots should not only be available, but they are required to post a notice saying you have the right to a paper ballot. These paper ballots are to be treated as regular ballots, and NOT provisional ballots (which sometimes don't get counted, ya know?)
  
• It addresses conflict of interest issues with the voting machine manufactures and testing laboratories.
  
• It provides money to the states for implementation.
  
• It states that elections can not be certified until the audits are complete.
  

It also talks about audit requirements. I need to read this over and study a little more. I'll admit I don't know lots and lots about the current auditing requirements, so I don't have an opinion (yet) on whether this is an improvement or not. It does require each state to have an Election Audit Board comprised of members representing the political parties and one unaffiliated member so there are at least seven members on the state boards.

BUT...

It doesn't abolish DREs, much to my disappointment. I'm not surprised though. I imagine any politician would be hesitant, from a political perspective, to consider flushing away all the money that's been spent on DREs. I still think the voting machine companies should be held accountable for selling us a bill of goods. I want a refund.

Anyway...we still have DREs to deal with, and unfortunately, the bill says that a DRE paper trail is a ballot! That's not a ballot!!! That's a cash register receipt!!! But, it's also not durable, archival paper....which makes me wonder if this bill would end up requiring the DREs to actually print a ballot that would then be hand counted or scanned with an optical scanner. It certainly can be interpreted that way.

"ballots..shall be marked, printed or recorded on durable paper of archival quality capable of withstanding multiple counts and recounts without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots, and capable of retaining the information marked, printed or recorded on them for the full duration of the retention and preservation period called for by title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 or under applicable State law, whichever is longer."

Do you think the "paper trail" from a DRE meets that standard? I don't.

As for other probems with the bill, Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has a list of her objections. I respect Bev and BBV very much, but I don't agree with all of her thoughts on the bill. I do agree that the EAC needs to be impartial and not "scandal-ridden" but if there's going to be federal involvement in elections like everyone's been begging for, there's gonna be a commission or department or agency or board or something. The fact that there's a federal board doesn't equate to a "dictatorship", but it needs to be run fairly, impartially, openly and in a non-partisan manner. As for the "mush" language, that's how most legislation is written, IME. If you read much legislation, you'll see that it's often intentionally vague. Sometimes it's for political cover, and sometimes its just about the need for wiggle room in implementation process. They're leaving the details to the administrators who are supposed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. It's just that it's typical, and to me, not a reason to oppose the bill. And it's not unreadable....it's a version that amends another bill and that's how bills are written....eventually it gets put right into the original bill with strike-throughs on the edits and it's easier to see the context....but for me, that's not a reason to be oppose this bill.

One bill isn't going to solve all the problems in the system. Like it or not, the government runs on incremental change. It's slow. It's plodding. It's maddening. But it's the way it is. People in my circle of election integrity compadres are mostly not very happy about this bill, but after reading it myself I see it as a mostly positive step. It's not the whole trip, by any means (I mean, we still have these damn DREs) but it's progress. I'm not completely sold on the idea of all hand counted, all paper, all the time ballots, and computers are a fact of life. I believe we can use them in our elections, but not carelessly and thoughtlessly as we have thus far.

As I hear others talking about this bill one of their biggest problem seems to be the paper trail vs paper ballot issue, but I think the fact that ballots have to be on durable, archival quality paper that can withstand an audit will make the DRE paper trail obsolete. I would be much happier with this bill if it specifically said that paper trails are NOT ballots. And I'd be much much MUCH happier if the Holt bill said the voting machine manufacturers have to take back their garbage and give the taxpayers a big ol' refund, but I don't see THAT happening anytime soon. This is pretty good for now. It still needs some work, but it's pretty good, and I'm not willing to completely toss out the good, in search of the perfect. I think we can work to improve existing legislation AND fight for hand counted ballots at the same time.

So there's my blah blah blah after a preliminary reading of the Holt bill. Please stay tuned ...

As usual, Brad Blog is the leading source of info on election integrity issues. John Bonifaz was a guest blogger today, and he makes some good points about the Holt bill that was introduced today. Long story short...it needs work. It's not ready for prime time. PFAW endorses it, but I can't agree as long as the bill says DREs with paper trails are good enough. I don't like the touch screens. I want paper ballots. It's ok with me if they're scanned, but they need to be available for recount. Those cash register rolls on the DREs are not ballots.

Here’s the bottom line: The DRE technology is fundamentally flawed for recording and counting our votes. The Holt bill, unless amended, will further codify into law the use of this technology, piling onto the disaster of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act of 2002) a new disaster.

......

We can and we should press for the principled position here: an amendment to the Holt bill that would ban the continued use of DREs and require a real paper ballot. Otherwise, we're going to wake up in 2008 realizing the new disaster we helped to create.