HOLT'S RESPONSE!: MARK IT UP! [View All]

[Bill Bored]

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2243

HR 550

I’d like to start with two words: thank you. I deeply appreciate your commitment to open, honest, and auditable elections. I also appreciate your recognition of H.R. 550’s great promise and good intentions. For several years, I have been working on this issue with an army of citizens, voting experts, and computer scientists from across the country, and H.R. 550 is the product of their thoughtful analysis, hard work, and grassroots advocacy.

I know that others in the election reform community have already addressed your concerns in detail, but I wanted to take a moment to just reinforce a few key points. For more detailed comments, people should read analyses by Verified Voting and VoteTrustUSA.

I will just make four points of rebuttal, and then a comment. Before I do, however, I would ask that you join me in urging the House Administration Committee to mark-up H.R. 550 immediately. If the House takes no action at all, the 2006 elections – and perhaps the 2008 elections – will once again be un-audatible and un-verifiable. H.R. 550 is by far the strongest bill on the table, and blocking committee action on it is a surefire strategy to maintain the status quo.

A few points:

1) Neither the EAC nor a state may pick and choose where audits will be conducted. Selection of precincts for audit must be done at random. In other words, the EAC has no authority here. H.R. 550 is explicit on this point.

2) An audit is not the same as a recount. A recount seeks to determine the actual results of an election. By contrast, an audit ensures proper functioning of a voting system by spot-checking its tally against the voter-verified paper records. By testing randomly, an audit deters malfeasance because potential bad actors won’t know which 2% of precincts could be audited. If discrepancies are found, a larger audit follows, and potentially a recount.

3) H.R. 550 does not open the door to EAC contracting. Rather, it limits the EAC’s already existing power to do so by requiring public bidding on all contracts. This makes it possible for established citizen groups (perhaps such as your own) to bid for audit contracts. This is exactly what we want: regular citizens protecting the integrity of our elections. If we left it to the states to do audits, the results would be as we’ve seen in the past.

4) H.R. 550 does not call for DREs with printers. The bill only requires a voter-verified paper audit system that is accessible to all eligible voters. Section 2 of the bill explicitly contemplates paper ballots such as optical scan, mail-in, and those made by accessible marking devices. The bill would allow DREs only if they include a paper record.

In closing, H.R. 550 is the product of citizen activism in the greatest tradition of grassroots involvement. I reject, and in fact take umbrage at, any suggestion that the bill has been “hijacked.” To assert so is not only wrong, it is an insult to the thousands of people who have put in so much time, thought, and effort to improve and advance H.R. 550.

Sincerely,

Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12)