Congrats, Sonia S, on your mention in the recent Texas Observer!

[crispini]

I opened it up last night and read the article about the election reform bill in the Texas Lege and I knew exactly WHO the Sonia S was that they were quoting! Now, if only I had it with me at work today, I'd post the paragraph. Anyway, just wanted to say: Go you! :yourock:

Edited to add: I found it online!

VOTING DOWN OPENNESS It’s getting to be that frenzied time late in the legislative session when devious little provisions hidden in humongous bills slip unnoticed into Texas law. Take House Bill 2465 by Aubrey Republican Mary Denny. A few lines of text that found their way into the legislation would wall off from public view the state’s certification of touch-screen voting machines.

The Secretary of State’s office must certify all electronic voting software before it can be used in Texas elections. State examiners poke and prod each system in closed-door sessions, looking for flaws or security risks in the software. The examiners then recommend which e-voting systems the Secretary of State should certify for use in Texas. The Secretary of State’s office has argued that the e-voting examinations are exempt from the Open Meetings Act. The ACLU of Texas sued last year to gain access to the examinations, arguing that the sessions should be open to the public. The ACLU won the first round in court. In January, a Travis County district judge ruled that the e-voting sessions fall under the Open Meetings Act (see Political Intelligence, February 18, 2005).

Denny’s trying to undo that. Her HB 2465 purports to make the e-voting examination process more open by allowing for public comment on e-voting systems. And initially, the ACLU supported the bill. After HB 2465 was heard in House committee, however, a tiny provision was quietly inserted into the bill stating that all e-voting examinationsæpast, present, and futureæare not open meetings and closed to the public. Citizens would still have a chance to comment on the e-voting machines, but the meaningful work would take place out of public view.

Ann McGeehan, with the Secretary of State’s office, told a Senate committee that the meetings should remain closed because the examiners discuss private companies’ proprietary software. “Our concern was that if completely open, the inspectors would not want to ask the frank questions they normally would,” she said. “This is really meant to clarify that these are not open meetings.”

The ACLU’s Sonia Santana responded that the public has a substantial interest in which voting systems are used in Texas elections and should have access to the examinations. “ feel very strongly that the deliberation and certification of electronic voting systems is exactly the kind of thing the Open Meetings Act was specifically written to address.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1962

[Gothmog]

1. Congrats on the mention

Did the bill pass?

[sonias]

2. Yes, unfortunately the very bad HB2465 bill passed.

Damn, we did try our hardest too. We thought we might actually have gotten an 11th hour block in the Senate with the 11 Dems blocking but it didn't hold.

Our Texas Safe Voting Team witnessed the only chance we'll get at open meeting vendor certification on Wednesday May 25 and Thursday May 26th in the office of the Secretary of State. Adina Levin who heads the ACLU of Texas’ Cyberliberties Project said there is some great new hardware that Hart is putting out there that will allow the Hart Inter-civic machines to upgrade/switch to optical scan ballots. This provides us the verified paper ballots we want, too. So our next push is to get counties who haven't purchased DRE systems to look at these options. If your county is using Hart, this is what we need to push for.

Here's my old blog post at Texas Civil Rights Review the day the bill passed in the Senate. The verified paper ballot study amendment that Senator Shapleigh added in the Senate was killed in the conference committee by Denny and her minions.
No open and verified voting for you my pretties!
http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=234

Sonia

[TexasLinda]

3. Nueces County (Corpus Christi) hasn't bought DREs yet

but is looking to do so soon. We currently have optical scan ballots. Do you have any links or information about the Hart Inter-civic machines you mentioned? I'd like to pass this on to our county clerk.

Linda in CC

[sonias]

4. Hi Linda!

Linda

The equipment I mentioned in my post above has not been certified as of yet, but we think it will be. They just reviewed it on May 25th and May 26th. Here's the web site for Hart Intercivic
http://www.hartintercivic.com/

If you want to contact Adina Levin who heads our ACLU Cyberliberties Project here in Texas, she would probably love to talk to you and your county registrar. We want safe voting for Texas.

The great thing about this new hardware is that it will be a lot less expensive for counties than to go completely to DREs. DREs are a lot pricier and they have a pretty steep learning curve. A lot of our older generation and minority communities feel very uncomfortable voting on this electronic equipment. Good old paper and pencil is safe, verifiable and cheap. Your county still has to get some DREs for the disabled by 2006, but this Hart system ties all that in together.

Here is Adina's contact info
[e-mail] or via cell 512-632-6829

Good luck Linda!

Sonia

[derby378]

5. You done your best, Sonia

But now we Texas DUers have to declare war on all DREs in Texas, with the possible exception of the Hart machines.

Either paper ballots or no ballots at all.

[sonias]

6. Paper ballots not vapor ballots

That's the right idea derby378, declare war on DREs. And like I was telling Linda above the great thing about this new Hart equipment is that counties that already use optical scan systems are going to get this upgrade cheaper than those counties that have already committed to DREs.

We're still going to work hard on our local Travis county to upgrade. We want to force them to buy printers and this way if they go the optical scan printer route, we get verifiable paper ballots to boot.

Sonia

[TexasLinda]

7. Vote cast for new kind of U.S. elections

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5442940.html

"The nation's election administrators say it's time to restructure elections to reflect the way Americans live, scrapping neighborhood precincts and Election Day for large, customer-oriented "vote centers" where people could cast ballots over a period of weeks. ... The report also urges state legislators to consider an "independently verifiable" record of each voter's ballot from ATM-style touch-screen voting machines that could be electronic, video or some other form -- pointedly downplaying a widespread push for paper receipts from touchscreens. ..."

I can understand why election officials want to get away from paper, but I'm not sure the technology is there yet. I spent a lot of years testing software, and did a little coding too, and know just how screwed up things can get -- and this is with unintentional bugs, not deliberate sabotage. While paper is a pain in the ass and may not be any more secure than other methods, I think it's important (at least in the interim while we're getting the some of the bugs out of the system) to voter confidence.

Linda

[Bouncy Ball]

8. Sonia, you rock.

You're the best! Congrats on the article, sorry about the bill! (We all are.)