A letter from my Representative, Jay Inslee

[regularjoe]

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns about the integrity of the 2004 election. As always, I appreciate hearing from you.

As I have stated previously, the integrity of local and federal elections is of great importance to me. I want to make it clear to you that I am deeply concerned about the allegations of voter fraud, abuse, or possibly more likely, voter suppression. I believe fair elections, and the public's faith in election outcomes, is a cornerstone to democracy. For this reason, I have written a letter to the U.S, General Accountability Office (GAO) and have supported a hand recount in our own state of Washington.

As you know, there are several pending lawsuits in Florida and Ohio looking into allegations of voter fraud. If Democrats had a majority of either chambers of Congress, I am confident that we would have Congressional inquiries on these matters. As things are, the Republican majority refuses to do so, and under the rules of the House, I, or any other individual member of the minority, cannot initiate an investigation into this matter, other than through the GAO, a course of action that I have already taken. In the meantime, I will continue to work to reshape our tactics to obviate the concern for stolen elections. We should go to great lengths to ensure that elections conducted in using fair and accurate procedures.

In response to reports of election irregularities that may have impacted county election results in Ohio, North Carolina, Nebraska, and California, I immediately joined my colleagues in writing a letter to the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) to request that they undertake an investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election. I asked how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered, and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration.

Since the 2000 Presidential election raised many questions about the voting technologies used in the United States, it comes as no surprise that the 2004 election election procedures have been watched closely by the public. I believe we must go to great lengths to ensure that voters have absolute confidence in our election system and outcomes. It is essential to the integrity of our democracy.

I want you to know that I have listened to concerns raised by many people about current voting technologies. As you may know, elections are administered by states and localities through roughly 10,000 jurisdictions at the county level or below. Currently, there are five different kinds of voting technologies are used in the United States: hand counted paper ballots, mechanical lever machines, computer punch cards, optical scan, and direct recording electronic systems (DRE).

These concerns center on the accuracy, ease of use, and security of electronic voting machines. Several studies have recommended, particularly in light of the 2000 Presidential elections, that punch card ballots be phased out. There is a broad consensus that optical scan and some of the newer DRE systems are preferable, as long as the technology checks for errors, has security safeguards, and provides an opportunity for voters to correct mistakes. The Help America Vote Act, which I voted for and was signed into law by the President during the 107th Congress, requires that all voting systems used in federal elections permit voters to verify their selections on the ballot, notify the voter of over votes, and permit voters to change their votes and correct any errors before casting the ballot.

You may be interested to know that I am a cosponsor of the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act that would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy. Further, this legislation would require Federal certification of technological security of voter registration lists. H.R. 2239 has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration. It is my hope that the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act will be brought to the floor of the House for a vote as soon as possible.

(blah blah, yada yada yada, skip to the end)

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

[understandinglife]

1. Got the same form letter (n/t)

[SueZhope]

3. I also got a variation on that letter from my Representative n/t

[joeunderdog]

2. Kudos. Good letter.

Only wish Congress had more (some?) teeth.

[IndyPriest]

4. I appreciate Inslee's work

He was one of the first up to sign the letter to the GAO. But, geez, the idea that "the majority won't let us do our own investigation" just makes me a little crazed. Since when does the minority have to act liked whipped dogs? Jay: push a little, will ya? Get 50 of your collegues and hold a press conference! Make some noise!

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

5. Congress has procedures that give the majority a great deal of power

The majority can prevent items from coming to the floor for votes, etc.

The same thing happened when the democrats held control of the house.

[IndyPriest]

12. Right, but can't they get off the floor and into the spotlight? n/t

[regularjoe]

6. My followup reply

Thanks for the idea about a press conference.

-----Begin letter -----------

Dear Congressman Inslee,

Thank you for replying to my letter and addressing my concerns about
the election. It is unfortunate that concerned Democratic members of
congress have little legislative power because of their minority
status in both houses of congress. Perhaps attention can be brought to
this important issue by other means. Please consider uniting with
other concerned members of congress for a press conference to bring
media attention, and resulting average citizen attention, to this
issue. Far too few people are aware of the myriad problems and the
efforts to expose and correct them. I would like to hear your thoughts
about the effect and practicality of holding a press conference about
election irregularities/fraud.

-----end letter-------

edit: I might not get a response for a while. It took 16 days to get the first response.

[uppityperson]

7. Nice response from Inslee, good return from you. Keep it up

and thanks to you and all who are doing more than just reading stuff on the internets.

[Hamoth]

9. I got the same letter.

Mine also was two weeks to get here.

[myschkin]

11. Very good reply.

Good action. He should join Conyers...

If the people of the US WANT an investigation/impeachement the congress is mightless (as Arnebeck lined out)

That´s why they have to get informed...

[IndyPriest]

13. VERY good! I'm going to write my reps, too! n/t

[Straight Shooter]

8. Cliff Arnebeck holds a stronger position regarding suppression vs. fraud

"I want to make it clear to you that I am deeply concerned about the allegations of voter fraud, abuse, or possibly more likely, voter suppression."

Mr. Arnebeck believes there was vast voter suppression, but the crux of his lawsuit is the actual tampering which "flipped" votes from Kerry to bush, or that votes "migrated" from Kerry's column to bush's column. Mr. Arnebeck is of course deeply concerned about the voter suppression, but that is not what his lawsuit is about as much as it is about the actual tampering.

[pauldp]

10. HR2239 was referred to committee way back in 2003

Plenty of time to get it passed before the election.
There were Repubs who co-sponsored it as well, but Hastert and Delay refused to allow it to the floor. It would have implemented a paper trail.

Gee I wonder why they killed the paper trail if they were'nt going to cheat?

[rumpel]

14. Legal question. Rep Inslee mentions the following:

"....signed into law by the President during the 107th Congress, requires that all voting systems used in federal elections permit voters to verify their selections on the ballot, notify the voter of over votes, and permit voters to change their votes and correct any errors before casting the ballot."

Would this not indicate then, that those machines that were used, which did not provide, a "paper trail", are illegal to begin with?
I also did not know that "voteres need to be notified of over votes"

[adolfo]

15. RE: Legal question. Rep Inslee mentions the following:

I think that will depend on how the word "ballot" is defined by law. The definition should describe the medium. ie: electronic or paper.

[rumpel]

16. Thanks, that is interesting. Did they leave the definition

up to interpreation, or do you think it is already elsehwre in the law.

[regularjoe]

17. I know WA already has a provision like that in law but it doesn't kick in

until 2006. Perhaps it is the same at the National level.

regularjoe