Text of both the Ensign and Dodd Bills

[Wilms]

Thanks to BillBored posting on the "Sunday 1/30 Election Fraud, Reform, & Updates Thread".

The article refers to three, yes, three Bills being introduced in the next two weeks. Ensign, Dodd, and a third otherwise unreported senator.


Voter Verified Paper Ballots, VIVA 2005

National Ballot Integrity Project
January 26, 2005

Three competing election reform bills are being introduced in the Senate in the next two weeks.

-snip/more-

<http://www.ballotintegrity.org/action.html>


At the page bottom you'll find links to pdf files of the following:

Text of the Ensign Bill

Analysis of the Ensign Bill prepared for VerifiedVoting.org

Text of the Dodd Bill

Analysis of the Dodd Bill prepared for VerifiedVoting.org


See also, Andy's Thread on the subject:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x306505>


Thank You BillBored

[skids]

1. ballotintegrity.org is endorsing VIVA (Ensign's bill)

FYI. Just got a list email to this effect. Personally I haven't read any of them in full yet.

(EDIT: Doh, just realized above URL was already to ballotintegrity.org Ignore me.)

[Bill Bored]

3. Duly noted (and ignored)! nt

[Bill Bored]

2. The reason why this is SO important

is that it will prevent the purchase of loads of paperless DREs in several states and many counties who have to use HAVA money by 2006.

Without the requirements in this bill, there may not be verifiable voting for the foreseeable future. This is why Andy, Hedda Foil and others are going to DC now. Go to the link posted above by Wilms for the full story and Action Alert:
<http://www.ballotintegrity.org/action.html>

Here's a PDF from that page explaining the whole thing:
<http://www.ballotintegrity.org/WhyVIVA2005.pdf>

Hedda says Ensign is a straight shooter on this issue and Harry Reid is with him. Let's put parties aside as they have and support them on this please, before it's too late.

And if you could post the first link on some other forums or blogs, it would also be very helpful!

[FogerRox]

4. VIVA --yes--paper trail NOW

Hello all, I just traded e-mails with Irene Goldman, Chair @ Coalition for Peace Action, Princeton, New Jersey, www.peacecoalition.org. It is my impression that her group supports the passage of this bill, requiring a paper trail to be generated by touchscreen voting machines.
Since it will be part of HAVA, it will go into effect immediately. Senator Dodd of Conn. has a bill that wont do anything until 2009. Andy Stephenson, former candidate for Sec. of State, in Washington state, and former member of BBV with Bev Harris, has thrown in with a number of groups supporting passage of this bill.

Obviously eliminating the proprietary corporate owned unverifiable source code, and using an open source code (source code that is in the public domain and not protected by corporate law), is very important. But a national requirement to use a paper receipt is a good 1st step.

I think that getting back a majority in the House in 2006 is vital, so Bush can be impeached.
If you are a like minded individual, then here is your call to action.
Roj

[meganmonkey]

5. MY LETTER TO DEM SENATORS

If you like it, feel free to borrow from it. Tweak it out a little for your Republican Senators...

Dear Senator (insert Democrat),

I am writing in regard to two bills addressing Election Reform which are being considered in the Senate. I urge you to support Senator Ensign’s upcoming bill rather than Senator Dodd’s (S.17).
Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) in order to prevent the kinds of problems seen in Florida in 2000 from recurring. Unfortunately, HAVA did not succeed entirely in its mission. There is one dangerous loophole in HAVA that concerns me, and I believe Senator Ensign’s bill addresses it.
Counties across the country are rushing into the use of electronic voting machines. The language of HAVA allows that a printout at the end of the voting day suffices as a proper ‘paper trail’. In case of a questionable election result, a recount, or an audit, there is no way to verify whether the electronic machine recorded and counted the votes properly.
Senator Ensign’s bill closes that loophole and provides a backup. If passed, it will require that electronic voting machines print a paper copy of the ballot that the voter reviews and approves. This paper copy is handled in a secure manner, and in case of audit or recount, it is the voter verified paper copy of the ballot which is used. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic and manual vote count, the paper ballot count overrides the electronic numbers and serves as the primary ballot of record. This is essential to instilling confidence in the voter that his or her vote will count, and be counted properly. The State of Nevada used this system in the 2004 election and was very successful.
The biggest problem in S.17 is that it does not require implementation of voter verified paper ballots until 2009, which means that there will be two major Federal elections without this protection. In addition, between now and then, countless new voting machines will be purchased which do not provide voter verified paper ballots. This is unacceptable.
Senator Ensign’s bill would be implemented immediately. As you may know, it was introduced in the last session of Congress (as S.2437) and had bi-partisan sponsorship at that time. I urge you to reach across the aisle and offer sponsorship and support of this bill. It is a simple and necessary addition to HAVA that needs to be in place before the 2006 election.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX

[NationalEnquirer]

6. Thanks for that man, I'm on it! n/t

[Bill Bored]

7. Great letter, and don't forget the Repub Senators! nt

[Peace Patriot]

8. Thanks for the sample letter! Very helpful and informative!

On the political front, I would suggest adding one word to the following sentence:

"Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) in order to prevent the kinds of problems seen in Florida in 2000 from recurring."

Added word:

"Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) OSTENSIBLY in order to prevent the kinds of problems seen in Florida in 2000 from recurring."

Personally, I don't think they had any intention whatsoever of repairing our electiion system. I think the BushCon's intention, anyway, was exactly the opposite.

And you have to wonder why the Democratic leadership didn't scream bloody murder about HAVA (secret source code in Wally O'Dell's hands, indeed--I mean, really...).

CAN these BushCon miscreants and criminals, and corrupt, pro-war or just plain negligent Democrats, repair our election system?

Maybe the good guys can put something together on this. Maybe. --something that doesn't "poison pill" us on the state level, where the fight is really going to take place.

And I DO support the Ensign bill. Just beware, is all I'm saying. The BushCons quite deliberately took away our right to vote, with HAVA. I don't think we've yet seen all the devious, dirty, thuggish, criminal plots they've cooked up to keep it that way.

(Ex.: current dirty tricks against CA SoS Kevin Shelley, who decertified and sued Diebold...)

[meganmonkey]

9. I know just what you mean...

if I were writing an opinion piece or editorial, I would word it all VERY differently, especially regarding HAVA.

I was just using my polite voice on this one :P
I don't know a lot about Ensign himself, and I am hoping he isn't a BushBot. The bill he is introducing is so short and simple I can't imagine any nefarious side effects...

[Zan_of_Texas]

10. Yeah but wait a minute.

Ballot Integrity crew is asking for REPUBLICAN SENATORS to co-sponsor -- not Dems.

Hold off on the Dems and contact REPUBLICAN SENATORS is their message.

If you don't have a R Senator, contact your friends in those states who do.

[meganmonkey]

11. Okay, if you only want to contact Repubs, that's fine

but I want to educate my Democrat Senators on this and have already contacted them.

From ballot integrity site:

"We will be in Washington next week advocating for this bill. Please help protect our democracy by asking your Senator, Democrat or Republican, to cosponsor Senator John Ensign's Bill entitled Voting Integrity and Verification Act of 2005 (V.I.V.A. 2005)."

[Zan_of_Texas]

12. Okay. They are sending mixed messages.

I got one, you got the other. Oh well.

From their website:
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/action.html

The most important thing is to ask all the Republicans to co-sponsor Senator Ensign's bill, which will be introduced either late next week or early the week after. Senator Ensign is a Republican, who was a leading member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee that produced HAVA. The reason he introduced this bill last year (when it was numbered S. 2437, though a new number will be issued when it's reintroduced this year) was that he wants to fix the misinterpretation of HAVA that has led to the purchasing of touch-screen voting machines without a voter-verified paper ballot. The goal is to obtain 25 Republican cosponsors for the bill's introduction, to give it the best chance of moving rapidly through the Rules and Administration Committee. Tell the Democrats that you are very disappointed by the Dodd bill, which is totally unacceptable. Ask them to support (but not co-sponsor) the Ensign bill.

[meganmonkey]

13. Kick so people will read the bills

It may not be as fun as arguing about the bills, but it is a lot more productive ;)

KEEP HOPE ALIVE

[Bill Bored]

14. Repubs and Dems

They have listed selected Dems too.

I think the best approach is for everyone to write to these Dems and for actual constituents to CALL the Repubs from their home states today, tomorrow and Weds, while Andy and Hedda are in DC visiting the actual offices.

After that, try anyone else on the list you may have missed.

Sound like a plan?

I don't have a Repub Senator in my state, so I called Jim Jeffords who's from a neighboring state and used to be a Republican. His office said he's taking the election irregularities very seriously.

One more thing: Keep in mind this eventually needs to get through the Republican-controlled House and also may have to override a possible Shrub veto, so the more Senators, the better.

[JohnGideon]

15. VotersUnite.org Supports VIVA 2005

We support this legislation as the best chance we have to put a voter verified paper ballot on every voting machine used in the US. However, we also realize that even though this bill is a Republican written bill it has an uphill battle to passage.

Ney, Hoyer, and Dodd all have a lot of power to throw around. They do not want this bill to pass. Dodd seems to think that a vvpb will keep his sibling, who is disabled, from being able to vote.

There are many states who have legislation for a voter verified paper ballot. That may be the best road for many of you to take. In Washington state we have been told by a powerful state Senator that we will have a vvpb this session. He is certain of it and has met with his counterpart in the House and with the Governor. They are all in agreement.

[teddyk23]

16. a plea

Please wait a few days, on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff. We are in the process of assembling a companion to the Dodd bill, which will likely be introduced in the coming days.

First, as to the Dodd bill, I think those who call this bill "totally unacceptable" are ignoring the advances it has in it that the Ensign bill does not. A voter verified paper ballot is very important, but is not the whole ballgame. In out view, for a bill to be worthy of support it must have this and more. For example, an auditable record isn't worth anything if a partisan election official, like Blackwell or Harris, can decide to shortchange democratic precincts of such machines.

Mr. Conyers will be introducing a bill that I believe will be the best of both worlds, which is certainly its intention. He is also open to input as the process moves forward as to how the bill could be improved.

Wait and see before we start dividing the world between "acceptaable" and "unacceptable". Personally, I can say that the allegation that Chris Dodd does not want any election reform bill to pass is just plain false.

[Wilms]

17. Thanks, but the Dodd Bill is not adding up for many of us.

Please, we don't want electronic machines unless for the disabled.

We want a VVPB that is used for the certified count, not just for recounts if we're lucky to get one.

Please ask Conyers for VVPB. Paper trails are useless.

[Bill Bored]

18. teddyk23, Thanks for posting and welcome to DU!

The problem is that Dodd's bill has NO voter-verified ballot at all until 2009. That's the unacceptable part. I know there are issues with the disabled using paper, but there are ways around this. Please see this website:

<http://www.wheresthepaper.org/>

"1. We don't need DREs! Supporters of computerized voting claim that voters with disabilities or different languages need computerized voting. This is false. Computerized ballot-marking machines with assistive attachments can enable voters with disabilities or different languages to mark and verify paper ballots. Voters without disabilities can choose to mark their ballots by machine or by pencil. All ballots, including absentee and provisional ballots, can be the same, thus simplifying the counting procedures. Counting can be done by hand or optical scanners. (When votes are counted by optical scanners, a manual audit should be done to confirm accuracy -- optical scanners are computers too, and are subject to error and fraud that can be detected only by hand-counts.)"

There are links there to more info about voters with disabilities, a white paper from EFF, etc.

We have also been told that Diebold has been lobbying the disabled, in a cynical attempt to push their DREs with audio interfaces, etc. The problem with this is that there is still no way to independently audit the machine. The paper ballot provides an independent means to do this and paper can be used by the disabled too. Dodd seems to be missing this point and his bill does not address the issue of counting fraud, at least not until 2009 and rather vaguely at that.

Blackwell should of course be prosecuted for breaking Ohio and/or federal law with that non-random hand recount. The laws are already on the books and need to be enforced. I know Mr. Conyers is working on that and we all support him!

The problem is that we can't wait 5 more years for the capability to audit the vote, even if we have honest Secretaries of State. There needs to be an independent, transparent way of doing this now, or at the latest by the 2006 election. Show me where Ensign's bill would negate anything in Conyers' or Dodd's and we'll wait, but so far, I don't think they are mutually exclusive at all, are they?

[teddyk23]

19. thanks

The bills are not mutually exclusive and that is a completely fair comment.

We may have a difference of opinion about whether it is advisable to label a bill with a number of good provisions as unacceptable, and a bill which solely consists of one good provision as preferable. But that, too, is a fair comment.

It also appears that there is a continuum of opinion here about whether we should be pushing for paper audit capability or a return to the use of paper alone. I haven't figured this one out and it is a tough question, but I do know that a system based solely on paper, with no tabulation machines or voting machines is a long way from now and, in the meantime, we need to take steps to improve (if not fix) the system that is in place. (I would also note that the Ensign bill does not, by my reading, move to a system based solely on paper, and should not satisfy those critics.)

What you will see is Conyers best efforts to accomplish that (improve what he have), while evaluating these other questions.

I have no doubt that many who post here will think it is a great bill, and some will think it doesn't do the job (that our current system is so beyond repair that we need to start from scratch, we should just use paper). Know that we have heard and rrespect all of those opinions and have brought them to Mr. Conyers attention. We also are continually grateful for all of the support you have given us throughout the effort to investigate Ohio and Conyers continuing efforts in that regard.

[Wilms]

20. Great to hear, Teddy.

Perhaps you've seen this thread. It's where we're having the pie fight over this.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x306505>


A system based solely on paper, with no tabulation machines or voting machines is a lot cheaper (money better spent on poll workers), and it's as close as the recycle center where we dispose all of that fraud producing equipment.

Please see this essay from an engineers viewpoint.

<http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8879&pg=3>

[teddyk23]

21. I had not seen the thread

And it confirms a number of concerns I stated.

The legislative analysis by verified voting is particularly troubling. It would take time to go through point by point that I don't have right now, but it appears to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you don't like Dodd's voter verified ballot section, fine, but the critique of the other provisions seems that someone is throwing the kitchen sink at the bill.

The other provisions were drafted with the assistance of respected nationally known voting rights attorneys, and many were included at the request of Conyers. Much of the critique of such provisions reads like an analysis by a states' rights advocate. Are we not well past providing Blackwell and Katherine Harris the "flexibility" to screw up federal elections? With the Voting Rights Act forty years ago, didn't we decide that the voting experience should not depend on the vagaries of your jurisdiction?

A few illustrative points: the analyst criticizes the findings as being full of "platitudes." Guess what? Look at the findings for any bill and you will find platitudes, because that section of the bill should cite the constitutional and historical authority for the legislation. This has no legislative effect and criticism of it seems petty.

Next the analyst criticizes the deadlines for absentee ballots as overbroad, while ignoring that these are identical to the standards used in many states for overseas military ballots. Why should other voters, under penalty of perjury, not receive the same benefit of the doubt as military voters?

On distribution of machines, the analysis ignores ther fact that the bill uses the words "uniform and nondiscriminatory" in addition to geographic. These words have import in voting rights law, and prevent a pure geograohic distribution of machines, as the analysis claims.

On the requirement of impartial administration of elections (no Ken Blackwells), the analyst objects to voting rights observers as possibly posing burdens on states and localities to provide sufficient polling places. I think this speaks for itself.

I could go on and on....

[Wilms]

22. I agree, Teddy. The VV analysis was unduly harsh.

Take for instance Art. 14. Many here would think it a cause for joy but VV dismisses because it may require a larger polling place to accommodate Poll Watchers. That seems petty to me.

Worse is their "analysis" of the Ensign Bill. It was an endorsement. And I feel a bit abused as a result.

However, VV's major complaint with Dodd is Art. 4., which probably is the most problematic for many here, too.

VVPB is so fundamental to Election Reform that it was frightening to see Dodd's bill lacking it. It seems oblivious to the issue.

Many here insist that without a VVPB used to certify an election, we're going on blind faith. Ensign doesn't provide it, but Dodd seems to make it unlikely to ever make it happen. While I'm not sure, it seems to not realize the difference between a Ballot and a "Paper Trail". Many here feel a "paper trail" cannot provide security.

Others KNOW that it cannot provide that security.

Will Conyers or Dodd address that? Is there a reason why it may be deemed unacceptable to use VVPB for the vote and for the (hand, preferably) count?

Thanks for taking the time to hang with us.

DU :loveya: to JC, the CBC, and their staff. And, of course, you.

[Bill Bored]

23. Teddy, yes there are many issues

and I personally have not yet read the entire critique of Dodd's bill, nor have I personally criticized it beyond the issue of ballot integrity, which it does seem to fail to address. I have seen some here criticize Ensign's bill simply because he's a Republican, which is not particularly well-reasoned or insightful.

I think it may be helpful to think of the issues in terms of
a) voting rights and
b) counting rights

Voting rights protect voters until they reach the polls and cast their ballots. Counting rights take over at that point.

We need both but we have effectively completely given up our counting rights under HAVA and I think Ensign's bill tries to address this. It could be made stronger by having mandatory, unannounced random audits of 5% of precincts, for example, but this is apparently being left to the states, or to subsequent federal legislation. I wouldn't want to limit any state's right to go beyond federal standards to verify the count, would you? This is how I interpreted Verified Voting's concerns.

In any case, I am relieved to hear you don't think these bills are mutually exclusive. Very relieved!

The other issue is time. HAVA money, as I understand it has to be spent by 2006 and this means there will be a rush to comply and purchase lots of voting machines. If these machines are not independently auditable, our counting rights will continue to be eroded. Even those with the best of intentions cannot count ballots they can't see.

I have not seen a House version of Ensign's bill yet so perhaps you can incorporate that language into Conyers' bill. It does provide the paper ballot as the legal ballot of record, as opposed to unverifiable machine counts. This is its main and only attraction, but it's crucial.

If on the other hand, you think this can be done separately, as it is in the Senate, then I hope Conyers' et al will support the House version.

[teddyk23]

25. Bill, all good points...

As to our counting rights, I could not agree more. Not to make excuses for anyone, but having been involved in some of the give and take over HAVA, I can say that there was a preoccupation with the undervote, particularly the undervote/overvote in predominately African-American areas in Florida. The DRE machines, opti-scan, etc were viewed as a panacea for this problem. At that time, not one person or group contacted us to make us aware of the concerns about paper. We did,however, insert some admittedly weak language about machines having "audit capacity." But we are where we are....

As to the rush to spend HAVA money, the states have to meet the mandates by 2006 to have machines that warn a voter if he/she has overvoted and will give the voter a chance to correct that mistake (we call it "second-chance voting"). If we were to put in place a second mandate for audit trail (not sure if that term is precise enough, but I mean what you mean) that must be met by 2007, I think it is a lock that states, seeking to meet the 2006 deadline would purchase machines that also meet the 2007 deadline.

As to the language in the Ensign bill, we are looking at that bill, Hillary Clinton's bill, Holt's bill and others, to try to come up with a formulation that deals with this problem and will be included in the Conyers bill.

In this thread, someone said thanks for hanging with you guys. Where else would I go? If I didn't work for Conyers, this is where I would be anyway. Best place to hear what folks are thinking about...

[meganmonkey]

26. Thanks for all of this info and perspective

I had no idea about Conyers' bill...My biggest concern was that the Ensign bill would make one important, significant change that I consider imperative before another federal election. It certainly doesn't address all of my concerns, but it seems like a quick fix which can be elaborated on, and I do have trouble with the Dodd bill.
Ensign's bill is specific to the one issue. If it comes up soon in the Senate I would like it to pass. As you mention, these bills aren't all mutually exclusive, and I trust Conyers to write the best bill around, since he seems to have the best grasp on the problems.

I like the idea of all paper, all hand-counted ballots, but I am realistic enough to realize that sometimes you have to take what you can get, especially given what we're working with now.

Thanks teddy!!!!

[keepthemhonest]

27. thanks

for letting us know about what conyers is doing.I respect conyers and will probably follow his lead. I did not think that we could already have in place a bill that we should be completely happy with. Please keep us updated on it.

[Wilms]

28. That sounds very good, when you say...

..."If we were to put in place a second mandate for audit trail (not sure if that term is precise enough, but I mean what you mean) that must be met by 2007, I think it is a lock that states, seeking to meet the 2006 deadline would purchase machines that also meet the 2007 deadline"...

...if by "audit trail" you are referring to a "Voter Verified Paper Ballot" being produce by the machine.

At the top of post #24 are links to two machines that might fill that bill.
Thanks Ted. That'll get the frogs jumping. :bounce: :bounce:

[Amaryllis]

37. Teddy, it brings tears to my eyes to feel like we actually have a VOICE

and an interactive dialogue with our elected officials. I can't tell you what a joy and relief it is to see this happening. Thank you so much for all you are doing. It is so difficult to know what the right action is when we have no real dialogue. I have been torn about what to do with these bills; which to support, wanting to support Conyers because I admire and respect him so, and yet seeing some real problems in the Dodd bill. I cannot tell you how very much I appreciate your involvement in this process.

[Wilms]

38. I'm crossing my fingers that all this will turn into more of what we want.

We'll see what Conyers offers, and perhaps a republican Companion to Ensign, too.

Maybe they all will horse-trade and get a good job done.

[Amaryllis]

39. We gotta get the honest one educated. Seems it's mostly the corrupt ones

who have used e-voting who get how it works. But we are making progress! Slowly but surely. Just the fact that we are having this dialogue with a
Conyers staff member is huge progress. I was afraid Conyers still didn't get the full gravity of the e-voting issue when I heard his was a companion bill to Dodd, but I am feeling much more hopeful now.

[Wilms]

24. Teddy, here are some links.

Voter Verified Paper Ballot - HAVA Compliant – Polling Stations


The Populex Digital Paper Ballot System

The Populex Digital Paper Ballot™ is created with an easy-to-use computer-based touch screen system. In contrast to most other touch screen voting systems that collect and store votes electronically inside the computer, the Populex™ voting system prints a tangible voter-verifiable paper ballot card.

<http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html>


Vogue Election Systems

The AutoMark is a ballot marking system designed to provide privacy and accessibility to voters who are blind, vision-impaired, or have a disability or condition that would make it difficult or impossible to mark a ballot in the usual way. In addition, it provides language assistance to voters who are more comfortable speaking an alternative language or who have reading difficulties. The AutoMark voter assist terminal has been developed with input from election authorities and disability organizations, and meets all of the requirements of “The Help America Vote Act of 2002.”

<http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html>


Papers and Articles


"Myth Breakers: Facts about Electronic Elections.
Essential Information for Those Entrusted with Making
Decisions about Election Systems in the United States,"
Second Edition, January 2005

http://www.VotersUnite.org/MB2.pdf


Paper calling for the decertification of the Diebold AccuVote direct recording electronic voting system
presented at the
USENEX Security Symposium
Washington DC
August 6, 2003

<http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldusenix.html>


Stephanie Desmon:
"Md. Computer Testers Cast a Vote: Election Boxes Easy to Mess With,"
January 30, 2004
Sun (Maryland)

This test by former National Security Agency experts showed that Diebold DREs could be attacked by someone with a modem and a laptop; they could enter the database, change vote totals, and exit without a trace.

<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.machine30jan30,0,4050694.story?coll=bal-local-headlines>


IEEE Computer Society
ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES' VULNERABILITIES COULD CHALLENGE ELECTION PROCESS
IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine Uncovers the Issues and Provides a Possible Remedy

<http://www.computer.org/pr/Feb04/evoting.htm>


Chuck Herrin:
"How to Hack the Vote: the Short Version"

<http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevotedemo.htm>


National Ballot Integrity Project

<http://www.ballotintegrity.org>

National Ballot Integrity Project Task Force
Electronic Voting:Critical Issues, Critical Risks
Backgrounder

<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:x6w3b04hKvgJ:www.ballotintegrity.org/Electronic%2520Voting%2520Critical%2520Issues.doc+Brian+Hancock,+the+ITA+Secretariat+&hl=en>


Other:


Lynn Landes

<http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm>

<http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm>




Many thanks to DUer Zan_of_Texas for having posted most of these links.

[teddyk23]

29. go to

www.johnconyers.com for a preview of what he intends to do

[Wilms]

30. This looks very, very, promising.

Teddy,

Thanks so much for posting this. I gave the letter it's own thread, here:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x312694>

Looking forward to the Bills intro. If, in addition to getting the word out, there is anything we can/should do, just post it. And we'll get right on it.

Peace,

Wilms

[teddyk23]

32. thanks

We know you guys have our backs.

The first thing I would ask is that everyone read the bill for themselves. I will post a link on the thread you started when the text is available and would be happy to answer questions if you have them.

Know what it says and don't rely on anyone else's (including my) representations about it. There seem to be some agendas at play in some of the analysis posted on other sites.

If there are problems with it, let's talk. Many may be questions of interpretation or unintended.

The second thing is, if you agree that it is the best bill, and I am confident it reflects the best ideas presented here, round up cosponsors for us. Let your member of Congress know how important it is that they support the bill.

[Wilms]

35. Oops on Populex.

Fortunately Andy noticed it.

Apparently it's of a sort of pedigree that doesn't seem to good.


<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x7321>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x176418>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x7357>

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. Populex Voting...

Does the name Frank Carlucci mean anything? It should...

[Wilms]

33. OH NO!

What's up with it. Do you know?

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. Populux Voting...

a Carlyle Group company.

PU!

[Wilms]

36. Thanks, Andy.

I found some DU Threads on the subject and hung them on a post above to Teddy.

[Amaryllis]

42. Go here. You can always figure out the game when you follow the moneyl...

http://www.counterpunch.org/schorcarlucci.html

[JohnGideon]

41. Ensign Bill Advantage

The apparent advantage of the Ensign bill is that Ensign is a Republican. He is also a Republican who feels that someone pulled a fast one in 2002 when they finalized HAVA because they rewrote the wording he had for a voter verified paper ballot to make it so the paper tape that is used as a report is sufficient.

If he can get Republican co-sponsors to join the Democrats who are going to co-sponsor then the bill will be filed. That's what we are pushing for.

I don't care what is said; Dodd accepted an award from the National Federation for the Blind for his work getting HAVA passed. He knew that the amendment that Ensign submitted got changed. He has campaigned openly against the Rush Holt bill. I like a lot of what is in Dodd's bill but it does nothing to ensure the DREs are providing a voter verified paper ballot and audit requirements for those ballots.

VerifiedVoting.org has one of the top legislative 'experts' in Bob Kibrick. The guy gets phone calls from congressional staffers to review voting reform bills before they are submitted. He also compares bills for VerifiedVoting.org. Look there and read what he has to say about the currently written legislation.

By all means, read the legislation that is available and make up your own mind about which you think is the best. Read what others have to say.

[Bill Bored]

40. Great thread everyone!

I think it's time to move on the other one that Wilms started, and I think Teddy should be able to start his own now, or very soon. It only takes a few posts to be able to do that. Look to see if you have a "Post" link and icon at the top of the forum's main page.

I did read the full Verified Voting critique of Dodd's bill and I agree with Teddy and Wilms that it's a bit harsh in some areas. They have the counting issue right though. We need something in place asap. I look forward to reading Conyers' bill.

Teddy, thanks so much for coming here. It's an amazing place and getting more amazing by the day thanks to people like you!

Thanks to Wilms for all the links and of course thanks to Andy!