NC Voter Verified Bill Gutted by Democrats

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

*New: Senator Daniel Clodfelter's committee ( http://www.ncvoter.net/sj1com.html)
has deleted requirements for Voter Verified Paper Ballots
from S 223, Public Confidence in Elections Act*

The orginal language of the voter verified paper ballot legislation was:

"In order to provide a paper ballot in a DRE, each DRE shall
generate a paper ballot which can be verified by the voter
before the vote is cast."

But the current Senate version reads

"Each DRE shall generate a paper record that confirms and
provides a back-up means of counting the vote that the voter
casts."

This new provision means that any paper record could print sight un-seen, as do the voting machines
in Senator Daniel Clodfelter's home county of Mecklenburg.
Without the voter verifying the ballot, it is highly
possible that the machine could fail to record the vote, and the printout will fail
to have that "lost" vote as well.
http://www.ncvoter.net/223facts.html

[Demrock6]

1. That sucks.

But at the same time it is almost sounding like the optical scans. That is what we use here in Minnesota.

You mark the paper, put it into the machine and that is it. No way to know if the machine actually requested your vote or not besides a little green light.

They count a small number of ballots and make sure the hand count and machine count match. If not I am sure a hand recount would happen.

[riqster]

2. How do you know the Dems are reponsible?

I don't see it in the story.

[Peace Patriot]

4. I presume Clodfelter is a Democrat? Is he? WillYourVoteBCounted???

Is it a Democratic controlled committee? If not, were Democrats involved in the re-write (or in the bad original language)? Who? Can you name names?

It wouldn't surprise me at all that Democrats are doing the wrong thing on electronic voting. (I'm a Californian!) But let's try to pin down who's who, and what's what.

-----

By the way, have you seen the DU analysis (by ignatzmouse) on the NC '04 numbers? It shows an inexplicable 9% edge to Bush in electronic voting vs. paper. Here's the url:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x45003
(also at:) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/233831/06

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. Stupid Democrats who gutted our bill and why

(Betrayal by some of our Democratic Party elected officials- Read entire text Immediately)

The Senate Judiciary I committee gutted our election reform bill. They have stripped the greatest protection against fraud and inaccuracy: Voter-Verified Paper Ballots. Without the voter being able to verify a paper ballot no meaningful audit or recount can occur. This leaves our elections up to voting machine companies and not up to the voters.

We cannot sit by idle while our elected Democratic leaders continue to ignore our call for the right actions. We have been working tirelessly on this project and I thank everyone for what they have been doing, but despite all of our efforts some Democratic Party elected leaders (named below) continue to ignore us and take us for granted. They believe we the grassroots activists will just forget about this before the Democratic primary in 2006. We vow that we will never forget those who betrayed the Democratic Party and the people of this state.

However, there is still time for these leaders to get right with the people. We need to urge those people listed below to support elections free from fraud, malfunction, and inaccuracy. Urge them to support Senate Bill 223 WITH VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT LANGUAGE REINSERTED.

We need to call on Democratic Senate leader Marc Basnight to pull the Democrats in to line.
Senator Marc Basnight
[phone]
[e-mail]

We believe the motivation for the change to the bill came from Judiciary I Chairman Sen. Daniel Clodfelter. He is trying to make sure Mecklenburg County's machines (some of the worst in the state) do not have to be replaced. Mecklenburg County's machines print an internal paper reel of the votes that the voter never sees. However, the machines will have to be replaced at some point because they do not comply with federal standards that take effect in 2006.
Once again we have failed, misguided, and outright stupid leadership from the "old guard" of the Democratic Party.

IT IS TIME TO SEND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTED OFFICIALS A MESSAGE: "Either support the grassroots base of the Democratic Party or face them campaigning against you next year."

These are the name of those who have betrayed the Democratic Party so far:

Senator Daniel Clodfelter D-Mecklenburg County
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
He is the main person behind the removal of language designed to protect our votes.

Senator Julia Boseman D-New Hanover
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
She was the chair of the subcommittee that gutted the bill.

SO FAR, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR IN JUDICIARY ONE HAS STOOD UP FOR OUR RIGHTS AGAINST THESE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC MEASURES. DEMAND BETTER.

Here is a list of those who have failed to stand up for our rights so far:

Senator Soles, 919-733-5963, [e-mail]
Senator Albertson, 919-733-5705, [e-mail]
Senator Malone, 919-733-5880, [e-mail]
Senator Lucas, 919-733-4599, [e-mail]
Senator Hoyle, 919-733-5734, [e-mail]
Senator Cowell, 919-715-6400, [e-mail]
Senator Jenkins, 919-715-3040, [e-mail]

Enough is Enough. Please act today to save our Democracy.

[Bill Bored]

3. OMG, this is useless!

Reading it out of context, it certainly seems that this is junk legislation! The words "voter verified" have to be in there, whether it's called a ballot, record or trail. This is what's missing from HAVA and it seems like it's missing from this bill as well. I feel your pain!

All the auditing and recounts in the world won't help if the paper record is NOT voter verified.

What can you do to stop this madness?

[LightningFlash]

5. Oh great.....

The corrupt democrats in NC are at it again. :mad:

Flood those guys with mail until they give it an official paper record!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. Please keep up the pressure on Democratic Senators in NC

As usual, it is the Democrats that shoot themselves in the foot.

Now the word is the the Democratic senators who gutted our VVPB bill are scrambling
to cover their behinds yet still gut the bill.

We have to keep up the pressure on Senator Daniel Clodfelter,
who controls the main dialog of the committee that is betraying us

These are the name of those who have betrayed the Democratic Party so far:

Number one - The Chair of Senate Judiciary I Committee:
Senator Daniel Clodfelter D-Mecklenburg County
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
He is the main person behind the removal of language designed to protect our votes.

Senator Julia Boseman D-New Hanover
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
She was the chair of the subcommittee that gutted the bill.

SO FAR, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR IN JUDICIARY ONE HAS STOOD UP FOR OUR RIGHTS
AGAINST THESE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC MEASURES. DEMAND BETTER.

Here is a list of those who have failed to stand up for our rights so far:

Senator Soles, 919-733-5963, [e-mail]
Senator Albertson, 919-733-5705, [e-mail]
Senator Malone, 919-733-5880, [e-mail]
Senator Lucas, 919-733-4599, [e-mail]
Senator Hoyle, 919-733-5734, [e-mail]
Senator Cowell, 919-715-6400, [e-mail]
Senator Jenkins, 919-715-3040, [e-mail]

[garybeck]

8. there is a reason they had to change it

the original wording is not correct. it implies that a DRE can have a paper ballot. It can't. By legal definition, a ballot is what is used to count the election. If it is a DRE, that means the ballot is electronic. Any paper that comes out of a DRE machine can not be called a ballot. That is consistent in all the legislation on both the state and national level.

if you want paper ballots, you have to toss the DREs into the trash.

the voters can still verify the paper record, but it will not be used in the election if the DRE is casting the vote. it will be there for recounts or audits.

So I"m not sure your Senator was trying to dilute the effectiveness of the measure; I think he was trying to correct the terminology on a legal basis.

Gary

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. No, you are wrong, language says "printout" verifies the ballot, not voter

Sorry, but did you know that there are voting machines that print a paper "record" internally, one that is never seen by the voter?

Senator Daniel Clodfelter's home county, Mecklenburg has 1,400 DREs made by Microvote, model 464 which print a record internally, and is NEVER SEE BY THE VOTER.

The language is completely intended to insure that his voting machines meet the standards of the bill.

The record is NEVER NEVER seen by the voter, and therefore is useless.

The origional legislation was drawn after nearly 3 months of expert testimony before legislators/attorneys, election officials, citizens.

No one should be fooled by this language, read it - the machine prints a record, the record "verifies" the ballot, not the voter.

THE NC DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE TRAITORS, AND MUST CORRECT THIS OR WE WILL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM.

I have an inventory of every voting machine in North Carolina, including the software versions.

*WE NEED TO QUIT MAKING UP EXCUSES FOR DEMOCRATS WHO HURT OUR CAUSE*

[garybeck]

10. yes I am aware of that but the original wording is still incorrect

as you stated in the original post, the bill first was worded this way:

"In order to provide a paper ballot in a DRE, each DRE shall
generate a paper ballot which can be verified by the voter
before the vote is cast."

This is impossible. You can't have a DRE and a paper ballot at the same time. LIke it or not, they are correct to reword it based on this error.

But you are correct in your discussion of paper records may or may not be verified by the voter.

So there really are two different things going on here.

They were right in rewording the original text to change "ballot" to "record". But it appears that they took it an extra step and removed the "voter verified" part unecessarily.

What they should have done is simply changed the phrase "paper ballot" to "paper record" and they should have left the part that says "which can be verified by the voter before the vote is cast."

An un-verified paper record is completely useless as I'm sure you understand.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. the language seems to be re-written for this reason

The language of the bill for voter verified paper ballots was specifically re-written
so that voting systems did not have to produce a ballot or record of any sort that the voter would see.

As someone who spent months working with the legislators who formed the committee,
and with some of the experts on the committee and with those who testified to the committee, I know what I am talking about.

Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a Harvard fellow and e-voting expert testifed,
Chuck Herrin testifed, and Justin Moore of Duke University testified.
I heard all of the testimony, and attended all but one hearing.
We took notes. I submitted information to the legislators regarding the wording of what a ballot would be, etc.

The problems with the bill are caused by the impact of lobbyist for various organizations.
They don't want the words "voter verified" in the legislation.

The senate deliberately removed the Voter verified part, and we are fighting tooth nail and claw to get it back in.

They keep coming back with everything under the sun, except requiring the machine to print something,
anything that can be seen by the voter, checked before they cast the vote.

Trying to argue in favor of the senate doesn't help.
It is time for Democrats to quit making excuses for bad democrats, democrats who don't really work for the people.
It plays right into their word games, the same way they twist
"voter verified paper ballots" into
"independent verification systems".

The bill seems to have been re-written perfectly to allow Clodfelter's home county's 1,400
voting machines, the Microvote 464, which prints a paper record INSIDE of the machine.
IF garbage goes in, garbage will go out.

This is about getting people to hold these democrats accountable,
tons of lawyers already looked at the bill, wrote the bill, and then this senator changed the bill after good lawyers already wrote it.

This is typical of Democrats to eat themselves by installing voting systems that are prone to fraud.

Don't support their twisting of the language,
don't sit there and take it anymore,
quit enabling democratic incomepetence.
Get rid of the bad democrats, support the good ones.
That is the only way to beat the republicans.

The origional legislation was based on 3 months of testimony,
and was modeled after other states legislation. That is a fact.

This is an alert to those who aren't taking it any more.

[garybeck]

13. we had the same experience in Vermont

surprisingly it was the Democratic SOS who made it difficult. It was the tenacity of the voting rights advocates who held their ground, pressured legisltors and finally got the law enacted that requires paper ballots. yeah, we actually got paper ballots, not just paper records. however we are going to try to improve the law now because we have Diebold scanners and we want to institute random audits.

I imagine it will be another fight with the democrats. how ironic.

[Bill Bored]

12. Here's an amendment for your bill:

"1. The BOE in each county shall purchase a f^&$ing RIBBON CABLE for each DRE with a printer on the inside thereof, disconnect the printer from the INSIDE of the DRE and move it to the OUTSIDE of the DRE, where the voters can verify the paper record.

2. Connect the printer on the outside of the DRE to the inside of the DRE with the f^&$ing ribbon cables purchased in subsection 1 herein in the same manner as previously connected from the inside."

Call it the Bored Amendment! It would cost about $5 per DRE to convert them from PATs to VVPATs. What do you think?

[Stevepol]

14. Bill Bored, a great idea. Would it work with a Micro-Vote machine?

or do you know that. Here where I vote we use a Micro-Vote machine which has a scroll on the inside on which (supposedly) the machine records the vote that is cast in cyber space on the machine. If you can give me the information about how to convert one of these machines I'll call the Elections Supervisor here and tell him about it, maybe find some people willing to fund the switchover to VVPATs.

[Bill Bored]

15. Actually I was kidding but

in principle, it would work if the printer does what it's supposed to do. You'd need a way to keep the VVPATs from getting stolen though and you'd also want to mix 'em up and randomize them so the voters couldn't be identified by the order in which their votes were cast. This is only significant when there's just one machine per precinct though and it should also be a requirement when the printer is on the inside.

Might be better to just make a hole somewhere so the printer can be seen from the outside, but it all seems a bit kludgey!

When you think of all the problems with this stuff, it's hardly worthwhile compared to Op Scans, but there are a few DREs that do cut the paper and drop it in a box or something just so the vote order can't be determined from the paper roll. I assume this isn't one of them.

[tommcintyre]

16. OK, put it in terms they will understand. "Starve the beast"!

I wrote this for the national election fraud; but it certainly could be modified to apply to recalcitrant state Dems to.

For now on, for ANY national (or state) politician to get my: 1) financial contribution, 2) volunteer help, 3) AND ESPECIALLY my vote, they must support the meaningful investigation of election fraud (and/or reform).

Tell them if they don't include a VVPB, you are going to work very hard to spread the word to all you can, so they will do the same.

Hit 'em where it hurts!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. we will be campaigning aginst these DINOs

if they don't quit asking the lobbyists how the legislation should be written, we are going to take our VVPB lobbying energy and use it against the incumbent dems behind this.

The new (bad) language of the bill looks as if a lobbyist for a voting machine company wrote it.

There is a prominent democrat who is also a lobbyist for at least one voting machine company who has access to the legislators, and has
been at the hearings on our bills.

It would take someone with more knowlege of the voting machines than the senators had to re-write the bill the way it was done.

If the Dems obey their lobbyist masters, North Carolina could be the dumping ground for the DRE rejects that no one else will buy.