The Voting Machine Jackpot

[Amaryllis]

The Voting Machine Jackpot
By Max Blumenthal, AlterNet
Posted on August 26, 2004, Printed on October 25, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/19660/

On August 24th, droves of state and county election officials converged on Washington, D.C. for a four day-long conference designed to help prepare them for the crucial task they will perform this November 2. The conference will allow them to chat with the four members of the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) appointed by President Bush to administer election standards, mingle with congressional members involved in recent election reforms, and finally, they will be presented with awards by the three major voting machine companies that wined, dined and lobbied them throughout the entire four days.

Though the notion that the voting machine industry would use a purportedly educational conference as its forum to lobby state and federal officials is startling, it is only the latest front in the industry's campaign to earn as much federal money as it can with as few complications as possible. By setting aside hundreds of millions of dollars each year to help states buy new voting equipment without mandating standards for that equipment, the 2002 Help America Vote Act's (HAVA) most enduring reform has been the establishment of a taxpayer-funded piggy bank for the voting machine industry. And with hundreds of millions of HAVA money still slated for distribution to the states, the industry is eager to sell them its new direct-recording-electronic touch screen voting systems (DRE's).

Unfortunately for the industry, during its roll to record profits, DRE's have been demonstrated as vulnerable to fraud by voting technology experts while the machines themselves have demonstrated a tendency to go haywire in numerous elections, including last spring's election in California in which many Diebold DRE's malfunctioned and may have disenfranchised thousands of voters. Events like the California crash have led scientists, lawmakers, and concerned citizens to argue for a paper trail system so voters can see their vote was cast properly and election officials can perform recounts if necessary. However, the industry apparently views the paper trail movement as an obstacle to widening its profit margin, and the paper trail itself as a risky proposition that could add to its public relations headache by providing further evidence of faultiness of the its technology. In the rush to send out its machines before November, the industry has identified the paper trail movement as the chief obstacle to widening its profit margin.

In a furious effort to prevent its cash cow from becoming a sacrificial lamb, the industry contracted the lobbying powerhouse, the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), to wage a bitter PR counter-offensive against its perceived enemies. The industry has also found a quiet but effective partner in Doug Lewis and the Election Center, a 501 c-3 non-profit that helps train and regulate election officials and certify voting machines which has nevertheless accepted donations from the industry while assisting ITAA to develop talking points and lobby the very officials it trains.

For the rest of the article:
http://www.alternet.org/election04/19660/

[msongs]

1. how many elected dems lobby for this mob? nt

[Einsteinia]

2. Yes, the Help America Vendors Act, BUT

I was surprised that the a national county clerks association has written Congress to plead for an extension on implementation of independent voting for the disabled, etc., that is to go into place on 1/1/06--that is enforceable by the DOJ.

Read this letter and see how the claim they cannot read a crystal ball to know what will be certified by the end or the year. Also, the remind Congress that the Election Assistance Commission that was supposed to provide protocols to carry out HAVA were late YET they are expected to perform on time?


*

October 20, 2005

Dear Member of Congress:

Before you conclude the first session of the 109th Congress, county officials across the nation urge you to attend to a critical piece of unfinished business that will protect and preserve the integrity of our voting process:

Fix the implementation timeline for the Help America Vote Act.

Many counties across the nation will be unable to comply with provisions of that law that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2006, because the federal government has failed to meet its own statutory deadlines for issuing standards for voting equipment – standards that have not been finished and to which no equipment has yet been tested or certified. In the absence of this certification, county officials can only gaze into a crystal ball and make predictions about which equipment will eventually meet the federal standards in the face of spiraling costs and threatened lawsuits in federal court.

The Election Assistance Commission has recognized the impossibility of this situation and stated it best in their Annual Reports for 2003 and 2004: “The implications of these delays are likely to include continued problems with election equipment; other unresolved election administration issues such as voter verifiable paper audit; and the likely inability of States and local election jurisdictions to meet HAVA requirements by statutory deadlines” and “Perhaps the most serious implication of the delayed EAC startup is the impact it will have on State procurement of new election equipment and the ability of some States and local election jurisdictions to meet HAVA requirements by statutory deadlines.”

We urge you to provide a temporary moratorium on federal agency enforcement of the deadlines in the Help America Vote Act. This will also send a message to the federal courts to give the states and counties breathing room to make wise decisions based on guidance from the EAC – as was the intent of HAVA.

County officials appreciate your attention to this urgent matter. If you have any questions, please ask your staff to contact Alysoun McLaughlin, Associate Legislative Director, at 202-942-4254 or [e-mail].

Sincerely,
*
Larry Naake
Executive Director