David Dill vs Nancy Tobi On Holt HR 811

For our information

It's Time to Outlaw Paperless Electronic Voting in the U.S. (13 comments ) by David Dill 4-29-2007

Four years ago, when I began publicly opposing paperless electronic voting, passing a federal law to require voter-verified paper records (VVPRs) seemed an impossible dream. Rep. Rush Holt introduced such a bill in 2003, and another in 2005, but both bills languished in committee until the clock ran out.

The dream is now achievable, due in part to the unending stream of problems caused by paperless voting machines in recent years.

HR 811, the third incarnation of the Holt bill, is a critical measure needed to protect the integrity of our elections, and it now has very good prospects of being enacted. It already has 210 co-sponsors in the House, where only 218 votes are required to pass it.
There are two provisions in HR 811 that are especially vital for restoring trust in American elections: A nationwide requirement for voter-verified paper records, and stringent random manual counts of those records, to make sure they agree with the announced vote totals. The requirements in the Holt bill are superior to those in almost every state of the country (there are now 22 states with significant amounts of paperless electronic voting, and only 13 states require random audits of VVPRs).

Success is not assured, however. The forces that have blocked previous bills are still active, especially vendors of current poorly performing equipment. Also, various concerns, reasonable and otherwise, have been raised about the bill by other parties.

Some groups insist on optical scan machines, which read and count hand-marked paper ballots, and are not supporting HR 811 because it still allows the use of touch-screen machines. However, under HR 811, those machines must be equipped with so-called voter-verifiable paper trails, which print a paper copy of the vote that can be reviewed by the voter before being cast. Most of the current generation of inferior paper-trail machines would not be allowed under HR 811, which requires the machines to preserve the privacy of voters and requires the VVPRs to be printed on high-quality paper. This will create a strong incentive for local jurisdictions to purchase optical scan equipment. Furthermore, HR 811 makes the paper records the official ballots of record in audits and recounts, and requires election officials to post a notice explaining to voters the need to verify their VVPRs.

I would personally prefer to see optical scan machines be used nationwide, if supplemented by equipment to allow voters with disabilities to vote privately. If groups objecting to HR 811 can cause such a bill to be introduced and line up the votes in Congress to get it passed, that bill will have my support. Meanwhile, those of us who have actually talked to Congressional staff have not seen any significant support for such a requirement. It seems that we have a choice between HR 811 or continuation of our current "Kafka-esque" paperless system (as a French politician recently described it).

Another small but noisy contingent is opposing HR 811, sometimes without revealing their true agenda, because they will be satisfied only with a nationwide system of hand-counted paper ballots. In theory, we could adopt hand-counting of all ballots. However, hand counting is rarely used now. It is politically unrealistic to believe that the overwhelming number of jurisdictions that have been using automated voting in various forms for 40 years or more are going to go back to hand counting. HR 811 does not prevent hand counting for those communities who want to do it, but it provides a realistic solution for the rest of us...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-dill/its-time-to-outlaw-paper_b_47202.html

http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/04/david-dills-excellent-essay-on-holt.html

Shame on all of you for mistaking technology for democracy


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043007T.shtml

Rebuttal to Dill's Support of the HR 811 Trojan Horse
By Nancy Tobi OpEd News Friday 27 April 2007

...Dill writes:

"There are two provisions in HR 811 that are especially vital for restoring trust in American elections: A nationwide requirement for voter-verified paper records, and stringent random manual counts of those records, to make sure they agree with the announced vote totals."
Dill is correct in that we need to have auditable paper in our elections. He is incorrect in stating we need to have paper "records" (as opposed to ballots), but at least he is honest enough to make the differentiation. The Holt Bill itself disingenuously refers to "paper ballots" throughout the bill, even while referring only to paper printouts generated by a computerized voting machine.

But I believe that if Holt had produced an ingenuous "paper trail" bill with only the two items Dill mentions above, it is highly unlikely the bill would be receiving such a wide swath of broad based opposition.

(And it should be noted here that the bill is opposed by a strange group of often oppositional bedfellows: the voting industry, the National Association of Secretaries of States, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, The Election Center, the American Association of Persons with Disabilities, and election integrity activist organizations and individuals nationwide.)

It is doubtful that, had the bill only contained the two items Dill points to, it would be receiving such strong opposition even from those citizens Dr. Dill claims have a "hidden agenda" for hand counting.

I will not belabor the particular issue of hand counting that he raises - in somewhat of a sidelong manner - in his piece, but it is worth rebutting his positioning of it.

Those patriotic Americans who support hand counted paper ballot elections, of which I include myself, support hand count elections because we have spent considerable time over the past several years analyzing requirements - not for TECHNOLOGOLICAL elections - but for DEMOCRATIC elections.

After several years of rigorous debate, dialog, dissent, and discussion, after years of this evolutionary thought by patriotic American citizens, we have arrived at the simple conclusion that democratic elections require citizen oversight of the entire voting process, and that this is impossible when computers - with their processes invisible to the human eye - are involved. In other words, we have come right back to what the founders of our nation and the framers of our early state constitutions understood full well, which is why both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire constitutions state that our votes must be "sorted and counted" in "open meeting".

This raises doubt as well on optical scanners, which, as Dr. Dill full well knows, have been the perpetrators of at least as much electoral crime, fraud, and failure as the touch screens he derides in his piece...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043007T.shtml

Bev Harris Black Box Voting:

HR 811: Representative Lofgren's substitute amendment

the new version is NOT improved! It's actually worse than its predecessor.

UNPRECEDENTED POWER GRAB

- It rides roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the states, by taking the unprecedented step of recommending that states violate their own state laws if needed in order to comply with the bill. It then says the states can catch up with their own laws later.

Let me explain just how wrong-headed this is, and "wrong-headed" is a polite term for "power grab":

Laws are supposed to be passed following a deliberative process. That deliberative process is not supposed to have a foregone conclusion, and if it does, the deliberative process is just a sham process. So, when the federal government encroaches on the fundamental checks and balances giving certain powers to the states, by telling the states to violate their own state laws, and then says "you can change your laws to match later", that is saying "do a sham deliberative process with a foregone conclusion" to create your legislative changes...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/36349/47369.html?1179416469

Related

Avi Rubin's Blog
Thursday, April 26, 2007
David Dill's excellent essay on the Holt Bill

http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/04/david-dills-excellent-essay-on-holt.html

May 10th, 2007
Paper trail bill voted out of House committee. Would such a law have prevented Sarasota?
Posted by ZDNet Government @ May 10, 2007 @ 9:25 PM

Categories: Government technology, Congress, Elections

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3137

Rush Holt Bill Due to come up for vote sometime soon as early as April 16, and be aware, there is still opposition to it due to what are perceived flaws in the bill - from non-partisan and even liberal quarters...

Net the Truth Online posts the controversy about the new Holt legislation HR 811 for your information.

As proposed currently, the Holt bill appears to have enough opposition and detailed concerns about security and integrity - and the auditing process as proposed - from those within the election watchdog and voting security community to warrant holding off on the passage of the legislation in its current form. The sad thing would be for the bill to pass as is, over the objections of election community activists, and then have it touted as the final solution to everything related to election problems in the United States.

Just read our coverage of a legal challenge to a candidate's nomination petitions and you can see a big problem remains with the voter registration lists.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/clean-up-voter-registration-rolls.html

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=voter+registration

The Holt bill does nothing about inaccurate computerized voter registration rolls in every state. Without those being updated and clean of voters who have moved to another state, or are deceased, how can anyone trust the outcome of any election? The debate may rage on for years concerning whether electronic (touchscreen) voting machines malfunction, are tampered with and frauded, or encounter human error as seen in the programming of the wrong date on the machines in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania which necessitated an overhaul of the machines on election day 2006.

But there should be no debate about inaccurate voter registration rolls.

No election is safe if even a handful of names of electors remain on the voter rolls which should not be there for being illegal, deceased, moved, changed address, etc.

Rush Holt website
http://holt.house.gov/voting.shtml

Q: What are the bill’s fundamental requirements?
http://holt.house.gov/HR_811.shtml

Statement

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-s7tDXhH-u8J:www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/HR%2520811%2520Statement%2520to%2520Elections%2520Subcomm%2520March%252023%25202007%2520-%2520final.pdf+rush+holt+hr+811+vote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us

GovTrack.us. H.R. 811--110th Congress (2007): Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)

(accessed Apr 5, 2007)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811

Sponsors and co-sponsors

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00811:@@@P

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00811:@@@X

Mark Up

http://www.topix.net/us-house/rush-holt/2007/04/election-reform-bill-gets-committee-action

Press Releases:: March 23, 2007
Subcommittee on Elections Conducts Hearing on the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (H.R. 811)
H.R. 811 Promises Optical Solution to Election Reform; Leaves Many in the Dark

http://gop.cha.house.gov/MediaPages/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1450

National Conference of State Legislatures
Office of State-Federal Relations
March 27, 2007

URGE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO OPPOSE H.R. 811, THE “VOTER CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2007 “
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) urges you to speak to members of your congressional delegation during the spring recess and tell them to oppose H.R. 811, which amends the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and preempts state laws governing paper trails for voting machines and post-election audit procedures. This bill would also create an unfunded federal mandate for states because it requires states to pay for completely new or retrofitted voting machines as well to meet the conditions of the bill. H.R. 811 will be marked up in the House Committee on House Administration on Thursday, March 29 and could reach the House floor as early as April 16...

IT IS CRITICAL THAT STATE LEGISLATORS CONTACT THEIR HOUSE DELEGATIONS AND URGE THEM TO OPPOSE THE VOTER CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2007...

For more information, please contact Susan Parnas Frederick or Hirsh Kravitz at NCSL at 202-624-5400...

http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sclaw/ActionAlertHR811.htm

People for American Way pro Holt Bill

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23548

Avi Rubin OK with Holt Bill Plugs his new book
Saturday, February 17, 2007
H.R. 811, the new Holt bill
Earlier this month, US Congressman Rush Holt (D, NJ) introduced H.R. 811, a bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper ballot. I have read the bill, as well as some of the criticism by various activists.

In my opinion, passage of the Holt bill would be the single most positive development in this country this decade to ensure the security, integrity and verifiability of elections. As a federal law, this legislation would establish a baseline for all states that would exceed the security and audit of elections in most states today.

http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/02/hr-811-new-holt-bill.html

Overall supportive discussion of Holt Bill HR 811

Vote PA

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/

Includes podcast interview

John Bonifaz makes the case for amending Holt's HR 811
February 22, 2007

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-02-22-13-11-02-news.php

Holes in HR 811 Charted No Leaky Buckets

http://noleakybuckets.org/holt811/holt811detail.shtml

Black Box Voting forum dissects HR 811 and provides links to more material

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46591.html?1174411717

Serious flaws in the Holt Bill includes link to Bev Harris What's Wrong with Holt more Bruce O'Dell, Nancy Tobi...

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DKC6MliVScYJ:electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf+rush+holt+hr+811+congress+vote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=40&gl=us

Same as above with links

Four Election Integrity Groups Release a 'One-Page Concept Proposal...
PRWeb March 29, 2007

- Leaders in four election integrity organizations are delivering a proposal to the Congress calling on the members to sponsor better election reform legislation.

According to leaders of The National Election Data Archive, Black Box Voting, Democracy for New Hampshire, and Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections, OH, there are serious flaws in current election reform proposals proposed by U.S. Congressman Rush Holt and Senator Bill Nelson (HR 811 & S559) and by Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Hillary Clinton (HR1381 & S804).

Some election officials agree. Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections in a March 20, 2007 email correspondence said: 'Congress got it wrong when it passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and there is a high probability that HR 811 in its current form could create another form of expensive mischief that could interfere with efficient administration of elections.'

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) have also written a joint letter on March 19, 2007 urging members of Congress to oppose HR811/S559.

Yet, federal election reform legislation is critically needed in early 2007 if it is to be in effect in time to assure the accuracy and truth of 2008 federal elections.

http://www.topix.net/content/prweb/2120470182058150523124222284333460296205

Coalition for Visible Ballots issues opposition statement to new Holt Bill
New Version of Holt Bill: A Giant Step Backwards: Position Statement from Coalition for Visible Ballots

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3467

www.coalitionforvisibleballots.org

Election Integrity: Fact & Friction

Sunday, March 4, 2007
H.R.811: Fact & Friction -- Part I
Posted by Howard Stanislevic at 10:18 PM

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2007/03/hr811-fact-friction-part-i.html

Wednesday, March 28, 2007
H.R.811: Fact & Friction – Part III
Posted by Howard Stanislevic at 3:28 PM
By Mark Lindeman, Ph.D. and Howard Stanislevic, Research Consultant

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2007/03/hr811-fact-friction-part-iii.html

Saturday, March 10, 2007
H.R.811: Fact & Friction -- Part II
Posted by Howard Stanislevic at 2:28 PM
Guest blogged by Mark Lindeman, Ph.D.*

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2007/03/hr811-fact-friction-part-ii_10.html

I still fail to understand why these organizations continue to promote the idea that the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It is a republic, a nation of laws... just aggravating, since otherwise the material is useful...

Voters Unite
Participate in Protecting Our Democracy!
Help Amend HR 811 to prohibit "electronic ballots."
This page lists a variety of materials you can use, and actions you can take, to work toward informing Congress and others of the reasons why electronic ballots must be prohibited in the United States -- NOW.
These materials are aimed at amending Congressman Rush Holt's bill ("Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007") to ban electronic ballots.

http://www.votersunite.org/info/HR811AmendmentResources.asp

Where's the Paper

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/HR811.html

Discussion on blog

Freedom to Tinker
Protect E-Voting — Support H.R. 811
Monday March 12, 2007 by Ed Felten

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1134

Edward W. Felton Testimony link

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1137

My Supplemental E-Voting Testimony
Friday March 30, 2007 by Ed Felton

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1140

Dan Wallach testified before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on February 7

http://accurate-voting.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/dwallach-senate-testimony-7feb07.pdf

http://accurate-voting.org/2007/04/02/other-recent-housesenate-testimony/

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2007/Felten_evoting_testimony.pdf


More discussion

Use care in reading comments on Brad Blog as many posters just have one-train of thought on Republicans - too bad, as that simply diminishes any arguments they have on the issue of the Holt bill for or against...

Brad Blog

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4316

No comments links to material, articles (better)

Rush Holt Election Reform Bill (HR 811)

http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=4194

Just one more, promise cause you gotta enjoy reading those comments that are so-o conspiratorial ...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4317
Continue to use the search feature on Net the Truth Online for more information on this issue

Brad Blog: False Dichotomies Being Used by Democrats...

"The False Dichotomies Being Used by Democrats and Their Public-Advocacy Group Supporters to Prop Up the Failings of the Holt Election Reform Bill"

Misrepresentation of the 'Opposition,' Fear of Failure, and a Bizarre, Unsubstantiated 'Civil Rights' Argument All Employed to Avoid Legitimate Debate on the Dangers of the Pending Legislation...

We've been discussing the pros and cons of Rep. Rush Holt's Election Reform bill (HR 811 [PDF]) since it dropped two weeks ago in the House.

There is, no doubt, much more to say about the specific pros and cons in detail here as we move forward. For the moment, allow me to first address three false dichotomies opportunistically and/or disingenuously and/or naively being used by supporters of Holt's legislation in order to help see it passed by Congress.

In doing so, I'll share some of what I've learned over the past several weeks via my personal investigations into why the Democrats who support the bill, along with their closely-allied public advocacy groups, are currently unable or unwilling to show the necessary courage to insist upon the banning of disenfranchising, failed DRE/touch-screen voting system technology from all American elections.

The inability, or unwillingness, of such groups to stand up and call for what most know to be the right thing is occurring despite the fact that most of those groups actually agree --- and will admit privately, if not always publicly --- that DRE technology has no place in our electoral system and is a grave menace to true Electoral Integrity.

Collectively, these three arguments are being used to shore up support for a bill which offers much good (DISCLOSURE: I participated in the drafting of the bill myself, and did what I could --- sometimes successfully, sometimes not --- to improve its language and provisions), yet ultimately may prove to be as dangerous as the disastrous Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and risks becoming known as HAVA 2 by 2008. And, as I've pointed out before, this time the Democrats won't have the Republicans or Bob Ney to blame.

FALSE DICHOTOMY #1:
It's Either Holt or Hand-Counted Paper Ballots...

The first of the three false dichotomies being forwarded by some of the bill's supporters is to suggest that there are only two choices: Pass the Holt bill 'as is,' or continue an unwinnable campaign for all hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB).

The now oft-repeated intimation is the very definition of a strawman, a canard, and a truly disingenuous false dichotomy. ...


While Hand-Counted Paper Ballots might be swell and offer maximum transparency and citizen oversight --- as well as not being nearly as difficult or unwieldy to accomplish as many under-informed folks may believe --- the majority of Holt detractors, including myself, are not fighting for hand-counted paper ballots at this time. Rather, we are fighting for a necessary ban on the failed and disenfranchising technology of DRE/touch-screen systems, which succeeded spectacularly in 2006 in ensuring that thousands (or perhaps millions) of legally registered voters were unable to cast a vote at all, much less have that vote counted either accurately or transparently.

Banning DREs does not mean all votes must be counted by hand. Most supporters of the Holt Bill know that --- or should, if they don't --- yet seem to be using the false argument when convenient to distract from the real shortcomings and concerns of the Holt legislation.

Optical-scan systems, while also presenting their own security and accuracy concerns, could easily and (fairly) safely be used with publicly-disclosed source code and a mandatory random hand-audit protocol of a sufficient number of ballots to achieve 99% scientific certainty that the reported results of any optically-scanned election are correct.

I say this knowing that those who support nothing less than 100% HCPB would likely disagree.

In either case, suggesting that those who understand the need for a complete ban on failed DRE technology are actually demanding HCPB is a cheap and unsubstantiated political tactic, unworthy of this necessary debate. It serves only to confuse at a time when all well-meaning Election Integrity advocates (and I include Holt in that group) ought to be having a legitimate discussion/debate about these most important matters...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4163

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 2/14/2007 12:00PM
Holt Election Reform Bill Continues to be Supported by Democrats and Their Public Advocacy Groups, While Being Criticized by the Election Integrity Community
Flawed Bill Continues to Fast-Track While Supporters Ignore the Concerns of Those Who Know the Issue Best
HR811 On Schedule to Become 'HAVA 2' Unless Radically Amended, Improved...
Blogged from the road by Brad Friedman...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4150

Rush to Voting Security Flawed?

Congressman Rush Holt has reintroduced legislation called Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act in the U.S. House of Representatives which according to Holt's press release posted on his site would require voter-verified paper ballots and random audits in elections across the United States.

clip

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would require a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast, which would become the ballot of record in the event of any recount or audit. It would require routine random audits of paper ballots by hand count in a percentage of voting precincts in each Congressional District. It would also take steps to make elections more publicly transparent by allowing for the inspection of voting system software. It would require documenting a secure chain of custody for voting systems and prohibit conflicts of interest involving vendors. It would keep the election process accessible to voters with disabilities, and authorize federal funding to help states meet the requirements...

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj12_holt/020607.html

The legislation, this Congressional session known as House Resolution 811, however, has met with swift and steadfast opposition from national election integrity activist organizations.

In a Feb. 8, 2007 group message entitled: Beware of the Bandwagon -- A concise list of problems with Holt Bill HR 811, Black Box Voting's Bev Harris posted a listing of organizations that oppose the 2007 legislation as it is currently proposed. Harris posts a listing of co-sponsors of the bill whom she suggests should be contacted, indicating her opinion:

here are those that probably didn't read the bill very carefully and signed on as co-sponsors.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46667.html?1170961452

The BBV Forum site continues to critique and dissect every line of the Holt legislation in what can only be termed by supporters a tireless and dedicated effort to gain legislation that fixes, rather than accepts, vulnerabilities in electronic voting identified by an array of experts across the country.

The BBV Forum has also discussed Paper Ballot Act of 2006 HR 6200 IH introduced in the 109th Congress by Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic lawmaker.

The bill states: ...require States to conduct Presidential elections using paper ballots and to count those ballots by hand, and for other purposes.

That legislation would have applied to presidential elections and required hand counting of the paper ballots.

The full bill remains posted on the site.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/46645.html?1171027586

The opinion of many on the BBV Forum group leans to exclusive use of a paper ballot with hand counts.

Meanwhile, in a message posted to the VotePA message board, founder of the Pennsylvania organization, Marybeth Kuznick, presents explanations for support of the Holt legislation.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/2757

Kuznick guested on KDKA's radio programming Morning News with Larry Richert on Friday to discuss the Holt legislation.

Responding to a series of VotePA discussion messages alternating between raising concerns and supporting the Holt legislation, according to Kuznick, in part:

Holt is NOT a bad bill. It is not a perfect bill either. I think it
is basically an ACHIEVABLE bill and that is the key.

It is a bill that contains input from dozens of local, state, and
national groups along with concerns for what happened in the 2006
primaries and general elections. Filtered, yes. A compromise in many
cases, maybe. But something that genuinely has a chance of actually
PASSING.

There are major national organizations supporting this bill
(VoteTrustUSA, Common Cause, PFAW, VerifiedVoting, etc.)
Approximately 25 state election integrity groups endorse it (and
another half dozen or more that endorse it provisionally meaning they
want to see it with amendments.) Know that Brad Friedman, John Bonifaz, John Gideon, etc. are NOT against this bill per se. They want to see amendments.

Well there WILL be amendments. That is the process...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/2757

Kuznick noted in the posting she was attending DC hearings on the new legislation, and would clarify further.

Meanwhile, Nancy Tobi, (Chair, Democracy for New Hampshire) strongly rejects the Holt legislation as unveiled, noting a feature to employ text conversion process and engenders consolidation of Executive power and federal control over elections
Tobi calls "treasonous."

February 7, 2007 at 19:14:17

New Version of Holt Bill: A Giant Step Backwards
Article by Nancy Tobi, Chair, Democracy for New Hampshire and co-author of "Request by Voters" letter...

You can keep arguing the merits of this audit method or that, this paper trail or that, but the Holt Bill has two poison pills in it that can not be argued away:

1) huge unfunded mandate for text-to-audio conversion technology

2) consolidation of Executive power and control over Federal elections.

We must fight this treasonous bill and call it for what it is: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

It is bad enough that the authors of this bill, two years following the NASS resolution to sunset the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and after more than a years' worth of activist pleadings to get rid of this growing little monster, the EAC, cement it as a permanent Executive agency in his new bill.

Bad enough that the authors of this bill are comfortable handing over control of federal elections to the White House. This is treasonous in and of itself.

But on top of this unseemly and anti democratic motion, the new Holt bill insinuates a whole new technoelection industrial toy into every polling place in the nation...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070207_new_version_of_holt_.htm

Additional developments

Feinstein hearings on electronic voting: testimony submitted to offset witness bias
By Andrea T. Novick, Esq.

Dear Mr. Ambrogi and Ms. Price,

I understand the public has 5 days from the Hearings held today (February 7, 2007) to submit comment which will be accepted by the committee. Please advise if I am incorrect about that.

I listened to the Hearing this morning and while I greatly appreciate that someone is finally paying attention to what will one day be seen as the greatest crime in the history of this country, I was deeply dismayed by many of the comments from those you'd called to testify...
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3436

Holt Reintroduces Voting Integrity Bill
Bill Would Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot and Random Audits

Washington, D.C. --- Rep. Rush Holt today reintroduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, landmark legislation that would amend the Help America Vote Act to protect the verifiability and accessibility of elections.

“Until we require that voting systems produce a voter-verified paper ballot, the results of our elections will always be uncertain,” said Rep. Holt. “All Americans deserve to be confident that their vote will be counted, and it is my hope that the 110th Congress will act soon to pass legislation that will ensure elections are fair, accessible, and auditable.”

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would require a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast, which would become the ballot of record in the event of any recount or audit. It would require routine random audits of paper ballots by hand count in a percentage of voting precincts in each Congressional District. It would also take steps to make elections more publicly transparent by allowing for the inspection of voting system software. It would require documenting a secure chain of custody for voting systems and prohibit conflicts of interest involving vendors. It would keep the election process accessible to voters with disabilities, and authorize federal funding to help states meet the requirements.

Holt first introduced legislation requiring that electronic voting machines produce a voter-verified paper ballot in the 108th Congress. In the 109th Congress, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550) had the support of 222 bipartisan cosponsors, more than a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. Despite this fact, it was not brought to the House floor for a vote.

Holt called on Congress to pass his legislation soon, in order to assure enough implementation time for the 2008 presidential election...
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj12_holt/020607.html

H.R.811 : To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
(introduced 2/5/2007) Cosponsors (182)
Committees: House Administration
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:9:./temp/~bd2ICd::|/bss/d110query.html|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.811:

Holt legislation dissected section by section at Bev Harris' Black Box Voting...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46591.html?1170977768

Several election integrity and security organizations and activists noted in opposition to the 2007 legislation in its current form.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46667.html?1170961452

online at BBV Forum in pdf

Holt Bill: pdf version

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46643.html?1170881278

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/HOLT_2-5-07.pdf

For sampling pursposes only... material is cohesive and well-documented

The bill's audits are insufficient (to detect and correct errors and fraud), give officials far too much discretion, and are anything but transparent. I have very little hope of remedying those defects, but there are some major legal defects that we should try to remedy.

First, sec.2(a)(2)(B)(iii) says:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46643.html?1170881278

Pg.1 Lines 1-5 -- Section 1: Holt Bill description
"Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007"

from Paul Lehto:

quote:
The "new" Holt bill is a deceptive and fraudulent bill.

Why?

It uses the term "Ballot" to mean nothing much more than the old-fashioned "paper records" under the original "old" HR550 --- in other words in the "new" Holt "ballot" actually means something that will NEVER get counted on the FIRST count. Under the "new" Holt bill, just like under the old one, they will still count the electronic votes FIRST and release those as the results on election night, and the paper "ballots" only count (again just like the old Holt bill) if the audits show discrepancies...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46599.html?1170977768

Also see

Paul Lehto Retained By Election Integrity Advocates In San Diego
Breaking!
Guest blogged by Emily Levy of the California Election Protection Network and the CA-50 Action Committee

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3113

Ben Olasov Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 05:44 pm:

What's especially concerning about this isn't just the number and severity of the flaws - or the cost, it's the lack of anything resembling a meaningful public debate on the issues. Specifically, why isn't the review process for a bill like this /required/ to engage election integrity advocacy groups like BBV in the first place?? Just basic common sense says you want to know about any design flaws in the bill /before/ it comes up for a vote. This is like starting a large-scale construction project without doing an environmental impact study - only worse. Is anyone pushing for change in the protocol for reviewing bills like this?

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46649.html#POST33039

More

Discussion Nancy Tobi piece including

TEXT-TO-AUDIO TECHNOELECTION TOY TIMELINE:

August 2005

The EAC Standards Board meets to review the recommendations for the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which will become the basis for federal recommendations, testing, and certification of e-voting equipment.

In the link here you will find the resolutions from the EAC Standards Board August 2005 meeting, in which they recommended removing all language referencing text conversion from the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG):...

December 2005

http://www.eac.gov/VVSG%20Volume_II.pdf


http://www.bbvdocs.org/EAC/Standards-Board-Final-Resolution-As-Amended.pdf

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46649.html?1171062318

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46615.html?1170942304

Dopp letter and signers

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/Letter2Congress.pdf

VotersUnite.org news and postings and BradBlog news and postings regarding the Holt legislation

John Gideon presents a case for the necessity of amendments

Daily Voting News
By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org
February 07, 2007

As related by John Bonifaz of Demos and the National Voting Rights Institute, in a blog on BradBlog.Com, “[Yesterday], Congressman Rush Holt introduced H.R. 811, a bill trumpeted as requiring “a voter-verified permanent paper ballot.” But before we all jump on this train as the new guarantee that our votes will be properly counted in future elections, we ought to beware of the warning flag. A paper trail from DRE (Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen) machines cannot protect the integrity of our elections.” And “the Holt bill tries to say it is requiring a paper ballot even for DREs, but, in the end, a DRE "paper ballot" is nothing more than a paper trail, which requires voters to verify their votes after they have cast them in the DRE machines...

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=2&Itemid=1032

By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org
February 06, 2007

Today has been a huge news day. Two bills were filed in Congress; one that we support (HR-756) and one that we don’t. HR-811 (the new HR-550) was filed, with 168 co-sponsors, and became the new Holt Bill. Newspapers began writing editorials and voicing their opinions before any of them could have read the bill. Many groups tripped over themselves in a race to endorse the bill; some without ever having read its contents. One group began, two weeks ago, asking their members to begin making calls to support the bill which was then changed more than once in the ensuing period. VotersUnite will not support this legislation because of its allowance for the continued use of DREs and its corruption of “paper ballot”. At this time, we will also not work against those groups who wish to support the bill. Instead we will stand neutral and report the facts, and an occasional opinion, as we have always done.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2247&Itemid=1032

BLOGGED BY John Bonifaz ON 2/6/2007 3:51PM
Why the Holt Election Reform Bill Must be Amended to Guarantee a Real Paper Ballot
Guest Blogger and Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz on Concerns About Holt's 'Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007' (HR 811)

Today, Congressman Rush Holt introduced H.R. 811 [PDF], a bill trumpeted as requiring “a voter-verified permanent paper ballot.” But before we all jump on this train as the new guarantee that our votes will be properly counted in future elections, we ought to beware of the warning flag. A paper trail from DRE (Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen) machines cannot protect the integrity of our elections.

Here’s the bottom line: The DRE technology is fundamentally flawed for recording and counting our votes. The Holt bill, unless amended, will further codify into law the use of this technology, piling onto the disaster of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act of 2002) a new disaster...
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4125

Velvet Revolution and Others Call on Congress to Enact Paper Ballot Legislation!
Paper Ballot Campaign Letter Specifies 'Paper Ballots,' Not 'Paper Records' or 'Paper Trails'

Groups Seek Your Endorsement--Email Congress Now!
VoterAction.org, VotersUnite.org, VelvetRevolution.us, National Voting Rights Institute, Demos, TrueMajorityAction and the Dolores Huerta Foundation, along with dozens of other election integrity groups across the nation, today call upon Congress to introduce and enact legislation ensuring a paper ballot for every vote cast in the United States in time for the 2008 election. This legislation could take the form of an amended version of Rep. Rush Holt's bill known as HR-550, which is currently being rewritten for re-introduction in the new Congress.

While many changes to the U.S. election system are needed, we believe that a paper ballot for every vote cast is an absolutely unassailable requirement of any election reform. This is why we have launched the Paper Ballot Campaign...

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2006/12/velvet_revolution_and_others_l_1.html

Press releases republished

EFF highlights introduction of the legislation

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=109
Holt Reintroduces Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act
By Rep. Rush Holt Press Release
February 06, 2007
Bill Would Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot and Random Audits

Rep. Rush Holt today reintroduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (HR 811), landmark legislation that would amend the Help America Vote Act to protect the verifiability and accessibility of elections...

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2243&Itemid=371

Press Center Common Cause
For Immediate Release Contact: Mary Boyle
February 6, 2007 (202)736-5770
Congress must pass voting integrity legislation to restore public confidence
Common Cause applauds Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) for introducing the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, which would require a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast and require routine random audits of paper ballots by hand count...

http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=194883&ct=3524699

http://www.brennancenter.org/

Brennan Center Letter to Rep. Rush Holt
Feb. 1, 2007 Audits

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_47860.pdf

Also see

Press Releases
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Holds First Senate Hearings on Voting Machines February 7, 2007
Read Brennan Center Executive Director MIchael Waldman's testimony before Sen. Diane Feinstein's Committee.

http://brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_47870.pdf

electionline report makes references to other organizations, etc.

February 8, 2007
electionline.org
I. In Focus This Week
Rep. Rush Holt Reintroduces Updated Paper Trail, Audit Bill
New Jersey lawmaker is optimistic for success on Capitol Hill
By Sean Greene
electionline.org

After more than three years of fits and starts in Congress, a new bill authored by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) requiring voter-verified paper ballots and random audits might have its best chance yet of becoming law.

With a new Democratic majority, voting troubles last November in many areas of the country, legislative activity in the states and most recently, a $32 million plan in Florida to scrap electronic voting machines in favor of paper-based optical-scan systems, Holt said the ingredients for success are in place.

“I don’t anticipate any organized effort to stop it,” he stated at a press conference reintroducing the bill. “The political situation is strong.”

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R.811 amending the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), currently has 179 co-sponsors. He not only expects it to pass, but to be implemented in time for the November 2008 election.

“Until we require that voting systems produce a voter-verified paper ballot, the results of our elections will always be uncertain,” he stated.

At 47 pages, the bill covers a range of issues...

http://www.electionline.org/Newsletters/tabid/87/ctl/Detail/mid/643/xmid/237/xmfid/3/Default.aspx

Tuesday, February 6
Dan Tokaji Equal Vote Blog
The Latest Version of the Holt Bill

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has introduced another version of his bill (H.R. 811) to require that all voting systems generate a "voter-verified" paper ballot. It would authorize $300 million for fisacal year 2007 to meet the new requirements. I've commented on the problems with this sort of requirement numerous times in the past, including here and here, and little would be gained by again replaying that debate. Suffice it to say that, whatever problems exist with electronic voting, it remains doubtful at best that attaching a printer will provide a workable and effective solution.

As with previous versions of the Holt bill, there are some good things here, most notably a provision clarifying that individuals may bring private lawsuits to enforce the technology and administration requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Also, the bill would extend the authorization of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Other aspects of the bill, however, are cause for concern.

One is a provision that the paper records aren't just to be used to audit the accuracy of machines, but to "be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount" of a federal election. This is asking for trouble, in my view, in places where the system used to comply with the bill is an electronic system with a paper printout...

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2007/02/latest-version-of-holt-bill.html

More

July 18, 2006 John Gideon explains on another issue

I have never received any funds from Donna Curling or ChoicePoint. I have never received any funds for any reason from VoteTrustUSA. I am not a "Director" of VoteTrustUSA because there are NO Directors. There is a 'core group' of which I am a member...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/17778.html?1153513020#POST26185

Rush Holt Paper Record Audit Bill Analyzed

analysis of Rush Holt bill

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46643.html?1170881278

Alan Dechert (OVC) opinion of the Holt Bill
Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2007

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/46656.html?1170906729

http://noleakybuckets.org/holt2007.html

January 10, 2007
Talking Points
The Good News (Really) About Voting Machines
By ADAM COHEN

In the summer of 2004, I attended a national meeting of state election directors, and one of the biggest laugh lines was how activists were demanding that electronic voting machines produce a paper record of every vote cast.

An election official stood in front of the group, produced a roll of paper and started to unroll it while saying, to the delight of many in the audience, that the paper record would have to be mighty long to record all of the votes on a California ballot. Ha! Ha! Ridiculous!

The tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts who hate electronic voting could complain all they wanted, the consensus in the room seemed to be, but paper records for electronic voting were impractical and unnecessary, and they were not going to happen.

What a difference two years makes.

Today, 27 states ­ including such large ones as California, New York, Illinois and Ohio ­ require electronic voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper trail. There is paper-trail legislation pending in a dozen more states.

And with the Democrats now in control, Congress appears poised to pass a strong federal law requiring electronic voting machines to produce paper records.

...V. Poised for Victory at the National Level

Having electronic voting machines that can be trusted should not be a partisan issue, but for some reason it has been.

Democratic members of Congress have introduced most of the bills to require paper trails for electronic voting. (One notable exception: Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, has a paper trail bill. In 1998, Senator Ensign lost a Senate race to Harry Reid, now the new Senate majority leader, by fewer than 500 votes.) The Republican leadership prevented those bills from coming to the floor.

With the Democrats now in charge, there is an excellent chance that a federal law requiring a paper trail will pass.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, is the new chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over election law. Last October, Senator Feinstein announced that she intends to introduce legislation requiring paper trails and mandatory, random audits early in the new session.

Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, plans to push a paper trail bill in the House. Mr. Holt’s bill, called the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, has more than 220 bipartisan sponsors.

If paper trail legislation is passed, there is certainly a chance that President Bush will veto it. But it is unclear whether a president who was put in office by the Supreme Court after an electoral system meltdown ­ and who has vetoed so few bills ­ would want to end his presidency by vetoing a popular bill to ensure the integrity of American democracy. In any case, given the growing bipartisan support for paper trails, it is not out of the question that a veto could be overridden...

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/11talkingpoints.html?pagewanted=1