Democrat Rep. Rush Holt Fears those military ballots submitted by fax/email

Oh just come on now, Rep. Holt, the overseas military absentee ballot system is secure because every absentee ballot submission has a "voter verified paper ballot!"

(Plus Democrats are OK with it for Democratic Presidential Primaries...)

Electronic transmission

After faxing or emailing any election material always mail the original to the appropriate state or local election official in your state or territory. Generally, all election-related materials may be mailed postage-paid in the U.S. mails, including APO/FPO facilities and all U.S. Embassies and Consulates. You must pay postage if the materials are mailed from a non-U.S. postal facility.

If emailing, it is recommended that the citizen email the local election official directly. If unable to access the local election official's email address, include this transmittal sheet in the attachment along with the voting materials and email to ets@fvap.ncr.gov.

http://www.fvap.gov/services/faxing.html

It couldn't be any simpler than that. ONE SERVICE MAN OR SERVICE WOMAN AND ONE VOTE! As Imus told Senator John F. Kerry. JUST STOP. STOP IT....

Holt's attempt to call into question the process for absentee military voting at this time, a mere few days out from the election is nothing short of preposterous.

This is the same Representative who proposed legistlation for what - a voter verified paper audit trail - for the direct electronic recording voting systems.

The voter verified paper audit trail is exactly what the overseas absentee ballot system employs.

REALLY - REP. HOLT - ENOUGH BS.

Fox 'n Friends picked up the story...

Steve Doocey:... There's a New Jersey Representative questioning the military absentee vote... Rep. Rush Holt is saying look there might be id theft, security problems... and he's calling into question whether the military ballots are safe... according to the Pentagon, the process is secure, not to worry...

Fox 'n Friends

E.D. Hill interviews pair of commentators on the issue of military ballots, security, identity theft...

We'll be tracking whether MSNBC, CNN, CNN transcripts, Chris Matthews of HARDBALL, Lou Dobbs Tonight cover this big story.

Added November 10, 2006
While the statement:

The voter verified paper audit trail is exactly what the overseas absentee ballot system employs.

holds true, it has been pointed out Net the Truth Online neglected to include material from studies questioning the security of e-mail voting.

The following links are provided in the interest of this website's mission to provide as many resources as possible for all of us to find truth.

October 25, 2006Internet Voting RevisitedSecurity and Identity Theft Risks of the DoD's Interim Voting Assistance system by David Jefferson, Avi Rubin, Barbara Simons, and David Wagner

http://servesecurityreport.org/ivas.pdf

Independent Review Final Report for the Interim Voting Assistance Program

http://www.nationaldefensecommittee.org/files/IVAS_FINAL.pdf

Military Ballots May Pose Privacy Risks
Defense Tech | Noah Shachtman | November 02, 2006
American troops could be putting their most personal information at
risk -- just by voting in next week's elections.

Members of the armed forces, stationed overseas, can cast their vote
with a Federal Write In Absentee Ballot, or FWAB, if they can't get one
from their local election boards. But that federal ballot, "Standard
Form 186 (Oct 95)" comes with a major privacy risk, at least in some
editions. The ballot has to be mailed in a special return envelope, in
order to be properly processed. On military bases in the Pacific,
Special Form 186 requires a service member to include his address,
social security number, date of birth, and signature on the outside of
that envelope.

In other words, everything needed to steal a soldier or sailor's
identity is on public display, for anyone to see.

"You'd think the people running this program would've noticed. It's a
joke they didn't, and it's obvious no one was paying attention," a Navy
aviation electrician, attached to the 7th Fleet, tells Defense Tech.

Online editions of the FWAB seem to be more security-conscious, warning
servicemembers "NOT [to] WRITE ANY PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ON
THE ENVELOPE" -- an envelope that's largely blank.

But the paper ballots aren't the only source of privacy concerns in the
military voting system. An e-mail balloting program has been called
into question, for using unencrypted data. "E-mail traffic can flow
through equipment owned and operated by various governments, companies
and individuals in many countries," the Washington Post quotes an
August report prepared for the Pentagon as saying. "It is easily
monitored, blocked and subject to tampering."

But even easier to monitor is a paper ballot, with personal data
scrawled right on the outside of the enevelope. Which is why the Navy
aviation electrician refused to use the form...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,118122,00.html

Holds a view similar to Net the Truth Online, but doesn't bash Rep. Rush Holt

Technology will assure that military absentee ballots get counted -- What about the rest of us?
By Paul McNamara on Thu, 09/21/2006 - 9:53am
The Department of Defense and an e-mail encryption company called PostX are about to announce that PostX has been chosen to fix what has long been a thorny problem for the military: ensuring that absentee ballots of soldiers serving overseas get collected and counted.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/8503


AP Nov 2, 5:51 PM EST

E-Mail Ballots for Military Questioned WASHINGTON (AP) -- A New Jersey congressman raised questions Thursday about a new military voting program that lets service members request and submit their ballots by fax or e-mail.

The Defense Department, however, said the program is as secure as possible, and any risks are detailed for the military members when they access the e-mail system.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Democratic Rep. Rush Holt said the electronic registration and voting service is well-intentioned, but could expose troops to identity theft, or allow hackers or others to tamper with the ballots when they are in transit.

"After the Defense Department was stopped from implementing a program like this two years ago because it was full of security holes, I'm angry and astonished that they're doing it again without review, scrutiny, and oversight," said Holt.

He said that while U.S. military personnel should participate in the political process, "no one is served by introducing possibilities for error, insecurity, and fraud."

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the Defense Department has set up a secure absentee voter program that will allow military members to request and receive absentee ballots. The new program, she said, lets people vote without relying on the regular mail system.

As part of the program, many states allow military members deployed overseas to return their completed ballot via fax or the Internet. Those ballots, Smith said, will not pass through the hands of any government officials until they are received by a local election authority.

"The e-mail-to-fax operation does have risks, but we have taken every precaution to limit those risks," said Smith. She said U.S. service members have been told of the potential privacy concerns with the system, so they can make an informed choice about whether to use the program.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VOTING_MILITARY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-11-02-17-51-16

I WANT TO VOTE

FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
This web site provides information to US citizens covered by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). If you are not a UOCAVA citizen, and wish to vote absentee as a regular state voter, please click here for links to State Election Sites. If you wish to vote in person, please contact your local county election official (listed in the Government Pages of the telephone book).

http://www.fvap.gov/

FVAP SERVICES

Toll-Free Telephone Numbers to FVAP

Electronic Transmission (Faxing/eMail)

After faxing or emailing any election material always mail the original to the appropriate state or local election official in your state or territory. Generally, all election-related materials may be mailed postage-paid in the U.S. mails, including APO/FPO facilities and all U.S. Embassies and Consulates. You must pay postage if the materials are mailed from a non-U.S. postal facility.

If emailing, it is recommended that the citizen email the local election official directly. If unable to access the local election official's email address, include this transmittal sheet in the attachment along with the voting materials and email to ets@fvap.ncr.gov.

Voting Information Center

http://www.fvap.gov/services/faxing.html

Pentagon launches Internet voting effort for overseas Americans
Civilians as well as military to be eligible
By Alan Boyle
MSNBC
June 3, 2003 - Thousands of overseas Americans are expected to be able to cast ballots from their home computers in the 2004 elections, the Pentagon said Monday. Military personnel and civilians alike will be eligible to take part in the federal government’s most ambitious experiment yet in Internet-based voting.

The project — known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE — builds on a smaller-scale effort in the 2000 elections. This time around, the system will incorporate digital certificates as an added security measure...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078931/

Informational Material

September 12, 2006
Party Rule on Internet Voting
Fact sheet on Party's new rule on internet voting

http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/DNC_Internet_Voting_Rule_-_Memo_and_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Democrats Send Mixed Signals
in Voting Technology Debate
by Lynn Landes
www.dissidentvoice.org
January 13, 2004

There's something strange going on in the Democratic Party. While George Bush's buddies dominate the vote counting business with no apologies to anyone about this rather incredible conflict-of-interest, Democrats are sending mixed signals on this continuing train wreck for democracy.

Let's start with billionaire George Soros, the Democrats anointed billionaire savior. They should get to know him better. According to voting rights activists, Soros is a proponent of Internet voting, the most insecure voting technology on face of the planet. He's also a disciple for Direct Democracy (i.e., the initiative process). Think about that. For anyone who wants to control a government, the combination of the Internet voting and Direct Democracy is a fascist's dream-team. Through control of vote-counting technology, not only could "someone" pick our legislators, they could also pass their own legislation. They could be a true Wizard of Oz...

Howard Dean says on his website, "I support pending legislation to require that all voting machines produce an actual paper record that voters can view to check the accuracy of their votes, and allow election officials to verify votes in the event of irregularities."


However, the Associated Press reported on Oct. 02, 2003, "Eight of the presidential candidates have written national Democratic officials to support a challenge of Michigan Democrats' plan to allow Internet voting in its caucuses Feb. 7. Only Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, and Wesley Clark, the retired general who just joined the race, did not sign on to back the protest."


One day later, on Oct 3, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to endorse the policy of requiring paper ballots for touchscreen voting machines by the 2004 election. So far so good. This action was in line with Congressman Rush Holt's (D-NJ) legislation to require touchscreen voting machines to produce paper ballots for audit purposes and recounts (HR 2239). Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is one of 96 co-sponsors. And despite the fact that the legislation does not call for a full hand count of the ballots, which many activists feel is essential to establish real security, most agree that it's a step in the right direction. Of course there are others, this writer included, who believe that all the machines should be junked.


But on Nov 22, hardly a month later, the DNC took it all back. They voted to approve the use of Internet voting for the Michigan Democratic Primary. What's up with that? Aren't they connecting the dots? No paper ballot - no security - no recount. But, there's also something sinister in the air.

When this reporter called the Michigan Democratic Party to find out which company got the contract for the Internet vote, I was told that the company did not want its name released at that time. I then called the DNC who had to approve the deal and who also agreed to keep the company's name a secret. They finally relented under the merciless scorn this writer heaped on their spokesperson.


So, Election Services Corporation (ESC) is the Internet voting company and Democratic bad boy Tony Coelho is on their board. This is a little unusual in a business dominated by the Republican and foreign corporations. Tony "was a six-term congressman and House majority whip, who resigned from Congress after reports surfaced that he had accepted a sweetheart loan from a troubled S&L operator. The loan helped Coelho buy a $100,000 junk bond, but he never reported it on his government disclosure form. The Justice Department decided not to bring charges against him," according to Slate.msn.com. He was also investigated by the State Department when he was Al Gore's campaign manager for the 2000 presidential election. The investigation was reportedly related to his work as the commissioner general of the United States Pavilion at the 1998 World Expo. As a result, Tony resigned as Gore's campaign manager.

More mixed signals keep coming from the Dems...

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Landes0113.htm

E-Mail Voting Comes With Risks
Pentagon Warned on Security Issues for Overseas Ballots

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001062.html


Also see

Postx.com
http://postx.com/

Revisit the issue of military absentee ballot rejections in Year 2000

Newsmax search results

Also see Vote Fix
Security Concerns of Electronic Voting

Trail of TreacheryFraud 2000: How it went

Commissioners Aware Paper Ballot Optical Scan Issue

Update: We'll be attending the Special Meeting Monday, Jan. 6, 2008, to be held starting at 12:30 PM (organizational followed by salary board, then special) at the 911 Building in Uniontown. Watch for our upcoming report on this important issue.

Note: Neither of the local newspapers have reported the agenda schedule for the Special meeting, or whether the voting machine issue will be considered during the Special meeting.

(Net the Truth Online)

Apparently in a move to address long lines at the polls the last few elections where Hart Intercivic's daisy wheel eSlates were employed, at least one of the Fayette commissioners is considering adding more of the same electronic voting machines to the county's current array of 268 units.

The 2008 board members were sworn into office Friday, Jan. 4, and will reorganize on Monday at 12:30 PM. Following will be a Salary Board organization meeting and business meeting. Following that will be a special commissioners' board meeting.

Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink stated on a radio talk program that she felt the board needed to act by Monday or Tuesday on the purchase of additional inventory in order to have them delivered and in place by the April Primary.

Zimmerlink indicated she supported purchasing the same eSlates, around 50 to 55 units.

Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites Saturday, apprising of a post to the message board of VotePA including link to post.

Saturday, January 5, 2008
Dear Commissioner Vincent Vicites

Re: Fayette acquisition additional voting units to alleviate long lines at polls

The following is a message board communication I have posted to the voting integrity organization based in PA known as VotePA.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/3514

The post includes email I sent to both you and Commissioner Zapotosky on Friday. Commissioner Zimmerlink had already expressed her decision to acquire additional eSlates, rejecting the paper ballot eScans. (During WMBS guest spot with Bob Foltz, Friday)

I thought I would apprise you of my VotePA post, as hopefully you and Commissioner Zapotosky will receive input from the organization members prior to the Monday special commissioners' meeting where you might consider adding voting machines units in time for delivery for the April Primary.

I strongly urge you to choose to give Fayette voters the same choice Lancaster County has employed for two-election cycles. Hart InterCivic's eSlate, for handicapped accessibility, and Hart's paper ballot eScan. Both systems comply with Help America Vote Act and state requirements for accessibily, privacy, and second chance voting. At the very least, commissioners should have the benefit of knowing how Lancaster's elections went using the eSlate and eScans in comparison with Fayette's use of only the eSlate.

It is unfortunate that commissioners may be pressed to make a decision Monday - possibly to sign vouchers for the additional machines under contract with Hart InterCivic - before Commissioner Zapotosky has time to set up office email and maybe make a few phone calls to Lancaster County. I have asked also that a town-hall style meeting be held to bring in experts such as VotePA activists and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a Philadelphia-based computer expert I've referenced in previous communications to the Fayette board of commissioners.

It seems to me that some arrangement could easily be made with Hart InterCivic to employ one eSlate, handicapped accessible, unit per precinct and swap additional machines for the paper ballot eScans. It seems there wouldn't be any financial loss to the county to swap with the same vendor. Fayette would then have one eSlate per precinct and at least one eScan per precinct. We may not need 3rd or 5th units as it seems Lancaster County has not needed, only backups in emergency cases.

As I must also reiterate, the paper ballot with the optical scan is the only voting system to currently provide a true paper record. To many, having their vote recorded securely, accurately, and transparently, is important enough to wait any length of time in long lines.

Thank you for your time.

Email to Vincent Zapotosky and Vincent Vicites was sent after the WMBS radio program comments made by current Fayette Chair.

Friday Jan. 4, 2008

Dear Commissioner
As you are aware, I have had a long-standing interest in the election process and voting procedures. Over the years, I've conducted research on the variety of issues concerning the Help America Vote Act, the use of Direct Recording Electronic voting machines, and the use of paper ballots with optical scan readers.

When the board of commissioners determined to adopt Hart InterCivic as the vendor, I emailed the then-board with a recommendation to purchase both Hart's electronic DRE eSlate and Hart's paper ballot system with the optical scan reader, known as eScan.

During that time period, I became aware of several voting related organizations which recommend a paper ballot optical scan over the direct recording systems.

I also had the opportunity during the past two elections to be appointed as an election judge for Uniontown Ward 3. I underwent the training on the eSlate machine, and handled the judge of elections position with interest.

There were instances with long lines and during the last Primary, I requested an additional machine which was supplied. Even with a third machine for that precinct, come the General election, there were still long lines. One woman left after several minutes, she'd completed the process, but she was in tears. We also had one expired access code. A handful of people signed in, left, and some never returned.

It isn't, in my estimation, just a matter of unfamiliarity with the new electronic machines that presents a problem for the voters. The eSlate dial daisy wheel makes it necessary for the individual to turn and highlight each letter in order to do a machine write-in. That alone takes someone a few minutes if doing more than one write-in.

I've assessed that even if voters take only the recommended three minutes to complete the process, in one hour, then, only 20 people can vote per voting machine (eSlate). Should Fayette face a lengthy ballot or list of candidates, and a higher turnout rate, even with additional eSlates, the situation of long lines and frustration will still occur.

Lancaster County adopted both the eSlate and the eScan for their voters and have successfully met the requirements of the Help America Vote Act and state requirements with them.

For our county, since the past elections have been fraught with long lines at the polling place, it is understandable the board of commissioners would want to purchase additional machines.

My question is why not implement, as Lancaster County has, the paper ballot eScans for placement as well in each of the polling places?

Before a decision is made, why not contact the election bureau and/or commissioners of Lancaster County to determine how their voting systems work well together?

I urge you to consider implementing the paper ballot with optical scan voting system, Hart InterCivic's eScan along with the eSlate. Surely, some arrangement can be made to leave one eSlate in place per precinct as that meets the requirement for handicapped accessibility, and swap the second and third machines for the paper ballot optical scan - eScan.

A primary benefit of the eScan is of course the paper ballot. The paper ballot provides a paper record in the event of any disputes or lawsuits that might arise, and in the event a recount is needed.

As well, the time it takes to do a write-in on the eSlate is far more lengthy than on a paper ballot. Many people at the polls either weren't aware of the feature for the write-in process, or they simply chose not to do a write-in because of the difficulty and time consumption.

On a paper ballot, write-ins are less time consuming.

The eScan also presents the voter with the option to review a paper ballot before it is cast, and importantly, make any alterations, corrections before casting the ballot on the optical scan machine.

I have added informational material which I hope you will review. Please call if you have any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

Pervious post included the following

Herald Standard article clip

Fayette budget holds tax rate steady
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
01/01/2008
Updated 01/02/2008

...Following adoption of the budget, Zimmerlink spoke about the need to purchase additional electronic voting machines in advance of the April presidential primary. She said when the commissioners initially purchased the 268 machines following a federal mandate that deemed lever machines illegal, at the time they believed there were enough machines for the county's 103 precincts.

However, in the four elections since purchase of the machines, Zimmerlink said the number of negative comments has increased. Following the November election, numerous individuals complained about the long wait time at some precincts.

Zimmerlink said after speaking with a representative of Hart Intercivic, she asked Vicites and commissioner-elect Vincent Zapotosky to respond about purchasing new machines, but then did not get a response.

"I think we need to make a decision on the purchasing of machines," Zimmerlink said.

Following Zimmerlink's comments, Vicites said he is prepared to purchase more machines.

"We put money in the budget. I think we have to get more machines. A presidential year always has a higher turnout," Vicites said.

Zimmerlink said the commissioners put a minimum of $170,000 to use for additional voting machines.

Both Zimmerlink and Vicites said additional outreach is needed to teach voters how to use the electronic machines. Zimmerlink said she wants to make a decision soon about purchasing more machines, although she acknowledged that Zapotosky couldn't really take action until taking office on Jan. 4...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19159657&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Tribune Review article clip

Fayette County holds line on taxes
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Fayette County commissioners on Monday passed a budget for 2008 that holds the line on taxes...

Commissioners included $170,000 in the budget for electronic voting machines, said Angela Zimmerlink, commissioner chairwoman.

Zimmerlink said her research has shown that 45 to 55 machines are needed to help reduce waiting times at polls. She added that voting lines will be cut by continuing public demonstrations of the devices and training poll workers.

Zimmerlink said she wants the board to approve the purchase during the next several days to expedite delivery.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_545372.html

Related

Dear Lancaster County Voter:

After several months of careful review, we have selected a new voting system for our voters. Beginning with the Primary Election in May 2006, the Hart Voting System will replace our lever machines. The new voting system has two components: the eScan for paper ballots and the eSlate for accessible voting. Both will be available at each polling place, so you may use either system.

The eScan is a precinct-based digital scanner for paper ballots and the eSlate is an accessible voting machine that ensures those who are blind or have low-vision, have limited or no upper-body mobility, and those who have difficulty reading can vote in privacy without any assistance. If you are an absentee voter, you will continue to vote by mail.

The purchase of this new system is necessary to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) signed into law by the President on October 29, 2002. This law requires voting systems to be accessible so that all voters can cast a vote privately and independently, including those who are blind or who have mobility impairments. It also requires second-chance voting, giving voters a chance to review and change a vote or correct a ballot where an incorrect mark may have been made. Through HAVA, the federal government has appropriated funds to assist with the purchase of new systems.

http://www.cityoflancasterpa.com/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742&pp=12&n=1

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571742

County's 550 new voting machines ready for debut
by Chad Umble - Lancaster New Era
published May 12, 2006

http://www.hartic.com/news/35

How to use

http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=977&q=571630

Hart Intercivic white paper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Jan_20/ai_n8701815

Q & A

http://www.hartic.com/pages/214

Fayette County Saga of Electronic Voting

An article in the Herald-Standard today Poll problems challenged election officials By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard 05/18/2007 has highlighted the long lines throughout the county of Fayette on election day.

We noted the unacceptable occurrence in a previous post.

Long Lines at Polls Hour Waits

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/05/fayette-long-lines-at-polls-hour-waits.html

We've also presented a solution which doesn't include a replacement of our current eSlate machines with the formidable and controversial electronic touch-screen voting machine system.

The solution is the option of paper ballots with optical scan readers.

Both Hart Intercivic's eSlate and eScan are certified for use in Pennsylvania.

http://www.hava.state.pa.us/hava/lib/hava/votingsystemexamination/vs_certification_status.pdf

According to the Help America Vote Act's requirements, there is to be one handicapped accessible voting system per precinct available. For Fayette that means 103 handicapped accessible units.

A second unit and third and fourth if necessary do not have to be equipped with the handicapped accessible features as the initial unit and they are not.

Those additional units can include the eScans known as an optical scan voting system which Hart Intercivic produces and incorporates into its overall system.

Further, because of the Help america Vote Act's requirements for second chance voting and handicapped accessibility, the eScan voting system is usable to provide the second chance voting.

The eScan, used in Boulder County, is a precinct-based, digital ballot-imaging component that relies on the fully integrated functionality of the Hart Voting System. After marking a paper ballot, the voter feeds it directly into the eScan at the precinct. The ballot image is stored as a Cast Vote Record on a Mobile Ballot Box flash memory card that can be retrieved and tabulated by Hart’s Tally application. eScan's capabilities include functionality to reject overvoted, undervoted and blank ballots, thereby providing second-chance voting at the precinct.

http://www.hartic.com/pr_view.php?prid=57

This isn't to claim that there are not the potential for problems associated with paper ballot optical scan systems. The Internet is replete with the Hursti Report and so forth for your own research purposes. A visit to Black Box Voting Forum is an absolute must for reading and obtaining valuable information.

But if the county of Fayette needs a solution to long lines at the polling place and the potential for more disenfranchisement of voters in November 2007, it is not to replace our current voting system with touch screen machines.

And the solution isn't to obtain 3rd, 4th, or 5th eSlate voting machines.

The issue absolutely does need to be studied more prior to the presidential election of 2008.

It may be that the next administration of county commissioners will determine another vendor that provides an automark paper ballot system which is fully handicapped accessible should replace Hart Intercivic's offerings. It may be that Hart Intercivic is in the development stages of adding on the accessibility features to the eScans.

At this time, with a mere few months fastly going, Fayette has to address the situation of voters leaving the polls before voting, thus foregoing their right to vote, and the situation of unfamiliarity of the machines, and the cumbersome eSlate turn wheel that takes a long time to use to cast a write-in vote.

The only way to address those situations is with a paper ballot optical scan system. Now.

In addition, there were incidences of problems with using the eSlate for the offices of justices on the ballot. Those have not yet been reported upon, and the board of commissioners needs to make a full report on any and all such reported problems.

Net the Truth Online opinion

Prior to the current board of county commissioners purchasing the eSlate only voting system back in March 2006, a series of informative emails had been sent to each of them requesting consideration of purchasing both the Hart Intercivic eSlate and eScan voting systems.

The final letter to Fayette Commissioners Thursday, March 30, 2006 is duplicated here to show the 2006 board of commissioners was well aware a year ago that at least one other county with the Hart Intercivic vendor had selected the dual system to provide citizens with a choice of using either the electronic eSlate (handicapped accessible) or the eScan (paper ballot with optical scan reader/counter.

In the event the current board of commissioners determines more machines are needed for November's election, the commissioners should revisit the contract with Hart Intercivic.

They should contact Bedford and Lancaster counties to determine how their dual systems worked during the past elections, particularly this election.

Our board should provide a system that gives voters the choice on election day of which system to use as their preference.

That can include one eSlate (DAU) unit for each precinct (handicapped accessible per HAVA requirements) and one - or more if necessary - eScans.

Anything less at this time for Fayette County is unacceptable.

My final letter to Board of Fayette County Commissioners Thursday, March 30, 2006

Since the board of commissioners has not yet finalized a contract with Hart InterCivic concerning the purchase of the eSlate voting machines, I am supplying further information to the board to consider providing the voters of Fayette County with both the eSlate and eScan (Hart InterCivic) units at each precinct polling place.

Lancaster County chose to have one eSlate (DAU) and one eScan (Precinct Digital Capture of Voter Selection) for voters to have a choice at the polling place on Election Day. Comments made in the article linked convinced me this would be right for Fayette.

“I found the electronic machine was very easy,” said John Dodson, of Conoy Township, after getting an explanation of how the eSlate works and taking the time to play with the machine.

His wife, Ruth Dodson, agreed, and said the eScan, which reads marks on paper ballots, is a good way to keep a paper trail of votes.

“I think it’s a doable thing,” said one poll worker, who asked not to be named; while older people still are likely to be uncomfortable with a new way of voting, the combination of electronic and paper ballots gives voters a choice of technologies.

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/21453

The Lancaster system seems to satisfy the person who found the eSlate easy to use, the person who felt the eScan was suitable for a paper trail, and according to the poll worker, the combination of electronic and paper ballots gives voters a choice of technologies.

The following chart shows how Hart InterCivic utilizes both the eSlate (Disabled Access Unit) and eScan Precinct Digital Capture of Voter Selection.

http://www.hartprintsolutions.com/files/eScan.pdf

Unfortunately the Pennsylvania legislature has not yet acted on the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail for electronic voting systems.

With the eScan - voters (who also don't want to vote absentee because second-chance voting is not afforded) will have the opportunity to use the paper-ballot at the voting precinct in accordance with second-chance voting (a HAVA requirement), and most importantly, the capability to verify their ballot on paper.

In the event Fayette doesn't provide the paper-ballot eScan Optical Scan Reader (PA certified 1/30/06), I am attempting to find information to answer whether it is a right of a citizen to demand the use of a paper ballot at the polling place on Election Day.

http://www.hava.state.pa.us/hava/cwp/view.asp?a=1187&q=442284&havaNav

Poll problems challenged election officials
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
05/18/2007
Updated 05/18/2007 12:20:22 AM EDTAn extensive ballot and unfamiliarity with the new electronic voting machines apparently combined to make it a very long day for some of the Fayette County voters who took to the polls for Tuesday's municipal primary.


Laurie Lint, director of the Fayette County Election Bureau, said she spent most of Wednesday fielding complaints about problems that occurred throughout the county on Election Day. Lint said people complained that lines at the polls were too long and some voters complained that they didn't like the machines. Tuesday marked only the third election with the machines, which replaced the lever machines that were used in the county for decades.

Fred Lebder, chairman of the Fayette County Democratic Party, said a lot of people did not vote. Lebder said it took him 45 minutes to vote at Third Presbyterian Church in Uniontown and he spoke with someone who said it took an hour and 15 minutes for him to vote.

"There is no question a lot of people went to the polls and didn't vote because of the time factor," Lebder said. "When I was there people left (without voting)."

Last year, the county commissioners voted to purchase 268 eSlate voting machines from Hart Intercivic of Texas, after a federal mandate requiring the purchase of electronic machines throughout the country. The machines cost $2,500 each.

The eSlate voting machines are not touch-screen machines; instead, voters must turn a dial and push buttons to register their choices on the screen. "The machines are probably the worst things they could have gotten," Lebder said, although he added that once you vote on them, they are not that bad.

Lebder said in elections with the old lever machines, there was always a model machine at every poll, but nothing like that is being done today.

Vincent Zapotosky, who received one of the two Democratic nominations for Fayette County commissioner, said the county commissioners should have invested in more voter-friendly machines.

"I saw people walk away," Zapotosky said. "This dial thing is ridiculous."

Zapotosky said he knows of at least one woman who votes at Clark School in North Union Township who did not vote. "I lost a vote at Clark School," Zapotosky said.

According to unofficial results with 103 out of 103 precincts reporting, 27,590 of the county's 89,403 registered voters went to the polls, or slightly less than 31 percent. Lebder had predicted a turnout of about 44 percent.

Lebder said some people might not have come out to vote because they were in doubt of the machines. He said the machines used in the county are not the ones the election director recommended.

Sushila Warman, judge of elections for Uniontown's First Ward where voting is held at the Jewish Community Center, said the lines were so long that the final ballot wasn't cast until 9:30 p.m., an hour and a half after the polls closed.

Warman said the two voting machines at that polling place were insufficient to accommodate voters, especially with such a lengthy ballot for city residents.

"Many discouraged people left without voting at all and it appears Ward 1 was not the only precinct in this predicament," said Warman, urging the the commissioners to purchase additional machines.

Lint said it is not uncommon for polling places to remain open after voting ends at 8 p.m., particularly when there is a longer ballot.

Commission Chairwoman Angela M. Zimmerlink, who visited several polling places throughout Tuesday, said she received both negative and positive feedback from people. Among the negative feedback was a woman who had difficulty finding a parking place at the Jewish Community Center, a judge of election at Redstone Recreation Center typing in the access code too soon (which expires in 10 minutes if you have not logged into a machine) and long lines at Third Presbyterian Church in Uniontown.

Among the complaints that have been made to the Herald-Standard are that some people inadvertently voted before they were finished making their selections.

Lint said what voters need to remember is that hitting the "cast ballot" light "is the same as opening the curtain" with the old lever machines, only when you push it, the voting session is over.

Zimmerlink said that although for most voters this was the third time using the machines, "some people young and old alike did forget how to use them." Zimmerlink said she did not get any complaints from people who left without voting, but did talk to one person who said they felt like leaving.

Zimmerlink said since the machines were purchased, she believes the county has made great improvements in getting the word out. She said prior to the primary, HSTV and Armstrong Cable ran instructional videos, and the county libraries had tapes on hand and an interactive demonstration is available on the county's Web site.

Zimmerlink said that additionally, a sample machine was available outside the election bureau office in the Public Safety Building for the past few weeks. She said she doesn't agree that at this time purchasing additional machines is the answer. "People need to realize it is not an issue of money. There are ways to make additional improvements," Zimmerlink said.

The number of machines at each precinct was determined last year by calculating the number of voters and average turnout in the last several elections, Zimmerlink said. "We purchased more than we thought we needed," she said.

Last year's primary and general elections went more smoothly, with Zimmerlink saying she believes the lengthy ballot this time around contributed to problems.

She said in addition to the public demonstrations held for the machines, there are instructions in the voting booth and posters outside the voting booths. Zimmerlink said the she is not necessarily an advocate of the electronic machines, saying she would have kept the lever machines if that were an option. She said the new machines make the voter more aware of what they are doing because you have to take your time and read.

Although Zimmerlink said she heard from about a half-dozen people that the county should have purchased touch screen machines, she believes the dial machines are more voter friendly than the other ones the commissioners could have chosen...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18356622&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Letter to editor online posted to Herald Standard May 18, 2007 (Poll problems challenged election officials By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard 05/18/2007)

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18356622&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

The solution to the situations that arose during the Primary is not touch-screen voting machines. Those would be a nightmare as has been shown around the country.

The solution is the option for voters to have a choice at the polling place. That choice includes a paper ballot based system.

Hart Intercivic makes both the eSlate electronic voting machine and the sScan paper ballot optical scan electronic voting machine.

Both are certified by the state of Pennsylvania.

http://www.hava.state.pa.us/hava/lib/hava/votingsystemexamination/vs_certification_status.pdf

4 Pennsylvania counties selected Hart Intercivic systems. But unlike Fayette, Bedford and Lancaster counties selected a dual system for their voters: the turn-wheel eSlate and the paper ballot based eScan.

Should the county have to purchase more electronic voting machines for November, the county commissioners should strike a new deal with Hart Intercivic to employ at least one paper ballot optical scan voting system - eScan - in each precinct.

Like Bedford and Lancaster counties, voters who arrive at the polling place should be afforded a choice of voting systems.

Those counties could be contacted to determine how their dual voting systems worked during the past voting experiences.

It may be that long lines are not able to be prevented, however, use of a paper ballot based voting system has the added advantage of providing a true paper ballot at the polling place.

That should be afforded as a right of the individual voter to have that choice.

Bedford County debuts eSlate voting machines

http://www.altoonamirror.com/articles.asp?articleID=663

New voting machines draw crowd By Helen Colwell Adams Sunday News
Published: Mar 18, 2006 11:35 PM EST

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/21453

Chart shows how the two systems eSlate and eScan could be used in county-wide elections.

http://www.hartprintsolutions.com/files/eScan.pdf

About eScan
The eScan is a precinct-based, digital ballot-imaging component that relies on the fully integrated functionality of the Hart Voting System. After marking a paper ballot, the voter feeds it directly into the eScan at the precinct. The ballot image is stored as a Cast Vote Record on a Mobile Ballot Box flash memory card that can be retrieved and tabulated by Hart’s Tally application. eScan's capabilities include functionality to reject overvoted, undervoted, and blank ballots, thereby providing second-chance voting at the precinct.

http://www.hartintercivic.com/pr_view.php?prid=48

http://www.hartprintsolutions.com/files/eScan.pdf

This display shows the eSlate system which uses Ballot Now for tabulating of absentee ballots. The foregoing system display showed use of both the eSlate and the eScan, and is very clear on the differences.
Electronic Voting System - eSlate®

The eSlate System automates the balloting and tabulation process, eliminating the need to work with multiple paper ballot styles and offering accuracy, security and efficiency. The components provide central, regional, and precinct tabulation, as well as complete reporting and auditing, making the eSlate System a comprehensive and integrated election solution.

http://www.hartprintsolutions.com/innerpage.php?pageid=26

Related

submitted Tuesday March 28, 2006 to Fayette commissioners via email

I breathed a long sigh of relief when Fayette Commissioners unanimously chose a non-touch screen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system, Hart InterCivic’s eSlate.

I remember the Hart InterCivic representative’s refrain from the meetings held at the Election Bureau in January for poll workers, judges of election, commissioners, and the public - Tough Screen versus Touch Screen.

What a difference one letter makes.

All vendors responded to a series of questions about security, battery backup, hard-drives, and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail. Lifetime of the units, memory storage, handicapped accessibility, data flow, and transmission of results were discussed. Vendors supplied informational brochures.

Hart InterCivic’s White Paper Securing the eSlate Electronic Voting System Application Security Information is also online as well as demonstration of the eSlate as linked from the Fayette County website.

http://www.hartic.com/files/HART_SYMANTEC_SECURITY_REPORT_White_Paper.pdf

My sigh of relief continued after locating (Internet) supportive material. An Austin Chronicle piece, “How Safe Is Your E-Vote?” touted Hart InterCivic’s eSlate as “an apparently more reliable product,” as distinguished from systems known as “touch-screen” which have suffered “reports of malfunctions, computer or human in origin, that have caused problems in actual elections. Among other things, there have been instances of more votes being registered than were actually cast, voters pressing on one candidate but the machine registering the vote for another, or votes simply vanishing.”

The article covers technical and security-related concerns which have been the focus of computer scientists around the country. ”Perhaps most important, the eSlate system has no external connections – no hookups to phone lines, the Internet, or an intranet. While some systems allow results to be sent by modem to a central vote-counting facility, the eSlate is comparatively old-fashioned – much like an old-style ballot box, the devices ("mediums") into which votes are recorded are removed by the election judges after the polls close and physically transported to the central counting station.“

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-02-20/pols_feature.html

My sigh of relief was intact. No modems, no touch screen, no phone lines.

Then, citizen activists pointed me to an October 2005 Government Accountability Office report entitled: “Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed.”

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05956.html

I found Lawrence Norden’s November 28, 2005 piece “Following up on an important GAO report on electronic voting” which posed “Questions for your state and local election officials raised by the Government Accountability Office Report.”

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00154

Doubt about all electronic voting systems surfaced, not just “touch screens.”

Remember the Voter Verified (Verifiable) Paper Audit Trail?

According to the GAO report, there are concerns with defining and agreeing on it. Experts have varying positions.

Vivion Vinson interviewed Dr. Ted Selker who developed “his own method for paperless, secure electronic voting” and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri who developed “a model for secure electronic voting with a paper ballot.”

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0312/031214.htm

Faced with the commissioners about to enter a contract with Hart InterCivic, and all of this information, I recalled how I felt after personally using the electronic DREs at Election Bureau meetings.

I had no visible paper record of the ballot about to be finally cast. I could see my selections on the eSlate screen, but couldn’t review and verify my selections according to Rebecca Mercuri’s method.

What’s the solution? Should Fayette wait until computer experts all agree, or for Harrisburg and the Federal Government to iron out differences of opinion on audit trails and other technical issues?

Should Fayette revert to an all paper-ballot system with hand counts?

Of course not, the whole point of technology is to cut down on problems inherent in paper-ballot voting, namely over-votes which result in spoiled discarded and uncounted ballots and under-votes or a blank ballot which may be re-interpreted incorrectly when hand-counted.

But like Lancaster County, which adopted both Hart InterCivic’s eSlate and eScan, Fayette Commissioners have in their power a means to provide a choice of a different kind to all voters at the polling place.

Commissioners have not yet “signed” a contract with Hart InterCivic

When they do, it should be for a mix of both Hart InterCivic’s eSlate and eScan.

Both machines comply with HAVA and are PA-certified.

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id86.html

Related material and information

Vote Fix

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/

Paper Ballot Make it a Voter Choice

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id85.html

Holding Breath Will Fayette Purchase Paper Ballot eScan and Electronic eSlate?

submitted Tuesday March 28, 2006 to Fayette commissioners via email

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id86.html

Activists Absent?

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id81.html

Know it: Second Chance Voting

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id88.html

Opinion: None of the Above

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id78.html


7 PM Wednesday, March 22, 2006 Uniontown (PA): according to a 7 PM HSTV News 19 report, (transcript) the Fayette County Board of Commissioners chose unanimously Hart InterCivic's e-slate voting system. Training sessions for judges of elections and poll workers may begin at the end of the month.

opinion submitted to Board of Fayette County commissioners via email
opinion posted Herald Standard "Commissioners to make decision on voting machines today" Added: Wednesday March 22, 2006 at 09:07 AM Vote None of the Above

http://dirtline.tripod.com/votefix/id78.html


Related

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=329196

Lancaster County escan test cards used caused glitches

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?offset=40&sort=&selectstate=&selectvendor=&selectproblemtype

Glitch to keep polls open until 9 p.m.
1 in 5 paper-ballot machines malfunction, causing delays.

By Jane Holahan, Anya Litvak And Ryan Robinson
Lancaster New Era
Published: Nov 07, 2006 2:31 PM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Last May, Lancaster County voting officials declared themselves pleased with the new eScan and eSlate voting machines used for the first time in the primary election.

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/27525

Voter Registration: Ripe for fraud 2008

Based on past history, 2008 should be riddled with attempts of voter registration fraud. It's time for Pennsylvania county election boards across this state to do what they are obligated by law to do: clean up the inflated voter registration rolls of deceased, voters who have moved out of the county, possibly even the state, and/or potentially have dual voter registration in different states because of election laws that have lax residency requirements.

Voter fraud suspected in registration deluge
Sharon Spohn, sspohn@pottsmerc.com
10/08/2004

READING -- A backlog of last-minute voter registrations in Berks County is pushing the system to its breaking point, according to election officials.


Director of Elections V. Kurt Bellman told the Board of Elections Thursday that there have been flagrant attempts at voter registration fraud.

"It’s absolutely out of hand," Bellman said. "Not only do we have unintentional duplication of voter registrations but we have blatant duplicate voter registrations."

Bellman said groups conducting voter drives are coming out of the woodwork, something Berks County hasn’t seen before. He added that some of the drives are being conducted in violation of the law because they are paying incentives to sign up voters.

Commissioner Mark Scott suggested the Board of Elections conduct its own investigation that would be public rather than create more work for the district attorney’s office.

"I’d like the public to get more access to the details of fraud," Scott said.

Bellman said his office has had numerous calls from people who were registered through a group called the Association Communication Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), complaining that those taking down the voter information deliberately put inaccurate information on the form.

Bellman said he also received a batch of registrations from Citizens for Consumer Justice in Allentown that contained several hundred forms, including ones that have been held since July and ones with fictitious names and addresses and even wrong counties...

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13098474&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

Investigation Needed in Election Programs
Reading (PA) Eagle
May 29th, 2005
The Issue: Because of errors in programming, 463 people in four city voting precincts will have to participate in a special election. Several races hang in the balance.

Our Opinion: Although no one is suggesting fraud, District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin should investigate the snafu and recommend how similar problems can be avoided.

With several primary election contests still undecided because of a mistake in the programming of some voting machines, it is time for the Berks County commissioners to answer a couple of questions...

...City Councilwoman Donna Reed, whose renomination in the 5th Council District remains in doubt because of the snafu, has called for an independent investigation into the programming glitch.

In light of some of the election irregularities that have taken place nationwide, Reed’s call for an independent investigation sounds like a good idea. And District Attorney Mark C. Baldwin would be an excellent person to conduct such an investigation.

Considering the complexity of the voting machines and their programming, it is somewhat surprising that these types of mistakes don’t occur more frequently. But when they do, it is important for the electorate to know that the error was inadvertent and not an attempt to tamper with the election.

We’re not suggesting that anyone attempted to do that, but an independent investigation would short-circuit any claims of impropriety that might arise and provide rec-ommendations to avoid a similar mistake.

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5815

related issues

Voter ID

Bev Harris opposed

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/73/44627.html?1162490338

Exit polls discussion

Pennsylvania primary...by the numbers

http://www.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/2006/05/pennsylvania_pr_1.html

who is who

http://www.votingintegrity.org/tool/who/who.html

provisional ballots

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/36510.html?1158778859

Search Net the Truth Online blog (search block located left top corner)for more voting related issues such as overseas and military email voting, Rush Holt's bill, black box voting, more.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=email+voting

Ohio Early Voting Check The Names Secretary

Already frauded? or are these early votes to be treated like 'provisional ballots?'

What's the problem? If research and investigation by the Sec. of State shows ineligible names actually cast a ballot, the ballot will not have been actually opened and tallied, right, until November 4, 2008.

The window for early voting is one-week, readers, one week. that's not to say there won't be potential for fraud to have occurred. But, the local officials handling the registrations have almost one month to do their jobs and investigate each and every name signed in for early voting!

Anything less and the Sec. of State and local election boards - heads should roll.

Hint. come to Fayette County Pennsylvania and see if same and exact names have either newly registered or remain on the bloated voter registration database for the county.

That's what should be happening across the country. Names should be checked for duplication in other states, and some method of identification should be a given by now.

We don't believe such should be social security numbers, last four digits or whatever. These ids should be one time only for an election cycle in the country then all registrations and ids should be reset for the next election.

Net the Truth Online

State, federal courts uphold early voting in Ohio By STEPHEN MAJORS Monday, September 29, 2008

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/293-State,-Federal-Courts-Ohio-voters-WILL-get-1-week-early-voting-AND-same-day-registration.html

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Early Voting Window
By STEPHEN MAJORS, Associated Press | September 29, 2008
SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL Add to del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Facebook
Add to Newsvine
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Two courts tooday upheld a weeklong period in Ohio in which new voters can register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day.

Another court decision was expected later in the day over the early voting window, which begins tomorrow and has become a highly partisan battle in a swing state where President Bush narrowly clinched re-election in 2004.

In a 4-3 decision the Ohio Supreme Court said Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner was correct in her interpretation that voters don't need to be registered for at least 30 days before receiving an absentee ballot...

...The disputed voting window results from an overlap between Tuesday's beginning of absentee voting 35 days before Election Day, and the Oct. 6 end of voter registration period...

http://www.nysun.com/national/ohio-supreme-court-upholds-early-voting-window/86804/

Ohio Secretary of State on ACORN Voter Fraud Allegations 'On the Record'
Friday, October 10, 2008
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," October 9, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: And if the economy isn't shaking you enough, try this. There are huge fears of voter fraud in the presidential election. We're 26 days from the election, one of the biggest horse races in American history. And already there is threat of big trouble. All eyes are on a handful of swing states where several voter fraud investigations are threatening a basic idea, whether or not free and fair elections will be held.

Tonight, we have a full report, starting in Ohio, where there is breaking news. As we reported earlier, a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order and has ruled that an Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, is breaking federal law, not taking enough steps to prevent voter fraud.

The secretary of state is appealing the decision and says in a statement, in part says, "My office will do everything in its power to ensure that the state's 88 county boards of elections can continue to allow early voting to proceed uninterrupted and to assist them with their preparation to ensure a smooth election for the voters of Ohio."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435744,00.html

Election Activists in Dispute

Apparently, election activists are in dispute concerning positions which have been taken on Rush Holt's latest election bill, version HR 811...

The situation gets curiouser and curiouser. We really can't get to the heart of the personal dispute that seems to have arisen between Bev Harris of Black Box Voting and Kathy Dopp. It seemed the pair were on the same page as late as March 29, 2007

Thursday, 29 March 2007
FOUR ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS RELEASE A “ONE-PAGE CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION”

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

Whatever that dispute turns out to be, the bottom line is that the current Rush Holt Bill HR 811 for a variety of reasons has been shown to be lacking by the very activists and election integrity organizations which have had longstanding input into the issues related to the electronic direct recording machines, voting security, voter verified paper ballots, voter verifiable paper audit trails, etc.

I don't agree with everything at BBV Forum's. However, the Black Box Voting Forum goes line by line into analyzing the Holt bill in its current form and presents convincing arguments to hold off until everything is sorted out.

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/46591/46591.html?1175950047

Others, dozens it appears, similarly contend

CONGRESS: HR 811 Unsafe for Democracy! Amend or End!

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/book/export/html/859

Rush Holt's HR 811 urgently needs reform

http://www.votersunite.org/info/2007ElectionReform.pdf

Coalition for Voting Integrity

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/blog.php?p=11975&cat=8

Thursday, 29 March 2007
FOUR ELECTION INTEGRITY GROUPS RELEASE A “ONE-PAGE CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION”

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=84

Who can possibly continue to support a bill that has major election organizations and activists so bent on opposing it? Why hasn't Rush Holt pulled his bill out of such a contentious atmosphere?

Holt responds to Bev Harris critiques of the former HR 550 introduced by Holt in the last session of Congress

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_688.shtml

Black Box Voting opposes Rush Holt bill, calling it "dangerous" By Bev Harris
Online Journal Guest Writer Apr 10, 2006, 01:50

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_677.shtml

What does Holt have to gain by keeping the current bill reintroduced as HR 811 as is with all of the continued legitimate opposition to it?

Holt Reintroduces Voting Integrity Bill

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

Why do supporters of the Holt Bill remain so steadfast?

In support of the Holt bill

http://rushholt.com/archives/2007/03/time_for_congre.html

Holt's bill - which amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 - received attention nationwide after being presented in the last Congress.

I have to say, in 2004, I apprised my local board of commissioners sitting as the election board of the previous Holt legislation because at the time, activists were demanding a voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) for all and any of the touchscreen direct recording electronic voting systems yet to be adopted by local election officials.

Since then, there have been legitimate questions posed about electronic voting machines that were implemented in compliance with HAVA even those which maintain the VVPATs. Those questions must be sorted out before any new fix-it federal legislation is proposed and adopted.

I'm not convinced that only a paper ballot is the way to go. I'm not fond of solely manual counted paper ballots.

I urged my county commissioners to adopt both the DRE system they were bent on the Hart Intercivic eSlate, and the paper ballot with optical scanner/reader Hart Intercivic eScan.

They were advised by their local election bureau director to go with only an electronic direct recording based voting system without the paper ballot.

There are apparently more than enough objections being raised now after the call for VVPATs to take a cautious route and hold off on any legislation until all of those concerns can be addressed in hopefully a public forum so all of the issues are before the voting public.

Holt's bill should have unanimous support among all of the longstanding activists and organizations dedicated to seeing clean and trustable elections. It doesn't.

I often wonder whether political motivations aren't in play just to see something passed that seems like a solution to the former complaints. On the other hand, I wonder as well why a complete block of any voting technology and reliance on paper ballots with a manual count as those have been proven to be able to be frauded, manufactured and prone to human error?

The absentee paper ballots continue to be able to be frauded precisely because of inaccurate voter registration rolls.

I wish most of the activists would also support voter identification and purge of inaccurate voter registration databases, first and foremost.

Unfortunately, many of the same orgs and activists who profess they want clean and trustable elections don't see an accurate voter registration database as a must. That confounds me.

Meanwhile, there is an election around the corner and I can just hear the people who come in to use the DRE voting machines complaining they heard this or that - no wonder they are confused when so much confusion is going around.

And still, the same complainers don't approach their local election boards and demand a purge of the deceased names, people who have moved from the state, or county, and so forth, yet whose names remain in the database ripe for abuse.

Back to Bev Harris and Kathy Dopp's dispute. The Black Box Voting Homepage doesn't clarify or name the false statement being addressed, however it contains the comment:

CORRECTION AND REBUTTAL OF FALSE PRESS RELEASE: A false statement is being propagated by an individual regarding the position of Black Box Voting and software disclosure. If you have any questions as to our REAL position on software disclosure, feel free to email or post them in the forums here.

Just say upfront what the false statement is and who made it.

I just happened to come upon the incident between Bev Harris and Kathy Dopp while searching for information about polls of all sorts from a variety of resources.

April 8, 2007 at 00:45:57
Election Reform Groups Formally Oppose Public Disclosure of All Voting System Software. by Kathy Dopp Page 1 of 3 page(s) http://www.opednews.com

Read on site: http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/BevTries2ShutDownOpEdArticle.htm

Bev Harris of Black Box Voting responds to Kathy Dopp who then responds...

A false press release and an exercise in disinformation. Requesting that the editor remove this false press release.

by BevHarris (0 articles, 9 comments) on Sunday, April 8, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM

Bev - Tell me ONE thing that is not true & I'll Retract it

Bev, I've used the EXACT words of the position paper you signed to describe your opinion.

You have refused since March to justify your position for a COTS exemption.

Justify it rather than trying to hide the fact that you've taken it...

http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/BevTries2ShutDownOpEdArticle.htm

Dopp Article in full length:

http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/PositionStatements/EIGroupsOpposePublicSoftware.pdf

Above item referenced as posted by Mark Rauterkus @ 7:34 PM on evote.blogspot.com

Reference found bottom of pages at:

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

(searching for polls)

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/search?q=poll

Item reprint, reference to original and commentary found at evote.blogspot.com

http://evote.blogspot.com/2007/04/release-election-reform-groups-formally.html

More

Friday, March 30, 2007 One Page Letter flaws in current election reform bills

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DKC6MliVScYJ:electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf+kathy+dopp+letter+bev+harris&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/release/Release4ElectionReformProposal.pdf

National Election Data Archive (NEDA)
http://electionarchive.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Kathy Dopp
http://kathydopp.com/

http://utahcountvotes.org/

http://www.uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=51

http://ustogether.org/election04/dopp/dopp_response.html

People for American Way

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23501&tr=y&auid=2508268

Democracy Campaign Update March 29, 2007

This is a big week for election reform – and PFAW’s work in the Democracy Campaign – on several fronts.

The Committee on House Administration is voting to mark up Rep. Rush Holt’s Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 811), which would solve many of the security and accountability problems with ALL voting machines before the 2008 elections. And the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up H.R. 1281, the House version of Sen. Obama’s Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. The movement of this bill is a giant step toward stopping individuals and groups that use intimidation and misinformation to disenfranchise voters (who are often targeted by race or economic status).

And in the states…

http://evote.blogspot.com/

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