Fayette Controllers' Ballot Keeps Two Democrats

Appellate judge keeps Lally on Fayette ballot
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 10, 2007

An appellate judge on Monday denied a challenge by Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts to knock his Democratic primary opponent, Sean Lally, off the ballot because of problems with nominating petitions.
In a memorandum opinion, Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey upheld findings issued by Common Pleas Judge Steve P. Leskinen after a four-day hearing last month.

Leskinen struck about one-third of the 436 names Lally turned in on his petitions, but determined Roberts failed to show enough evidence to disqualify Lally from the race...

..."Contrary to challenger's assertions, there is no support for the argument that once an affidavit of a circulator is found to be false with regard to a signature contained on a nomination petition, all of the signatures on the nominating petition must be struck," McCloskey wrote...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_501941.html

Commonwealth Court: Lally stays on ballot
By:Amy Zalar
04/10/2007
Updated 04/10/2007 10:19:29 AM EDT

A Commonwealth Court judge has ruled that Democratic Fayette County controller candidate Sean P. Lally will remain on the May 15 ballot for the position, affirming a lower court ruling allowing Lally to stay on the ballot after his nomination petitions were challenged by Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts...

...The order by Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey made Monday affirms an order filed last month by Fayette County Common Pleas Court Judge Steve P. Leskinen. During testimony, Lally said he did not personally circulate all the petitions he signed as the circulator, but said he did not think he was doing anything wrong because he gave the petitions to people that he trusted to circulate.
In his opinion, McCloskey affirmed all decisions of the trial court, which held that Lally had 288 valid signatures, or 38 more than the 250 required to seek the office. The ruling also did not consider additional issues raised on appeal by Roberts' attorneys.

On Thursday, McCloskey heard oral arguments on an appeal filed by Roberts. After four days of lengthy testimony, Leskinen struck 148 of the 436 signatures Lally turned in to the election bureau on 15 petitions...

...In his opinion, McCloskey rejected an argument by Roberts' attorneys that every petition that Lally admitted he did not personally circulate or was not present for every name being signed on it should be entirely stricken although Lally signed the affidavit on those petitions as the circulator...

...On the last day of testimony, Adams called a document examiner who testified that some signatures on the petitions did not match the signature on that voter's registration card in the election bureau.

Although Leskinen found that he factually believed the examiner, he ruled he could not legally struck the names from Lally's petitions because Roberts' challenge did not specify that as a defect...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18189112&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Related

Petition problems highlighted
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, March 26, 2007

Insurance agents at AIG American General didn't give a second thought Feb. 21 to signing a petition nominating Sean Lally so he could oppose two-term Fayette County Controller Mark Roberts.
But four weeks later, 11 agents and the office secretary had to close the office because they found themselves on a witness stand, testifying about who asked them to sign and whether Lally was in their South Union Township office at the time.

Although Lally identified himself on an election affidavit as the circulator, he admitted this week he was sitting outside in a parked car while two supporters, insurance agent Mark D. Santore and former county Commissioner Sean Cavanagh, passed the petition around the office.

Roberts also contacted one business and dozens of homes to ask voters about their signatures.

Lally said he thought it was proper, but Roberts insisted those names and about 200 others should be removed for fraud or other irregularities.

The resulting four-day court battle rekindled a long-running feud within the Democratic Party between the Roberts family and the Cavanagh camp, which includes Lally and freshman state Rep. Tim Mahoney.

Stuck in the middle were many annoyed voters, the recipients of about 150 subpoenas Roberts' attorney issued last week.

"It's unfortunate when you try to do something right for the county and exercise your right to vote," said Michael Giachetti, one of the agents who testified Wednesday. "I've heard a lot of people say that they'll never sign another petition again."

While a judge struck about one-third of Lally's signatures on Thursday, the construction business owner ended up with 38 more than needed to remain on the ballot.

Roberts' court challenge scrutinized the integrity of the nomination process and left registered voters wondering whether they, too, might receive a subpoena the next time they sign a petition...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_499600.html

Fayette County Elections - Tribune Review search

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/fayette.php

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