Rep. Rush Holt HR 811 Avante International Questions

coming across more food for thought with Avante's response to criticisms and Mercuri's piece.

Are we still unsure whether Kevin Chung met Rush Holt at any time prior to creating the Avante Auto-trakker voting method? Well of course we are...

The following postings were taken from Holt Paper-Trail Election Bill Dead? -- UPDATE: Not Dead Yet By Kim Zetter July 18, 2007 | 11:01:02 PM

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/holt-paper-trai.html

visit that site for how the conversation online unfolds. Revisit Rebecca Mercuri's piece as well.

See specifically, Avante's response which contains a link to

http://www.avantetech.com/uploads/pdf/Clarification%20of%20AVANTE%20voting%20system%20position-FINAL.pdf

Read that in its entirety.

There is no doubt the former Holt Bill HR 811 continued to permit the use of DREs and with the voter verified paper audit trail would have been acceptable to use in an election.

Black Box Voting discussed the issue at quite some length.

As for Pennsylvania and Marybeth Kuznik's reply in the Wired posting, while it provides a good argument about PA laws requiring a secret ballot which the paper trails wouldn't have met, it's likely to qualify for the monies from HR 811, the state would have rushed to adopt some form of paper trails for the DREs.

See our previous posts in the sidebar, or conduct a search from the top left of the page.

It's important to put things in perspective. When election integrity people speak, we have to wonder, who are they? Why do some want paper ballots only counted by hand, when others find it acceptable to provide for the voter verified paper audit trail?

We're just following along, sharing our findings here in the interest of truth.

Note: Paul Lehto mentioned:

BLOGGED BY John Gideon ON 7/12/2006 12:54PM
BREAKING: Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia Sued By Competitor for Patent Infringment!
Avante International Technology Corporation Files Suit Against Use of Paper Trail Printer, Op Scan Technology by Voting Machine Giants...

Inventor of Electronic Voting Verification System Takes Industry Giants to Court for Patent Infringement Wednesday July 12, 11:19 am ET

SimmonsCooper Files Lawsuit on Behalf of AVANTE International Technology Corporation

"AVANTE isn't the only victim here," said Paul Lesko, the SimmonsCooper lawyer representing AVANTE. "Local governments, acting in good faith in determining which electronic voting system would serve the needs of their districts, also have every reason to be upset at these companies.

"We believe the evidence will show that these companies sold infringing equipment to public officials, and that they did so consciously, with knowledge of AVANTE's intellectual property," added Mr. Lesko.

SimmonsCooper is seeking damages and an injunction on behalf of AVANTE.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3061

See our past posts.


The following contains posts excerpted from:

Holt Paper-Trail Election Bill Dead? -- UPDATE: Not Dead Yet
By Kim Zetter July 18, 2007 | 11:01:02 PM

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/holt-paper-trai.html

Rep. Holt is not being an honest broker in this debate. He has ties to (and an office next to) Avante International which will reap millions in profits if the Holt Bill passes.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2007/07/rush-holt-hr-811-and-avante.html

Paper trails don't fix the problem, and none of the DRE companies are going to turn over their source code. You can’t have honest elections with proprietary, for-profit DRE companies running the show.

This bill is a band aid that won't make the elections more honest.

Posted by: Dr. John R. Moffett | Jul 19, 2007 11:48:04 AM

The bill, if passed, would give PA paper trails instead of paperless DREs and it would be easy as pie to steal 3 to 5% or more of the vote and it would pass all the Holt audits or any other audit or recount, because paper will be equal to electronic. Only with Holt passed, even many activists would be fooled.

Some know of what I speak, some don't. Those who know of the studies that suggest or show that this can be done and support HR 811 or any other "audit" proposal ought to be deathy curious to fund studies to disprove somehow the existing studies that the paper trails don't work to properly capture voter INTENT. Moving forward to pass the bill in the face of about 3 uncontradicted studies is reckless like racing down a mountain road after seeing a sign that says "road damage ahead; caution."

Any hacker or rigger would have to be a COMPLETE IDIOT to do anything other than make paper MATCH electronic, especially when they know there will be audits. So auditing to see if paper matches electronic is like nailing down one corner of the picnic tablecloth on a very windy day.

Posted by: Paul Lehto | Jul 19, 2007 2:23:03 PM

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/holt-paper-trai.html

Paul Lehto said, "The bill, if passed, would give PA paper trails..."

WRONG, Paul. If HR 811 as it came out of Committee passed today the bill would give PA 100% Optical Scan, because there is NOTHING ELSE currently available that will both comply with the bill AND comply with our PA State Constitution.

Paper trails as they currently exist are ILLEGAL in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Marybeth Kuznik, VotePA.us | Jul 19, 2007 5:00:09 PM

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/holt-paper-trai.html

For those care for the truth and facts, please read our reply to these unfounded smearing between Holt and AVANTE.

http://www.avantetech.com/uploads/pdf/Clarification%20of%20AVANTE%20voting%20system%20position-FINAL.pdf

For those that are too busy to read, here is the summary:
AVANTE’s positions and actions:
1. AVANTE has deep respect for the tireless efforts by the election integrity activists, academics and technology experts. Their efforts have contributed to the many and continuous improvements of the voting systems and processes.

2. AVANTE respects the desire to have open sources in election system or having the voting system as transparent as possible. Our company software is always available for scrutiny. We differ in the feasibility of having ALL of the source codes made available for at least in the near term of five to 10 years without dramatic lowering in the voting system accessibility requirements in HAVA.

3. AVANTE believes that the current problems in electronic voting systems are related to the design and engineering rather than the solution and concept. AVANTE have proven that all of the specific problems known and caused tremendous constellation have a solution.

4. AVANTE affirmed that it is suing all of the largest competitors for patent infringements. However, we also continue to offer licensing whenever they are ready.

5. AVANTE is located in Mercer County NJ. The company has never donated to any national parties or political leaders. All of the company’s founders and stockholders have not donated to any national elected officials with more than $100.

6. AVANTE does not belong to any trade lobbying organizations and has not joined the Election Technology Council or its predecessor ITAA. AVANTE continues to maintain its independence and voice of supports to the those promoting election integrity.

7. AVANTE believes that current optical scan voting systems and processes are much less than equal to the integrity required by the current EAC 2005 voting system standards dictating the DRE with VVPR. They lack the ability to prevent tampering once the ballots have been submitted.

8. AVANTE continues its commitment and efforts in selling its paging and full-face DRE with properly engineered and designed VVPR.

9. AVANTE continues its commitment and efforts in selling its ballot marking device as well as precinct-based optical scan system that captures the digital image of each ballot and show the voters as exactly how the system is registering their ballots not just having over-voted or under-voted contests.

Posted by: Kevin Chung, CEO, AVANTE | Jul 21, 2007 6:28:33 PM

Avante quoted me -- a little out of context. Here's what I wrote in response:

http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/July.2007/0027.html

Posted by: Alan Dechert | Jul 25, 2007 7:31:11 AM

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/holt-paper-trai.html

More and related

DRE systems offered by AVANTE feature redundant ballot result storage devices whose data can be verified against voting machine printed "cut-and-drop" paper records previously verified by the voter. The records are then dropped into and secured inside a uniquely designed voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) printer ballot box

http://www.avantetech.com/products/elections/dre/

Clarification of AVANTE’s position on Election and Voting System Integrity
(Rev. A June 18, 2007)
AVANTE International Technology, Inc., Princeton Junction, New Jersey 08550
www.vote-trakker.com
In recent weeks, AVANTE found itself being cited as an unwilling participant of a national debate on voting system

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/AVANTEclarifiesPosition070618.pdf

On the issue of AVANTE being located in Mercer County, New Jersey, the home State of Congressman Holt
AVANTE, as a company has not contributed any money to any politician including Congressman Holt. None of the owners have donated more than $100 to any national figure or party.
The fact that the company and Congressman Holt happen to reside in Mercer County NJ is coincidental. The coincidence also applies to Mercer County based Princeton University and many of their professors involved in election integrity. For the record, the company and its founders have been residing in Mercer County for at least 27 years and more than 37 years in the State of New Jersey.
As a company, we have not received any favorable treatment from our home State of NJ or from any national elected officials. This fact is self-evident.
For the record, AVANTE intentionally keeps an arm-length relationship with those involved in election integrity as to avoid potential allegations such as those we are seeing today. We will continue to provide help to those that make requests. That includes things like loaning a DRE with VVPR and facilities free-of-charge for a Newsweek article on Ms Rebecca Mercuri when she was a pro DRE with VVPR expert few years ago...

http://www.avantetech.com/uploads/pdf/Clarification%20of%20AVANTE%20voting%20system%20position-FINAL.pdf

Automark and Avante

this post is an effort to find out who is who. Where are these companies operating? Where are their products adopted and certified for use? Who owns stock in these companies, and so forth and so on... where do they testify? The following was obtained from net searches using Google and different key terms.

Example

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22kevin+chung%22+avante+international+vote+trakker&btnG=Search


April 15, 2003

http://www.sos.nh.gov/HAVA/voting%20machines%20trade%20fair%20report.htm

Kevin Chung tesifies May 5, 2004

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:7BAPAkOHhu0J:www.eac.gov/News/meetings/050504/ploneexfile.2006-04-18.0069532065/attachment_download/file+%22kevin+chung%22+%22rush+holt%22+science+avante+international&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

More

http://www.eac.gov/election/practices/bpea/ack

web references

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Chung_Kevin_22506100.aspx

Kevin Chung visits seminar Princeton 2004

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall04/frs125/schedule.html

June 8, 2006
Small Business
A Foot in the Door of the Voting Booth
By ELLEN ROSEN
With midterm elections only months away, state and local officials nationwide are in the midst of a somewhat troubled transition to electronic voting systems. Two newcomers hope that the security and reliability problems that have emerged will give them a leg up.

The upstarts — AutoMark Technical Systems and Avante International Technology — evolved from the inspiration of two entrepreneurs. AutoMark began with Eugene M. Cummings, a Chicago patent lawyer who conceived a system to assist the disabled in voting. Avante sprang from the persistence of a New Jersey entrepreneur, Kevin Chung, who devised an electronic voting system after he witnessed the troubled presidential election of 2000.

For these men, the immersion in a new and largely unfamiliar industry has been something of a quixotic journey. "We earned our M.B.A. the hard way," said Joseph Vanek, another Chicago lawyer who is co-founder of AutoMark. "But we conceived an idea, made a product and brought it to market."...

...Still, the obstacles were many. Mr. Chung had no experience in the field — his company, Avante International Technology, based in Princeton Junction, N.J., produces electronics adhesives and has experience in the smart card industry. Revenue, Mr. Chung says, is about $10 million.

Undeterred, he filed a patent application for such a machine within days of the election. Then, using savings and company resources, he hired two engineering firms for a bakeoff to see which could turn his idea into a more concrete proposal.

By March 2001, the company had a prototype that allowed voters to see the entire ballot along with a paper record that confirmed their choices. Shortly afterward, his company's representatives, lugging the machines, hit the field to demonstrate what it calls a full-face ballot touch screen to local political leaders and the public.

"We went almost five years without any income — everyone in my company hated me," Mr. Chung said. "I had anticipated some problems, but five years is a long time."

The company finally met with some success in 2005, when it won its first contract, from Warren County, N.J...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/business/08sbiz.html?pagewanted=print

E-Voting Machines Exposed by Task Force

By KIMBERLY FELICIANO
In late June, the Brennan Center Task Force on Voting System Security, an initiative of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, released a report and policy proposals concluding that all three of the nation’s most commonly purchased electronic voting systems are vulnerable to software attacks that could threaten the integrity of a state or national election. Those three are electronic machines (DREs) with—and without—a voter verified paper trail, and precinct-counted optical scan systems (PCOS).

The Task Force spent more than a year conducting the analysis and drafting The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World. The methodology, analysis, and text were “extensively peer reviewed” by the National Institute of Standards and Technology...

Photo

Kevin Chung, CEO of AVANTE International Technology developed an e-voting machine that prints a paper record. Partnered with Dell Computer, Arrow Electronics, and Microsoft E-Government System, they offer to provide California with all 10,000 units for this year’s election.

http://www.fourthbranchofamerica.com/voting_machines_exposed.shtml

Avante Optical Vote Trakker

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:-6zWhrHgbcgJ:www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/lobby_packet%2520wd%2520-%2520FINAL1.pdf+%22kevin+chung%22+rush+holt+avante+international+board+directors&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Avante International Technology Corporation Files Suit Against Use of Paper Trail Printer, Op Scan Technology by Voting Machine Giants

BLOGGED BY John Gideon ON 7/12/2006 12:54PM

Inventor of Electronic Voting Verification System Takes Industry Giants to Court for Patent Infringement

Wednesday July 12, 11:19 am ET

SimmonsCooper Files Lawsuit on Behalf of AVANTE International Technology Corporation

EAST ALTON, Ill., July 12 /PRNewswire/ --- SimmonsCooper LLC has filed a lawsuit against the three largest voting machine manufacturers for infringing AVANTE International Technology Corporation's Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and optical scan patents.

Named in the suit are Diebold Election Systems, Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), and Sequoia Voting Systems. The suit was filed on behalf of Kevin Chung, CEO of Avante International Technology Corporation, Inc., who invented VVPAT.

AVANTE's VVPAT and optical scanning (which includes automatic ballot marking) patents allow voters to verify that their electronically-cast ballots are being accurately counted while also allowing for auditability between the paper record and the electronic record.

The AVANTE technology directly addresses widespread skepticism about the integrity of electronic voting, solving a problem that has threatened to undermine public faith in a process tainted in recent elections by allegations of computer manipulation.

"AVANTE isn't the only victim here," said Paul Lesko, the SimmonsCooper lawyer representing AVANTE...


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3061

Business Point of View: A Better Voting System

...Avante now awaits what may be its first major order from its home state of New Jersey in the pending RFQ. New Jersey has been given millions of dollars of federal funds to update its voting systems in all 21 counties to meet the mandate of the 2002 enacted "Help America Vote Act." Almost all of the current voting systems in New Jersey do not meet the HAVA mandates.

Besides pioneering the making and usage of a voting system with a "paper record audit trail" that is voter verified, Avante also pioneered the first online voter registration system that captures biometric digitized signature. The captured biometric digitized signature not only reduces the memory requirement to 300 bytes from 50 Kbytes of typical digitized signature from paper, it is a patented technology that can play back the signing motion like a movie (minus the presence of the person of course). Any layman or judge can view the movie to verify if someone actually signed the document.

Avante is now working with partners such as Dell, Computer Associates, etc. in bidding on a contract for the State of New Jersey to provide a uniform Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) that will eliminate duplicate voter registration as well as provide better voter assistance. Any voter can print out a map to their polling place or preview the layout of the polling place in pictures. Voters can be assured of their data's privacy better than all other states' SVRS if the New Jersey chooses to use the Avante system that provide an optional biometric digitized signature authentication before any election official can log onto the database.

http://www.princetoninfo.com/200410/41027f01.html

Tags for Goats, Pills, and Key Chains
Think RFID tags for goats, pills, and key chains. Kevin Chung of Avante Technologies on Washington Road is riding the RFID bandwagon by selling tags to the United States Department of Agriculture for $2 per goat. His tags also help the Food and Drug Administration prevent drug counterfeits. And every year he sells from 1 million to 3 million loyalty card chips in key fobs to private companies. His website touts using RFID to monitor which conventioneers attend which seminars and which drugs a patient has taken.

"RFID is an exciting area and it has a lot of potential applications," says Chung, "but it is not a full grown business. We started quite a few years ago. We are not the biggest guy playing in this area but we have a lot of patents." Chung predicts RFID technology will explode in 2006 now that Wal-Mart has finished its beta testing and manufacturers are primed and ready to go.

Chung went to Rutgers, Class of 1974, and earned his PhD from Rutgers as well. After working for RCA he founded his firm in 1985 and moved to this location seven years ago; he has 50 employees. His wife, Cynthia Chu, is also a principal in the firm, and they have two grown children.

Currently he devotes only 20 percent of the business to RFID. One of his companies, AI Technologies, manufactures materials for the computer, communications, and power supply industries; it also provides services to these industries. Among the products are films, pastes, and gels that guard against heat, the great enemy of computers and other electronic products. AIT also manufactures adhesives and epoxy materials that can substitute for solder. Under the company name Avante International Technologies, Chung has developed a voting machine, Vote Trakker, that issues paper records for verification (U.S. 1, October 27, 2004).

http://www.princetoninfo.com/200511/51109c02.html

Rep. Rush Holt

Rush Holt, 59, is a resident of Hopewell Township, N.J. Born in West Virginia he inherited his interest in politics from his parents. His father was the youngest person ever to be elected to the U.S. Senate, at age 29. His mother served as Secretary of State of West Virginia and was the first woman to have held that position.

Rep. Holt earned his B.A. in Physics from Carleton College in Minnesota and completed his Master’s and Ph.D. at NYU. He has held positions as a teacher, Congressional Science Fellow, and arms control expert at the U.S. State Department where he monitored the nuclear programs of countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union. From 1989 until he launched his 1998 congressional campaign, Holt was Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the largest research facility of Princeton University and the largest center for research in alternative energy in New Jersey. He has conducted extensive research on alternative energy and has his own patent for a solar energy device. Holt was also a five-time winner of the game show “Jeopardy.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-rush-

holt

Felten E-voting hack fuels pre-election debate (Rush Holt mentioned)

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2Tc1C0sq2DQJ:engineering.princeton.edu/eqnews/EQN_W06.pdf+rush+holt+princeton+plasma+kevin+chung&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

April 17, 1997

Session A4. FED, FPS: Trends in Federal Support of Science Education. Stephens, Weimer, Vanski, Wheeler. Auditorium, Renaissance. Chair: Rush Holt, Princeton University Plasma

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR97/BAPSAPR97/Program.html

... high5, Stockholm said on 7/16/2006 @ 2:43 am PT...

or, this is just another clever psy-op making people beleive the shit about paper trails securing anything.

This is what gives it away:

AVANTE's VVPAT and optical scanning (which includes automatic ballot marking) patents allow voters to verify that their electronically-cast ballots are being accurately counted while also allowing for auditability between the paper record and the electronic record.

Anyone heard of Avante before?

http://test.bradblog.com/?p=3061

Rebecca Mercuri: Holt and Avante Backyard Buddies

Delving a bit deeper into the Rush Holt array of voting protection measures and legislative presentations, we find a piece by Rebecca Mercuri, Connecting the Dots? Rush Holt, HR 811, and Avante International. See the following for Mercuri Method and patent of "something."

Mercuri, Rebecca T., “Physical Verifiability of Computer Systems,” Notable Software, 1997. “Voters Prefer To See Their Votes Recorded On Paper

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7111782.html

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7111782-claims.html

We have to be aware of any connections any legislator anywhere has with any company or owners of companies which promote a product designed to solve electronic voting machine (paperless) "problems." That's all we can do. Lay out as much info as possible for ourselves and your information.

See our follow-up posting about Avante's in-depth response to Mercuri and others

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/rep-rush-holt-hr-811-avante.html

Why did this issue arise today of all days? New Jersey had voting machine problems in a district where NJ Governor Corzine votes.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/nj-super-tuesday-voting-machine.html

The situation has to raise eyebrows. You'd think every single district would have run tests for two months knowing the law in NJ at some point is going to be implemented to require a Voter verified paper ballot.

Net the Truth Online

Connecting the Dots? Rush Holt, HR 811, and Avante International
SOURCE: OpEdNews July 13, 2007

Connecting the Dots? Rush Holt, HR 811, and Avante International
Holt and Avante -- Backyard Buddies By Rebecca Mercuri
Consider this scenario: If Avante wins its patent lawsuit against the "big three" vendors, HR 811 could bring billions of dollars to Holt's home district. Here's how it could happen...

...In a one-two punch, Avante's key patent, #7036730 "Electronic Voting Aparatus, System and Method," also includes claims that pertain to "a Braille device," "an aural device," and "voice recognition apparatus."(3) Conveniently, Holt's bill happens to also include requirements that there be "at least one voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place" that "allows the voter to privately and independently verify the individual, durable paper ballot through the conversion of the human-readable printed or marked vote selections into accessible form."

So, Avante could be the "spoiler" in thwarting implementation of Holt's bill, if the court rules in their favor and they (or the Judge) choose to recall or destroy all of the deployed and infringing VVPAT and disability accessible voting equipment, just a few months prior to the November 2008 Presidential election. Alternatively, all of HR 811's $1B, plus a potentially large chunk of the prior $3B bonanza that voting system vendors had received from the 2002 HAVA legislation, may wander back to Holt's election district, since Avante, as Mark Crispin Miller recently noted (4), just happens to be located in his "backyard."...

...Ultimately what emerged in Holt's revised bill is a requirement that could potentially become the first Federal law to instantiate the use of nondisclosure agreements for voting systems (unless State laws waive them) and to further provide that such agreements "shall be governed by the trade secret laws of the applicable State." Despite this explicit vendor-partisan language, various Holt support groups, such as the dubiously-named People For the American Way, have continued to falsely claim that "Rep. Holt's bill requires ... for ALL federal elections starting in 2008: ... No Secret Source Code – ALL voting machine vendors MUST make the machines' software available for inspection" (10) when, in fact, exactly the OPPOSITE is what this bill now says! Interestingly, Holt's own FAQ sheet on the bill (11) entirely avoids mentioning that there's been a complete reversal on his earlier "open source" stance and focuses on activist bashing along with hammering home the fact that the bill does not ban DRE's (great for Avante, since they believe they hold the key patents on the VVPAT DREs).

If any of the above bothers you, try contacting Holt directly (even though you probably won't be satisfied with the response), or better yet, spread the word and let your own congressperson know that this bad piece of compromised and potentially pork-barrel legislation for Holt's "backyard buddy" is far worse than no legislation at all.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/4334

Not to make things more complicated, but Rebecca Mercuri's site credits her with inventing the Voter Verified Balloting concept.

One needs to look at the information concerning the "Mercuri Method" as presented in her own works - importantly those that pre-date 2000.

The Mecuri method is named after Rebecca Mercuri who described it in a March 1992 paper entitled "Physical Verifiability of Computer Systems." Her PhD Thesis at the University of Pennsylvania in 2000 further elaborated on the topic.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercuri_method

While the paper is mentioned, "Physical Verifiability of Computer Systems," Rebecca T. Mercuri, 5th International Computer Virus and Security Conference, March, 1992, the site doesn't contain a link to the paper.

From Mercuri's site

http://www.notablesoftware.com/rmercuri.html

A Better Ballot Box (2002)

http://www.notablesoftware.com/Papers/1002evot.pdf

http://www.ncvoter.net/opticalscan.html

We tracked these issues since year 2000 in VoteFix. See sidebar.

VotePA Weighs in on Talk program paper ballots

Marybeth Kuznik, founder of VotePA, invited by a state Democratic committeewoman to call into a radio talk program when she was a guest, addressed Fayette County's choice to plan to acquire the voting system by November's General Election which includes paper ballots and scanners.

Kuznik noted an injunction was granted by a challenge to the state's DRE electronic voting systems. the injunctio prevents the acquisition of additional DRE paperless electronic voting systems, she said.

WMBS radio host, 'Bob Folta' asked the organization's director about the time process using the paper ballot and eScans.

Kuznik said the process would take a shorter time. With the DREs, or direct recording electronic machines, estimates are even with 3 units operated at the same time, machines are tied up for a longer period when voters take longer than recommended times of some 3-minutes or slightly longer.

"You could have many many voters voting at one time on paper ballots and it takes literally a second or two to process through the scanners," she said.

Asked about cost factor, some estimated $400,000 to supply the minimum 103 scanners, vs the lower estimate per eSlates, Kuznik responded that "is going to be worth the money."

Kuznik said the organization hadn't crunched those numbers, but the state's COSTAR program establishes negotiated prices with the vendors and those are public record. She noted the board of commissioners could sell off some of the DREs in the county's stock, retaining the necessary amount of handicapped accessible machines known as eSlate DAUs.

Studies have shown the cost of implementing paper balloting systems even with the cost of the paper year to year is less, and is more efficient.

VotePA is available on web and members have number of resources there, according to Kuznik. We have members in many counties so we stand ready to help these folks.

KuZnik noted PA it is among the last states to go with paper based system. Many large states are doing this and the non-paper systems seem to be on the way out.

9 Pennsylvania counties use completely paper based and 4 use a mixed system. The organization is working to get more counties to go with paper.

We could be the next Florida or Ohio, and in many counties we won't have these, we may have egg on our faces...

This system will not leave us with hanging chads, very easy to see on paper what their intent was...

Asked about what led to replacement of punchcards, Kuznik said legislation was passed in 2002 in response to horrible problems in 2000 Presidential election. Evidence unfolding over the years has shown the paper stock was inferior, a nightmare situation. Congress offered to pass bill quickly and didn't give a lot of thought to kinds of systems available to replace the punchcard system, forgot to consider the computer security, the identity theft we have, a vote has to be secret so it's that much harder to protect the intention.

Only record we can have is the anonymous paper ballot, there is a physical paper, and some voter made these choices and they have right to have these counted accurately, Kuznik said.

Strongest way to go is paper ballot with an audit trail.

Scanners will be compatible with new federal legislation if it passes. Support the new Rush Holt bill 5036 and request your listeners to contact Rep. John Murtha, and Shuster and get them to co-sponsor.

The federal legislation should it pass may provide the funding for the system Fayette intends to adopt.

More resources

Challenge

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~davide/voting-machines/Complaint-2006-08-15.pdf

http://www.voteraction.org/case/banfieldvcortes

electionline

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/electionline.aspx

Voting system choice up in air
BY DAVID SINGLETON
STAFF WRITER
01/24/2008

Jim and Donna Tomasetti couldn’t decide which of the electronic touch-screen devices on display Wednesday at a Lackawanna County-hosted voting machine fair they liked best.


But the Dunmore residents were clear what their recommendation to majority Commissioners Mike Washo and Corey O’Brien would be: no more paper ballots.

“We don’t want to go through what we did in the last election — that fiasco,” Mr. Tomasetti said after he and his wife, both Election Day poll watchers in the borough, tried out each of the voting machines under consideration to replace the county’s decertified Advanced Voting Solutions devices.

For three hours at the Hilton Scranton and Conference Center, they and other voters had a chance to offer input to county officials after getting hands-on with four voting machines, plus a pair of optical-scan paper ballot systems, from four different vendors.

Mr. Washo and Mr. O’Brien insisted their search for a new voting system to replace the AVS machines is still a wide-open process — not just which machine or optical-scan sys- tem they’ll choose but also how the deal will be structured...

Voting system choice up in air
BY DAVID SINGLETON
STAFF WRITER
01/24/2008
Why No mention of the many who LIKE PAPER BALLOTS?

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19227115&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement

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

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

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

Sponsors and co-sponsors

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

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

Mark Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People for American Way pro Holt Bill

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

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

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

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

Overall supportive discussion of Holt Bill HR 811

Vote PA

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

Includes podcast interview

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

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

Holes in HR 811 Charted No Leaky Buckets

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

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

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

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

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

Same as above with links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.coalitionforvisibleballots.org

Election Integrity: Fact & Friction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's the Paper

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

Discussion on blog

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

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

Edward W. Felton Testimony link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


More discussion

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

Brad Blog

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

No comments links to material, articles (better)

Rush Holt Election Reform Bill (HR 811)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rush to Voting Security Flawed?

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

clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full bill remains posted on the site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 7, 2007 at 19:14:17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional developments

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

Dear Mr. Ambrogi and Ms. Price,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

online at BBV Forum in pdf

Holt Bill: pdf version

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

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

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

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

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

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

from Paul Lehto:

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

Why?

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

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

Also see

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

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

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

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

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

More

Discussion Nancy Tobi piece including

TEXT-TO-AUDIO TECHNOELECTION TOY TIMELINE:

August 2005

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

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

December 2005

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


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

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

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

Dopp letter and signers

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

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

John Gideon presents a case for the necessity of amendments

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

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

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

By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org
February 06, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press releases republished

EFF highlights introduction of the legislation

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.brennancenter.org/

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

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

Also see

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

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

electionline report makes references to other organizations, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More

July 18, 2006 John Gideon explains on another issue

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

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

Rush Holt Paper Record Audit Bill Analyzed

analysis of Rush Holt bill

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

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

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

http://noleakybuckets.org/holt2007.html

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

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

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

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

What a difference two years makes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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