BBV: Holt Bill (HR 2239) again. PLEASE PROVIDE INPUT

Hi, I'd like to have one more pass on this issue, to make sure there aren't things I have missed (I'm preparing a petition and perhaps a short accompanying piece on this).
Can anyone think of any drawbacks or something that could backfire with having this Bill passed ?
There are SOME limitations, obviously, but what I mean is: is this the best we can do right now ? Also, would passing THIS bill prevent further improvemements later in the game ? How could we get (crucial) Repulican support for this bill?
Arguments, facts, speculations are all welcome!!!
Thank you VERY much.
-creativelcro

I believe the present bill, as written, calls for 0.5% mandatory audits. That number is too low. The number needs to be 2.0% but the higher, to an extent, the better.

Citizens for Voting Integrity

Do you think that is strategical? I mean, perhaps with a 2% sample size in the bill opposers could kill it more easily based on cost issues... Not sure, but I totally agree with you... -creativelcro

The entire process of certification is so incestuous it is corrupt.

The Holt legislation does nothing about certification.

In Georgia, we will be addressing this issue and will make it a big part of our battle.

In short, our hope is to change the certification process to our state universities, making certification 3 courses (software certification, hardware/firmware certification and security certification) in Computer Science and forcing the voting machine companies to support the courses through certification fees. By turning the certification over to a group of willing, eager students, we ensure an incorruptible process of certification.

One key issue that SHOULD be in the Holt bill is that election machines should immediately be DE-certified at the end of every election. They should not be allowed to be reused until they have been re-certified.

Good catches, DemActivist!

Kick!

for the following reasons:

1. I don't think they can CHANGE the legislation without starting the process all over again. The headway we HAVE made is important to keep in place. Can they offer an amendment to cover certification once it's out of committee and on the floor? Wouldn't that be a more sensible approach?

2. Certification is actually a state issue. Other than calling for certification, the federal laws don't address it, and the certification statutes are "voluntary" so wouldn't it be better addressed in each state?

3. Georgia wants to be the example of electronic voting. I say we help make them a GOOD one.

is simply to only purchase machines that have been previously certified by another state. To simplifiy; we are only buying other peoples problems and accepting them as ours. What a bogus way of doing business.

The certification issue has become so self-evident with the SAIC report saga that I'm surprised Congress is not all over this issue alrady...
Thanks for the comments. So far I have not heard anything suggesting that this bill is bad. Only that it needs improvement. But it's moving things in the right direction. Thanks again for your comments.
-C

that I thought this bill was bad in any way.

I certainly do mean to imply that the Georgia implementation of electionic voting is very, very, very bad and is being held up around the world as THE example of going electionic state wide. We MUST stop that.

In my ignorance of the process of passing federal legislation, I simply don't know where the best place is to suggest changes. My take is that it's better to get it out of committee unchanged, then offer amendments (changes) on the floor before a vote is taken. But that's just my interpretation....

make it more obvious that the bill prohibits a system of two different sets of votes being counted, IMHO.

For example, the bill says:

"The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B)."
text of The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (H.R. 2239)
http://holt.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=6282&type=Home

I suggest that you guys simplify the language of the whole bill while making the pupose more specific:

The voting system shall use a paper ballot box system using voter-verified paper ballots suitable for a manual audit as further specified in subparagraph (B).

if they are not on the list yet:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02239:@@@N

Send them the Buzzflash interview, or the Salon.com if they are a Dem, or if they are a Rep let them know this is a non partisan issue that Republicans, Libertarians, and others are pushing as well. You could always mention "Democrat" Sec of State in GA is fighting this issue.

I hate to sound lazy, but damn I love when they do all the work for ya, 'cept for actually putting in your own info and sending the email(s) to your Congressfolk!

www.verifiedvoting.com/fair_elections.asp

Lu

a great link. Thanks, we'll include it in the electronic petition. -C

Cool. Proof that if I throw enough crap onto the wall, SOME of it WILL indeed stick!

ANY one in either house who doesn't support this bill...good luck to ya next election! Not.

Lu

Or someone else? I was sure I posted a fairly lengthy post -- ??

Eloriel

Eloriel, I doubt it was me... I'll do an archive search though and post a link here if I find something. Thanks. -C