Books and Reports
EDA recommends books, whitepapers and reports that are well researched, documented and academic in approach so that citizens will have the most authoritative information possible for understanding this important civic issue. Often the effort to analyze and report on past elections is denigrated or ignored as selective or a bitter lament by supporters of the officially declared "loser". Not so at EDA, where the key issue is whether the facts and evidence are rigorously examined and analysed, and the conclusion as to who received the most votes or whether an erroneous outcome was certified is reached by scientific or scholarly investigation and documentation of these facts and evidence.
"Cast Out" - The Brennan Center Report on Voter Suppression in 2006
http://www.brennancenter.org/subpage.asp?key=413&tier3_key=38166
Cast Out: New Voter Suppression Strategies 2006 and Beyond
We are well-informed of Election Day problems, but disenfranchising policies silently affect hundreds of thousands of voters long before then. These new voter suppression strategies will have an enormous impact on elections in 2006 and beyond.
Click here to view the presentation.
Top Threats to the Franchise:
Crackdown on Voter Registration Drives
o Policy Brief on Restrictions on Voter Registration Drives
o For more information on the Brennan Center's work to remove barriers to voter registration, including path-breaking litigation victories in Florida and Ohio, click here
Using Databases to Keep Eligible Voters Off the Rolls
o Policy Brief on Using Databases to Keep Eligible Voters Off the Rolls
o For more information on the Brennan Center's work to ensure proper implementation of statewide voter registration databases, including our ground-breaking report and litigation victory in Washington, click here
Inaccurate Purges of the Voter Rolls
o Policy Brief on Inaccurate Purges of the Voter Rolls
o For more information on the Brennan Center's work to ensure proper purges of voter rolls, click here
Strict Documentation Requirements for Voting
o Policy Brief on Voter Identification
o Policy Brief on Proof of Citizenship
o Policy Brief on the Truth About "Voter Fraud"
o Policy Brief on Alternatives to Voter Identification
o For more information on the Brennan Center's work to ensure that
documentation requirements do not compromise the right to vote, click here
Problems With New Voting Technology
o Policy Brief on Electronic Voting Systems
o For more information on the Brennan Center's ground-breaking analysis of new problems presented by voting technology including the first-ever evaluation of security vulnerabilities and usability considerations, click here
Learn more about the other voting issues the Brennan Center works on:
o Voting Rights and Elections Project
Press Clips:
o SIT News (AK): Center Warns Against Disenfranchising Voters (September 18, 2006)
o Washington Post (DC): Major Problems At Polls Feared (September 17, 2006)
o Ms. Magazine (USA): 2006 Voter Suppression Strategy Predictions (September 14, 2006)
o MSNBC (USA): Election Changes Could Create Voting Barriers (September 13, 2006)
Cheated!
“Cheated!” draws from video and photographs to illustrate the story of the courageous citizens of Columbus, Ohio, who investigated and litigated against the massive voter suppression and fraud they experienced on Election Day, November 2, 2004.
Because these hardy patriots refused to concede, they ignited a Voting Rights movement that spread like wildfire across the grassroots of America.
We begin on Election Day, November 2nd, in urban Columbus. Rain pours on unbelievably long lines of citizens at the polls determined to vote for change. There’s mass confusion as voters discover they’ve been struck from the poll books. Machines are malfunctioning; some are hopping from Kerry to Bush. Frustrated voters are forced to leave for work and family, their votes uncast. Precinct judges beg for more voting machines, but find that Franklin County Board of Elections Director Matt Damshroder and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell are unreachable - tied up in meetings with George Bush and Karl Rove.
Election Protection attorney Bob Fitrakis, Reverend Bill Moss with his wife Ruth, filmmaker Linda and college student Marlon witness the chaos. Something is terribly wrong. Here is where the White House will be won for John Kerry or George Bush. . . but the people aren’t getting to vote.
ESI Report on May 6 primary in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
The address for this page in the original is http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/GSC/election.htm
The ESI report on the Cuyahoga County June primary election, 2006, documenting among other things the failure of the VVPAT system to provide a reliable means of auditing the vote, originally appeared at : http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/bocc/GSC/pdf/esi_cuyahoga_final.pdf
To download this 234-page report from the Cuyahoga County BOE, click here for PDF .
CUYAHOGA ELECTION INVESTIGATION
The Cuyahoga County Office of Government Services Coordination has been
directed by the Board of County Commissioners to coordinate the
independent investigation of the new voting technology implemented by
Cuyahoga Board of Elections and the subsequent investigations into the
May 2nd Primary Election. Information is also provided at this site
with links to resources to help Cuyahoga County voters cast their
ballots for the November 7th general election.
If you have any questions about the information provided, please contact this office .
Voter Registration
Absentee Voting
Electronic Voting Information
Voter Identification
Investigation Reports
Register to Vote
If you are not already registered in Cuyahoga County, or have moved or
changed your name since the last election, please click below, print
out the form, fill it out and mail it to the Board of Elections. You
can also usually find registration/change of name and address cards at
your local city hall, library or high school. The Bureau of Motor
vehicles and other county offices also have such forms available. Your
signed and completed registration form must physically be at the Board
of Elections no later than October 10th at 9:00 a.m. to be eligible to
vote in the November election.
NOTE:
Registering to vote does not increase your likelihood of being called
for jury duty, as those are taken from the driver’s license and
registration rolls.
Voter Registration Form
Call
the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections at 216-443-3298 for a Voter
Registration Card to be mailed to you. Complete it and mail it back.
top of page
Absentee Voting
Ohio
law now provides that voters can cast ballots by mail through absentee
ballots. You must request an absentee ballot directly from the Board of
Elections. You can download and print the application below. You can
also call the Board of Elections directly to have one sent to you.
Absentee
ballots will be mailed starting 34 days prior to the November election.
Make sure you turn these forms in as soon as possible, physically
arriving at the Board of Elections no later than 12 Noon on Saturday,
November 4, 2006.
.
Absentee Application Form
Absentee Guide
top of page
Electronic Voting Information
This
link provides information to voters on the new electronic voting
machines (DRE’s). Should you choose to go to your polling location on
Election Day, you will be using one of these machines. Please review
the information in advance to make sure you understand the new
procedures.
Electronic Voting
top of page
Voter Identification
Ohio
House Bill 3 was passed earlier in 2006 and now requires all voters to
provide valid identification before you can cast your ballot. THIS IS A
NEW PROVISION IN OHIO. Please review the forms of acceptable
identification and make sure you bring it with you to the polls to
ensure a smooth process.
The form of identification that you may use includes your current and valid photo identification card, military identification, copy of utility bill,
bank statement, paycheck, government check, or government document
showing your name and current address. (Note: You cannot use as proof
of identification a notice that the board of elections mailed to you.)
Voters who do not have any of the above forms of identification,
including a social security number, will still be able to vote by
signing an affirmation swearing to the voter's identity under penalty
of election falsification and by casting a provisional ballot.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/PublicAffairs/VoterInfoGuide.aspx?Section=1774
top of page
Investigation Reports
CERP Final Report
ESI Final Report
Diebold Election Systems Letter and Response to ESI Report
Explanation of the Main Summary data for VVPAT information
ESI VVPAT and ESI All Camparisons
Analyzing Raw Election Archive and DRE Memory Card Data
Hacked! High Tech Election Theft in America: 11 Experts Expose the Truth
New Book Exposes Evidence Connecting Electronic Voting
with Election Fraud
Edited by Abbe Waldman DeLozier and Vickie Karp
Contact: Nettie Hartsock * 512/396-1067 * Nettie [dot] hartsock [at] gmail [dot] com
Vickie Karp * 512/775-3737 * vkarp [at] hackedelections [dot] com
Abbe DeLozier * 512/736-5802 * adelozier [at] hackedelections [dot] com
“HACKED! is a stunning expose of stolen elections and election voting manipulation. It is shocking and alarming. The book by Abbe Waldman DeLozier and Vickie Karp is designed to wake up America. I am sure it will!” Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers Columnist and author of Watchdogs of Democracy?
Austin, TX – Sept. 5, 2006 – Dedicated editors Abbe DeLozier and Vickie Karp break through the confusion surrounding the issue of electronic voting and stolen elections by compiling a weighty treatise, HACKED! High Tech Election Theft in America, featuring 11 recognized experts on how electronic voting has stolen our democracy. Among them: Bev Harris, Lynn Landes, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Victoria Collier, Kathleen Wynne, Jeremiah Akin, and others. The contributors have been working on election reform issues for years.
DeLozier and Karp produce evidence and information leading to the conclusion that elections are being stolen in America. Every American will want to read this vital information so important to preserving our democracy.
The editors went to great lengths researching and compiling the most compelling documented evidence available on electronic vote fraud to illuminate this issue in its entirety for the public.
Learn why election fraud is bigger than Watergate
- Convicted felons have been programming our election software.
- Corporate voting machine vendors have ownership ties to top politicians, defense contractors, and foreign governments! Why?
- Elections can be rigged and probably have been for years with the stroke of a keyboard. The truth about what really happened in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.
- States are using millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars to buy unproven, faulty voting equipment, with no recounts or citizen oversight possible.
- The shocking truth mainstream media has not covered about the electronic voting systems used by 80% of America.
HACKED relays clear examples of the shocking problems with these machines, the conflicts of interest with ownership of voting equipment vendors, and details how American taxpayers were sold a bill of goods to pay for the very election systems the editors believe are stealing their votes. It also proposes a simple, inexpensive solution to the electronic voting crisis, and explains why it is so imperative that Americans start TODAY to reclaim their elections. The book includes action steps that citizens can take to do so.
HACKED! High Tech Election Theft in America is a key read to finally understanding what’s happened to your stolen votes, and how to get them back!
Contact Editors:
HACKED! High Tech Election Theft in America
By Abbe Delozier and Vickie Karp
www.hackedelections.com
Publication Date: August 2006; PRICE:$15.00 /PAGES:248;Soft cover
ISBN#0-615-13255-3; Truth Enterprises Publishing
###
National Research Council Report: Committee on a Framework for Understanding Electronic Voting
A recently released report by the Committee on a Framework For Understanding Electronic Voting, National Research Council of the National Academies of Science delivers a knockout blow to today's electronic (computerized) voting industry and the supportive governmental structures spawned by the "Help America Vote (sic) Act (HAVA)".
This groundbreaking report concisely and coherently pulls together many threads of this complex topic, addressing the multitude of problems with machine-based voting in a number of ways. Reading the report, one is left with the undeniable conclusion that the only viable way to create security in our elections is through the use of a hand counted paper ballot system.
Specifically, this report states unequivocally that every polling place in the nation should have on hand paper ballots for hand counting because it is untenable to rely on voting machines for the following reasons:
1. They are insecure.
2. The products are shoddy and the vendors are unreliable.
3. Pollworkers can't be trained and voters can't be adequately educated to use them for Nov 2006.
4. They are not cost-effective and in fact are economically unfeasible due to the inherent life-cycle issues of software products.
5. They will never be able to be truly "certified" or properly tested.
There is nothing sterile or academic about the assessment of the situation and the recommendations thereof. Rather, the Committee weighed its conclusions base on the testimony of real-world experts such as Wendy Noren, Boone County Clerk of Missouri, whose dramatic testimony last February before the EAC pointed out the chaos into which the HAVA-generated voting industry has thrown us.
The report is groundbreaking too, in that--unlike all other reports of its kind--it actually includes instructions for hand counting, effectively inserting this time honored method into the public record and discourse on this subject. No longer can computerized voting proponents disregard the hand count methodology as a viable and integral part of any discussion and debate on this topic. These instructions, shown below in an excerpt from the report, come from the New Hampshire Secretary of State's office.
Download the report (you need to provide your contact information to download) and pass it around. And be proud of the patriotic integrity brought by our New Hampshire representation to the Committee.
Hand Count Method for Counting Ballots
The report includes the following description of handcounting methodology used in the Granite State (the tally method is seen in the Wilton and Lyndeborough videos, and the sort/stack/count method in the State Recount video):
Counting paper ballots is inherently manual, but there are better and worse ways of doing it. One common method is based on ballot reading and tally marks. One member of a two-person team reads the ballot, declaring those legal votes apparent from the voter’s marks. The second team member places a mark on his/her tally sheet for the candidate receiving a vote. This method involves the possibility of a mistake because the ballot is examined only once or a mistake because only one person is doing the tallying. Since this method commonly involves reading through the entire ballot, the ballot reader's eye and brain are not focused on looking for a single type of data, and thus the reader must expend mental effort to distinguish among the contests in which choices are made.
At least one state (New Hampshire), in its state recounts, has been using another process that seems to be less subject to error.
This process, based on the use of ballot sorting and piles, involves one member of a two-person team picking up the ballots and placing them in piles corresponding to each choice in a particular race. The other team member observes each ballot as it is placed in a pile. After the sorting process is complete, one team member counts each pile in stacks of 25 and then the other team member recounts each stack.
This process enables at least two persons to simultaneously examine each ballot at least once, and to keep things simple by identifying choices in a single race at a time. If one person makes a mistake, the other can catch it. This method is often modified so that each ballot is rechecked during the stack-counting process. Hence, each ballot can be seen two times by each member of the team, for a total of up to four views of each mark on a ballot in each race.
The ballot sorting and pile method, which involves as many examinations of the same ballot as there are contests, is noticeably faster than the ballot reading and tally mark approach.
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?
BookPage
With a foreword by U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?
exit polls, election fraud, and the official count
By Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss
"This book discusses a contentious, but not a partisan issue. People differ strongly about whom they want in the White House, but almost everybody wants whoever is there to be seen as having been rightfully elected . . . Only those who simply and reflexively assert the explanation with
which they're most comfortable will dismiss this careful and judicious book as the work of conspiracy theorists."
—John Allen Paulos
author of Innumeracy and A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper
"Freeman and Bleifuss shape the raw data into an image of all that the Founders warned us against."
—U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.
from the Foreword, "Praise for Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?"
“After Steven Freeman first pointed to the statistical improbability of the discrepancy between 2004 Election Day exit polls, which forecast a Kerry victory, and the officially reported results, opinion leaders accepted with relief the mea culpa offered months later by exit pollsters Joe Lenski and Warren
Mitofsky. The careful analyses presented in this book demonstrate that the pollsters’ explanation is utterly unsatisfactory.
Indeed, the additional evidence that Freeman and Bleifuss develop is even more disquieting than the original discrepancy. Their book deserves to stimulate follow-up investigations into the threat to our democracy posed by insecure electronic voting machines, and into the possibility that their vulnerability was exploited in 2004 with fateful results. As a citizen, I very much hope that the answer is ‘no,’ but it is time for mainstream scholars, journalists, and public officials to stop avoiding the question.”
—Jack H. Nagel
Steven Goldstone Endowed Term Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
"Freeman and Bleifuss are true patriots. They understand that our country cannot survive as a viable democracy if our election processes are corrupted. They responsibly and insightfully investigate evidence suggesting that the 2004 presidential
election may have been stolen, using as a focal research question: either the exit polls were unusually way off or the votes were not accurately counted. Concerned Americans should not ignore this intelligent book."
—Kenneth Warren,
Professor of Political Science, St. Louis University, President of The Warren Poll
“In the aftermath of the 2004 election, I was convinced that the exit polls had got it wrong, that George Bush had won the popular and electoral vote, and that arguments to the contrary were little more than a combination of sour grapes and conspiracy theory. After reading this book, I’m no longer so sure. When asked ‘was the 2004 election stolen?’ the only honest answer I can now give is ‘I don’t know.’ That is a sad commentary on the state of elections, election polling, the news media and academic research in the United States and it needs to be remedied.”
—Michael X. Delli Carpini,
Dean, The Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania
‘Freeman and Bleifuss have made a critically important contribution to the debate over election accuracy and integrity in the United States. Their book offers the most thorough account to date of the large and
growing body of evidence indicating that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. They cover the evidence of voter suppression, bias in election policy and administration, disparities between exit polls and election returns, and much more. While making these and
other complex subjects accessible to non-experts, Freeman and Bleifuss also discuss larger questions about the role of elections, election administration, and media oversight in modern representative government. They demonstrate that American democracy itself is in jeopardy.
-- Lance deHaven-Smith
Professory of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University
“This is the book I have been waiting for. Freeman and Bleifuss are reasonable, balanced, and insistant--addressing the questions about the 2004 elections that won't go away. They specifically target the exit polls and explore how these
exit polls (the gold standard of polling) could have been so far off from the official count in so many states. Readers will have the opportunity to step outside a comfortable conventional wisdom, not into a world of conspiracies but into the territory of careful searching,
combining the best features of science and true investigative journalism."
—Karen Parker Lears, Associate Editor Raritan Review
“If you seek a very accessible guide to the 2004 election, starting with election night and proceeding through all the major issues, I can't make a higher recommendation than this book…”
—Paul R. Lehto, votersunite.org
Twenty months after the 2004 presidential election, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? is the first sustained investigation of what really happened on the first Tuesday of November 2004. Scrutinizing the widest spectrum of facts and theories that have emerged to explain the discrepancy between the exit poll results and the official count, authors Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss tell the story of our electoral democracy at this moment in its history without fear or favor.
The story they have to tell is a damning one—one that has profound implications for the 2006 and 2008 elections, indeed for the future of American democracy:
• Was there something wrong with the way that exit polls are conducted in the United States or does the problem lie with a lack of security at the ballot box? In their book, Freeman and Bleifuss plumb both the history of exit polling and the state of the art today. The Election Day 2004 exit polls showed Kerry winning nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. So why did the exit polls differ so substantially from the official count? In elections in Germany and the United Kingdom, exit polls accurately predict the outcome of national elections. And in the Ukraine that same month, an exit poll discrepancy was used to overturn the official results.
• Did the implementation of electronic voting systems pave the way for election fraud in 2004? Freeman and Bleifuss examine the vulnerability of new ballot technologies. In 2004, 64 percent of voters cast ballots on
either electronic voting systems or optical-scan voting systems. A September 2005 study by the General Accountability Office found that such systems had security problems that “could allow unauthorized personnel to disrupt operations or modify data and programs that are
critical to the accuracy and the integrity of the voting process.”
• Why were the exit polls so wrong? The pollsters who conducted the exit polls, Joe Lenski and Warren Mitofsky, produced a 77-page report that attempts to explain why the exit poll discrepancy occurred. Freeman and Bleifuss
examine that report in detail and demonstrate that the pollsters’ analysis does not stand up under scrutiny. “Lenski and Mitofsky found it more expedient to provide an explanation unsupported by theory, data or precedent than to impugn the machinery of American democracy as
practiced in the 2004 presidential election,” they write.
• Freeman and Bleifuss also analyze the Conyers Report and Democratic National Committee report, as well as earlier reports such as those on African American vote suppression conducted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights—all of which cast doubt on the integrity of the 2004 presidential election. The authors pay particular attention to Ohio, the critical battleground state. In Ohio, an extraordinary variety of electoral malfeasance is documented, including various forms of vote suppression, ballot “spoilage,”and institutionalized disenfranchisement—all of which amounted to more than enough to swing the election. So why weren’t the investigative arms of our government and the press more in evidence? Freeman and Bleifuss explore the reasons.
Freeman and Bleifuss present their case with scientific precision in clear and easy to understand language. Advance readers like the distinguished mathematician John Allen Paulos are already calling Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? a “careful and judicious book” in recognition of the effort of the authors to rise above partisan politics.
STEVEN F. FREEMAN's
analyses, together with a study by the University of California, Berkeley's sociology and demography departments, are recognized to have been the first serious attempts to examine the validity of the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.
Freeman holds a Ph.D. from MIT's Sloan School of Management. He is on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics, where he teaches research methods and survey design (a domain that includes polling.) He has received four national awards for his research.
JOEL BLEIFUSS
is editor of In These Times. An investigative reporter and columnist, his articles have appeared in The New York Times, Utne Reader, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Dissent, among many others.
Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?
Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count
by Steven F. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss
Foreword by U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.
Publication Date: June 30th, 2006
284 pages | Paperback | $17.95
www.sevenstories.com
Analysis of the proposed "Count Every Vote" bill (federal legislation)
Contact: Nancy Tobi, ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com
The “Count Every Vote" bill was recently resurrected by Senator Clinton
and instantly embraced by People for the American Way and other good liberal
groups enamored of sweeping federal election reform bills. And faster than you
can say “centralized power” election reform activists began praising the bill
and exhorting one another to support it. But one thing we election activists
need to get through our heads: sweeping election reform at the federal level is
always a disastrous path. History has proven this time and time again. You can
read about that here .
I think it's great for people to get excited about legislation, but does
anyone actually read these bills before promoting them far and wide?
Maybe not. So, here we go. I have taken the liberty of going through the
entire Clinton
bill in its previous iteration from the last Congressional session. If the good
Senator plans to revise it, we have not been informed of this, so we’ll just
assume that it is staying as is for now.
The "Count Every Vote" bill is what is known as a “Christmas Tree”
bill. A little something for everyone is hanging off it. This means the bill
is, in and of itself, complex. Complexity in legislation is always a red flag,
because it easily obscures things. Items you might not want are easily hidden
in the complexity. So in the interest of untangling some of the threads, I am
simply listing below sections from the bill itself with my own comments, in
italics, beneath that section.
The original text of the bill can be found here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-450
-------------------------------
S. 450 [109th]: Count Every Vote Act of 2005, 109th CONGRESS, 1st Session
To amend the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve
provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and
for other purposes.
The bill is going to impose new requirements on top of the already
burdensome and unachievable HAVA requirements, which have broken our nation’s
election systems.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, February 17, 2005
Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and Ms.
MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Rules and Administration
A BILL To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a
voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose
additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Count Every Vote Act of
2005'.
TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING
SEC. 101. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH
PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER RECORD OR HARD COPY.
This entire section is devoted to perpetuating the myth of DREs and
VVPATs. If you didn’t like it in Holt, you won’t like it here. But just wait
until you see what they have in mind for expanding HAVA to meet the needs of
“language minority” voters. It’s the old TEXT CONVERSION DEVICE.
(b) Voter-Verification of Results for Individuals With Disabilities
and Language Minority Voters- Paragraph (3) of section 301(a) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 (a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
`(3) ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES AND FOR LANGUAGE
MINORITIES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The voting system shall--
`(i) be accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual
accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides
the same opportunity for access, participation (including privacy and
independence), inspection, and verification as for other voters;
`(ii) be accessible for language minority individuals to the extent required
under section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 aa-1), in a manner that provides the same
opportunity for access, participation (including privacy and independence),
inspection, and verification as for other voters;
Yes, this expands the unachievable HAVA requirements to even more open
ended and unachievable requirements, which will doom the states to failure.
Technology can not be created to meet the myriad of language requirements, just
as it couldn’t meet all disability requirements. The Federal government is
enacting laws that are IMPOSSIBLE, and setting themselves up to take over our
elections by establishing a situation in which the states have no choice but to
violate the impossible law.
Are you ready to surrender state sovereignty to the federal
government?
`(iii) satisfy the requirement of clauses (i) and (ii) through the use of at
least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system
equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place; and
`(iv) if purchased with funds made available under title II on or after
November 1, 2006, meet the voting system standards for disability access (as
outlined in this paragraph).
`(B) VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- Any direct recording electronic voting
system or other voting system described in subparagraph (A)(iii) shall use a
mechanism that separates the function of vote generation from the function of
vote casting and shall produce, in accordance with paragraph (2)(A), an
individual paper record which `shall be used to meet the requirements of
paragraph (2)(B);
`(ii) shall be available for visual, audio, and pictorial inspection and
verification by the voter, with language translation available for all forms of
inspection and verification in accordance with the requirements of section 203
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
The talking and painting ballot: This is requiring technology that 1)
doesn’t exist 2) can not possibly exist to the extreme requirements shown here
(imagine the cost and complexity of technology that can translate into any
language on earth plus into pictures, every word on every ballot for every
ballot design in the nation) 3) if it could be invented would be so
prohibitively expensive that public election jurisdictions would have no budget
to support it, and 4) would be so complex that citizen oversight of the
election would be rendered completely impossible.
`(iii) shall not require the voter to handle the paper; and
So now, in addition to talking and painting ballots, we need ballots
with hands. Yes, they actually want a requirement for the ballot to drop itself
into the ballot box unaided by humans.
`(iv) shall not preclude the use of Braille or tactile ballots for those
voters who need them.
The requirement of clause (iii) shall not apply to any voting system certified
by the Independent Testing Authorities before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
`(C) REQUIREMENTS FOR LANGUAGE MINORITIES- Any record produced under
subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the extent such section is applicable to the State
or jurisdiction in which such record is produced.'.
This expands HAVA to include more impossible requirements from the
Voting Rights Act now. Voting Rights are a good thing, to be sure. We are
fighting for them. But these open-ended and unachievable requirements conflict
with, and in any reasonable case, would negate, other equally important voting
rights, such as security, accuracy, and citizen oversight.
---------------------------------------
`(9) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS- No voting
system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting
system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object
code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the
Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable
representation available for inspection upon request to any citizen.
Here we have the no-COTS (Commercial off the shelf) waiver predicament.
Since every voting machine in existence uses COTS right now, the prohibition of
undisclosed software with no COTS waiver would require the replacement of every
voting machine in the country with equipment that doesn’t yet exist: COTS-less.
So that’s great if the nation is prepared to go to hand counted paper ballots
everywhere. Unfortunately, since the nation is not yet ready for that
transition, this provision creates a situation where states must run elections
using illegal equipment, setting them up for litigious hell and chaos to our
nation.
`(10) PROHIBITION OF USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICES IN VOTING
SYSTEMS- No voting system shall use any wireless communication device.
OK – we like this provision. It can stay.
`(11) CERTIFICATION OF SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE- All software and hardware used
in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited
by the Commission as meeting the requirements of paragraphs (9) and (10).
With this provision, Clinton et al wish to perpetuate the EAC
Certification Ponzi scheme, which, as we know, is a scheme wherein American
taxpayers continue to pay for voting equipment that never meets the impossible
Certification standards and testing requirements established by the EAC, and in
which the States effectively lose their sovereignty because the EAC gains de
facto regulatory control over the nation’s voting equipment. For more
information on the Ponzi Scheme, see: http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3571
`(12) SECURITY STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURERS OF VOTING SYSTEMS USED IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS-
Security standards for vendors is a good thing, but the recertification
of altered software provides a logistical problem….
`(iv) In the same manner and to the same extent described in paragraph (9),
the manufacturer shall provide the codes used in any software used in
connection with the voting system to the Commission and may not alter such
codes once certification by the Independent Testing Authorities has occurred
unless such system is recertified.
The problem here is that inevitably, because of the nature of software,
and because of the nature of elections, changes always occur in one or the
other. If a state must then retest and recertify every change, it becomes quite
a costly affair. Testing costs for one product alone have been estimated by the
EAC itself in a public meeting as rising to between $500,000 and $1
million. Does every state need to pay these costs following every ballot
change requiring a software change?
SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.
On and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Election Assistance
Commission shall conduct random unannounced manual mandatory recounts of the voter-verified
records of each election for Federal office (and, at the option of the State or
jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office held at the same
time as such an election for Federal office)
Before we go on, let’s think about this. The bill wants us to invite the
Election Assistance Commission, four people hand picked by the President of the
United States,
to conduct recounts of our federal, state, and local elections? Unannounced and
at their discretion? This doesn’t pass the smell test for any democracy loving
Patriot.
in 2 percent of the polling locations (or, in the case of any polling
location which serves more than 1 precinct, 2 percent of the precincts) in each
State and with respect to 2 percent of the ballots cast by uniformed and
overseas voters immediately following the election and shall promptly publish
the results of those recounts in the Federal Register. In addition, the
verification system used by the Election Assistance Commission shall meet the
error rate standards described in section 301(a)(5) of the Help America Vote
Act of 2002.
Now, let’s think about these error rates. The Voting System Standards
the bill refers to require the following with respect to acceptable error rates
for voting equipment:
For each processing function indicated above, the system shall achieve a
target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions, with a
maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in 500,000 ballot
positions.
If there exists any equipment to meet this worthy, yet impossible,
standard, we don’t know about it. In April 2006, prior to the May 2 primary,
the Cuyahoga County Commission contracted with the
Election Science Institute (ESI) to conduct a comprehensive review of how their
new voting system actually worked on an election day. ESI’s report, including
the performance of the Diebold Accuvote TSX voting system, was released by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners: “…members of the
manual count team found that 10 percent of the paper ballots were physically
compromised in some way.” (Election Science Institute, 08/22/2006)
In other words, the Cuyahoga
County study showed a 1
in 10 error rate, not a 1 in 10 million. So we are off by 1 MIL times the
standard.
SEC. 103. SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING, AND
DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.
We think study is a good thing, and should be enacted. In fact, we think
study should have been enacted prior to the proliferation of HAVA-paid-for
voting equipment that broke our election systems and did not meet the most
basic voting requirements for security, transparency, and accuracy, never mind
accessibility.
`SEC. 247. STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES TO
ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY AND VOTER-VERIFICATION MECHANISMS FOR DISABLED VOTERS.
`The Election Assistance Commission shall study, test, and develop best
practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification mechanisms for
individuals with disabilities.'.
As above, this is probably the best and only thing that should come out of
Federal election reform. EXCEPT we don’t want the EAC to exist anymore, so we
would turn this task over to the GAO or another entity, which should convene a
taskforce including all stakeholders and ordinary citizens as well.
SEC. 104. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.
This section is authorizing the EAC to pay out $500 Million to the
states so they can “improve” their DRE equipment and make it VVPAT. Even if you
thought this was a good idea, the sum is not enough, making the whole thing
another unfunded mandate.
SEC. 105. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION SERVICES.
The EAC has already been conducting a “Death by Bureaucracy” campaign
against our State election offices. Under the threat of Department of Justice
intervention, our state election offices spend countless hours completing
bureaucratic reporting requirements for the EAC. Now, we are all in favor of
accountability, but bureaucratic requirements must be reasonable and achievable
and must not come at the cost of election administration itself.
SEC. 106. IMPROVEMENTS TO VOTING SYSTEMS.
This section deals with the unachievable error rates mentioned above,
and brings in the matter of “residual votes.” The residual vote benchmark
refers to under- and over-voting, and is controversial in that it is often used
in legal cases to justify the use of DREs. We contend this issue requires study
and not mandates.
TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS FOR CASTING AND COUNTING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS.
This section tries to clean up the processing of provisional ballots.
This is, in and of itself not a bad thing, but we’d like to get rid of the
concept of “provisional ballots” altogether. It is a black hole for fraud.
States are encouraged to implement election day registration, and the Federal
requirement for provisional ballots in election day registration states ought
to be abolished.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times
We can live with this provision. It appears to have good intent and to
cause no harm.
--------------------------
SEC. 311. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.
There is no justification for federal law to pre-empt state law on the
matter of absentee voting. Absentee voting, while a lovely idea, does
constitute a security risk in the chain of custody in elections. States must
determine their own needs and requirements for absentee voting without federal
intervention.
Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data
This entire section could be replaced with the Freedom of Access to
Election Information as defined clearly and succinctly in the Request By Voters
on www.wethepatriots.org .
Here it is:
1) FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO ELECTIONS INFORMATION – Amend HAVA to require
elections-related information at the local, state and federal levels be made
available to any person under the civil rights principles embodied in the
Freedom of Information Act in a way that addresses the special circumstances in
elections.
a. All information necessary to validate elections must be produced by the
voting system and its accompanying elections procedures;
b. When information to validate the election is requested, it must be
provided before recount and contest periods have expired;
c. The information must be provided in a usable and cost-effective manner;
d. There will be no restrictions imposed by proprietary claims, nor shall
access to information be placed outside of governmental custody.
Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections
Training is not a bad thing, we can live with this provision.
SEC. 332. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.
We like this provision as well.
SEC. 341. STANDARDS FOR PURGING VOTERS.
These problems would be eliminated with election day registration, but
barring that, this provision is supportable except for the references to
empowering the EAC with this authority. The EAC as a four person commission
appointed by the President is an undemocratic, nonrepresentational,
consolidation of Executive power and must be abolished.
SEC. 351. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.
We like election day registration. But we like state sovereignty as
well. And this provision empowers the EAC again to enforce state election laws.
This is unacceptable. We would like each state to rise to the challenge of
providing election day registration, but we will not pay the cost of the loss
of state sovereignty, as embodied in this provision, to make this happen.
SEC. 352. EARLY VOTING.
As with absentee voting, there are security risks involved in enabling
early voting. Each state must decide on its own and not be pre-empted by
the federal government in the administration of its own elections.
TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Again, this is an unnecessary federal intervention in the conduct of
elections. Each state must decide on its own and not be pre-empted by the
federal government in the administration of its own elections. The US Constitution
wisely decentralized power by endowing the States with authority over the
conduct of elections. This bill has too many pre-emptive provisions. This is a
risky strategy for lovers of democracy, which relies on decentralized power and
checks and balances.
`SEC. 249. STUDY ON INTERNET REGISTRATION AND OTHER USES OF THE
INTERNET IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
Now what the heck is this in here for? I don’t want my money used for
this boondoggle. Democracy depends on COMMUNITY. We need to connect our votes
with our lives, and when we vote in our community-based elections, we know it
matters, and we can see that it COUNTS. Staying in your community keeps things
in balance and in check. We take care of things when we are part of the
community. As my woodland friends like to say, “you don’t shit where you live.”
SEC. 402. ESTABLISHING VOTER IDENTIFICATION.
No thanks, I don’t want the EAC making decisions that my state
legislature can make with input from and accountability to me and my fellow
citizens. Besides, this provision is cementing photo identification into the
system. Under the guise of paying for it. No thanks.
SEC. 403. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS.
On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea. But so did the idea of
certifying voting machines, and we see where that has led us. I vote for
further study before sending any more of my taxpayer dollars to the federal
government to carry out more voting equipment certification schemes.
TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.
Okay, this pretty much makes sense. But I’m not sure it belongs in this
bill. Should probably be dealt with in a separate bill that can give it the
full study.
SEC. 601. ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
Okay, this also pretty much makes sense, but may not belong in this
bill. Should probably be dealt with in a separate bill that can give it the
full study. Obama tried that, but he brought in the EAC to oversee
things. Unacceptable for all the reasons already explained above.
SEC. 701. VOTING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL
OFFENSES.
Okay, this also pretty much makes sense, but may not belong in this
bill. Should probably be dealt with in a separate bill that can give it the
full study.
TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT
Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure it belongs in this bill. Should
probably be dealt with in a separate bill that can give it the full study.
SEC. 803. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS POLL
WORKERS.
Not a bad idea, except it further relies on the EAC. Also, I’m not sure
it belongs in this bill. Should probably be dealt with in a separate bill that
can give it the full study.
SEC. 901. TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS.
Not sure what this is accomplishing. It seems to want to speed up
reporting information or something.
SEC. 1001. STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.
OK – the title says it all. This provision can not stand. We need to
abolish and not strengthen the democracy-demolishing entity called the EAC.
`SEC. 209. SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.
On the face of it, this is fine. But we need to abolish the
democracy-demolishing entity called the EAC. We need to revisit the role of
NIST and its authority with respect to voting systems as well.
Click here for an online Sneak Preview!
