Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
Naturally nearly all of the news is from California in regards to their “Top-To-Bottom” review. However for those of you who are concerned about election audits there is also a great report from a group who have been working with VerifiedVoting.
Also reported is that scientists, under the GAO, may get a chance to look at the source code from the machines used in Sarasota Co last Nov.
Back to the “Top-To-Bottom” review; only one of the articles listed, the SF Chronicle article, mentions anything about the accessibility report that was also done by the California researchers, and they gave that report one sentence. The accessibility report says, “Although each of the tested voting systems included some accessibility accommodations, none met the accessibility requirements of current law and none performed satisfactorily in test voting by persons with a range of disabilities and alternate language needs.” In other words if a jurisdiction uses any of the three machines tested for accessibility they are violating federal law (HAVA).
All of those stories, and more, linked below…
Every tested machine had problems… yes, every single one LINK
Low turnout forces closure of 40 percent of voting places, auditor says LINK
**”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**
“NAtional: Agreement Reached to Move Holt Election Reform Bill”
But of course the actual text of the latest mutation of the Holt bill is nowhere to be seen… and will remain that way as long as possible…
The_Zapkitty #1
Yep. I also noticed that the Thomas mechanism brings up a page that says:
(HR 811). My count now says possibly three, not two any more.
After all, there were two texts when Stenny added his “whatever he has added” to the two. Perhaps he did not change the text of the marked up version, and thus there are still only two versions. Or perhaps the website has not caught up yet.
I still find it interesting that you and I seem to be the only folk who have discussed S. 559, on this blog. Our discussion was about how similar and how different the two are. Our conclusion was that there was not much difference as I recall.
The S. 559 is still listed as the bi-cameral twin to HR 811. The text of S. 559 has not been changed, and since it is the bicameral co-bill, it will eventually have to be dealt with in conference committee if it gets out of the Senate committee.
The summary page for HR 811 still links to S. 559 at the “Related Bills” link, and the S. 559 page still says HR 811 is its co-related house bill.
My expectations are that the Senate republicans will filibuster S. 559 or cave to the EVM companies and rid it of the provision that allows you, John, Brad, me, or any other citizen to view the source code. They will also resist the only attempt anywhere to focus on the human corruption element and outlaw the Karen Harris and Ken Blackwell syndrome.
The report on HR 811 shows the bill was voted out of committee on party lines. The republicans opposing, even after they watered down the source code provisions, but the democrats favoring.