By Brad Friedman from Glenwood Springs, CO…
[ED NOTE: Many updates have been posted throughout the day on this item. Please see bottom of article for the latest updates!]
An amendment to either ban or restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems may be added to Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-NJ) Election Reform Bill by California Congresswoman Susan Davis today, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm.
After learning of the possibility early this morning, we have now confirmed with Davis’s office that she is mulling such an amendment to present to the House Rules Committee, which is set to meet this afternoon at 3pm ET to determine which amendments will be allowed for debate on Holt’s controversial HR 811 election bill. The legislation is currently scheduled to come up for debate on the House Floor as soon as it’s passed out of the Rules Committee.
UPDATE: Davis’s office has now confirmed they will bring such an amendment if allowed by the Rules Committee and by Leadership.
The committee will decide whether or not to allow amendments to the bill at all once it’s on the House floor. The BRAD BLOG has learned that the committee essentially has three options in that regard. They can move the bill forward with a “Closed Rule,” meaning no amendments are allowed on the bill; a “Restricted Rule,” meaning only certain amendments will be allowed for debate, or an “Open Rule,” which would allow any amendment to be brought to the bill while it’s on the House floor.
The phone and fax numbers for members of the Rules Committee are posted below, along with the contact information for House Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who would be instrumental in allowing such an amendment to be brought.
At this hour, Davis’s office is considering language for such an amendment, conferring with legal authorities and gauging potential support from colleagues. They may be considering restrictions on DRE usage, rather than a complete ban, along the lines of what California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen implemented recently after her independent “Top-to-Bottom Review” found severe vulnerabilities in all of the states certified touch-screen voting systems.
After the landmark study, carried out by the University of California, Bowen implemented restrictions on DRE systems made by Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems, and other major manufacturers. Only one DRE per polling place will be allowed in California’s 2008 elections in order to marginally meet federal accessibility requirements for disabled voters. Bowen’s restrictions also allow for DRE use in Early Voting, though all such systems must have 100% of their “Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails” (VVPATs) manually counted.
Bowen’s office has told The BRAD BLOG they cannot yet comment on the amendment, but support from the CA SoS, we have been told, could be crucial to it moving forward. We will update this article with any comments from Bowen’s office as the day progresses.
Holt’s office, along with major bill supporter People for the American Way (PFAW), has long been against any such ban or restrictions on the use of DREs. Over the past several months, however, our reporting has indicated that some of the other major supporters of HR 811 — such as MoveOn.org, Common Cause, Verified Voting, and VoteTrustUSA — would not oppose such a ban/restriction on DRE voting systems. Some of those groups, in fact, have indicated they would support such an amendment if it were brought to the Holt bill.
UPDATE: MoveOn, Verified Voting, and VoteTrustUSA have now endorsed the Davis amendment. See end of article for details.
The BRAD BLOG would also welcome such a ban/restriction on unreliable, vulnerable DRE systems, as their continued use, as allowed by the Holt bill, has been one of our major objections to HR 811.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: We worked on the bill with its authors prior to its introduction this year, though several provisions in the bill, most notably the failure to ban DREs, have kept us from endorsing it as currently written.)
We will continue to follow this story as it develops today, and will update this article as needed…
UPDATE 2:55pm ET: Davis’s office now confirms they will bring such an amendment if allowed by the Rules Comm and by Leadership!
UPDATE 3:50pm ET: MoveOn.org, one of the Holt bill’s largest supporters — and of whom we were critical in our article yesterday for their misleading email in support of the bill as currently written — has just notified The BRAD BLOG that they support the Davis amendment to restrict DRE usage in the Holt bill.
UPDATE 4:03pm ET: The BRAD BLOG can now also confirm that both Verified Voting and VoteTrustUSA — two other ardent supporters of the Holt bill as currently written — now endorse the Davis amendment as well.
UPDATE 5:48pm ET: A source who was present in the Rules Committee hearing room tells us that there was “a lot of skepticism about Holt’s bill” from committee members. The source reports that Holt was “trying to explain the bill to members and was clearly on the defense,” as members from both sides of the aisle, including Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), expressed that they have heard many complaints about the bill from constituents, Secretaries of State, and elections officials.
Our source had to leave before the hearing concluded, but was of the opinion that it seemed unlikely the bill would even make it out of committee and to the House floor at all. “Nobody on the committee was very happy with it. Nobody was happy,” the source told us.
The question of whether to allow the Davis amendment had not yet been brought up in the committee before our source had to leave. More as we’re able to get additional info…
UPDATE 6:44pm ET: The Rules Committee hearing has now adjourned for the day. A spokesman for the committee, John Santore, tells us that the members were unable to yet come to agreement for a rule on the bill.
“We don’t have a rule yet. It may be heard again tomorrow,” he told The BRAD BLOG moments ago. Though when pressed, he indicated it may not be brought up again tomorrow in the committee.
“Discussions are ongoing. It could go in a lot of directions. We could meet on it tomorrow and we might not,” Santore said.
When asked if the issue of the Davis amendment was brought before the committee, he said he didn’t believe so, though he wasn’t at the entire hearing.
For now, shy of any late updates, we’ll consider this matter closed for the day. We’ll continue to suggest folks call House leadership, the members of the Rules Committee, and their own Congress members to urge them not to even consider voting in favor of the Holt bill — should it ever come to the House floor — unless or until an amendment to ban DREs is added to it.
UPDATE 6/6/07 3:43am ET: Okay, one last update. Susan Davis’s official statement on her amendment, calling the matter of whether or not to ban DREs the “800 pound gorilla in the room.” Complete statement now posted here…
The names and numbers of members of the House Rules Committee and House Leadership are posted below. We ask you to call and politely urge members to allow for Susan Davis’s DRE Amendment to Holt’s HR 811 Election Reform Bill. And please pass on this information to others!…
House Leadership:
NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-4188
STENY HOYER (D-MD)
Phone: (202) 225-4131
Fax: (202) 225-4300
U.S. House Committee on Rules:
Main Number: 202-225-9091
Democrats:
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER (NY) – CHAIRWOMAN
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=84
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822
JAMES P. McGOVERN (MA)
http://mcgovern.house.gov/?sectionid=2§iontree=2
Phone: (202) 225-6101
Fax: (202) 225-5759
ALCEE L. HASTINGS (FL)
http://www.alceehastings.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=30
Tel: (202) 225-1313
Fax: (202) 225-1171
DORIS O. MATSUI (CA)
Phone: (202) 225-7163
Fax: (202) 225-0566
DENNIS CARDOZA, (CA)
http://www.house.gov/cardoza/biography.shtml
Phone: (202) 225-6131
Fax: 202-225-0819
800-356-6424
PETER WELCH, (VT)
http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=61
Phone:(202) 225-4115
KATHY CASTOR (FL)
Phone: (202)225-3376
Fax: (202)225-5652
MICHAEL ARCURI (NY)
Phone: 202-225-3665
Fax: 202-225-1891
BETTY SUTTON (OH)
Phone: (202) 225-3401
Fax: (202) 225-2266
Republicans:
DAVID DREIER (CA) – Ranking Minority Member
Office (202) 225-2305
Fax (202) 225-7018
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (FL)
Phone: (202) 225-4211
DOC HASTINGS (WA)
Phone: (202) 225-5816
Fax: (202) 225-3251
PETE SESSIONS (TX)
(202) 225-2231
(202) 225-5878 fax
This amendment would be one deck chair being moved on the Titanic. If the permanent EAC provision remains in, with four people appointed by and reporting only to the president, the bill needs to die. And I don’t hear any discussion of that.
I oppose raising hopes that one deck chair will be moved and therefore we avoid the iceberg. Either they remove the permanent EAC provision, or the bill must die. We CANNOT compromise on this. Just MHO.
After making several calls to encourage that amendment to HR 811 be permitted and specifically an amendment from Susan Davis regarding DREs I found out that it will not go to the floor today. If it goes to the floor this week then the most likely day would be Friday. I will continue to make additional calls. It was interesting that Congressman Hoyers office said that I was the only call they had received opposing HR811 as it presently stands. All of the other calls they received were supporting it.
EVERYBODY CALL HOYERS OFFICE AND MAKE YOUR POSITION KNOWN.
STENY HOYER (D-MD)
Phone: (202) 225-4131
Fax: (202) 225-4300
Late update. Congresswoman Slaughters office said that the majority of the calls they have been receiving were supporting adding an amendment to outlaw DREs. Keep them coming!
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER (NY) – CHAIRWOMAN
http://www.louise.house.gov/ind...#038;Itemid=84
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822
BRAVOI, BRAVO, BRAVO.
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT…
NO AMERICAN SHOULD FEEL THAT THEIR VOTE COUNTS AND IS COUNTED FOR THE CANDIDATE VOTED FOR AS LONG AS IT’S DONE ON AN ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE. AN ELECTRONIC COUNTING MACHINE.IS USEFUL, BUT ONLY IF THERE ARE PAPER BALLOTS THAT ACN BE RECOUINTED BY HAND.
Congressman McGoverns office said that it is being discovered this afternoon and could go to the floor as early as tomorrow.
I just spoke to someone at Davis’s DC office. He seemed surprised that they are getting calls about this, that people know it’s possible she’ll introduce an amendment. I told him that Committee members would be getting calls and he seemed to think that was useful. (So don’t make a liar out of me–CALL!)
He said that even though Davis isn’t on the Rules Committee, she (or her staff, not sure) is talking to members of the Rules Comm. about making it so that such an amendment could be considered on the House floor.
Toll-Free Numbers for Capitol Hill Switchboard (ask for any Member):
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (866) 220 – 0044
1 (877) 851 – 6437
That’s one big deck chair LIB. So when I make my calls what is the best comment to make as to the EAC. An EI friend of mine who does a lot of lobbying has made the point to me that having the voting rights issues under one roof actually makes it easier to oversee, which makes sense to me. But, I don’t want presidential appointees (foxes) guarding the hen house. Any ideas anyone as to what constructive statement could be made about the EAC while making my ban DRE calls?
I disagree with LeftIsBest in this case. A ban and/or restriction on use of DREs across the nation, akin to Bowen’s restrictions, would finally get the Titanic turning around and heading at least in the right direction!
If this bill must pass, it would be nice if it was as good as possible! Such a ban/restriction would be a huge improvement over the current bill!
PLEASE make noise right NOW. It’s VERY important!
I’m sorry to be so lame, but I want to get this straight before making calls.
I’m calling to ask them to support Congresswoman Susan Davis’ amendment to HR 811 –Rush Holt’s Election Reform Bill — that will either ban or restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic voting systems.
Is that good?
D’oh! I see it right in Brad’s post.
Sorry. :/
My dialing finger is tired but happy to have registered my opinion with these offices. I got the same info. regarding it’s not being heard until Friday, but more likely next week. Also heard they are receiving lots of calls!
Duly passed on to like-minded, thinking people!
Thanks for all your hard work Brad & Co.!
… Ancient said…
“An EI friend of mine who does a lot of lobbying has made the point to me that having the voting rights issues under one roof actually makes it easier to oversee, which makes sense to me. But, I don’t want presidential appointees (foxes) guarding the hen house.”
Take the problem back to its roots… The EAC was originally an outright power grab for control over e-voting (and therefore all voting, as the HAVA team saw it) and that’s why it was blessed with a Bush signing statement saying the agency would be whatever he said it would be…
(… which said agency turned out to be partisan and corrupt surprisingly enough… )
… and that innate power base is why politicians of all stripes refuse to let the damn thing be sunsetted out of existence as it was originally designed to be.
The EAC does nothing that existing federal agencies don’t already cover… and the existing agencies don’t hand the keys to the kingdom over to the White House.
The EAC as a regulatory agency, as a growing federal bureaucracy as mandated by both Holt and Feinstein, is another disaster waiting to happen… and the only possible way to keep that disaster at bay and to keep the EAC is to keep the EAC broke and with no executive or regulatory powers. Or, in other words, keep it as the purely advisory committee it was originally purported to be and leave the regulatory powers to older agencies that might have a chance of knowing what they are doing and might have a chance of resisting partisan politics.
The EAC currently can do neither, and lodging this corrupt and incompetent fledgling bureaucratic empire at the heart of our democratic process will be asking for disaster yet again… and we will get that disaster yet again.
This will never happen. The Dems and Repubs enjoy fixing elections (especially with that danger Ron Paul around). Rigged elections, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov’t. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov’t.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov’t and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Bluntly speaking…
Phony election activists that have been trying to shove this piece of crap bill down our throats, really have no choice but to publicly support an amendment against DREs.
To do otherwise, would be like uncloaking themselves for the world to see who they really are. Since they must maintain their illusion, above all else, of course they’ll come out and support it…on the surface.
But beneath the surface, these fakes will do everything they can to stop a ban on DREs.
Do not be fooled.
I contacted everyone on the list asking them to personally take the time to read SoS Bowen’s report which is accessible on the bradblog.com, and in light of the report to support Congresswoman Davis’s amendment. Everyone I spoke with was polite except one woman who hung up on me in Congressman Hastings office, and believe me I was on my best behavior. There was no excuse for hanging up. I did call back though and spoke with someone different who said she would pass my message along!
… John Dean said on 9/5/2007 @ 1:15 pm PT…
That wouldn’t be PFA(IPACian)W, now would it?
WOW!! i got an email about this from one of the voting groups i am a member of @ 9AM and faxed everyone on the list + called my own reps to make SURE i damn well had EVERYONE covered! i dropped by here to encourage everone i could find to contact ALL of them + their own reps, can’t hurt to alert anyone in DC that we would like to have our democracy back NOW! GREAT to hear their of LOTS of us who are on it! WOO HOO!!!
Thank you Zap, I too think the EAC is dangerous. (Just trying to be fair and balanced in reporting on others views) So when talking to the congress critter aides one could also make the comment, “Please allow the EAC to be sunsetted as originally intended…(your own reasons).”
OH! i forgot, the email i received was from Ellen Theisen the Co-Director of “Voters Unite dot Org.” So they support amendment HR811 too! Just thought i’d pass that on 😉
VotersUnite does NOT support HR811, Patti.
They, however, like me, support such a ban/restrictions on DREs.
If the bill must pass, let’s at least try to make it as good as it can be!
Gardammy! We might just pull one off! Brad, I am seriously going to put you and Bev Harris up for a Congressional Medal of Honor when this is done. This is the best news I’ve heard in months!
I’ve called everyone on the list (except Pelosi), and they’ve all been reasonably receptive. Correction: I only called one of the Republican’s, the one from FL, and the person there said “Oh, you have to talk to the Majority members about this, they control everything…” (?!) Kinda of a wimpy response, but go figure…
BUT, I called Susan Davis’s office, as well, and as of 4:50 pm (Eastern), she HAS submitted her amendment, and it will include a restriction of DRE’s to only early voting, and only one unit per precinct (roughly along the lines of Debra Bowen’s decision) Hopefully it will also include the full manual count provision, as well. This is great! Keep calling! Somebody post at Daily Kos, and everywhere else you can think of! I think we are FINALLY getting through!
Good thing the bears left Brad alone…
Mac Hathaway
P.S. If you get a chance, Draft AL Gore…. : )
DraftGoreNE.com
Hey,
Has anybody contacted Kucinich’s offices about presenting an amendment that would take care of the EAC problem?
I haven’t been thinking about it specifically, but what would a “fix” look like regarding the EAC section of the legislation?
Mac
DraftGoreNE.com
re: Patty 20, Brad 21
VotersUnite believes that the Holt bill, in its present form, does more harm than good. Therefore, as Brad says, we do not support the bill.
Would we endorse it with this amendment? I’m not sure. We will have to do some soul searching. And that would depend on the exact wording of this amendment, which, to my knowledge was not even written as of this morning. We do not endorse (or oppose) things until we have read them fully and carefully.
The Holt bill has two fatal flaws: (1) it gives priority to corporate interest, at the expense of transparent elections, and (2) it expands the scope and the authority of the EAC, shifting control of elections away from States.
While some have claimed we overstate this point, it must be said that Rep. Holt himself has stated that federal control of elections is exactly what he “prefers” in a recent town hall meeting.
These two “fatal flaws” remain in the bill, with or without DRE’s. However, a ban on DRE voting is a good first step toward addressing one of these two issues, because it would signal that corporate interest is finally being asked to sit in the back, so to speak.
Like Brad, we recognize that the opportunity to debate such an amendment would be valuable. So we do encourage the Rules Committee and House leadership to permit it.
Thank you Brad.
Bob Bancroft #24,
re “Rep. Holt himself has stated that federal control of elections is exactly what he “prefers” in a recent town hall meeting.”
Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? Aren’t elections SUPPOSED to belong to states? If the federales step in and take control of what was previously a job of each state, isn’t that something that could be reasonably contested? Like what’s going on in some states with public schools right now?
re “The Holt bill has two fatal flaws: (1) it gives priority to corporate interest, at the expense of transparent elections, and (2) it expands the scope and the authority of the EAC, shifting control of elections away from States.”
In my humble opinion, I think these two points need to be driven home with our legislators. (1) The only way to get at this flaw is to publically broadcast how much money each legislator has accepted from lobbyists representing electronic voting machine companies’ interests. Where can I find this information? Not just for my own rep, but for the whole lot, so I can do a comparison and contrast and use it in letters. (2) It would be great to have an accounting of all examples showing aspects of the EAC that are undesirable and/or antithetical to democratic elections. The only example I ran across was fairly recently when the EAC announced hearings for a problem in Florida at the last possible moment, hearings that were to be held in Washington D.C. on such short notice as to give utterly inadequate time for any Floridians to respond effectively. I passed that example on to my rep when I heard about it, but it sure would be great to have a more complete accounting for us letter-writers.
Ahem. In my not humble and very pissed-off opinion, federal control of elections is outright FASCISM. We’re experiencing an agonizingly incremental slide into unabashed FASCISM. If my fellow citizens don’t rise up and stop it pretty soon, we won’t have to worry about me being hauled off to the bin because I will have been hauled off to the morgue after dying of a brain explosion.
Somebody quote me please. 🙁
As Agent 99 said, “Ahem.”
Linda #26-
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
“Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? Aren’t elections SUPPOSED to belong to states? If the federales step in and take control of what was previously a job of each state, isn’t that something that could be reasonably contested? Like what’s going on in some states with public schools right now?”
The short answer is yes, absolutely, elections are supposed to belong to States. That is what our framers wisely established for us. Congress has intervened in the past only when doing so was necessary to protect the right to vote. From that perspective, HAVA (2002) was unprecedented.
Could someone contest this issue? Sure, they can try. And if it goes far enough, it will be for the Supreme Court to determine, not a chance I would be comfortable taking, personally.
“In my humble opinion, I think these two points need to be driven home with our legislators.”
Please, help us do so! Call your local congressfolk, and tell them that you cannot support a bill that (1) trades transparency for corporate interest or (2) surrenders to the EAC that which constitutionally belongs to states.
Hmmm…
Agent 99 #27, I agree with you, but if you write a letter like that to a congressional rep, it’ll get thrown into the loony bin. In my humble opinion, keep your hand to yourself, especially when dealing with bureaucrats. Just play the cards you have to in order to get to your next move.
Bob Bancroft #30, thanks for responding meaningfully and productively. So what are some more examples of the overstepping/misstepping of the EAC to pass on to my rep, besides the one I already know about?
Well, maybe you could just tell them your friend 99 is about to expire from the fascistitude of this bill and you just don’t want her head to explode….
Bureaucracts really like it when you are enlisting their help to save some person or situation. You just very respectfully approach them with this problem of 99’s exploding head, and, just to impress you with their power, they will suddenly turn this whole mess around.
[I know. I know. I’m losing my grip. I should be better in the morning. Pavarotti has just died and I’m at the end of my wits for today…. :-(]
Agent 99 #27
Good point. It is also illegal if not done properly. I discuss the matter on the contest of the latest of this bill, here.
The “state rights” issue, which you seem to be coming from, is a valid constitutional principle, and it does bear upon the subject at hand. Yes, just how much can congress tell the states how to run elections?
Thank you for bringing the issue up as I have also done.
One thousand hats off to John Dean- Thanks for getting it- This bill must die- rearranging the deck chairs is criminal- The bill does not address the source code and/or central tabulator- Kill the Bill!! CB