Citing “recent developments outside Washington that bolster critics who say DRE [usually, touch-screen voting] systems are too insecure and unreliable for use in elections,” AlterNet’s Steve Rosenfeld surveys the political landscape in regard to Rush Holt’s impending time-bomb of an Election Reform Bill, known as HR 811.
The controversial bill that refuses to die is again said to be headed back to House Rules Committee this week, where a rule concerning whether or not amendments will be allowed to the bill when/if it reaches the House Floor will be set.
Rosenfeld reports Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is being dodgy about whether or not Rep. Susan Davis’s (C-CA) amendment to restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) touch-screen systems will be allowed for debate. “I don’t have an answer for you,” a spokesperson told him, “I have no way of knowing. This is a comprehensive bill. This is a process that is moving.”
Last week, Davis said, in a statement sent to The BRAD BLOG, that “we are still ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room,” in regard to Congress’s fear of discussing whether or not to allow the use of DRE systems which are now being banned by states across the country.
Her amendment was followed by an editorial from the New York Times charging that “electronic voting has been an abysmal failure,” and calling for a “provision banning the use of touch-screen voting machines” to be added to Holt’s bill. They add that such a provision should be in place in time for the 2008 election, though Davis’s amendment, as currently written, only calls for a restriction to one DRE per polling place, by 2012.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has been a supporter of HR 811 since a secret “compromise” version, recently brokered behind closed doors by out-of-touch DRE-supporters, People for the American Way (PFAW), and Holt was agreed upon several weeks ago.
Pelosi has remained largely mum concerning her position on the bill, which does not require paper ballots, despite the blatant lie that Holt offered Rosenfeld in a report some weeks ago after CA SoS Debra Bowen’s independent study at University of California found “severe vulnerabilities” in DRE voting systems. Such vulnerabilities, her study found, would not be safe-guarded against use of the paper trails that the Holt/Hoyer/PFAW compromise bill mandates.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), now a co-sponsor of Davis’s amendment — along with Barbara Lee from California — and a previous critic of the Holt Bill, is now critical of the Democratic leadership. He seems to indicate, in comments given to Rosenfeld, that Davis’s amendment will not be allowed for consideration:
“That’s a shame, because this is an important issue about which many voters are justifiably concerned,” he said. “I’m deeply disappointed that we won’t even have the opportunity to have an open debate about the merit of these very dangerous touch-screen devices.”
Quoting an industry watcher who straight out proclaims “The DRE is dead,” Rosenfeld reviews a number of national and media developments that support that assessment.
Apparently, that message hasn’t gotten through to Holt and the tone-deaf, out of touch Democratic Leadership on the Hill, however.
“While these events and trends are unfolding,” Rosenfeld astutely sums up, “in Washington the House Democratic leadership has been accommodating interest groups that want to see continued use of the very voting systems that are being discredited across the country.”
You may reach your Congress Members, along with Hoyer and Pelosi’s office, to register your own opinions, via the Capitol switchboard at: 1-800-828-0498.
Yes, I’m the one quoted as saying that the “DRE is dead”. But I do want to be clear what I am claiming on my site (www.votingindustry.com). What I claim is that the DRE is somewhat like the old game of lawn jarts –banned, but they still exist and are still used from time to time.
Vendors that have them can and, in some limited fashion, still sell them. But no one would come out with a new one (certainly not without a durable paper ballot or trail)–and no one IS coming out with a new DRE. So from a product lifecycle its pretty much run its course. That’s what I mean by that statement.
Brad, any further news on Hoyer’s “unfunded mandate” addition to the mess?
Chris Wilson –
I understand Sequoia has a new DRE printer in developement that cuts the paper trail. Presumably, it uses a “durable” paper trail, not that that makes any difference in regard to the safety of DRE use.
Zap –
I hear the “unfunded mandate” issue has been resolved, but I can’t confirm that. Word is that funding will be authorized in the bill. Though I’m not sure that means the funds will definitely be appropriated in an appropriation bill for sure. Will let you know what (if anything) I can learn.
Thanks for the update, Brad 🙂
Odd, isn’t it, how something so truly important to every last American is being handled in a nebulous haze comprised of equal parts of uncertainty, deception and secrecy?
The Congressional Democratic leadership’s position (or lack thereof) on this issue is almost unbelievable. Nothing seems able to persuade them to take a position against DREs, not Debra Bowen’s “top-to-bottom” review in California, not an editorial against DREs in the thoroughly cautious and mainstream New York Times, not even the fact that the election of Democrats across the country is at stake.
Mostly it’s been smoke and mirrors for the Dems because Holt, who has been campaigning ceaselessly to become the Dem’s trusted “go to” guy on election reform, keeps lying to them about the supposed “necessity” of DRE’s while not addressing the mess the actual bill has become.
And on a darker note… for those politicians who are aware of what all is in the bill besides promises of “paper trails” and “audits”… one of the provisions of the bill carefully not being talked about in public is its mandate shifting de facto control of the meaningful portions of election regulation from the states to the Feds.
(The neocons aren’t the only ones who want centralized control of the… important… things.)
And without the e-voting uproar to obscure the issues the EAC power grab built into the bill then suddenly becomes very… overt…
One funny thing is that the Democratic embracing of the originally Republican-sponsored EAC power grab is actually fairly demonstrative of the “it can’t happen here” syndrome Dredd rails about 🙂
Isn’t it interesting that in the House, Hoyer and NEY were the prime instigators of HAVA and in the Senate, McCONNEL and Dodd.
Ney is finally out and Kentucky may not invite Mitch back next election- if the election is above board. Talk about nefarious characters in Congress.
Did the original sponsors of HAVA receive “pressure” from the DRE industry to write the letter against any changes to HAVA sent to Congress? Was there contact between former Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and Ney on insuring HAVA wasn’t changed?
What was Hoyer’s relationship with Ney and why Dodd in the Senate?
If Pelosi won’t consider impeachment of the current administration why isn’t she at least pro-active in insuring that the PEOPLE get to chose the next administration and congress?
You’d think that’s at least one bone the Democrats could throw out to show they have the best interests of the country at heart.
Was Holt used as a focus for our attention instead of letting another member of Congress, perhaps more likely to listen to the people, to step up to the plate?
It’s not about party. Its about power, money and control.
Nancy Tobi has a “hand count” manual, very informative.
Pelosi and Hoyer must have something to hide. Why would they work against their own power? The EAC is an abomination. There’s no votes in the Senate, I’m going to focus on making sure Federal election law dies right there.
… Chris Brudy said…
“There’s no votes in the Senate…”
…
… …
… … …
… … … … until Reid makes deals “on behalf of the voters” that he has no right to make… and tosses out American rights and privileges that are not his to throw away… and caves to the Republicans on a multitude of things no principled person should give in on…
… then the Republicans will allow Reid his “narrow victory for bipartisanship!”… as they laugh behind his back at his silly attempts to play “power grab” with the pros… knowing that with the easily-bought but fickle states out of the way that the path ahead will be clear…
… and just about then most of the state election officials… who meanwhile have been living in a rosy haze of HAVA- and vendor-enhanced denial for so long that they’ve literally become detached from reality… they will stumble along in their dreamlike daze gently reassured by the continued official encouragement of DRE use… until they snap awake and scream “Wait! You mean that Holt really seriously meant all that Federal “Simons Says” and “Mother May I” garbage?! BUT THEY CAN’T DO THAT!!!“…
… much too late, of course…
It doesn’t take a master plan to shitcan American democratic checks and balances… just opportunism, stupidity and greed.
And the worst part is that Holt has been reported as saying that this is all for the good of the “uneducated” American voter…
Speaking of being clueless, BBV points to a lawsuit against 10 states on EVM issues.
The case is mentioned as if it had merit. I think it is lame and will not get past motion practice. It is drafted by some EI folks who need to read more law before they start drafting complex pleadings.
Any other predictions about the case?