9 Responses

1. 

   1)

   the_zapkitty said on 9/17/2007 @ 11:15pm PT: [Permalink]

   NAtional: Will House Leaders Duck Debate on Electronic Voting Compromise? LINK

   “kdopp” says in the comments for that article that “HR811 does, in its effect get rid of DRE machines by 2012. To understand why the bill does this, read these two very short explanations: http://electionmathematics.org/VoteYesHR811.pdf and “Analysis of… (HR811)” posted at http://electionarchive.org

   Funny thing is… neither link actually bothers to explain why Holt’s Fiasco gets rid of DRE’s in 2012.

   Of course that’s not very surprising since the bill does no such thing.

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 9/18/2007 @ 6:37am PT: [Permalink]

   John, you said:

   It seems with the Senate, bills don’t get voted out of committee without having at least 60 votes. That’s to ensure they are filibuster-proof.

   Not exactly. There have been about 50 filibusters by the republicans so far in the 110th Senate this year.

   All that is required to get a bill out of committee is the chair calling for a committee vote, and thereafter a majority vote of that committee. It is then and there out of committee.

   And you said:

   A source in the Senate Admin Committee (Feinstein’s committee) has said that the minority has already said that no election-related legislation will go to the floor this session.

   Is it fair for me to say that I pointed this out months ago? As I have said all along, the EVM vendors own the republicans in congress, and it is the republicans who own the EVM companies.

   And they have said clearly, since the report sending HR 811 out of committee, that no bill which outlaws the Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris technique, that exposes EVM source code to public scrutiny, that requires a paper ballot, and that forbids network traffic via EVMs is going to get past the senate filibuster.

   The EI movement is divided against itself and is thereby powerless as it condemns congress for exactly the same thing. Which is hypocrisy.

   This is not because we have differing opinions, its just that we know the same things at different times. 🙂 Yep, some of us know it months in advance for some reason, and others know it only in the last moment for another reason.

3. 

   3)

   Dredd said on 9/18/2007 @ 6:41am PT: [Permalink]

   The following posts show some reasons why HR 811 and its Senate version S. 559 will be filibustered by the republicans in the Senate:

   The appropriate election official at each polling place in an election for Federal office shall offer each individual who is eligible to cast a vote in the election at the polling place the opportunity to cast the vote using a pre-printed paper ballot which the individual may mark by hand and which is not produced by a direct recording electronic voting machine. If the individual accepts the offer to cast the vote using such a ballot, the official shall provide the individual with the ballot and the supplies necessary to mark the ballot, and shall ensure (to the greatest extent practicable) that the waiting period for the individual to cast a vote is not greater than the waiting period for an individual who does not agree to cast the vote using such a paper ballot under this paragraph.

   (Holt HR 811 RH page 21, lines 16-23 thru page 22, line 7, emphasis mine).

   Doesn’t that mean we do not have to use the EVM, and instead must be allowed to cast a paper ballot vote instead? Notice further:

   Any paper ballot which is cast by an individual under this paragraph shall be counted and otherwise treated as a regular ballot for all purposes (including, to the greatest extent practicable, the deadline for counting the ballot) and not as a provisional ballot, unless the individual casting the ballot would have otherwise been required to cast a provisional ballot if the individual had not accepted the offer to cast the vote using a paper ballot under this paragraph.

   (id at page 22, lines 8-18, emphasis mine). It seems to me that it could be argued that anyone can cast a paper ballot under Holt HR 811 RH, and furthermore, that the paper ballot must be counted.

4. 

   4)

   Dredd said on 9/18/2007 @ 6:43am PT: [Permalink]

   Nelson’s related bill (S. 559) and Holt’s bill (HR 811 IH) has some more good text:

   No voting system used in an election for Federal office shall at any time contain or use any software not certified by the State for use in the election or any software undisclosed to the State in the certification process. The appropriate election official shall disclose, in electronic form, the source code, object code, and executable representation of the voting system software and firmware to the Commission, including ballot programming files, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, executable representation, and ballot programming files available for inspection promptly upon request to any person.

   (S. 559, page 12, lines 2-14, HR 811 IH, page 12, lines 2-14).

   Is anybody here opposed to that principle? If so don’t worry, be happy, it will be filibustered.

5. 

   5)

   Dredd said on 9/18/2007 @ 6:45am PT: [Permalink]

   Nelson’s S. 559 IS, Holt’s HR 811 IH, and Holt’s HR 811 RH have some more good text:

   No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, remote, wide area, or concealed communication device at all … No component of any voting device upon which votes are cast shall be connected to the Internet at any time.

   (S 559 IS, page 12, lines 16-24; Holt HR 811 IH, page 13, lines 11-19; Holt HR 811 RH, page 17, lines 18-25 thru page 18, line 6).

   Is anybody here opposed to that principle? If so don’t worry, be happy, it will be filibustered.

6. 

   6)

   Dredd said on 9/18/2007 @ 6:46am PT: [Permalink]

   Nelson’s S. 559 IS and Holt’s HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH have some other good text:

   The manufacturer and the election officials shall document the secure chain of custody for the handling of all software, hardware, vote storage media, ballots, and voter-verified ballots used in connection with voting systems, and shall make the information available upon request to the Commission.

   (S 559 IS, page 13, lines 12-18; Holt HR 811 IH, page 14, lines 6-12; Holt HR 811 RH, page 18, lines 17-24).

   Is anybody here opposed to that principle? If so don’t worry, be happy, it will be filibustered.

7. 

   7)

   John Gideon said on 9/18/2007 @ 8:14am PT: [Permalink]

   Dredd #2

   According to Senate Admin Comm staff no election bill will go out of that committee without being filibuster proof. They have to know that they have at least 60 votes before they will hear it in committee.

   That may change in the future. The Dems may decide that they want the bill to require a cloture vote on the floor just so they can show the Reps as being against election reform. They may get an agreement that no filibuster will be filed against the bill.

   But, for now, I was told that no election reform bill will leave that committee unless it has a guarantee of 60 votes when it goes to the floor.

8. 

   8)

   Dredd said on 9/20/2007 @ 6:27am PT: [Permalink]

   John #7

   Thanks for the info. With over 50 filibusters by the republicans already this year, perhaps the democratic chairs on the committees have had enough obstruction.

   I remember the mantra “Just let us have an up or down floor vote” the republicans chanted in the 109th when the dems did a filibuster once or twice.

   “To some, the text of a bill is where the truth lies” 🙂 Dredd

9. 

   9)

   Dredd said on 9/20/2007 @ 6:31am PT: [Permalink]

   John #7

   After thinking over it a bit more … sorry … I must say that a de facto filibuster is technically keeping the bills in committee, even as we speak, if your information is correct.

   Thus my prediction that the republicans would filibuster is at this point de facto accurate.