"Secure Elections Act" Coming Up For Vote

Irvu writes "The US House of Representatives is considering HR. 5036, the 'Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008,' as introduced by Representative Rush Holt. The bill is scheduled for a floor vote later today. It would provide for emergency paper ballots, money for the addition of voter verifiable paper ballots to existing systems, and post-election audits. Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices. Here are two summaries of the bill. It was reported out of committee with strong bipartisan support. As of this morning the White house has opposed the bill but not threatened a veto, and some previously supportive Republicans have now changed their tune. Calls may be made to your house rep (click on 'Find your representative'). Here's a sample support letter."

For those allergic to PDF...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the content of the Sample letter:

Honorable Members of the Pennsylvania Delegation
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Ladies and Gentlemen:
As organizations and individuals representing Pennsylvania, we are writing to urge your co-sponsorship and continued support of HR 5036, the Emergency Election Assistance for Secure Elections Act, recently introduced by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey.

This "opt-in", voluntary bill will provide federal money for states and counties to protect the integrity of their 2008 election in the way they deem best for their own citizens, be it purchase of a voter-verified paper ballot voting system, auditing or hand counting the election results, or providing the added protection of emergency paper ballots to be used in the event of a failure of Direct Record
Electronic voting machines. We believe that the "opt-in" approach of this new bill, coupled with the sensible and cost-effective array of solutions it offers to fund, makes HR 5036 an excellent measure that should be passed without delay.

HR 5036 will benefit Pennsylvania in many ways. There are several counties that already have purchased new paper ballot voting systems, or would like to purchase them very soon, and this bill will fund those purchases for these cash-strapped local jurisdictions. And our already-required emergency paper ballots could be funded by this bill, reducing the financial burden to most of the other counties in our state.

As you are aware, Pennsylvania will be an important battleground state in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election. Also at stake in November will be your own seats, and many other statewide and local offices. For this election it is more crucial than ever before that we do everything possible to assure that every eligible voter gets to vote and to have his or her vote counted accurately.

Please add your co-sponsorship to HR 5036 if you have not already done so. And as a co-sponsor please continue to support it, by urging House Leadership to move it rapidly through Committee and to a favorable floor vote as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
VotePA
Marybeth Kuznik, Executive Director
6093 Pleasant Valley Road
Irwin, PA 16542
412-558-0252
[e-mail]

The bill failed to pass

[mepperpint]

This showed up a little bit late. The bill failed to pass [govtrack.us] 239-178 with 14 not voting. While this is a 55% vote in favor, it required a 2/3 supermajority to pass due to a motion to suspend the rules.

Paper's no pancea, hope it gets done right

[InternetVoting]

In general it's not a bad bill. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that throwing paper at the problems will fix everything and the fact that it allows jurisdictions to opt-in is a very big step, I just hope people do paper ballots right not just paper for paper's sake.

It's a little scary seeing the pretty wide authority given to a single federal agency with not a lot of regulation. Eligibility isn't particularly clearly defined. I think in general retrofitting DRE's with VVPAT, particularly in time for November, has a huge potential for causing more harm than good. It's nice to see we've stopped the fairly phony "verified vs. verifiable" debate. My reading says anyone who by state law has to count emergency paper ballots as provisional is ineligible for that portion. For all the requirements there are for the audit section, I'd like to see some in there for handling paper ballots. How about teaching people about ballot design, chain of custody...?

I think it's great that we're expressing the need for research. I'm interested on NIST's input on how feasible this is and more interested on what the actual dollar figures end up at.

Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle?

[MBCook]

I've been here for quite a few years. I think maybe 9.

Since when has /. not lobbied for certain things?

Democrats, liberals, net neutrality, voter verified paper trails, and tons more. This has only increased (unsurprisingly) since the Politics section was created (which helped reduce the S/N on the other bits). Slashdot has been quite vocal in various things (like almost anything anti-Bush) for years and years.

All that said, this is a private website. They can lobby for whatever they want. That story went through the firehose (or at least other copied did) and was quite popular. Readers seem to want to discuss it as well.

How depressing

[jweller13]

How depressing that my country is experiencing 3rd world style voting problems 200 year after establishing democracy. Citizens having trust in elections is the fundamental backbone to a democracy. I'm further amazed that voters aren't outraged and up in arms over this. This should be THE most important platform issue in our current presidential elections.

Check out this article and you'll get really get upset about some electronic voting machines in use.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066 [bradblog.com]

So why did Dr. No say NO?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Wow, just look at those results! It was essentially a party roll call.

Notice that "Dr. No" also voted against it. Ron Paul is NOT going to base his vote on trying to improve or preserve election cheating.

That says to me that there's an issue with the Federal Government exceeding its constitutional authority by meddling in the states' election procedures (which ARE the (states' business), there's some "devil in the details" that makes it do the opposite of what it claims, or it's a feel-good-do-nothing bill that would raid the treasury and derail any REAL fix.

The last thing I want to see is more "election reform" that either makes the elections less accurate or gets enjoined and killed by the courts for a legitimate reason while REAL reform is headed off.

(Elections aren't about "fair". They're about heading off violence by predicting its results, well enough that the losers understand that violence won't reverse the loss. So it's very important that the election is both honest and visibly so.)

Hopefully things will slide a little further toward the "D" side next year, and we just might see bills like this made into law.

If any of my conjectures above is correct that's an outcome to be avoided.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[et764]

One reason I'm a fan of paper ballots is that you don't need a degree in Computer Science to understand how they work. Just about any second grader could devise a paper ballot system, which means almost everyone not denied the right to vote can easily reason about whether the system works the way it's supposed to. They don't have to trust experts to be able to trust the voting system.

Just because we're the Slashdot community doesn't mean we should be in favor at gratuitously throwing more technology at everything. Some things are better done the old-fashioned way.

Re:Crucially Broken

[Doc Ruby]

Their claims, if true, sound reasonable:

H.R. 811 runs contrary to the fundamental cornerstone of (HAVA) which is state flexibility in implementation of federal election reform mandates. H.R. 811 sets very specific standards for paper trail and audit procedures that currently don't exist in any state. It requires "durable" paper for paper trail receipts and calls for random audits of federal elections and creates a private right of action against a state for perceived violations. H.R. 811 also requires states to comply with all of its provisions in time for the November, 2008 presidential election. If H.R. 811 becomes law, every state, even those with paper trail and audit provisions currently in state law, will have to revise their laws to comply with new federal mandates. There is no appropriation for the implementation of H.R. 811, and HAVA itself has yet to be fully funded; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that states will be bearing most if not all of the implementation costs.

HAVA achieved implementation of new voting equipment and procedures within a four-year timeframe without disastrous unintended consequences only because Congress carefully crafted its provisions through extended consultation and significant input from organizations representing state and local elected officials and election administrators. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ), the sponsor of H.R. 811, failed to consult with the states or NCSL in the process.

In other words, they like HAVA, and they don't want anything interfering with HAVA. But HAVA is a travesty. It was indeed a highly funded, no specifics set of new rules. That did practically nothing to ensure voting integrity, which is why new rules like HR811 and now this new (indadequate) bill by Holt even make sense. All HAVA did was transfer a lot of money through states to unaccountable digital machines, even replacing mechanical ones (like we have in NY) that are not problematic in vote verification. In other words, HAVA was a conjob, that wasted a ton of money and time making the problem worse, if anything, but giving those in the money chain an excuse to say "we fixed it already".

FWIW, I don't believe that Holt "failed to consult with the states", as the NCSL claims, considering all the hearings I've seen Holt have on the matter over the past several years.

No, the NCSL has its reasons, which are probably just bribes from digital machine vendors like Diebold that can't pass real tests, combined with laziness. But they're not good reasons. Certainly not good enough to sacrifice the integrity of our voting for another year or more. Unless, perhaps, you're a state legislator elected by that broken system, and you've come to depend on it, and fear an accountable system that's different from the one that gave you your power.

Re:How depressing

[zippthorne]

Well.. it's a good thing we've got a Republic, then...

I'm sure that they said the same thing (with a smaller number, of course) in 1861. After all, how many republics or democracies had even existed before then? (I know it's at least one of each, but the number is small until the modern era, in which the US was one of the first.)