comments_imageCOMMENTS: 9

Will House Leaders Duck Debate on Electronic Voting Compromise?

The House may regulate electronic voting this week, but a compromise curtailing the most controversial machines use may not be debated.
September 17, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
The House is expected to vote on a bill regulating electronic voting machines for the first time this week. However, it is unclear if the Democratic leadership will allow debate on a key amendment to limit the controversial touch-screen voting equipment to one machine per precinct.

"I don't have an answer for you," Nadeam Elshami, deputy communications director for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said late Friday, when asked whether Democratic leaders will allow the amendment proposed by Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., to come before the House. "I have no way of knowing. This is a comprehensive bill. This is a process that is moving."

The bill, H.R. 811, or the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, would regulate electronic voting systems for the first time by imposing new security, vote verification and audit requirements for their use. The bill would not ban paperless voting machines as many election integrity activists have wanted, but require a paper printout of each vote cast to be reviewed by voters before being electronically counted.

Whether the "direct recording electronic" (DRE) voting systems and that paper trail can be trusted has been a focus of debate surrounding the bill since it was introduced last winter. However as H.R. 811 has moved through committees, there have been recent developments outside Washington that bolster critics who say DRE systems are too insecure and unreliable for use in elections.

Most notably, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen commissioned a study by University of California computer security experts who found DREs had major design and security flaws that could not stop people from potentially accessing and tampering with vote counts. While many California county election directors dismiss that scenario, Bowen's comprehensive review reached the same conclusion as more limited academic and government studies elsewhere in the country. Just last week, North Carolina's News and Observer reported that hackers unsuccessfully tried to access voter registration data in Johnston County.

In August, Bowen decertified all DREs machines for use in California and then conditionally recertified differing makes and models if they implemented varying security standards. Part of that ruling was allowing only one DRE per precinct for people with disabilities, to satisfy accessibility laws and because some disability lobbyists have praised their ease of use. Bowen also allowed DREs for early voting before Election Day. She said isolating the machines would not fully preclude their use but prevent corrupting overall vote counts.

Rep. Davis' amendment would similarly restrict the use of the machines to one per precinct across the country, although DRE machines could also be used for early voting. Like Bowen's directive, the impact of the amendment, if adopted, would shift most precinct-based voting to paper ballots marked by people and counted by optical scanner computers. Some states, notably New Mexico, Florida and Connecticut have already made this transition, while others, like California, are now doing so.

However, on Friday, Rep. Davis and her co-sponsors were not confident that the House Democratic leadership -- notably Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, would allow the amendment to be debated when the bill emerges from the Rules Committee this week. In the House, the Rules Committee sets parameters for floor debate, including whether amendments can be offered.

"The Davis amendment strikes a fair balance between putting an end to widespread use of DREs in federal elections and ensuring that, if no better alternative is truly available, that such machines will only have a very limited use for people with disabilities," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-NY, a co-sponsor, in an email received Friday.

"The potential for manipulation of national elections with the use of touch-screen machines is much too serious for this Congress to allow their continued use -- let alone to encourage additional states to convert to DREs," he said. "Regrettably, the Democratic leadership was still unwilling to allow the Davis amendment to be considered before the full House."

"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."

Critics of DREs say without the Davis amendment, H.R. 811 would allow the continued use of problematic DRE voting systems, instead of helping election officials transition to a better alternative. However, local election administrators have been the bill's most effective critics in Congress, saying they have worked for years to make DRE systems work after the Help America Vote Act of 2002, or HAVA, encouraged them to replace computer punch-card systems.

Two of their leading trade associations, the Election Center and the National Association of Counties, launched media campaigns in Beltway publications that other lobbyists say have delayed the bill's consideration in the House. Meanwhile outside Washington, there have been numerous political developments and news reports that continue to highlight problems with DRE voting systems.

In recent months, a number of states -- notably California, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania -- have been experiencing trouble certifying DRE machines for use, leaving some counties unclear on what voting systems will be used in fall elections or upcoming presidential primaries. Indiana fined one manufacturer $350,000 for installing uncertified software for an election last year. In Kentucky, the attorney general found Louisville had been using uncertified software for the past three election cycles. A Florida report confirmed many known problems, a finding that California also reached. And the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created by HAVA to oversee elections, found software problems that lead to machines being decertified in Pennsylvania. These are just some examples cited by lobbyists who support the Davis amendment.

In the media, now-independent television journalist Dan Rather documented shoddy overseas assembly of one manufacturer's voting machines, suggesting one reason why the machines have performed poorly in recent elections -- from losing 18,000 votes in a 2006 Florida House race to assigning votes to candidates not chosen by the voter. A New York Times editorial said, "electronic voting has been an abysmal failure" and called for a full ban on DRE voting systems in H.R. 811.

Meanwhile, the political fight over whether to use or replace DREs continues in key battleground states. In Ohio, where Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has been seeking to undertake a California-style review, Republicans have delayed appropriating funds and have accused academic computer security experts of being biased. This comes against a recent scandal where hackers accessed personal data of 137,000 people for more than a year on an Ohio University server.

Brunner's opponents suggest voting systems would never experience that kind of problem, even though litigation in Franklin County from a contested 2006 judicial election yielded testimony that 86 percent of the county's new DREs recorded different vote totals than the number of people who signed signature books and voted electronically last November.

Moreover, the voting machine industry seems to be ahead of Congress in recognizing that local governments are no longer interested in buying DREs, but are gravitating toward optical-scan systems, according to industry watchers.

"The DRE is dead... Consider the evidence. How many new DREs have been sold by vendors," said Christopher Wilson, founder of VotingIndustry.com and a longtime voting technology professional, in an Aug. 30 post. "The truth is that no one recently has come out with a new DRE device. Third-tier vendors have had little success, and many of them are now folding up shop."

While these events and trends are unfolding, 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.

This summer, House Majority Leader Hoyer, a sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act and longtime advocate for the disability community, intervened on behalf of a handful of their lobbyists to revise major sections of the bill. Lobbyists for the National Disability Rights Network and Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities do not consider computer security issues to be serious and sought increased federal funding to enhance the machine's accessibility features.

Additionally, software industry lobbyists convinced lawmakers to keep a tight reign on who could access the machine's computer code, which frustrated open-government advocates who said the most public of democratic processes -- voting -- was increasingly being privatized under the banner of protecting proprietary software.

With the bill scheduled for a vote after the August recess, many representatives began responding to the bill's impact in their districts. New York, with no certified equipment ready to replace the state's mechanical-lever voting machines, asked for an exemption through 2010. Other states are seeking funds to reimburse the purchase of DREs after HAVA, prompting conservative Democrats to fret about unfunded mandates and whether the Appropriations Committee will fund the $1 billion in the bill. Meanwhile, House Republicans seem to be enjoying the rancor in Democratic ranks and have opposed the legislation, saying they want to tie "voter fraud" remedies, such as photo identification requirements, to the bill.

Davis said her amendment would balance the competing Democratic concerns while addressing the fundamental, underlying issue with the machines -- they have not performed as advertised by their manufacturers.

"I proposed an amendment to H.R. 811 allowing every polling place to have one DRE with a paper trail for those who want or need to use it -- sort of a paper or plastic option," Rep. Davis said, in a Sept. 5 statement. "Problems of the past such as long lines from broken machines or elections with no record like we saw in Florida's 13th Congressional District could not happen. There would be fewer problems that lead to long lines and disenfranchisement, people with disabilities could vote privately, a true paper record would be available for recounts and costs would shrink."

"We are still ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room," she said.
Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: congress, democrats, nancy pelosi, election reform, holt bill, h.r. 811


Comments are closed-

Scott Griffith
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Sep 17, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pretty well-balanced and researched brief summary of the state of play. It makes me wish no one had ever thought up that inane expression 'paper trail', which for some reason hordes have latched onto and misled greater hordes of others into imagining that such things solve an inconvenient problem. The reality seems to be that all the snippets of scrolled computer printout in the world, legible or not, are never going to guarantee that what they show reflects what's going on in the computer itself. How in the world did these fast-talking snake-oil salesmen ever sell the the populace the outrageous idea that their precious voting rights had anything to do with private commercial enterprise, where the idea of profit will trump that of democratic process every time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scott Griffith Posted by: srosenfeld
» RE: Scott Griffith Posted by: farmertx

Comments are closed-

The Authoritarian Chain of Command
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 17, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Authoritarian Chain of Command

Conservatives babble endlessly about law and order, but they don’t believe in either one unless you mean law and order designed, imposed and enforced by them. Conservatives devise laws to make some crimes legal, like campaign contributions, and others that help the rich rob the under-classes, but they don’t like laws that support the common good. They see the concept of common good as sissy socialism and at odds with their Wild West myth of the rugged individualist, the good old days when men were men and took what they wanted.

That Wild West myth appeals to bullies, wimps, wannabe gunslingers, and republicans. It you aren’t the fastest draw in town, be his friend. That’s how republicans choose their leaders too, they look for the biggest bully available, and adore him.

Have you spent your life as a bully, or a victim of bullies? Have you ever noticed that bosses and landlords have more rights than you?

Our economic system and government was devised by bullies for bullies. Bullies like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Rupert Murdoch; there’s an endless supply. And these guys go right to the top, fast.

What’s the secret of their success? What do they all have in common?

For one thing, they never champion the underdogs, that isn’t the fast track to success anywhere. If you wanna be a top dog, you gotta think, talk and act like a top dog, or the top dogs won’t notice you and call you to heel. Once you’ve groveled at their feet though, it’s clear sailing, as long as you continue to clean their toilets.

That’s the secret of a sociopath’s success, and pretty much how our society is.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

House Cleaning.
Posted by: mike_burns on Sep 17, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can clean out the repuglicans. But, your work isn't done 'till you got rid of the demoncrats.
Vote, Sandy Sheehan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Informative article but has some factual errors
Posted by: kdopp on Sep 17, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is informative to me, but would misinform persons who are not aware of all the facts and have not read the CA SOS decertification documents or the text of HR811.

For example, HR811 does "not" allow paperless voting machines. The bill requires paper ballot records immediately beginning in 2008. Also, the CA SOS would never have said that isolating DREs makes the entire system safe from vote manipulation because it is "not" possible to isolate any DRE because the memory cards must be inserted into the central tabulators which could transfer viruses. The CA SOS requires reformatting and reinstalling all memory cards, all DRE hard drives, and the central tabulator between every election, using three isolated servers. That is the way she mitigates the risk of vote tampering - not by isolating the DREs. Other factual and logic errors exist in this article.

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 the Voter Confidence and ... (HR811)" posted at
http://electionarchive.org

The Davis amendment (outright DRE ban) is unnecessary and could be a poison pill and kill the bill in the Senate - resulting in DRE use forever, whereas the bill, as is, would rid us of virtually all DREs.

Here is a short doc listing ten reasons why DREs are bad:

See the "Public Testimony on the Ballot Integrity Act.." posted here
http://electionarchive.org

I appreciate Alternet's writing this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Touchscreen Vote for One Candidate; Paper receipt for the Other Condidate
Posted by: Christie on Sep 17, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO on H.R. 811. Electronic voting has been an abysmal failure. We need a full ban on DRE voting systems. A touch screen voting machine can record a vote for one candidate and give a paper receipt showing a vote for the other candidate. We must have paper ballots and hand counting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

"Let the free market reign..."
Posted by: eddie torres on Sep 17, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Great American Race To The Bottom brought to you courtesy of the free market. "Let Freedom Rain":

1) Diebold

Always close to the beating heart of the Permanent GOP Majority, Diebold intelligence agents now sense that the natives are getting restless... better change the name on the front door to "Premier Election Solutions Inc" and head down to the Caymans for some "executive brainstorming." After dumping a few million shares of company stock first.

2) ES&S

Dan Rather's "The Trouble With Touch Screens" uncovers a previously undisclosed ES&S voting machine contractor in the Philippines where an anonymous factory worker describes rushed production and poor quality control in these words:

"Well, when you need to ship them out, you really need to ship them out. When we say it's a reject... no. They [managers] will say it's still okay. It seems they're only concerned with the quantity of machines shipped from the plant. For example, even with the rejects, they do something to make it work. Just to make it good enough. They really don't think about what will happen when someone tries to use it. That's why we think it's quantity not quality. Everybody in the factory knows that."

How were the machines tested?

"They shake the machines. If there is something inside the machine like components or screws, all of that gets shaken around inside the machine as well."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bad Journalism
Posted by: johnnylee337 on Sep 18, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a journalist working for a evoting vendor for 2 years now, I rarely catch left-wing articles written by people that know anything about elections--before and after evoting came along. Why didn't the author note that one company was left certified in CA? This is the only company that doesn't use a touch screen. Most people assume the whole industry is all touch screen and run by spooks. FYI- that's Diebold. If you were writing an article about cars, would you distinguish between Makes? Is Toyota and Ford the same? There is only one voting machine on the market that doesn't use a touch screen, and this company is still operating in CA. In fact, it was Diebold, ES&S and Sequioa that were kicked out of CA, the three big players in the market. It's so annoying to be a liberal and read bad reporting from liberal outlets. Also, paper trails are great. But where were you people when we had paper elections? Did you think the paper ballot was your paper trail? The paper ballot you stuffed into a box and never saw again? Lastly, why is there never a person that knows a lot about elections and evoting consulted in these articles? Like some real tech guys that can represent both sides? Let's just lump all machines into one catagory, assume anything electronic is less accurate than people counting mounds of paper entries, and make it scary so it will sell some advertising hours. Rant over, thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Scott Griffith
Posted by: Scott Griffith on Sep 17, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pretty well-balanced and researched brief summary of the state of play. It makes me wish no one had ever thought up that inane expression 'paper trail', which for some reason hordes have latched onto and misled greater hordes of others into imagining that such things solve an inconvenient problem. The reality seems to be that all the snippets of scrolled computer printout in the world, legible or not, are never going to guarantee that what they show reflects what's going on in the computer itself. How in the world did these fast-talking snake-oil salesmen ever sell the the populace the outrageous idea that their precious voting rights had anything to do with private commercial enterprise, where the idea of profit will trump that of democratic process every time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scott Griffith Posted by: srosenfeld
» RE: Scott Griffith Posted by: farmertx

Comments are closed-

The Authoritarian Chain of Command
Posted by: shangrilalad on Sep 17, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Authoritarian Chain of Command

Conservatives babble endlessly about law and order, but they don’t believe in either one unless you mean law and order designed, imposed and enforced by them. Conservatives devise laws to make some crimes legal, like campaign contributions, and others that help the rich rob the under-classes, but they don’t like laws that support the common good. They see the concept of common good as sissy socialism and at odds with their Wild West myth of the rugged individualist, the good old days when men were men and took what they wanted.

That Wild West myth appeals to bullies, wimps, wannabe gunslingers, and republicans. It you aren’t the fastest draw in town, be his friend. That’s how republicans choose their leaders too, they look for the biggest bully available, and adore him.

Have you spent your life as a bully, or a victim of bullies? Have you ever noticed that bosses and landlords have more rights than you?

Our economic system and government was devised by bullies for bullies. Bullies like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Rupert Murdoch; there’s an endless supply. And these guys go right to the top, fast.

What’s the secret of their success? What do they all have in common?

For one thing, they never champion the underdogs, that isn’t the fast track to success anywhere. If you wanna be a top dog, you gotta think, talk and act like a top dog, or the top dogs won’t notice you and call you to heel. Once you’ve groveled at their feet though, it’s clear sailing, as long as you continue to clean their toilets.

That’s the secret of a sociopath’s success, and pretty much how our society is.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

House Cleaning.
Posted by: mike_burns on Sep 17, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can clean out the repuglicans. But, your work isn't done 'till you got rid of the demoncrats.
Vote, Sandy Sheehan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Informative article but has some factual errors
Posted by: kdopp on Sep 17, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is informative to me, but would misinform persons who are not aware of all the facts and have not read the CA SOS decertification documents or the text of HR811.

For example, HR811 does "not" allow paperless voting machines. The bill requires paper ballot records immediately beginning in 2008. Also, the CA SOS would never have said that isolating DREs makes the entire system safe from vote manipulation because it is "not" possible to isolate any DRE because the memory cards must be inserted into the central tabulators which could transfer viruses. The CA SOS requires reformatting and reinstalling all memory cards, all DRE hard drives, and the central tabulator between every election, using three isolated servers. That is the way she mitigates the risk of vote tampering - not by isolating the DREs. Other factual and logic errors exist in this article.

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 the Voter Confidence and ... (HR811)" posted at
http://electionarchive.org

The Davis amendment (outright DRE ban) is unnecessary and could be a poison pill and kill the bill in the Senate - resulting in DRE use forever, whereas the bill, as is, would rid us of virtually all DREs.

Here is a short doc listing ten reasons why DREs are bad:

See the "Public Testimony on the Ballot Integrity Act.." posted here
http://electionarchive.org

I appreciate Alternet's writing this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Touchscreen Vote for One Candidate; Paper receipt for the Other Condidate
Posted by: Christie on Sep 17, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO on H.R. 811. Electronic voting has been an abysmal failure. We need a full ban on DRE voting systems. A touch screen voting machine can record a vote for one candidate and give a paper receipt showing a vote for the other candidate. We must have paper ballots and hand counting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

"Let the free market reign..."
Posted by: eddie torres on Sep 17, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Great American Race To The Bottom brought to you courtesy of the free market. "Let Freedom Rain":

1) Diebold

Always close to the beating heart of the Permanent GOP Majority, Diebold intelligence agents now sense that the natives are getting restless... better change the name on the front door to "Premier Election Solutions Inc" and head down to the Caymans for some "executive brainstorming." After dumping a few million shares of company stock first.

2) ES&S

Dan Rather's "The Trouble With Touch Screens" uncovers a previously undisclosed ES&S voting machine contractor in the Philippines where an anonymous factory worker describes rushed production and poor quality control in these words:

"Well, when you need to ship them out, you really need to ship them out. When we say it's a reject... no. They [managers] will say it's still okay. It seems they're only concerned with the quantity of machines shipped from the plant. For example, even with the rejects, they do something to make it work. Just to make it good enough. They really don't think about what will happen when someone tries to use it. That's why we think it's quantity not quality. Everybody in the factory knows that."

How were the machines tested?

"They shake the machines. If there is something inside the machine like components or screws, all of that gets shaken around inside the machine as well."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bad Journalism
Posted by: johnnylee337 on Sep 18, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a journalist working for a evoting vendor for 2 years now, I rarely catch left-wing articles written by people that know anything about elections--before and after evoting came along. Why didn't the author note that one company was left certified in CA? This is the only company that doesn't use a touch screen. Most people assume the whole industry is all touch screen and run by spooks. FYI- that's Diebold. If you were writing an article about cars, would you distinguish between Makes? Is Toyota and Ford the same? There is only one voting machine on the market that doesn't use a touch screen, and this company is still operating in CA. In fact, it was Diebold, ES&S and Sequioa that were kicked out of CA, the three big players in the market. It's so annoying to be a liberal and read bad reporting from liberal outlets. Also, paper trails are great. But where were you people when we had paper elections? Did you think the paper ballot was your paper trail? The paper ballot you stuffed into a box and never saw again? Lastly, why is there never a person that knows a lot about elections and evoting consulted in these articles? Like some real tech guys that can represent both sides? Let's just lump all machines into one catagory, assume anything electronic is less accurate than people counting mounds of paper entries, and make it scary so it will sell some advertising hours. Rant over, thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS