
Towards Open Elections
Many in the election integrity movement have written about deficiencies in this year's version of the Holt bill (H.R. 2894 download). I'd like to offer my perspective. To start, this web site, www.CountedAsCast.com makes clear that I have long been opposed to secretive vote counting. I will also note that we cannot rely on hand-counted paper ballots alone to ensure fair and accurate elections. 50 years ago, if you were black and living in the Deep South, or a republican living in Chicago, you could rest assured that your vote was not being hand-counted accurately. This is one of the reasons why very good people were in favor of HAVA. They were hoping that their votes would be counted less unfairly if it was an impartial machine and not racists or Mayor Daley doing the counting. What the hopers did not realize was that they could not count on the secretive machines either. Since history clearly shows that neither machines nor hand-counting by themselves can ensure fair and accurate elections, it is useful to inject redundancy - double checks - into the process. That's where both hand counts and computers come in, to provide at least two different ways to count the results; by hand and by machine. I agree with the German Constitutional Court decision of March 3 that elections must be checkable without the use of computers; what NIST calls "software independence". At the same time, the Court also understands that it is also necessary to have well-run elections. So it specifically and explicitly stated in paragraph 121 that computers such as scanners may be used in elections, so long as the results are checkable without specialized knowledge, ie. hand-checkable.
VerifiedVoting.org In the US, we are a long way from hand-checking results. 32 states do not require, by law, paper ballots and/or do not require by law spot checks (see VerifiedVoting.org). These include the important swing states of IN, MI, OH, PA, and VA. Let me repeat that. 9 years after the Florida fiasco, most states do not require by law even spot-checking of election results, much less hand-counted paper ballots. So where does the H.R. 2894 stand in all of this? This is a good start, but there's more. There are more useful provisions, but I won't go into detail here. The bill does have a notable flaw - it requires systems for the disabled that can mechanically cast ballots - 102(a)(B)(ii)(II), pg. 9. Noel Runyan, a blind expert on voting systems, finds this requirement unnecessary, a privacy sleeve does the job. I agree and the clause should be improved. But do not think it warrants scuttling paper ballots, spot checks, and Internet- and wireless-free elections. The Holt bill also gives more authority to the EAC, a corrupt, crony-driven institution. The problem here is that the EAC is already alive and kicking, and nobody has proposed legislation that repairs the situation. It would be better to work on serious proposals for such legislation, than to scuttle paper ballots, spot checks, and Internet- and wireless-free elections. The Voting Rights Task Force (Berkeley/Oakland, CA) has read through the Holt bill carefully. We have also reviewed the other bills that have been proposed. *No* other bill that we know of addresses the issue of being able to hand-check results on paper ballots. This is the best bill that exists. After months of serious study and debate, the VRTF has endorsed H.R. 2894. I look forward to supporting legislation that improves on H.R. 2894. In the meantime, this bill opens the door in many states for paper ballots, spot checks, and disclosed source code; i.e. this bill strengthens both hand counting and machine counting. H.R. 2894 also closes the door on DREs, the Internet, and most wireless devices, all of which are dangerous. Congress needs to pass this bill, ASAP, to advance our democracy towards open elections, in all 50 states. Nobody, and no machine, should be counting American votes in secret.For further information, email Jim Soper at :
Jim.Soper@GMail.com
|