MoveOn is polling its mailing list to see how they feel about accepting or rejecting the Holt bill.

If we have to wait till 2010 for a clean election anyway, I say vote it down.

I think this video is darn pertinent.

Nope. The weekly whip notice said it was coming up sometime Wed - Fri.

Tonights daily email notice from majority that covered Tues and Wed schedule did NOT list Holt.

So more like Thurs or Friday.

The Senate will not let it go to the floor IMO. Dems have a sufficient voting majority in the House, but not so in the Senate. Much ado about nothing.

Everyone claim victory and go home. You too Iraq.

Dear Election Warlords (e.g. Connie Mack),

If they can hack into the Pentagon computer system:

The Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network in June in the most successful cyber attack on the US defence department, say American ­officials.

The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defence secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack.

(FT, emphasis added) why do you fantasize that they cannot hack an EVM system which has only play pretend security?

I have been trying to figure out why some in the EI movement do not want to talk about S 559 and the real HR 811. The more I read up on it, I think their reasons are nefarious. Take a look at the Thomas page on S 559:

S.559

Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] (introduced 2/13/2007)

Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.R. 811

Latest Major Action: 2/13/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

(Thomas, emphasis mine). And in like manner, look at the lead Thomas page on HR 811:

There are 2 versions of Bill Number H.R.811 for the 110th Congress

1 . Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.811.IH]

2 . Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (Reported in House)[H.R.811.RH]

(Thomas, emphasis mine). There are TWO VERSIONS of HR 811, not one. Thomas also says:

H.R.811

Title: To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] (introduced 2/5/2007)

Cosponsors (216)

Related Bills: S.559

Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 91.

House Reports: 110-154

(Thomas, emphasis mine). Why is it so scary to include S 559 and both HR 811 RH, and HR 811 IH n what poses as comprehensive discussions?

Isn't it deceptive to tell only 1/3 of a three-part story as if it was the whole story? To talk about only one chapter of a book as if it was the whole book, when there are actually three chapters?

Especially when HR 811 RH is "an amendment in the nature of a replacement" to the original HR 811 IH, and if HR 811 RH is not passed, the better text in HR 811 IH will prevail?

The Election Integrity movement should have high integrity if it is to be respected more than political hacks are respected.

Dredd -

Not entirely sure what the implication is of your comment above, to be frank. But when Bill Nelson sandbagged Feinstein by introducing S 559 we covered it. The reasonswe haven't much covered it since, is that it was referred to the Senate Rules Comm., which is presided over by DiFi who had her own bill that was more likely to be the Senate version of the House bill HR 811.

In other words, Nelson's bill was/is gathering dust while Feinstein was/is attempting to make her bill the Senate version of HR 811.

S 1487 has been moving (though just barely) forward, while S 559 languishes. Given that, as you mention, S 559 is by and large a clone of the original HR 811 --- which included its flaw of allowing DREs in elections --- I've not been particularly interested in that bill. Though, if there was some news to cover on it, I certainly would!

I'd like some feedback on this:

9/3/2007
National Election Data Archive (NEDA)

Friends,

"The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" (House
Resolution 811) is coming to the House floor on Thursday, September 6.
The National Election Data Archive has done a thorough yet simple,
straightforward, and easy-to-read analysis of The Voter Confidence &
Increased Accessibility Act (HR811). It is posted on-line at:

ANALYSIS OF "VOTER CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY ACT" (HR811)
http://electionarchive.o...alysis-HR811-Aug2007.pdf

The National Election Data Archive urges the US House to vote "Yes"
for House Resolution 811.

HR811 WILL BE VOTED ON THIS WEEK

HR811 is on the agenda for the House Rules Committee meeting on
Wednesday afternoon (which usually means a vote the next day,
Thursday, September 6), and is listed as being on the voting schedule
in the Majority Leader's "Weekly Leader" e-mail update that went out
yesterday for next week.
http://www.rules.house.gov/comm_schedule110.htm
http://www.majorityleade...27%20Weekly%20083107.pdf

The US House should vote "Yes" for House Resolution 811 and "No" for
the "unfunded mandate" amendment that would gut the requirement for
paper ballots and manual election audits in 2008.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW - IT IS A CRITICAL JUNCTURE FOR US DEMOCRACY &
OUR FUTURE - YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO PROTECT 2008 ELECTIONS

HR811 must be passed by October 2007 to provide jurisdictions
currently using paperless DRE voting machines sufficient time to
replace them with auditable voting equipment in order to conduct
manual election audits for the November 2008 Federal election. The
bill's 2008 deadlines must be preserved to protect the integrity of
the 2008 Federal elections.

Please take action to support the immediate passage of HR811 in the US House.

Federal election reform legislation is urgently needed prior to the
November 2008 election.

So... congress has determined that the bill makes impossible schedule demands and is severely underfunded for what it mandates

HR 811 is a bloated disaster that refuses to actually fix anything for 2008 and thus obstructs any real emergency election measures needed for 2008.

Kill 811. Vote it down and rewrite it completely and very carefully.

If one is truly concerned about 2008 (and we should all be concerned about 2008) then put a bill holding only truly needed emergency measures into place just for 2008 while a true election reform bill is written up and publicly debated.

But this email is hilarious in a grim sort of way...

Kathy Dopp of NEDA sold out to Holt and company's HR 811 bill of bureaucratic empire-building, secret vote-counting code and corporate takeover of elections... in return for having her own beloved but severely inadequate audit protocols added to the bill.

After she got her payoff in kind she immediately launched an all-out smear campaign against those EI advocates who still opposed Holt's Fiasco... including smearing all those EI advocates who had tried to warn people that the bill made impossible schedule demands and was severely underfunded for what it mandated...

Hilarious, no?...

State Election Law Allows Public Inspection of Ballots Boxes

Nearly very state still has within its election code a provision that allows public observers the right to inspect physical ballot box containers and paper ballots before the polls open on Election Day. (Example: New Hampshire Election Code Section 658:36 Inspection of Ballot Box – At the opening of the polls, the ballot box shall be publicly opened and shown to be empty; and the election officers shall ascertain that fact by a personal examination of the box. eff. July 1, 1979) Nearly every state also still has within its election code a provision that allows public observers to watch election clerks open physical ballot box containers and count the paper ballots at the end of the Election Day.

Each and every DRE voting machine contains a software program that builds and displays the ballot image on its touch screen every time a citizen steps up to vote. Each and every DRE voting machine contains a software program that reads and stores in memory each voter's touch screen ballot voting selections. The software code together with data storage drives and PC memory cards in each and every DRE voting machine is the equivalent of physical ballot box containers and paper ballots.

Why can't judges, (i.e. Florida Circuit Court Judge William L. Gary who denied the plaintiffs motion to allow review of the source code for the paperless touch-screen machines used in the contested U.S. House race in Florida's 13th district between Democrat Christine Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan) and lawmakers (i.e. House committee members who marked up House Resolution 811 to specifically deny the public’s right to inspect DRE ballot creation and counting software) understand the simply fact that software code together with the data storage drives and PC memory cards in each and every DRE voting machine IS at once both BALLOT and BALLOT BOX that citizens here-to-fore have had a right to inspect both before and after each election?

Ballot box inspection laws are on the book of every state because in the past political partisans are known to have stuffed ballot boxes in a wide variety of ways. Why do judges and lawmakers think that political partisans will not and cannot stuff the DRE voting machine software ballot box? Stuffing the DRE software ballot box is so much easier than stuffing the old ballot box containers on Election Day.

It is so easy for any one of the small army of different computer programmers who writes code destined to run on each and every DRE system to stuff the software ballot box.

DRE system manufacturer programmers continually write software code to fix software bugs and enhance system function. Yet other technicians within the DRE Company package these software updates for distribution to election administration offices around the country. Typically, temporary contractor programmers are hired at each local election administration office to install the distributed software updates on each and every DRE machine. Then, maybe, somebody else tests each and every DRE after the software updates are installed.

Typically, local temporary contractor programmers are hired in each local election administration office to write software that codifies election ballots immediately preceding each election. (This is the ballot image voters see on the DRE touch screen) These same local temporary contractor programmers then load the ballot software on each and every DRE machine. Then, maybe, the same contract programmers or somebody else tests each and every DRE for proper operation.

Local election officials are not computer scientists; indeed, many have trouble even maintaining the PC on their desk. They can neither adequately assess the competence and veracity of local temporary contractor programmers hired to work on voting machines nor review and assess any new software destined to be installed on their voting machines. In actually, local election officials cannot verify that a contractor programmer's work is bug free or that they did not nefariously write a few extra lines of software code that activates only on election day to flip votes or rig vote totals on a central tabulator and then self delete at the end of the election day.

Local election officials and every U.S. citizen can only trust that each member of the small army of computer programmers who writes code destined to run on each and every DRE voting machine and central tabulator computer do not act on partisan political motivations to stuff the software ballot box.

I can, perhaps, accept Microsoft's argument that source code for its standard off-the-self Windows CE operating system, when used in DRE machine, need not be made available for review, but software code developed by DRE voting system manufacturers is a different class of software.

Voting application software routines developed by DRE voting system manufacturers to 'facilitate' display of ballots on a touch screen and then read and store voter ballot selections do not contain highly complex software routines. These DRE software routines are standard application program code that every business application programmer has written time and time again - nothing special that deserves to override the public interest of fully transparent elections.

In particular, source for bug fix and enhancement software updates from DRE manufacturers as well as software locally written just before each election that codifies election ballots displayed on each voter’s touch screen and then read and store voter ballot selections should be available for inspection. Every county of every state that uses DRE voting machines has one or programmers that codifies ballots and ballot counting routines just prior to election day. In the November 2006 election 1,142 counties (36.63 percent of all U.S. counties) around the United States used DRE-type voting systems. So, at minimum, 1,142 programmers developed 'last minute' software to codify election ballots and ballot counting routines in the weeks or some cases days just prior to the start voting last November or mid-October where early voting is allowed. (Those counties account for 66 million registered voters, or 38.42 percent of all registered voters, in the United States. http://www.edssurvey.com...udies%20/ve2006_news.pdf )

So, many unchecked computer programmers at different levels write software code that almost no one visually inspects or rigorously tests for nefarious content. It is so easy for a political partisan to plant a few willing temporary contractor programmers in key election jurisdictions to stuff the software ballot box. Or even just a few motivated partisan programmers working independently on their own could easily throw an election.

In the final analysis, DRE voting machines, even if they generate a paper audit ballot, are just too complex and costly to use in any fully transparent election process. This is a case where the application of advanced technology creates more problems than it solves. Printed paper ballots marked by voters with a standard number 2 pencil and run through an optical scanner is a simple and transparent process that any average citizen can observe and certify. Such a process backed up with a random hand count of 10% of all optical scan counted ballots is the only way every state can 'uniformly' provide full election transparency.

Michael Dean said:

"I can, perhaps, accept Microsoft's argument that source code for its standard off-the-self Windows CE operating system, when used in DRE machine, need not be made available for review, but software code developed by DRE voting system manufacturers is a different class of software."

Your understanding of Windows CE is incorrect. This operating system is DESIGNED to be modified. It does NOT work "out of the box" as the consumer Windows operating systems do.

There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf version of Windows CE. It belongs in a separate category, since it REQUIRES modification by applications (such as voting machine software) in order to function at all. It should certainly be subjected to the full rigor of public scrutiny.

To exempt Windows CE from inspection would be pure insanity. This is one of the most obvious places one could hide anything one wanted.

There is extensive discussion of Windows CE at blackboxvoting.org (Use the Advanced Search from within any of the Forums to search for Windows CE as a keyword.)

{Ed Note: Catherine, I fixed your post for you. Your code doesn't work on this software. Please use the buttons on the comment box so the software doesn't go phlooey on us. Thank you. --99}

Dredd,

There is only one active version in the House: H.R.811.RH
It replaced the original, which is still listed as: H.R.811.IH
There is a third version, a so-called compromise agreed to on July 27. This is not in the official places yet, but here is a copy of the July 27th compromise H.R. 811. That is what will be introduced this week.

Jerry #12

You link to an unofficial page and thus your claim is unofficial. Nevertheless thank you for the link and comment. I note your use of the word "active", which is of course relevant.

Still, the official congressional website disagrees with you. This official congressional page shows that there are two official versions. I posted this official link upthread BTW.

When an amendment is in the nature of a replacement amendment (which RH was), and that amendment fails on the floor, the original (IH) is still there to be dealt with. The original can still be voted on if the replacement amendment(RH) fails, but not so if the replacement amendment(RH) passes.

Brad #7

Can you show me a link to one thread here where the writer of the thread discussed HR 811 IH, HR 811 RH, and S. 559 IS as being related?

I think you will find I was the first to post that S. 559 was the compliment to HR 811, according to official congressional webpages I again link to above.

I had to point that out here on one of John's threads to none other than Bev Harris that S. 559 was the official related bill to HR 811, not S. 1487. To her credit she conceded the offical pages do in fact point that out as I said.

I quoted, presented, and linked to those pages in my post #6 above where the official HR 811 page says "Related Bills: S.559" and where the official S 559 page says "Related Bills: HR 811".

Nowhere does any official congressional page I can find relate S 1487 to S. 559 or to HR 811.

Bast's furry ears. Dredd really is making this shit up in his head as he goes along. And this is the... person... who was badmouthing my citizenship credentials?

Dredd, the committee voted out one (1) bill. Hoyer and Pelosi are trying to ram through one (1) amended version of that bill.

THAT ONE (1) AMENDED VERSION IS THE ONLY VERSION THAT THE HOUSE WILL CONSIDER WHEN IT VOTES TOMORROW.

And that one bill is the version known as Holt's Fiasco.

And that one (1) bill, HR 811, needs to be voted down so that real non-corporate-sponsored election reform can finally get underway.

And first up on that agenda needs to be putting real, albeit temporary, emergency election protection measures into place for 2008.

To all the furryners, John is casting dispersions upon the vast intellectual broadness of the claim that the vote goes down today. It is the fog of deceit that sinks it claws into us from time to time I suppose.

BTW I made up the congressional website, the Thomas website, and the GPO website all by my self ... in your dreams creamers.