Must hit the road for a bunch of hours today (Utah here we come! For a few hours, anyway.) so I'll leave you with the following press release from Zogby sent out this morning, with some interesting numbers concerning both 9/11 and Impeachment...
BARCODED BALLOTS AND BALLOT MARKING DEVICES
BMDs pose a new threat to democracy in all 50 states...
| |
VIDEO: 'Rise of the Tea Bags'
Brad interviews American patriots...
|
'Democracy's Gold Standard'
Hand-marked, hand-counted ballots...
|
![]() |
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
|
![]() |
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|
![]() | MORE BRAD BLOG 'SPECIAL COVERAGE' PAGES... |
Must hit the road for a bunch of hours today (Utah here we come! For a few hours, anyway.) so I'll leave you with the following press release from Zogby sent out this morning, with some interesting numbers concerning both 9/11 and Impeachment...
Blogged by Brad from Colorado...
In an editorial for Thursday's paper, the New York Times has finally called for an all-out ban on touch-screen voting machines.
Writing that "electronic voting has been an abysmal failure," the newspaper of record --- which has been an abysmal failure, overall, in investigating and reporting on election-related issues over the past many years --- opines in favor of the flawed Rush Holt Election Reform Bill, though aptly declares that "The bill lacks one important thing: a ban on touch-screen voting machines."
They add that "there is still time before the bill becomes law to add a ban on touch-screen voting" and that scheduling such changes for 2012 is "too long to wait."
Here are the grafs that the Times gets almost exactly right [emphasis ours]:
There is still time before the bill becomes law to add a ban on touch-screen voting. If the House fails to do so, the Senate should, and it should fight for it to be in the final bill.
There has been a spirited debate about how quickly to require reforms to be implemented. There have been calls for putting a solution off until 2012. That is too long to wait.
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but what took you so long, New York Times? But never mind that. The question now is: What is taking Congress --- specifically Congressional Democrats --- so long?
It's E-Voting: Game Over. Time to ban DREs once and for all, precisely as The BRAD BLOG has been calling for now for years. Even the NY Times gets it. Finally. So can we now please end this infernal nightmare once and for all?
"As we have looked closely at all the issues concerning Election Day voting systems, we are still ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room," declared California Congresswoman Susan Davis in a statement sent to The BRAD BLOG late this afternoon.
That 800 pound gorilla, Davis goes on to say, is "the question of whether and how Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines should be used in federal elections."
Her statement (posted in full at the end of this article) followed on the heels of our exclusive BRAD BLOG report earlier today detailing Davis's attempt to restrict the use of DREs (often referred to as touch-screen voting machines) to no more than one per polling place on Election Day in federal elections.
Davis's proposed amendment is stalled for the moment as the U.S. House Rules Committee debates whether Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) flawed and controversial Election Reform Bill (HR 811) will be sent to the floor of the House at all and, if so, whether or not amendments will be allowed with it. (See this morning's report for more specifics and details.)
The amendment is similar to, though weaker than, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's recently imposed restrictions on DRE voting systems in the Golden State, which also require a manual hand-count of 100% of the so-called "paper trails" produced by the touch-screen machines.
"There is one controversial issue that seems to come up again and again in my discussions with voters, activists, and elections officials. It is an issue that has been dealt with in many states including my home state of California just recently with the Secretary of State’s Top-to-Bottom review," Davis said, adding that "the wealth of data and opinions on this topic are so strong that I feel Congress would be remiss if we do not allow a debate on" the use of DREs in federal elections.
As a member of the House Administration Committee, which passed the bill some months ago along party lines, Davis could have brought such an amendment then. Indeed, we personally met with Davis earlier this year in her home district in San Diego --- the site of more than a few controversial touch-screen elections --- in hopes of conveying the dangers of such voting systems. While clearly concerned about the issue at the time, Davis was not yet prepared to call for either a ban or any sort of restriction on the machines that failed at hundreds, if not thousands, of precincts across the country during the 2006 election cycle.
But that was before Bowen's landmark analysis, as carried out by computer scientists at the University of California, added fuel to the anti-DRE fire, finding severe and alarming vulnerabilities in every e-voting system they tested.
With the Bowen wind at the backs of California's sizable and powerful Congressional contingent, things may well be changing, if Davis's "attempt [to] spark debate on this issue" is any indication.
In concluding her statement, Davis expressed her hope that Congress might finally address the now-unavoidable question of DRE usage in the wake of what has become a virtual mountain of evidence against them.
"Our democracy is too important to ignore this issue any longer," the Congresswoman concluded.
Rep. Susan Davis's complete statement is posted in full below...
Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
It’s been a hectic day today with HR-811 going to the Rules Committee as it must before going to the floor for a vote. The Rules Committee is supposed to decide whether amendments can be added to the bill; what amendments will be accepted; or whether the process will be open to all amendments. While some are telling their supporters that the bill is going to the floor tomorrow, we are hearing from a committee staffer that no decision has been made and the bill may still have to go before the committee again.
Meanwhile a New Jersey Superior Court Judge has told the state that they had better figure out how to replace all 10,000 of the state’s DRE machines with optical scan and the state has 8 days to figure it out. It seems that the vvpat printers to be used on DREs made by Sequoia and Avante have been proven to be garbage and the state ignored a ruling from the court made weeks ago that the state have a back-up plan by today. The state ignored the court.
Those stories, and the other notable voting news from today, all linked below as usual...
Blogged by Brad from somewhere in Colorado...
Have just been asked to fill in, at the last minute, as Guest Host for Mary Ann Gould on her Voice of the Voters radio program tonight at 8pm ET (5pm PT).
Please join us as I jump in to host her show as heard on the air on WNJC 1360AM in Philadelphia and South New Jersey (Rush Holt country!), and across the world via this online listening link.
We'll have more details on today's breaking Holt bill information, the Davis amendment, and other late-breaking voting news.
As we're doing this at the last minute, without guests or preparation, we'll be happy to take your calls, questions and thoughts at 856-227-1360. As usual, VoV and BRAD BLOG stalwart John Gideon of VotersUnite.org, a weekly regular on the show, will also be joining us to discuss all the latest!
Please join us, call us, and otherwise consider this an Open thread for use during the show! (Hit the Comments link below, let us know what's on your mind and then hit REFRESH to keep up with the conversation!)
POST-SHOW UPDATE: Thanks for those who tuned in! Apologies to those who had a bad net stream. Apparently we overloaded their stream. Here then is the archived hour, with all of the day's Rush Holt news, and guests Bob Fitrakis, Bruce Funk, Paddy Schaeffer and John Gideon.
Brad Guest Hosting Voice of the Voters, 9/5/07 (appx. 1 hour)...
Just announced this morning and reported by The New Jersey Star-Ledger is the news that a state judge has given the state Attorney General eight days to report an alternate means of voting to the state's 10,000 touch-screen machines.
The ruling undoubtedly comes as an embarrassment to Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey, who has been championing an Election Reform bill in the U.S. House that would allow for the very voting systems the judge in his own state has now disallowed.
By Brad Friedman from Glenwood Springs, CO...
[ED NOTE: Many updates have been posted throughout the day on this item. Please see bottom of article for the latest updates!]
An amendment to either ban or restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems may be added to Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) Election Reform Bill by California Congresswoman Susan Davis today, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm.
After learning of the possibility early this morning, we have now confirmed with Davis's office that she is mulling such an amendment to present to the House Rules Committee, which is set to meet this afternoon at 3pm ET to determine which amendments will be allowed for debate on Holt's controversial HR 811 election bill. The legislation is currently scheduled to come up for debate on the House Floor as soon as it's passed out of the Rules Committee.
UPDATE: Davis's office has now confirmed they will bring such an amendment if allowed by the Rules Committee and by Leadership.
The committee will decide whether or not to allow amendments to the bill at all once it's on the House floor. The BRAD BLOG has learned that the committee essentially has three options in that regard. They can move the bill forward with a "Closed Rule," meaning no amendments are allowed on the bill; a "Restricted Rule," meaning only certain amendments will be allowed for debate, or an "Open Rule," which would allow any amendment to be brought to the bill while it's on the House floor.
The phone and fax numbers for members of the Rules Committee are posted below, along with the contact information for House Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who would be instrumental in allowing such an amendment to be brought.
At this hour, Davis's office is considering language for such an amendment, conferring with legal authorities and gauging potential support from colleagues. They may be considering restrictions on DRE usage, rather than a complete ban, along the lines of what California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen implemented recently after her independent "Top-to-Bottom Review" found severe vulnerabilities in all of the states certified touch-screen voting systems.
After the landmark study, carried out by the University of California, Bowen implemented restrictions on DRE systems made by Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems, and other major manufacturers. Only one DRE per polling place will be allowed in California's 2008 elections in order to marginally meet federal accessibility requirements for disabled voters. Bowen's restrictions also allow for DRE use in Early Voting, though all such systems must have 100% of their "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" (VVPATs) manually counted.
Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
In yesterday’s DVN I said, “When the bill goes to the floor there will be a bipartisan 'unfunded mandate' amendment that will be allowed to be voted on and added to the bill if it passes.” I should have said that there will LIKELY be a bipartisan “unfunded mandate” amendment. The bill actually goes before the House Rules Committee at 3PM (EDT) tomorrow, so it will probably not go to the floor before Thursday. ...
Blogged by Brad from Colorado...
We've been in the woods and off the grid for the past several days, only to return to find that Rep. Rush Holt's (D-NJ) hugely flawed Election Reform bill, HR 811, is said again to finally be coming up for a vote in the U.S. House this week. The claim of an imminent vote on the House floor has been made many times in the past by Holt and his supporters, though this time it's now actually on the schedule of the House Rules Committee for a vote tomorrow on an amendment, as described yesterday by VotersUnite.org's John Gideon, that would move the bill forward even without a mandate that it actually be funded. As well, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has the bill penciled onto his full House Floor calendar to come up as part of business as early as tomorrow, even though it's currently listed there as "Subject to a Rule" --- presumably in reference to whatever happens in the Rules Committee.
As usual, the scheduling, whether real or imagined, as it has been in the past, brings another surge of misinformation from the bill's powerful supporters. Leading the way this time around is MoveOn.org, which sent out an email to members over the weekend asking if it should support the latest "compromise" version of the bill as it's been hammered out, reportedly, between Hoyer and Holt and secretly brokered behind closed doors by longtime HR811 supporters People for the American Way (PFAW).
While MoveOn is asking members if it should support the bill, the mailing --- more accurately described as a "push poll" --- shows MoveOn's hand by misrepresenting quite a bit of what the bill actually does and doesn't do. So we'd be surprised if its members came out as anything but in favor of supporting the bill. But more on that deceptive mailer in a moment, along with some news on Holt himself reportedly now distancing himself from aspects of his very own bill!...
Blogged by Brad from Glenwood Springs, CO...
We've emerged safely from the woods after three glorious days off the grid up at 10,200 feet. No net. No cell. No bears. No mountain lions. Though we did have a few close encounters with a bald eagle and some moose (even if we avoided being trampled by the two who stampeded through our campsite at dawn one morning.)
Starting slowly this morning and catching up on some of the bear stories you guys posted in the the Open Thread I left on my way out the door. Thanks for those. Was only able to read a few of them before we set out, but CharlieL's amusing story provided a good laugh or two around the campfire.
From the real mountains to the mountain of email that has come in while we were gone, it may take some time to get cranked back up to full speed. So for the moment, here's a look at what I've been looking at over the past few days...
More photos later, perhaps, unless I learn I'm needed elsewhere after discovering what's really going on out here.
Oh, and btw, you folks in San Diego were in our hearts and on our minds even in the wilds over the past few days!
Glad to see it looks like Progressive Talk AM 1360 KLSD is still on the air at this hour! If you haven't already, please take the time to sign the petition to register your support for some semblance of both fairness and balance on the public's airwaves in the country's 6th largest city!
More soon(ish)...
Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
HR-811 is rumored to be going to the floor of the House for a vote on Wed. Sept. 5. They would not allow it to go for a vote unless they had the votes to pass it so, I imagine, it is now a done deal. However, suddenly we are being informed that those who were hoping for the benefits of the bill for 2008 are probably going to be disappointed. It seems that through the writing of the bill and three complete rewrites there is a funding problem. When the bill goes to the floor there will be a bipartisan “unfunded mandate” amendment that will be allowed to be voted on and added to the bill if it passes. This amendment will require action on the bill to be held up until funding can be appropriated; in other words 2010 or 2012 or never. So everything is status quo for 2008 (DREs, no vvpat, no audits) except no one can say if the non-funding portions of the bill would also be delayed. So the protection of the vendor’s software may happen upon signature by the President. The vendors are protected while the voters get no protections. And, Holt and his people knew about this for months. I’m told it was public information but if no one points you to the information the information is not public; it’s hidden in plain sight....