I’m sorry to have to keep banging this drum. I truly am. But it must be done, as People for the American Way (PFAW) continues to not only mislead the public about the Holt Election Reform Bill (HR811) and dangerous, disenfranchising DRE touch-screen voting technology, but they are now apparently also misleading about my position on the issue, by name.
I sent the following via email to PFAW’s lead Election Policy attorney, David Becker, today along with CC’s to Executive Director Ralph Neas, and a number of other Election Integrity organizations.
I would urge you to read the letter below, and contact PFAW with your own concerns and demand that they immediately stop misleading members of Congress and the public alike about the most important issue of our day.
PFAW’s support of the Holt bill is currently the lynchpin, for Congress and a number of powerful organizations, concerning whether or not it will be passed as is, or whether much-needed amendments — most notably, one that immediately bans the use of dangerous, disenfranchising, unverifiable DRE voting systems, with or without a so-called useless “paper trail” — will move forward in Congress.
Email: pfaw@pfaw.org
Telephone: 202-467-4999 or 800-326-7329
Please don’t wait for someone else to do it!
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:20 PM
To: ‘David Becker’; ‘Ralph Neas’
Cc: [REDACTED FOR PRIVACY] Subject: IMMEDIATE CORRECTION REQUESTED: Misleading, Incorrect PFAW FAQ
David (and/or whoever is managing the “Democracy Campaign” FAQ page at the PFAW site) –
Thanks to Art Levine’s American Prospect article today, I noticed for the first time, your misleading FAQ concering the Holt bill.
There are a number of out and out inaccuracies on that FAQ, as well as several wholly misleading points and — the only thing which perhaps I have a say in — a complete mischaracterization of my personal position concerning Election Reform in the very first Q&A on the page.
I am requesting an immediate retraction of that incorrect position statement, along with a statement noting your correction to it. The other items, obviously, I have little say about. But I will note the most troubling here in hopes that your conscience will lead you towards correcting the incorrect and/or misleading information you are currently making available to your members and the American public…
Well, in this case, there are a lot more areas of agreement than disagreement. Everyone agrees that the status quo is unacceptable””that in 2008 we can’t have another Sarasota-like election where 18,000 ballots just disappear. We agree that there’s a need for election reform at the federal level. We agree that paperless voting has got to end””there has to be a paper trail that must be used for recounts and audits.
That is a wholly inaccurate summary of my position. I don’t believe in “paper trails” in any way, shape or form. Alluding to Sarasota in the bargain, where “paper trails” on those DRE systems would not have helped — according to every scientist I’ve spoken to on the matter, perhaps with the exception of Ed Felten, who failed to justify his position — they would, in fact, have made matters worse.
As is, 18,000 voters failed to either notice or change their “undervotes” when they saw it on the screen in front of their face in Florida’s 13th district race in Sarasota. There is no evidence to indicate they would have had any more luck in either noticing it, or changing it, on a tiny slip of paper printed out later after their on-screen confirmations.
Contemperaneous reports and affidavits from voters and poll workers during the election indicate that many voters, who knew about the problem prior to, and on Election Day, went out of their way to make sure they voted in that election due to the heads-ups concerning the “ballot design” issue prior to Election Day. And yet, when they got to the summary screen, there was no vote registered in the race. And that was among folks who knew about the problem and went out of their way to make sure they voted for certain in the race.
The only difference “paper trails”, as currently mandated by the Holt bill, would likely have done, would be to have led the state and the Buchanan camp to declare that “the ‘voter verified’ paper trails you guys wanted show conclusively that 18,000 voters chose not to vote in that race. End of court case. End of congressional challenge.”
“Paper trails” in that case, and in many others would NOT have been an improvement over what we have now in my opinion. They serve only as a panacea to the voter to make them think their vote will be counted as cast, when there is no way to verify that on a DRE system.
At least now, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, “we know what we don’t know”. We wouldn’t, if “paper trails” on DREs were relied upon.
I am formally requesting that you clarify that point, and point out that PFAW is willing to settle for a “paper trail” representation of a voters vote, one that is not actually tabulated during the election, to be used in (most) audits and recounts in a limited capacity. While I, on the other hand, and many other Election Integrity advocates, are insisting on a paper BALLOT — one which is actually tabulated — for every vote cast in America.
On to the other most notable inaccuracies and misleading points in your FAQ…
Sarasota was hardly the only place with problems. So the status quo is unacceptable. Unverifiable, unauditable elections simply don’t work, and it’s time for change. The Holt Bill is a big step forward in correcting these problems,
The Holt Bill does not require either verifiable or auditable elections.
You are misleading your members and the public in suggesting that it does, even by characterizing it as “a big step forward” in that direction. As noted above, as the bill is currently written, it will lead to people believe the election is verifiable and auditable, when in fact it is not. At least people now generally know, after much hard work from many Election Integrity advocates fighting an uphill battle for years, that American elections as they currently are, are not verifiable. Tricking them into believing they are, by adding “paper trails” to Sarasota’s DRE’s, for example, is a dishonest method of rallying support for this bill.
The bill makes many improvements to the status quo: verifiable paper ballots,
Those “verifiable” paper ballots, as both you and the Holt bill describes them, are not required to be tabulated under the Holt bill. Giving the indication that they are is dishonest and misleading and should be clarified.
While DREs with audit trails may not be the right technology for every jurisdiction, they can provide some voters, particularly those with disabilities and language needs, with enhanced access. Other civil rights groups, in their expertise, have time and again stated that electronic voting enhances access to the ballot for voters with disabilities and language needs.
You’ve just conflated “DREs” with the “electronic voting” that may enhance access for a voter with special needs. That voter may need a touch-screen interface for a number of reasons, but NONE of those voters require a DRE voting system.
While I know that many people may confuse the two ideas because they don’t know better, I know for a fact that you guys know the difference quite specifically. Therefore, conflating those two ideas — suggesting that “voters with disabilities and language needs” may need to vote on DREs, when non-tabulating touch-screen ballot marking devices would serve them just as well, without posing the dangers of DREs — is inappropriate and dishonest.
You owe both your members and the public much more than to use such sneaky rhetorical sleight-of-hand on them in order to rally for a bill that you support.
Most civil rights groups view electronic voting technology as the best option for voters with language needs, particularly in jurisdictions which must provide translations in multiple minority languages pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, since it puts complete control of the translations in the hands of the voter.
With DREs now morphed into “electronic voting technology”, you continue the same sleight-of-hand as in the above section I mentioned.
Further, you tell your readers that “it puts complete control of the translations in the hands of the voters” while nothing could be more inaccurate. Instead, it puts complete control of the translations into the hands of the computer programmers who may then be able to ethnically profile based on the fact that it is known that a Latino or other ethnic minority voter is now voting. The machine — as evidence has shown — can then behave differently based on that knowledge (eg. some races have been left off of DRE “paper trails” for Latino voters only in Florida and elsewhere).
You wouldn’t tolerate such ethnic profiling elsewhere, so I’m not sure why you continue to be unquestioning supporters of it in the most sacred element of our democracy.
Translated paper ballots (of the sort used with optical scan machines) require that the jurisdiction identify exactly how many translated ballots in each language should be distributed to each polling place,
And yet I’ve been told, by both folks at PFAW and other Holt supporters, including Holt’s office, that the answer to voters becoming unable to vote when a DRE breaks down is that the Holt bill includes a mandate for “Emergency Paper Ballots”. Therefore, according to the Holt Bill, jurisdictions, by law, will already have to ensure that there are enough paper ballots, in all the needed languages, distributed to each polling place, to ensure that all voters will be able to vote if DREs break down.
As the guy who originally coined the phrase “Emergency Paper Ballots”, I’m left scratching my head yet again wondering how you can, in one breath argue that paper-based ballots systems require some insurmountable language and distribution burden, yet then go on to argue that those paper ballots will be available in an emergency to voters anyway if needed.
Which makes the following ALL CAPS statement even more disturbing, and apparently dishonest…
WE DON’T ADVOCATE THE USE OF DREs NATIONWIDE, HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE JURISDICTIONS SHOULD HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE SUCH TECHNOLOGY IF THEY DETERMINE THAT IT BEST SERVES THEIR VOTERS, SO LONG AS THE MACHINES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE AND AUDITABLE.
As you well know, a great number of Elections Officials prefer DREs for a number of reasons, among them that it tends to make their life easier, even if it makes our democracy impossible to accurately verify and make in any way transparent to citizens.
Will you be calling for jurisdictions to call on their voters to decide if “such technology…best serves” them? Or will the DRE-inclined Elections Officials be making that call?
I believe we all know the answer.
And yet, I’ll take you at your word, since you include “so long as the machines are fully verifiable and auditable”. If you truly believe that, then you will immediate call for a ban on un-verifiable and un-auditable DRE voting systems (that includes those with or without a so-called “paper trail”) and join me in the call for the use instead of non-tabulating electronic touch-screen ballot marking devices, which create a truly “VERIFIABLE AND AUDITABLE” paper ballot for every vote cast, as needed for disabilities voters only.
Many disability rights and civil rights advocates believe that the accessibility touch-screen machines offer is critical and they would oppose a ban on such machines.
With DREs conflated into “electronic voting” and now into “accessible touch-screen machines”, you play the disability and civil rights card to suggest that those groups need DREs, when what they actually need (disability groups anyway) are accessible touch-screen machines — electronic ballot marking devices — and NOT dangerous, unverifiable DRE systems.
Again, while I understand some who don’t know the technology as well as you all do making that mistake, it’s simply
inexcusable
for you guys to conflate the need for accessible touch-screen machines, with the wholly unneeded use of unverifiable DRE systems.
Further, you fail to point out that a number of civil rights and disabilities groups have called for a “an immediate ban” on the use of DRE systems, including Lida Rodriguez-Taseff of the powerful and well-respected Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition.
Q: Doesn’t the Holt Bill make the EAC a permanent fixture?
A: No. The EAC was created by HAVA (the Help America Vote Act), and that Act did not make the EAC temporary. The Holt Bill does not change the status of the EAC at all, except to LIMIT its discretion by establishing explicit statutory standards that it, and all jurisdictions, MUST follow.
And now I become incredibly concerned about what you all seem willing to do and/or say in order to see this bill get passed.
As you well know, HAVA, which created the EAC, only funded it through 2005. As currently written, the Holt bill will make funding for the EAC permanent, under federal law for the first time.
Yes, it adds some limited oversight to their operation, but how you can suggest that “The Holt Bill does not change the status of the EAC at all” is a remarkable statement which only further serves to suggest you are not acting in good faith in your public support of this bill.
PLEASE change this (and so many other points in your FAQ) to at least give an honest representation of the bill to your readers so they can decide, for themselves, what this bill really does and doesn’t do.
Q: Does the Holt Bill allow a loophole for some states to conduct electronic recounts of the computer records, rather than recounts using the paper ballots or paper trails?
A: Absolutely not. The bill is explicit that ONLY voter verified paper ballots may be used in any and all recounts, as well as audits.
Absolutely wrong. Though I’ve discussed this with David, and others at PFAW, your intepretation of the language in question in the Holt bill here is not accurate. The language in question, as part of the section on how audits must be carried out under the Holt bill’s federal mandate is quite direct, as follows:
SEC. 327. EXCEPTION FOR ELECTIONS SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC RECOUNT UNDER STATE LAW.
This subtitle does not apply to any election for which a recount is required automatically under State law because of the margin of victory between the two candidates receiving the largest number of votes in the election. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to waive the application of any other provision of this Act to any election (including the ballot verification and audit capacity requirements of section 301(a)(2)).
In other words, in a case where the election is close enough that a state-mandated automatic recount is triggered, the audit provisions in Holt bill may be completely ignored. Even though ballot “verification” and “audit capacity requirements” must not be. That means no hand count of the paper records is required in such a case, as per Holt, only that the ability to audit the paper trails (as per section 301(a)(2) which requires a permanent paper record be produced) be followed.
Therefore, in states such as mine in California, where a mandated recount does not actually require a hand-count of the paper trails in the closest races — where a hand-count is arguably the most needed — no such hand-count is required by Holt.
Last week, a race in Orange County, CA was decided by just 3 votes when the judge in the election contest determined that paper absentee-ballots had to be recounted by hand, but for the Election Day votes cast on DREs with “paper trails”, the only thing that needed to occur was pushing the button again on the DRE to get the same printout report they received on Election Day. Nothing currently in the Holt bill would keep that from happening in California, even on federal races.
Again, you are misleading your members, readers, supporters and the public at large in the above Q&A.
Finally, you have not only misstated my position, but also, apparently, that of VoteTrustUSA’s concerning the Holt Bill in your last Q&A where you say:
Q: Who are the Holt bill’s supporters?
The Holt bill has attracted broad and growing support from voter advocates, civil rights, and progressive organizations. In addition to People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation, supporters include … Vote Trust USA … and others.
As has been explained to me directly, on several occassions, by VoteTrustUSA Executive Director Joan Krawitz, VoteTrustUSA as any organization cannot endorse any bill or initiative without the agreement of it’s member organizations who are currently split on whether or not to support the Holt Bill.
I realize that VT’s Policy Director Warren Stewart has been lobbying on Capitol Hill and in Congressional testimony in favor of Holt, and that it would seem to be in contradiction with Joan’s several “on the record” statements, but it would seem appropriate to check in with Joan to determine if, in fact, VT has officially decided to endorse the Holt Bill. It is my understanding that they have not, have not posted any such endorsement statement, and the record should be clarified to that extent.
Again, while I insist that you clarify my personal position in your published statement on your FAQ page, along with a responsible explanation of what you had published previously and why the change is being made, it would similarly be the right thing to do to modify all of the material mentioned above — with notated corrections/explanations — so that the American public can be correctly informed on this debate over comprehensive election reform.
On that point, I certain agree with PFAW and it’s Executive Director, Ralph Neas who said recently on Air America, that “comprehensive election reform is the top legislative priority facing the country right now.”
As I have made clear before, I take no joy in challenging you guys publicly on these points. I believe the work that PFAW does for this country, in general, is absolutely vital, and almost always positive. On this matter, however, you guys are not only wholly and dangerously wrong, in my opinion and those of many computer scientists, Election Integrity advocates, disabilities and civil rights groups, but far worse, are now misleading members of Congress, your own members, and most disturbingly, the American voting public about what is actually at stake in this debate.
Thank you for your immediate and appropriate attention to these matters.
Respectfully,
Brad Friedman
Creator/Managing-Editor, BradBlog.com
Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us
Pee Phaaw…
Thanks Brad, for your continuing efforts. IMO Joyce needs to come clean and quick – if Warren is lobbying in favor of Holt, it seems to me that Joyce must be in approval. I’ve never seen her post otherwise.
The Holt bill as currently written is a disaster for democracy. All it does is legitimize a bad situation, and those who support it are either seriously deluded, or else phony activists like the con artists at DU.
You know I’m right…David Allen’s recent lying crap against Steve Heller (David didn’t even donate a penny towards Steve’s battle with Diebold) proved once and for that there are well-organized fakes at DU and other places…fakes who all have one key thing in common – they all support DREs.
So while Holt’s bill is clearly a threat to democracy, it sure has made it difficult for the fakes to continue to fool others.
John
SENT TO PFAW
FROM: Bruce C. Funk
23yr Election Official
Ph. # XXX-XXX-XXXX
RE: HR811 and HR1381
Dear Sir’s,
There is a great deal of incorrect information in your website articles concerning HR811 and HR1381.
I have used the optical scan voting system since 1996. As the Election Director in Emery County I was the first in Utah to use an optical system. As an election official who has extensively studied all systems as a result of HAVA, I found and recommended to county governing officials that Emery County, Utah stay with the ES&S optical system now in place and purchase the ES&S “AutoMark” for disabled voters to use to mark the same ballot. I sat through public hearings where it was confirmed by disability orginizations that their preference is the AutoMark. Evidently PFAW doesn’t appear to me to have the background to make the recommendation to stay with DRE’s.
I know there has been a great effort to pass legislation that would assure voting integrity to the American voter. I believe that the rush to pass HR811 and HR1381 has numerous problems and will ultimately fall short in restoring any voter confidence.
I was the 23 year veteran election official in Utah who was forced to go with Diebold DRE’s I further asked for an independent security investigation after finding serious memory shortage, preloaded “other” languages, and prior elections on supposedly “NEW” Touch-Screen Voting machines received from Diebold. From the investigation it was found that there were intentional security holes, at three different levels, built into the software. There was the ability to do numerous other operations such as initiating programs that may reside or be placed on the machines without knowledge to local election officials. Such programs can manipuate votes. There are no secure logs on the machines, and so in addition, votes can even be added prior to elections. The list goes on!
For my efforts and questioning these machines, I was locked out of my office by the state after 23 years.
I feel at this time passage of HR811 and HR1381 would be a very poor fix, as well as very costly to the American Taxpayer. There must be a physical paper ballot in a true Democracy
Sincerely,
Bruce C. Funk
Emery County, Utah
As staff reporter for The Coastal Post, I was one of the first reporters to articulate the problems of the electronic voting machinery (Apr 2004, November 2004, December 2004, January 2005)
The only way that our electoral process can be fair and transparent is with a PAPER BALLOT! Period. Good enough for Canada, Ireland. And now at least nine states are newly mandating that PAPER BALLOTS be the only ballots. Although not as glamourous as electronic machines, they have a security feature that electronic voting will never have – to corrupt the voters’ intention, the marks on paper ballots must be changed one by one.
Please pay attention to what Brad is saying. And offer an apology to him as well.
Carol Dagg Sterritt
People For the American Way:
Do your job.
SENT TO PFAW:
==========================
DON’T BE SWEPT AWAY BY PASSIONATE HOPE THAT HOLT IS GOOD FOR US
Please consider the following words:
> According to Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections, “Congress got it wrong when it passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and there is a high probability that HR 811 in its current form could create another form of expensive mischief that could interfere with efficient administration of elections.” [2]
There is still time to back away from your strong support of a bill that is far from what we really do need.
We have just last night legislatively gotten rid of Touchscreen voting machines in Maryland after a four year battle with the powers that be. Those diabolical machines provide the tool for a malignant administration to retain power, leaving us all helpless.
Brad Friedman has been right in all other aspects of voting reform. He is right about this one.
The failure of the majority of Dems in Congress all these years to stand on principle and to do their jobs to protect us from the enemy within our borders, the Neocon movement, has weakened this nation and put our future in jeopardy. Compromise after compromise only strengthened them. Compromise only works when both sides have reasonable demands.
Please don’t blindly push for a synthetic improvement. We cannot ever compromise on the basics of secure voting.
Arlene Montemarano
Silver Spring, Maryland
“elections are a key component of our national security.”
It would appear, to one who trusts neither side of the aisle, as if they were flip sides of the same coin, both compromised by corporate interests, that the Democrats would favor limited election reform that doesn’t correct the base underlying issue of auditable elections, because, now that the ball is in their court, the DNC can concentrate on gaming elections in their favor.
Just like election finance reform, no matter who’s pushing it, REAL reform never happens.
We can force their hands by keeping this issue public, just as you have done, and we can take our country back from the corporate interests, ON BOTH SIDES, that are so severely corrupting our democracy.
To quote Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry:
Meet the new boss, he’s the same as the old boss….
Election integrity is the only way to see that the cycle of corruption ends.
They STINK!
I wonder what corporare interest is slipping dinero under the table to PeeFAW, I could probably take a stab at it
Why does HR 811 not require a paper ballot?:
(link to bill, emphasis added).
Do we have a personality cult war ongoing here, or a bona fide discussion of the text of the bill?
The floor debates will flush a lot of this out. I suggest that everyone bone up on exegesis and hermeneutics … (science of text interpretation).
Carol #4 … with all due respect:
The electronic voting machine (EVM) watchdogs twenty years ago were saying what has been said recently (1988 Article).
You can shock the hell out of the EVM audience with these quotes from a 1988 official report:
(NIST Report 1988, bold added).
No one mentioned that twenty years is enough to have more than “suggested rules” which are admittedly inadequate … which election war lords are ignoring anyway.
And who asked why one person certifies the machines no matter how many ITA companies claim to do the certification? Or who sets the standards of the lone ranger doing the testing (The Lone Tester)?
But nevertheless keep up the work that has been going on for 40 years now. (some of the data in the link goes back to 1964).
Before PFAW read the arguments it rebuts on its FAQ page, there was a chance the leadership there had simply failed to read and understand the Holt bill. But they must have read the arguments, because they are responding to them. So, it’s become difficult to see how their intentions are not deceitful. For example:
1) PFAW says: “The bill requires ALL systems in use for 2008 to provide paper ballots of record.”
But the truth is this: the bill does not require those paper ballots to be counted.
Analogy: I say, “I’m going to give you a check for a thousand dollars, but you aren’t allowed to cash it “” ever.” PFAW neglects to tell you that you can’t ever cash it.
2) PFAW says: “The Holt Bill does not change the status of the EAC at all, except to LIMIT its discretion by establishing explicit statutory standards that it, and all jurisdictions, MUST follow.”
But the truth is this: HR811: “SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.” removes the limit on funding for the EAC. HAVA authorizes it for “each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005”. HR811 changes that to “each fiscal year beginning with 2003.”
Analogy: Black is white.
3) PFAW says: “Does the Holt Bill eliminate secret ballots for military voters? No. It further protects those ballots, by expressly requiring that any system put in place for military and overseas voters “preserve the privacy of the voter.” “
But the truth is this: PFAW stopped the quote before the “except“ clause. HR811 gives the EAC the authority [yes, it extends the authority of the EAC] to establish protocols for military and overseas voting that ALLOW THE USE OF THE INTERNET. The specific wording in HR 811 is “preserve the privacy of the voter and are consistent with the requirements of such Act and this Act, [here comes the clause PFAW omitted] except that to the extent that such protocols permit the use of electronic mail in the delivery or submission of such ballots, paragraph (11) [if you flip ahead to paragraph 11, you’ll see that it prohibits Internet connections to devices used for ballot casting] shall not apply with respect to the delivery or submission of the ballots.”
Analogy: I say “I don’t beat my dog unless I feel like it.” PFAW quotes me as saying “I don’t beat my dog.”
I think what Brad is trying to say Dredd, is that they’re trying to call that crummy paper tape under the plastic window on the DRE machine a ballot, now we don’t want that, do we ?
How about a simple ‘no electronic balloting allowed’ section put in there (Holt) ?
No computers at all for vote counting? No faxing ballots from a war zone? No emergency emailed ballots to servicemembers? No electronic delivery? How about the mail? How secure is that in the end? Is that just faith that they aren’t changing the ballot? I’m just asking.
In response to Dredd (Comment #10):
From a technical perspective it is much easier and less expensive for a machine to keep an internal electronic tally of the votes rather than printing and then scanning the paper. So anyone designing an integrated election system that keeps an electronic tally is going to maintain the electronic counts independently of the paper ones unless they’re explicitly required to do something else.
Thus, barring something extraordinary such as auditing, the primary tally is going to be made from ‘electronic ballots’ so the paper trail is an ignored side effect.
Dear People for the American Way Leadership:
The Holt Bill does not restore verifiable elections. It needs several amendments to do so. Please do not support any partial fix of the election system because we might not get another chance to do it right before the corrupt Republican leaders steal control of Congress in 2008.
As a leader in the legal contest by Christine Jennings, one of the four Congressional elections being contested in Florida, you are certainly aware of the fact that election results have been manipulated, and you should realize that the Holt bill has several problems which should be addressed before it is passed. In case you need a refresher on these problems, see: https://bradblog.com/?p=4383 https://bradblog.com/?p=4125 (on the foregoing site also read the comments by Paul Lehto) and http://www.democraticundergroun...03×466821
Please listen to your legal staff and to those of us who are working to preserve our democracy, and please use your power to help pass a bill that will restore verifiable elections. Also, please remember that if our leaders do not have to worry about being elected, they are not accountable to the people and advocacy organizations, like yours, no longer have a reason to exist!
Thank you for your reconsideration of your position on the Holt bill.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Adams, Esquire JD/MBA
Attorney for Clint Curtis, John Russell, and Frank Gonzalez
Congressional Election Contestants
P.S. Please submit your comments on this fundamental issue to People for the American Way at pfaw@pfaw.org and pass this along to your email contacts.
Also, for more information on the election contests by my clients see:
Clint Curtis’ Feb. 23, 2007 Interview about evidence of election fraud at http://blip.tv/file/161866/
Brad Blog’s March 4, 2007 Interview of Clint Curtis at https://bradblog.com/?p=4220
Video Link to Speeches by John Russell and Mark Adams at St. Petersburg peace rally on March 17, 2007 ““ Topics Why we are still at war when the vast majority of Americans are against it and what you can do about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG5krR3jbhs
Video Link to Mark Adams speaking about why election reform is needed at Voting System Reform Rally in Tallahassee, Florida on March 21, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrNxSzw_qvI
http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com http://www.clintcurtis.com and http://www.bradblog.com/?page_id=3980
More on H.R. 811:
I’m sure that this will be dismissed as a technicality, but Section 2.(a)(2)(A)(iii):
Is impossible – for example, in a single-voter scenario.
I also expect this bit
To be slashed up badly.
Another nigh-impossible one is:
`(10) PROHIBITION OF USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES IN VOTING SYSTEMS- No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, remote, wide area, or concealed communication device at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B05wPomCjEY
(And let’s not get started on headphones or speakers.)
So does Mark A. Adams, Esquire win the half million dollar reward for information about election fraud and manipulation in the November 7th mid-term elections?
By the way, IIRC California automatically audits 1% of the precincts, so the loophole shouldn’t apply automatically here.
I don’t know why, but it also amuses me that, because of the Electoral College, this clause doesn’t actually apply to presidential elections. (In the general election part of presidential elections, votes are cast for parties or electors, rather than candidates.)
Fortunately, I have a friend in Sen. Feinstein’s office. I sent him an urgent email that he forwarded to her Chief of Staff in DC. If you check with your friends and co-workers, etc. you’ll probably find someone who is within the “six degrees of separation” who knows someone who works for a Congressperson or knows the Congressperson. Use those contacts to get in touch with the Congressperson personally to alert them to the flaws with the Holt bill. Strategic, targeted, personal messages to Congress are the most effective tool in our arsenal! Let’s find them and use them!
I misspoke up above…I meant to say “Joan,” not “Joyce.”
Dredd (#10) asked:
Others touched on a response to this. I’ll add to it as well briefly.
The above translates to: The voter shall be allowed to verify the paper “ballot” before it is NOT USED in the tabulation of that persons vote.
It’s a clever bit of deceitful sleight of hand. If you’re still unclear on that, see the graphic below:
Source: http://www.votersunite.org/info...HR811orNot.asp
Heh, Not to be partisan or anything :), but where’s the green arrow leaving the memory card heading to Tennessee and the RNC ?
Floridiot #13; Noname #16; Brad #23 (concerning the meaning of “a paper ballot” as depicted in the bill)
Now we are into the realm of the courts (the judicial branch). We are interpreting the language of a statute.
And in so doing we are using our degree of expertise in statutory construction. How well versed are we in statutory construction (interpretation)?
Both or all sides of an interpretation issue are always convinced of their interpretation of text, (e.g. the 450 denominational interpretations of bible text), koran text, and just about any other text. (Ever heard of a contract lawsuit where the issue was what does the contract say?)
The first rule of statutory construction (interpretation) is: if the text is unambiguous (has only one clear meaning) then its normal and natural meaning in english will be what the law is (the plain text rule).
Another rule is: if the text is ambiguous in one part of the text, see if any other portion of the text of the statute removes that ambiguity. This is reading the text in pari materia (in the context of the other text of the statute).
If not yet clear, use one of the final rules: if after resorting to the rules above, an ambiguity still remains, look at all the congressional records concerning the bill to see what the congress members said while taking testimony in committee and later while debating the bill on the floor.
Also look to any other documents utilized in the process. This is called determining what congress intended to say/mean when they inadvertently created the ambiguity.
These rules show that it is very neophyte and immature to demand a meaning without first demonstrating that the text is capable of more than one meaning.
A good place to begin any mature discussion is resort only to the text of the bill, not what John Doe, Bill Smithe, or Sally McMalloy says it says.
In my opinion a paper ballot, of the type I quoted in my post #10 and which Brad did not re-quote completely, is not anything other than a paper ballot.
I said (quoting the bill’s text):
(See post #10 above, emphasis on what Brad left out in his reply to me).
I can’t see how it can reasonably be argued that a paper ballot in the text of the bill is not a paper ballot of the historical sort that can be hand counted after the machines have counted it if need be.
But I know better than not to be open minded on textual interpretation. So what do you think?
Responding again to Dredd, who says:
Sure, someone can find the money and go to the courts and try to get a judge to agree that a “paper ballot” means something that is actually tabulated in an election. But, as of now, there is NO WAY that the Holt bill could be interpreted to mean that those paper records he refers to as “ballots” must actually be tabulated in the course of an election.
Counting a portion of them, possibly, well after Election Day doesn’t cut it. Just look to Bush v. Gore, Jennings v. Buchanan or Busby v. Bilbray to see that the announced “loser” has a usually insurmountable prejudice against them in any challenge. Even if they can come up with the money to mount such a challenge and even if they received more votes than the announced “winner”.
We’ve got to get it right on Election Night. Period.
Tabulating the actual hand-marked paper ballots of the voters that night (or the machine marked paper ballots of disabled voters where needed) is the best way to ensure the actual intent of the voters will see the light of day.
Nothing in Holt currently requires that. Period.
Brad said (correctly):
“We’ve got to get it right on Election Night. Period.”
And that’s because many decades of programming have gone into making the American consumer think of voting as just another consumer chore… Get in. Get it done. Get out. Go home and immediately hear the results… and otherwise don’t think about the process too much. “We’ll take care of it for you”.
I hope this thread hits the eyes of the thick skulls at Holts office and PFAW, very plain to see IMO…
Now what would be wrong if you used the ballot scanner (ex #1, Brads graphic above) to create a preliminary tally of the votes on election night as an ‘un-official’ total to present to the public
Then have ALL the paper ballots counted before announcing the ‘official’ results, including the absentee and over-sea ones. (it might take a couple of days, who cares)
With a number assigned to your ballot they could even post the number on-line and you could go and see if your ballot was registered
Seems so simple to me… somebody doesn’t want all the votes counted for some reason, that’s why all the obfuscation, IMO
…let me add a few reasons why they don’t want all the votes counted…
AEI, GE, IRI, AIPAC, (you get the drift)
Brad #26 (“Counting a portion of them … doesn’t cut it” … who said it did?)
What about the clause:
(See post #10 for link).
It seems to me that under HR 811 “a paper ballot” is, among other things, something that must be counted.
Yes/No?
Dredd: the bill makes a lot of noise about “paper ballots”… and it’s just that: noise.
So what you’re harping on is the noise in the bill.
While the bill does some good things these loopholes, the loopholes people keep pointing out to you, turn it into “Feel-Good” legislation aimed at placating the EI community without pissing off the election officials and their EVM vendors too much.
That’s because the bill contains deliberately-placed loopholes that allow paper ballots to be easily ignored if it should turn out that actually counting the paper ballots is inconvenient for election officials.
Yes, this bill has has turned into “Feel-Good” legislation. Legislation that says it does something about paper ballots and yet only pays lip-service to the actual idea itself and contains loopholes that deliberately allow paper ballots to be ignored.
Why did it turn out this way?
Obviously because passing a bill that requires that the actual ballots be counted without loopholes, without the escape clauses would be “problematic”… i.e. too much trouble for somebody.
I think Holt is so wrapped up in this vision, and his role as “election saviour”, that he thinks that the compromises he felt he had to make to “get a bill that would pass” are now engraved in stone… even though the compromises are now unneeded, based on wrong premises, and causing insoluble problems for the bill.
…
This “I warned you this would happen with this bill” moment has been brought to you by the zapkitty.
Dredd:
The stuff after the bold text is a list of example of things allowed (but not necessarily required) by this clause of HR 811, so only the text before it can be considered a requirement. Ergo, there is no requirement under HR 811 to count all of the paper records.
(This part of the bill would IMHO be better if “inspection and verification” were replaced with “inspection, verification, and modification”)
N.B. Although I’m unconvinced that the requirements in HR 811 are sufficient to provide for it, I do believe that sample auditing can be a robust method for process testing.
Hey Brad, if we just all declare you the winner and throw a big party for you, would that end this. We could drink champagne and put up huge signs that say “Yay! Brad.”
Would that be enough to please your ego?
Maybe we can get a mayor somewhere to declare Brad Friedman day? That would be “Brad-alicious.”
All hale Brad!
Yo, Egomaniac… why is PFAW evading the valid issues that many election integrity advocates besides Brad have with the bill and why does PFAW refuse to give straight answers to the many questions raised by the language of the bill?
Why the endless “RAH RAH RAH “HOLT II”!” from PFAW… and echoing silence from PFAW on the very real and easily demonstrated problems with the bill?
And now… why is PFAW engaging in deceptive tactics to promote a bill that, as it is currently written, has fatal flaws and- despite PFAW’s propaganda- does not guarantee that actual paper ballots will ever be counted in any given election?
Why?
Mr. Friedman,
I read both your version of the FAQ you refer to and PFAW’s. You’ve conveniently edited out the most important part of PFAW’s point, in which they say you are in disagreement with them about several issues on the Holt Bill.
It’s one thing to call PFAW deceitful and quite another to engage in the practice yourself. You owe your readers more than that.
… Larry Sakin said (for some odd reason)…
“You’ve conveniently edited out the most important part of PFAW’s point, in which they say you are in disagreement with them about several issues on the Holt Bill.”
Hmm?… no.
More disingenuousity from PFAW is all that’s left out of Brad’s quote… the following text lies bewteen Brad’s quoted text and the first hint that they might not be speaking for Brad.
“The basic principle is the same””every American citizen should be able to exercise his or her right to vote””and that right shouldn’t be taken away because a machine fails. That’s what we’re all fighting for in the best way we know how.”
and then the first hint that they might be speaking only for themselves…
“And it’s PFAW’s and others’ judgment that the Holt bill is a strong first step in that direction.”
And only then
“Now there are some areas of disagreement within our community about specific policy questions”””
But wait!… even then PFAW never gives even the slightest hint that Brad Friedman (and many others) do not believe that DRE “paper trails” are any damn good.
So, Mt. Sakin, why are you making lame excuses for PFAW’s deception?
And by the way, not only does “Holt II” not protect the secret ballot of military voters… it doesn’t even address the fact that the secret ballot has already been lost in some areas thanks to e-voting….
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums...tml?1176351393
Egomaniac:
I’m dreaming about…
The biggest ticker tape parade that New York has ever seen. Since you’re using a fake name, you’re not invited.
Psst!… real names are overrated… 🙂
the_zapkitty:
Hey, Ive got it and I’m flaunting it! 🙂
But I did learn how to smile from you. 🙂
Sorry I haven’t been able to check back on this thread for a while. Since both Egomaniac and Larry Sakin have both been adequately answered to by ZapKitty (thank you, Zap) I’ll just reply to each of them quickly to say….
To Egomaniac – Yes, Brad Friedman Day sounds swell! Thanks for the suggestions! It’d be a great chance for me to let folks know again how PFAW is misleading their members and the American public about the most important legislative agenda our country faces today (to quote from Ralph), and that they are using my name, incorrectly describing my position, to promote their agenda in one of the most bald-faced dishonest statements I’ve ever seen from a group which I’d come to expect far better from.
To Larry Sakin – ZapKitty hit most points, but I’ll note that I both linked to PFAW’s statement (which they didn’t bother to do when they described my position, incorrectly), so I’ll run that specifically for you again, since you must have missed it on your own:
To be specific about what PFAW is wrong about in describing my position:
1) We agree we don’t need another Sarasota-like election. We disagree that Holt has mandates to disallow such an election from happening in 2008 (and beyond).
2) We agre that paperless voting must end. We disagree that a “paper trail” for “audits and recounts” is the solution.
Dredd (#30) –
There are no mistakes in the wording of the bill. It is also very artfully done (and often shamefully so, to decieve). Look again at the graf you quoted:
What about the clause:
Note that the “voter’s vote is cast and counted”, but not the “individual voter-verified paper ballot of the voter’s vote”.
In other words, you may verify the “paper ballot” of your vote, and then hit the button to both cast and count the vote (internally, in the DRE). The “paper ballot” then is not counted.
However, in the case of a “paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand…or op scanner” that would be counted.
The later ref to a “paper ballot produced by a touch screen” does not include “for the purpose of being counted”.
That language was quite deliberate. As I was in on the drafting of this bill, sending suggestions for needed changes to the language with each new draft, it was quite clear which of my suggestions they included and didn’t include. They specifically did NOT include any language I suggested to them that would have required ALL “paper ballots” actually be tabulated.
In several other sections they reference “the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit”
They say that a notice must be posted to that effect in the polling place. With every draft, I would tell them that needed to be amended to something like:
“the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for all tabulations, recounts and audits”
They specifically refused to include the requirement for the “paper ballot” to be used for anything but recounts and audits. Time and again.
Hope that helps clarify (though if Holt passes, by all means, don’t let me stop you from going to court and trying to get a judge to agree with you! 🙂 )