Brad, are they that blind or is they PNAC operatives ?

Amazing. A "call to arms" based on... nothing. A call to attack others at will with zero discussion of the actual issues involved.

And the most amazing part of it is, of course , the election integrity advocates who have been so blinded by the blatant misuse of EI buzzwords in HR 811 that they fail to understand that in some areas the bill literally does the exact opposite of what Holt and company claims it does.

But I think the pro-811 folks made a serious mistake in asking people to post comments in response to criticisms of the bill on the web... because the bill that 811 has mutated into isn't a bill that can withstand scrutiny and discussion by people aware of its severe flaws.

The probable result of this tactic will be to cause even more people concerned with election reform to question HR 811... which will be a good thing of course because discussion of the issues is what is needed, not blind faith in faithless blandishments.

Only deluded fools think torturing and twisting is okay because someone higher up told you it was.

Great point about stirring up real discussion ZapKitty!

The great English military strategist B.H. Liddell Hart, analyzing hundreds of battles throughout history, concluded that the most effective strategy is the indirect--threatening the enemy's vital resources by attacking a second target away from the primary battlefield. The recent revelations about the Republicans' phony voter suppression efforts represent a powerful, indirect attack against the forces seeking to continue and institutionalize the use of DREs. The personal vitriol that the supporters of H.R. 811 have unleashed, and their expressed fears that time for this legislation is running out, may be a sign of desperation that the fight in Congress is not going their way.

Why is HR 811 bad?

1. For over 200 years, a ballot has always been something that a voter marks their choices on. HR 811 will change that...it decrees that a stupid piece of paper that comes out of a DRE is "a ballot." Unlike real ballots, which people mark themselves and can tell are correct, these phony ballots (aka VVPATs) might not really represent what the voter chose, because...

2. DREs can cheat! DREs can be hacked. DREs flip votes. DREs can come up with whatever results a bad person wants them to come up with, regardless of what voters wanted. DREs must die now! Not 2010 like HR 811 calls for, but now! Any honest person with a brain knows that "they" could easily pass another bill and extend DREs well past 2010.

3. The audit provisions are a joke! They only kick in if the tabulated vote count is real close, and then they only require a small percentage of precincts to be audited. If you controlled a DRE, and could make it count however you wanted it to count, all you would have to do is make the "winner" win by a large enough margin, so that the weak audit provisions would never kick in.

In my next post, we'll take a closer look at some of the folks who are doing everything they can to pass this rotten bill.

It's unfortunate to see this. I think the vote reform movement is poised to make progress, but that progress can be shattered by this combative mentality. Those who are fans of the "get it while its hot" approach should stop, have a read over S.1487, and see exactly what kind of legislation we could wind up with if we are not methodical and patient in our approach.

Having said that, I can fully appreciate the position of someone who, after careful weighing of pro's and con's, concludes that supporting H.R.811 is the right course of action at this time. My personal opinion is that it is a workable solution in need of amendment before I will support it. Let's not stop the debate and turn on eachother like a pack of rabid dogs, eh?

Just to be clear: there are indeed two sides in this battle. On the one side are the politicians. On the other side, you'll find us, all of us. It would be absolutely foolish to think that your fellow citizen, fighting, like you are, for our right to vote, is an enemy by any standard.

John Dean -

For accuracy sake...DREs are not banned by 2010. If you've been given that impression, it likely comes from Holt supporters who'd like you to have that impression.

DREs, under Holt's provisions, can be used in 2008 as long as they have a paper trail, and in 2010 as long as they have the vaguely described "durable" paper trails by then.

As to you comments on Audits, Holt's bill does provide for audits in most cases (all but landslides), but an audit of a DRE paper trail is meaningless, as the Brennan Center and others have shown because a) Paper trails can be hacked to match the hacked machine count and b) Two-thirds of voters don't check their paper trails, or if they do, they fail to notice that a vote has been flipped on it.

Well, I guess I've been fooled even more than I thought! I could of swore there were folks out there saying that HR 811 would ban DREs in 2010.

Pardon the diversion...but doesn't HCPB look reasonable by comparison?

Speaking of Joyce McCloy, check out this ridiculous bill she helped get passed in North Carolina.

Not only does it legitimize DREs instead of try to get rid of them, but it has no specific audit provisions!

I bet ES&S is real proud of her it.

John Dean said -

Well, I guess I've been fooled even more than I thought! I could of swore there were folks out there saying that HR 811 would ban DREs in 2010.

Yes, despite my multiple, and polite, attempts at correcting them, Holt supporters (one in particular) has been quite loud in putting that piece of disinfo out there for quite a while. Sigh...

It's only slightly worse than the misleading "Holt will ban paperless electronic voting machines!" (See this article for the unpacking of that particular bit of propaganda.)

And John,

The initial version of HR 811 closely matched your audit scenario. but the current version passed out of committee instituted some of Kathy Dopp's audit provisions...

... which are quite a bit better than the do-nothing provisions in the original version of the bill but are not the magic cure-all that Dopp thinks they are...

.... and Dopp then promptly signed on to the pro-811 bandwagon while completely disregarding the fact that the revised bill also does such things as making the running of federal elections in the U.S. a proprietary trade secret of whatever corporation wants to get in on the corporate gravy train that this bill officially makes of federal elections.

Again: U.S. elections officially become a proprietary trade secret under the revised HR 811. No meaningful disclosure of any e-voting related source code is ever allowed under 811. Any one member of the priveleged few allowed even a glimpse of such source code is placed under a legislated gag order... "for the life of the trade secret".

Dopp also ignores the fact that the revised bill makes the corrupt, partisan, scandal-plagued and Executive-branch appointed (and originally supposedly only temporary) Election Assistance Commision a permanently funded federal bureaucracy in charge of running same said electoral gravy train for the corporations.

And there's even more problems with the bill...

HR 811 needs fixing... badly. Or it needs to be scrapped if the bill's authors continue to refuse to repair the errors in the legislation.

That once-responsive Congressional aide to Representative Holt, Michelle Mulder, is also the once-responsive Congressional aide who used to take our phone calls about Florida 13 but then, one day, just quit being "responsive." It's a pattern that has repeated itself in Congressional office after Congressional office.

So here we are now seven months after the election and we are still no closer to a proper investigation into the massive allegations of machine failure (one where Congress actually tests the machines) or a resolution of the almost certainly improper outcome.

And people wonder why the approval rating for the Congress is lower than the approval rating for President Bush.

From: Katherine
To: Joyce
Date: 6/18/2007 11:30:01 PM
Subject: helping support HR811
Joyce,
Brad Friedman is trying to eliminate unverifiable elections by banning DREs.
You are enabling unverifiable elections by enabling DREs.
I am really sorry you can't see the difference, but that's not Brad's fault.
k

From: Joyce
To: Katherine
Date: Jun 18, 2007, at 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: "...would result in TN counties moving to ..optical scan." RE: helping support HR811
Katherine;
Brad can always get legislation for a DRE ban, can't he? He helped write HR 811, he says.
He is well funded, I am not, so surely he is greatly empowered to take action in the direction that he favors. Brad accepts donations through his website and isn't he also funded through Velvet Revolution?

My state DID get a law passed, even though I don't accept or solicit donations. I began working on this issue officially January 2004. I have always done this for nothing, and have often worked beyond 40 hour weeks. We couldn't get a DRE ban either, but we worked hard and 76 of 100 counties chose optical scan.

If HR 811 doesn't pass, it affects the paperless states and the states with no audits.
It only affects my state in that we are affected by the electoral votes of those paperless states.

Have you spoken to your congressman about banning DREs, or to your state legislature, or your county BOE?
If someone can out lobby the chief proponents of DRES, the County Commissioners and the Election officials, more power to them.

Apparently Tennessee officials believe that HR 811 would require them to switch to optical scan.
They just purchased alot of paperless DREs in the past year or so, so they would be the first of states to have to switch equipment before Nov 08 according to HR 811.

Legislation may turn into local election officials' 'worst nightmare'
Kingsport Times News, TN - 19 hours ago
If approved, the Holt Bill (House Resolution 811, or HR 811) could require every voting precinct in America to provide a "voter verifiable paper trail ...
"On March 29, 2007, counties were sent an advisory about pending legislation and the purchase of certified voting equipment," Thompson wrote. " This memo is an update to this situation. The federal legislation (the Holt Bill) has moved out of committee in the U.S. House. Election officials across the state and nation worked hard to amend that bill, but our efforts were not successful. The legislative process is ongoing. The state election office is not issuing any more grant money to any counties until the legislative issues surrounding the voting systems are resolved. This applies to all counties whether or not you previously spent all your allocated voting machine money. Although I can't stop counties from spending local tax dollars to purchase currently certified Direct Record Electronic Machines, I advise you not to purchase any equipment with county money until the legislative issues are resolved. It appears likely that Congress will pass a bill requiring voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) in some form.
"This almost certainly would result in Tennessee counties moving to precinct-based optical scan. "Obviously, even if this requirement does not become effective until 2010, any further purchase of DREs would be a certain waste of county resources."

Regards;
Joyce McCloy
Founder, NC Coalition for Verified Voting
336-794-1240
jmc27106@earthlink.net
www.ncvoter.net

From: Katherine
To: Joyce
Date: June 19, 2007 12:10:00 AM PDT
Subject: Re: "...would result in TN counties moving to ..optical scan." RE: helping support HR811

Joyce,
First, where did you get the idea that Brad is "well-funded" LOL!
And no, he can't get legislation for a DRE ban all by himself, especially with all the disinformation being spread about the Holt bill, giving the false impression that DRE voting can somehow be made "verifiable," which, because of its inherent methodology, it cannot.
If he were "greatly empowered to take action in the direction that he favors" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I live in Oregon, where we vote on paper, but I've called my congressman so often they call me "The Voting Lady." He's been hoodwinked by the spin around 811 and won't even consider not supporting it.

I'm not sure what your point is with the Tennessee article: that a side-effect of the Holt bill will be temporary uncertainty about DRE requirements and therefore some places will go with op-scan?

What you don't seem to understand is that the long-term consequences of the bill is to install DREs as a permanent part of our election infrastructure! When we could push, in this political climate, if we all worked *together*, to get rid of them forever!
k

Brad,
Just read update about the email address brouhaha.
Feel free to redact in my post...

Which Holt 811? There are two. The original is better than the second one. Who is causing electronic voting machine law to go downhill?

Both sides of this argument offer inconsistencies, canards, and talk past each other. Like for forty years now.

I agree that while Holt many have wanted to ban paperless voting (no more votes recorded within the machines only) and mandate paper ballots, he did not get there.

Unless and until we can see the source code, and unless and until there are audits of every election by law, done at random precincts, scientifically selected like exit polls, then Holt is not worthy.

This could be done by a single amendment requiring audits by the audit committes which the law does set up.

But as it now stands, the law makes paper ballots the controlling count source when there is a discrepancy between the paper ballots and the machine tally.

But it only applies in cases where the vote count is a tiny one or two percent between first and second place.

That percentage should be incleased, and there should be a random audit of 10% of scientifically selected precincts (undisclosed before the election as to which ones will be audited) in each and every federal election.

That way the paper ballots mandated by Holt will be counted in an exit poll scientific manner.

The confusion on both sides of the issue is because one side will not admit (denies) that Holt does in fact mandate paper ballots, while the other side will not admit (denies) that Holt would never have those paper ballots counted unless the election is razor close and there is a discrepancy between the machine tally and the hand count of the paper ballots.

Both sides are wrong and self righteous.

Brad, you said:

" ... the Republican dominated House and Senate in Florida, of all places, were able to ban such machines once and for all. Go figure."

I did go figure and came to the conclusion that the way you construct this sentence is deceptive to the context ... which is federal law (Holt, both versions, as well as S. 559 the Senate version, are federal bills aimed at becoming federal law).

The Florida state legislature can pass no law that makes illegal anything, including DRE's in federal elections. In other words Florida is the same as all other states regarding federal election laws.

The US Congress, which is federal, is supreme over state legislatures when it comes to voting laws in federal elections.

So when you included that statement in the way you did, it ended up being misleading to some folks.

Brad, you also said:

"Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails" (VVPATs) mandated by the bill

I have pointed out ad nauseum and you have ignored ad nauseum that the term "paper trail" does not appear anywhere in the text of either Holt version. Or the Senate version. It is a myth.

At the same time I pointed out that "paper ballot" appears 39 times in the original, and 36 times in the amended marked up version.

Brad, you also said that some EI movement folk take a position that:

a DRE ban could not pass in a Democratic Congress

I agree that this is a baseless assertion, and also a canard.

What is less likely than that to pass is open source code, audits of a percentage of precincts in each election comparing machine tallies to hand counted paper ballots, and the outlawing of the Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell syndrome set out in S. 559 (but not included in either Holt version).

Brad, you also indicated:

Inquiries seeking information on an official date for such a floor vote, sent by The BRAD BLOG to Holt's once-responsive legislative aide working on the legislation, have not been answered.

I warned long ago that a "this bill is all fucked up" approach would not be persuasive. If the congressional staff is now no longer responding to you that is not a good sign. It does not indicate that progress is being made.

Deja vu all over again a la Dugger 20 years ago?

Democracy is nearly dead in America. I suggest anyone interested in Election Integrity read Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse". The anti-democratic DREs are just the tip of the iceberg. HR-811 is fatally flawed and will only promote a false sense of confidence. Real election reform would be completely paper based (with safeguards- as paper-based systems can be manipulated too), with automatic recounts anywhere exit polls don't match the votes.

My various criticisms of the EI movement, for example, here, here, here, here, here, and here, are proving not only to be verbose ... but to be cogent.

One Phd. Physist admits to having opposed Dr. Holt, Phd. without ever having read the bill:

It turns out that Rush Holt, the sponsor of the HR 811, and Vernon Ehlers, the ranking Republican on the Committee on House Administration, which recently reported HR 811 to the Committee of the Whole House, are also Ph.D. research physicists (actually the only two in Congress). (By further coincidence, [Early in my career as a research physicist] I used to collaborate with scientists at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory back when Dr. Holt was its Assistant Director.)
...
I find myself to be one ... who, up until a few days ago, vehemently opposed Congressman Holt’s bill without actually reading it.

(David Griscom, Phd., emphasis added). I have pointed out that both sides of the argument have folks who have never read the bills.

When they post here, and they still do, it is obvious to me they have not read the bills.

Poor Dredd. He wants the "Holt Bill" we were promised... not the bill we actually got.

But what can one do about political bait-and-switch?

All we can do is try to repair what is repairable and reject what is clearly unacceptable.

My friend Dredd (and I do consider him to a friend) is just wrong in his assessments above. On several counts. I've got to hit the road, so pardon if this is done very quickly. His comments in itals:

The confusion on both sides of the issue is because one side will not admit (denies) that Holt does in fact mandate paper ballots, while the other side will not admit (denies) that Holt would never have those paper ballots counted unless the election is razor close and there is a discrepancy between the machine tally and the hand count of the paper ballots.

Both sides are wrong and self righteous.

While the Holt bill uses the word "paper ballot" again and again, simply calling them ballots does not make them so. Unless you believe that something that is not actually counted in an election is actually a "ballot". The Holt offices "find and replace" of the text in their version from last year (HR 550) resulted in nonsensical phrases like "a paper ballot of the voter's vote". Huh? That came when they replaced the word "record" with "ballot" to try and appease folks like you and me.

The audits, as currently written btw, actually kick in whether races are razor close or not. The problem, however, is that they will be auditing "ballots" that we have no way of knowing if they have been actually verified as accurate by the voter. 2/3rds of voters, in a recent Rice U. study failed to notice vote flips on their DRE review screens, so why, the studies author asks, would anyone believe they'd notice such flips on a piece of paper afterwards that they can't even touch and is written in smaller type than the flips on the screen in front of their face.

The result: A flipped election which no audit would ever catch because the results on the "paper ballot" has also been flipped.

Other misconceptions by Dredd:

The Florida state legislature can pass no law that makes illegal anything, including DRE's in federal elections. In other words Florida is the same as all other states regarding federal election laws.

Not so. You've got it exactly backwards. FL can mandate anything they want for elections held in FL. If the Feds override their laws with a Federal law, so be it. But if FL chooses to ban DREs in FL (as they have) for all races, there is nothing in the Holt bill that would change that.

So when you included that statement in the way you did, it ended up being misleading to some folks.

I respectfully, but wholeheartedly, disagree.

As to the good David Griscom's interpretation of the bill, I have spoken with him (via email) and respectfully disagree with him as well. PhD or not, he's wrong, in my opinion, about the bill, on a number of points. Among them, his apparent misunderstanding that DRE elections can be stolen on both machine and paper trail so that no audit in the world would ever catch it.

Oh, and there's the bit about it being impossible for any voter to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted on a DRE, as required by HAVA. It simply can't be done. Thus, such paper trails (you are welcome to call them "paper ballots" if you wish, even though they aren't) can therefore never be verified as accurate either before or after they are cast. Period.

Brad

P.S. There is only one Holt bill that will be sent to the Floor to vote on. That's the one that was voted out of committee which has been greatly watered down and made even worse than the original in a number of ways. The correct version of the bill is linked at the top of http://www.Bradblog.com/Holt

Brad:

“The problem, however, is that they will be auditing "ballots" that we have no way of knowing if they have been actually verified as accurate by the voter. 2/3rds of voters, in a recent Rice U. study failed to notice vote flips on their DRE review screens, so why, the studies author asks, would anyone believe they'd notice such flips on a piece of paper afterwards that they can't even touch and is written in smaller type than the flips on the screen in front of their face.”

The Problem is much bigger than that! If the 1/3 third that did check found no problems with the “ballots” (toilet tissue) that would be a good indication that the rest were correct also so that is not really as big of a problem as you indicate. Since they have no way of knowing who is checking they almost have to get all ballots correct if they want to have any chance at all of getting all “ballots” that are “verified” correct. The big problem is that the “verification” process itself verifies absolutely nothing whatsoever. A full 100% of those who have the opportunity to pretend to verify something have no idea whatsoever if what is printed to that ”ballot” has any relation whatsoever for whatever the secret software inside the machine is secretly counting to secretly arrive at the outcome of the “election”. By no stretch of the imagination can such a process be labeled a democratic election. To believe otherwise one has to be living in fantasy land completely devoid of any reality. There is nothing real about such a democracy!

As far as noticing flipped votes is concerned. A flipped vote would never be spotted if a logical programmer wrote the program that flipped the votes. It’s just as easy to flip the vote after the paper is printed as before the paper is printed. Any logical programmer would do the any flipping after the print out was complete. If I wrote the vote flipping program you can very safely bet every penny you have that the vote would not be flipped until after you verified that your vote was correct on that toilet tissue.. Then I could very easily flip any or ALL votes (whichever I preferred) without anybody who “verified” my printout having a clue that their vote was flipped. Stealing their “democracy” would be like taking candy from a baby!

I hope Brad keeps reading this. I tried emailing him and it bounced. I live in Michigan, Naess' brother lives. He has been pushing Instant Runoff Voting for years. The conspiracy theorist in me believes that there are certain IRV proponents who see DRE's as the best way to bring their hopes to fruition. While I like the idea of IRV, I hate this senseless smokescreen to justify DREs, and hope like hell the bill doesn't pass in its current form. Still, I wonder if most opponents fully understand what MAY be the underlying motivation behind at least some of the bill's supporters. Feel free to email me, Brad, if you want more info about the IRV movement being pushed by Naess' brother.

I would appreciate any feedback on this letter from my Congresswoman:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding Congressman Rush Holt's (D-N.J.) Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your thoughts with me.

As you may know, I am an original cosponsor of the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, which would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper ballot for each vote cast and that individuals with disabilities are provided equivalent accessibility and voter verification. The bill requires voters to confirm that their paper ballots, when produced by voting machines, are accurate before leaving the voting booth. Regarding your concerns with this bill, you might be interested to know that I support several pieces of legislation that address your concerns: last Congress, for example, I cosponsored the Paper Ballot Act of 2006 to require hand-counted paper ballots for presidential elections. Additional legislation may be introduced to ensure that election-related information is made publicly available and transparent. Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to make election reform security a priority in the 110th Congress.

Again, it is good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey
Member of Congress

Brad #21 (reply one of two)

You said "Dredd ... a friend ... is just wrong in his assessments above". The trolls will have to admit that on this blog reasonable people, even friends, can disagree wisely. Good for us.

Brad takes issue with my interpretation that Holt 811 and S. 559 do mandate paper ballots, saying:

While the Holt bill uses the word "paper ballot" again and again, simply calling them ballots does not make them so.

Of course not, but that begs the question "does Holt mandate paper ballots". I went thru Holt (pre-committee version) and noted:

One of the stated purposes of HR 811 is:

"to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot"

That is 4 things:

1) voter-verified
2) permanent
3) paper
4) ballot.

The definitions, in the text of the bill, of those 4 things are:

1) voter-verified = "made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast and counted"

2) permanent = "the full duration of the retention and preservation period called for by title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1974 et seq.) or under applicable State law, whichever is longer"

3) paper = "durable paper of archival quality capable of withstanding multiple counts and recounts without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots, and capable of retaining the information marked, printed, or recorded on them"

4) ballot = "examples of ... a ballot include": (a) "a paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand or read by an optical scanner or other similar device"; (b) "a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location)"; (c) "a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device or system"; and (d) "a paper ballot produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the voter is permitted to verify the ballot in a paper form"

I think it can be fairly said that, in the clear absence of the term "paper trail", this bill is intended to focus on paper ballots to a significant degree

(Earlier Bradblog Thread).

Where is Gregp the law professor when we need him? What must be done in these scenarious is to interpret text like a federal appellate court does. They use a well settled process called "statutory construction".

I am certain as one can be that such a court will hold that real and ordinary paper ballots is plainly intended and called-for in this bill.

Brad #21 (reply 2 of 2)

You quoted me:

The Florida state legislature can pass no law that makes illegal anything, including DRE's in federal elections. In other words Florida is the same as all other states regarding federal election laws.

And you replied:

Not so. You've got it exactly backwards. FL can mandate anything they want for elections held in FL. If the Feds override their laws with a Federal law, so be it. But if FL chooses to ban DREs in FL (as they have) for all races, there is nothing in the Holt bill that would change that.

(emphasis mine). I was not in reference to Holt on that point, whether Holt mandates DRE usage or forbids DRE usage was not the point. You straw manned me.

If you had closely read my post you would have seen the point I made, which is valid, is that state legislatures cannot override federal law governing federal elections for congress or for president. Bush v Gore is an example of federal law overridding state law. There are countless others.

You also quoted me:

So when you included that statement in the way you did, it ended up being misleading to some folks.

I respectfully, but wholeheartedly, disagree.

If you remember, you were bragging that state republicans can change federal law and get rid of DRE's in federal elections. But the law is that neither republicans nor democrats in state legislatures can make any valid law which outlaws DRE's in federal elections.

Florida can do what it wants in state elections to a point (14th Amendment, etc.), but federal law passed by congress and signed by the president controls federal elections (congressional and presidential). State law cannot.

The Holt that came out of committee does not replace the original because it is an amendment. There will be a vote on the floor on both. The original is the better one by far.

I addressed your other issues here.

Be safe on the road good friend of democracy.

Correction to post #27

I said:

The Holt that came out of committee does not replace the original because it is an amendment. There will be a vote on the floor on both.

Actually they will probably vote on the amendment first. If it fails they will then have to vote on the original (filed in February 2007).

If the amendment passes, however, since it is a replacement amendment, that will end the matter in the House.

The Senate version, S. 559, will be next. If it passes then the two will have to be sent to conference committee where the two will be fused and morphed into one bill (since there are differences), which both the House and the Senate will have to vote on.

If both the House and Senate thereafter pass it the president will then either veto it or sign it into law.

It is then binding in federal elections, but states can do what they want to in their own state elections.

A 'state election' is where a candidate runs for a 'state office', e.g. from dog catcher to governor.

A 'federal election' is where a candidate runs for the US House of Representatives, US Senate, or US President.

Thus, as I said upthread, in general:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature therof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations

(US Constitution, Article I, §4, cl. 1, emphasis added). The US Supreme Court has stated that the authority to regulate the “times, places and manner” of federal elections:

embrace[s] [the] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved . . . . [Congress] has a general supervisory power over the whole subject

(Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 356; 1932).

This GAO report shows that Congress can regulate how states must perform in federal elections. And in some cases how they must perform in state elections.

State legislators, whether members of the republican or of the democratic party, cannot override the federal congress in federal election matters.

Dredd

“HAVA

SEC. 301. > VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.

(a) Requirements.--Each voting system used in an election for
Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
(1) In general.--
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
voting system (including any lever voting system,
optical scanning voting system, or direct recording
electronic system) shall--
(i) permit the voter to verify (in a private
and independent manner) the votes selected by the
voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and
counted;”

If as you claim ballot means exactly what it says does that not leave the use of any VVAPT's incompliant with the requirements of HAVA? Does not HAVA also require under (i) above that the ballot (paper trails or whatever) be cast and counted? Are most “ballots” ever cast or counted as required by HAVA above?

Bob #31

You asked "If as you claim ballot means exactly what it says ..."

Remember Bob, my purpose is to guess what the courts will say Holt says. What I say is no better than what anyone else says.

In our country it is the courts that have to peruse and perhaps "interpret" every statute that comes before them. They have been doing just that for hundreds of years.

They have developed some well-defined and time-worn techniques. I have listed many of them in my posts on this blog over time.

For instance we hear people talking about "it violates the constitution", when it is American law when it comes to statutes to never get to the constitution unless it is the only way left to deal with a statute.

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and then one enters facial and functional constitutionality. A statute can be facially constitutional, but operationally unconstitutional.

But the courts labor, as the Supreme Court has ruled, to not consider the constitutionality of any statute unless forced to by circumstances in a given case.

Back to dealing with the text of a statute. The courts first apply the "plain text rule". The text is assumed to mean what it says in normal everyday english.

But if an "ambiguity" shows up ("text that two or more reasonable people could interpret to have two or more different meanings") still there are clear interpretive techniques they resort to.

In other words, they have ways to give the ambiguity meaning in context. Rarely do they not figure it out.

It think they would have no trouble ruling that "paper ballot" means just that.

As to when, why, and how the "paper ballot" is used, however, I think would present them with a more difficult issue or set of issues.

Are the paper ballots used only when there is a discrepency between them the "non paper ballots" (i.e. electronic tallies)? And does that happen only when the election is close (within 1 or 2 percent between first and second place)?

In other words are the "paper ballots" operationally useless because they will so rarely be used?

There are a lot of problems with HAVA and Holt in terms of meaning. I have advocated that we of the movement recognized them and talk about the as ambiguities.

That approach seems better than arrogantly ursurping the authority of the courts by demanding that our interpretation is "the only true interpretation", and castigating others in the movement because they do not agree with our interpretation.

I coined a saying once: "Your method of grasping at straws is just as good as mine".

"Are the paper ballots used only when there is a discrepency between them the "non paper ballots" (i.e. electronic tallies)? And does that happen only when the election is close (within 1 or 2 percent between first and second place)?"

If the above quote is their decision then ALL of the "paper ballots" are operationally useless because they will so rarely be used and they never be used in a fraudulant election where the thief was wise enough to steal enough votes to avoid them being used?

The courts can make whatever decision they want but my verdict is already in. Those "paper ballots" are totally worthless at this point in time in this country no matter what the courts decide!