This amendment would be one deck chair being moved on the Titanic. If the permanent EAC provision remains in, with four people appointed by and reporting only to the president, the bill needs to die. And I don't hear any discussion of that.

I oppose raising hopes that one deck chair will be moved and therefore we avoid the iceberg. Either they remove the permanent EAC provision, or the bill must die. We CANNOT compromise on this. Just MHO.

After making several calls to encourage that amendment to HR 811 be permitted and specifically an amendment from Susan Davis regarding DREs I found out that it will not go to the floor today. If it goes to the floor this week then the most likely day would be Friday. I will continue to make additional calls. It was interesting that Congressman Hoyers office said that I was the only call they had received opposing HR811 as it presently stands. All of the other calls they received were supporting it.

EVERYBODY CALL HOYERS OFFICE AND MAKE YOUR POSITION KNOWN.
STENY HOYER (D-MD)
Phone: (202) 225-4131
Fax: (202) 225-4300

Late update. Congresswoman Slaughters office said that the majority of the calls they have been receiving were supporting adding an amendment to outlaw DREs. Keep them coming!

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER (NY) - CHAIRWOMAN
http://www.louise.house....&id=39&Itemid=84
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822

BRAVOI, BRAVO, BRAVO.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT...

NO AMERICAN SHOULD FEEL THAT THEIR VOTE COUNTS AND IS COUNTED FOR THE CANDIDATE VOTED FOR AS LONG AS IT'S DONE ON AN ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE. AN ELECTRONIC COUNTING MACHINE.IS USEFUL, BUT ONLY IF THERE ARE PAPER BALLOTS THAT ACN BE RECOUINTED BY HAND.

Congressman McGoverns office said that it is being discovered this afternoon and could go to the floor as early as tomorrow.

I just spoke to someone at Davis's DC office. He seemed surprised that they are getting calls about this, that people know it's possible she'll introduce an amendment. I told him that Committee members would be getting calls and he seemed to think that was useful. (So don't make a liar out of me--CALL!)

He said that even though Davis isn't on the Rules Committee, she (or her staff, not sure) is talking to members of the Rules Comm. about making it so that such an amendment could be considered on the House floor.

Toll-Free Numbers for Capitol Hill Switchboard (ask for any Member):

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (866) 220 - 0044
1 (877) 851 - 6437

That's one big deck chair LIB. So when I make my calls what is the best comment to make as to the EAC. An EI friend of mine who does a lot of lobbying has made the point to me that having the voting rights issues under one roof actually makes it easier to oversee, which makes sense to me. But, I don't want presidential appointees (foxes) guarding the hen house. Any ideas anyone as to what constructive statement could be made about the EAC while making my ban DRE calls?

I disagree with LeftIsBest in this case. A ban and/or restriction on use of DREs across the nation, akin to Bowen's restrictions, would finally get the Titanic turning around and heading at least in the right direction!

If this bill must pass, it would be nice if it was as good as possible! Such a ban/restriction would be a huge improvement over the current bill!

PLEASE make noise right NOW. It's VERY important!

I'm sorry to be so lame, but I want to get this straight before making calls.

I'm calling to ask them to support Congresswoman Susan Davis' amendment to HR 811 --Rush Holt's Election Reform Bill --- that will either ban or restrict the use of Direct Recording Electronic voting systems.

Is that good?

D'oh! I see it right in Brad's post.

The names and numbers of members of the House Rules Committee and House Leadership are posted below. We ask you to call and politely urge members to allow for Susan Davis's DRE Amendment to Holt's HR 811 Election Reform Bill. And please pass on this information to others!

Sorry. :/

My dialing finger is tired but happy to have registered my opinion with these offices. I got the same info. regarding it's not being heard until Friday, but more likely next week. Also heard they are receiving lots of calls!

Duly passed on to like-minded, thinking people!

Thanks for all your hard work Brad & Co.!

... Ancient said...

"An EI friend of mine who does a lot of lobbying has made the point to me that having the voting rights issues under one roof actually makes it easier to oversee, which makes sense to me. But, I don't want presidential appointees (foxes) guarding the hen house."

Take the problem back to its roots... The EAC was originally an outright power grab for control over e-voting (and therefore all voting, as the HAVA team saw it) and that's why it was blessed with a Bush signing statement saying the agency would be whatever he said it would be...

(... which said agency turned out to be partisan and corrupt surprisingly enough... )

... and that innate power base is why politicians of all stripes refuse to let the damn thing be sunsetted out of existence as it was originally designed to be.

The EAC does nothing that existing federal agencies don't already cover... and the existing agencies don't hand the keys to the kingdom over to the White House.

The EAC as a regulatory agency, as a growing federal bureaucracy as mandated by both Holt and Feinstein, is another disaster waiting to happen... and the only possible way to keep that disaster at bay and to keep the EAC is to keep the EAC broke and with no executive or regulatory powers. Or, in other words, keep it as the purely advisory committee it was originally purported to be and leave the regulatory powers to older agencies that might have a chance of knowing what they are doing and might have a chance of resisting partisan politics.

The EAC currently can do neither, and lodging this corrupt and incompetent fledgling bureaucratic empire at the heart of our democratic process will be asking for disaster yet again... and we will get that disaster yet again.

This will never happen. The Dems and Repubs enjoy fixing elections (especially with that danger Ron Paul around). Rigged elections, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Bluntly speaking...

Phony election activists that have been trying to shove this piece of crap bill down our throats, really have no choice but to publicly support an amendment against DREs.

To do otherwise, would be like uncloaking themselves for the world to see who they really are. Since they must maintain their illusion, above all else, of course they'll come out and support it...on the surface.

But beneath the surface, these fakes will do everything they can to stop a ban on DREs.

Do not be fooled.

I contacted everyone on the list asking them to personally take the time to read SoS Bowen's report which is accessible on the bradblog.com, and in light of the report to support Congresswoman Davis's amendment. Everyone I spoke with was polite except one woman who hung up on me in Congressman Hastings office, and believe me I was on my best behavior. There was no excuse for hanging up. I did call back though and spoke with someone different who said she would pass my message along!

... John Dean said on 9/5/2007 @ 1:15 pm PT...
That wouldn't be PFA(IPACian)W, now would it?

WOW!! i got an email about this from one of the voting groups i am a member of @ 9AM and faxed everyone on the list + called my own reps to make SURE i damn well had EVERYONE covered! i dropped by here to encourage everone i could find to contact ALL of them + their own reps, can't hurt to alert anyone in DC that we would like to have our democracy back NOW! GREAT to hear their of LOTS of us who are on it! WOO HOO!!!

Thank you Zap, I too think the EAC is dangerous. (Just trying to be fair and balanced in reporting on others views) So when talking to the congress critter aides one could also make the comment, "Please allow the EAC to be sunsetted as originally intended...(your own reasons)."

OH! i forgot, the email i received was from Ellen Theisen the Co-Director of "Voters Unite dot Org." So they support amendment HR811 too! Just thought i'd pass that on

VotersUnite does NOT support HR811, Patti.

They, however, like me, support such a ban/restrictions on DREs.

If the bill must pass, let's at least try to make it as good as it can be!

Gardammy! We might just pull one off! Brad, I am seriously going to put you and Bev Harris up for a Congressional Medal of Honor when this is done. This is the best news I've heard in months!

I've called everyone on the list (except Pelosi), and they've all been reasonably receptive. Correction: I only called one of the Republican's, the one from FL, and the person there said "Oh, you have to talk to the Majority members about this, they control everything..." (?!) Kinda of a wimpy response, but go figure...

BUT, I called Susan Davis's office, as well, and as of 4:50 pm (Eastern), she HAS submitted her amendment, and it will include a restriction of DRE's to only early voting, and only one unit per precinct (roughly along the lines of Debra Bowen's decision) Hopefully it will also include the full manual count provision, as well. This is great! Keep calling! Somebody post at Daily Kos, and everywhere else you can think of! I think we are FINALLY getting through!

Good thing the bears left Brad alone...

Mac Hathaway

P.S. If you get a chance, Draft AL Gore.... : )
DraftGoreNE.com

Hey,

Has anybody contacted Kucinich's offices about presenting an amendment that would take care of the EAC problem?

I haven't been thinking about it specifically, but what would a "fix" look like regarding the EAC section of the legislation?

Mac
DraftGoreNE.com

re: Patty 20, Brad 21

VotersUnite believes that the Holt bill, in its present form, does more harm than good. Therefore, as Brad says, we do not support the bill.

Would we endorse it with this amendment? I'm not sure. We will have to do some soul searching. And that would depend on the exact wording of this amendment, which, to my knowledge was not even written as of this morning. We do not endorse (or oppose) things until we have read them fully and carefully.

The Holt bill has two fatal flaws: (1) it gives priority to corporate interest, at the expense of transparent elections, and (2) it expands the scope and the authority of the EAC, shifting control of elections away from States.

While some have claimed we overstate this point, it must be said that Rep. Holt himself has stated that federal control of elections is exactly what he "prefers" in a recent town hall meeting.

These two "fatal flaws" remain in the bill, with or without DRE's. However, a ban on DRE voting is a good first step toward addressing one of these two issues, because it would signal that corporate interest is finally being asked to sit in the back, so to speak.

Like Brad, we recognize that the opportunity to debate such an amendment would be valuable. So we do encourage the Rules Committee and House leadership to permit it.

Thank you Brad.

Bob Bancroft #24,

re "Rep. Holt himself has stated that federal control of elections is exactly what he "prefers" in a recent town hall meeting."

Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? Aren't elections SUPPOSED to belong to states? If the federales step in and take control of what was previously a job of each state, isn't that something that could be reasonably contested? Like what's going on in some states with public schools right now?

re "The Holt bill has two fatal flaws: (1) it gives priority to corporate interest, at the expense of transparent elections, and (2) it expands the scope and the authority of the EAC, shifting control of elections away from States."

In my humble opinion, I think these two points need to be driven home with our legislators. (1) The only way to get at this flaw is to publically broadcast how much money each legislator has accepted from lobbyists representing electronic voting machine companies' interests. Where can I find this information? Not just for my own rep, but for the whole lot, so I can do a comparison and contrast and use it in letters. (2) It would be great to have an accounting of all examples showing aspects of the EAC that are undesirable and/or antithetical to democratic elections. The only example I ran across was fairly recently when the EAC announced hearings for a problem in Florida at the last possible moment, hearings that were to be held in Washington D.C. on such short notice as to give utterly inadequate time for any Floridians to respond effectively. I passed that example on to my rep when I heard about it, but it sure would be great to have a more complete accounting for us letter-writers.

Ahem. In my not humble and very pissed-off opinion, federal control of elections is outright FASCISM. We're experiencing an agonizingly incremental slide into unabashed FASCISM. If my fellow citizens don't rise up and stop it pretty soon, we won't have to worry about me being hauled off to the bin because I will have been hauled off to the morgue after dying of a brain explosion.

Somebody quote me please.

As Agent 99 said, "Ahem."

Linda #26-

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

"Do you think that would hold up in a court of law? Aren't elections SUPPOSED to belong to states? If the federales step in and take control of what was previously a job of each state, isn't that something that could be reasonably contested? Like what's going on in some states with public schools right now?"

The short answer is yes, absolutely, elections are supposed to belong to States. That is what our framers wisely established for us. Congress has intervened in the past only when doing so was necessary to protect the right to vote. From that perspective, HAVA (2002) was unprecedented.

Could someone contest this issue? Sure, they can try. And if it goes far enough, it will be for the Supreme Court to determine, not a chance I would be comfortable taking, personally.

"In my humble opinion, I think these two points need to be driven home with our legislators."

Please, help us do so! Call your local congressfolk, and tell them that you cannot support a bill that (1) trades transparency for corporate interest or (2) surrenders to the EAC that which constitutionally belongs to states.

Hmmm...

Agent 99 #27, I agree with you, but if you write a letter like that to a congressional rep, it'll get thrown into the loony bin. In my humble opinion, keep your hand to yourself, especially when dealing with bureaucrats. Just play the cards you have to in order to get to your next move.

Bob Bancroft #30, thanks for responding meaningfully and productively. So what are some more examples of the overstepping/misstepping of the EAC to pass on to my rep, besides the one I already know about?

Well, maybe you could just tell them your friend 99 is about to expire from the fascistitude of this bill and you just don't want her head to explode....

Bureaucracts really like it when you are enlisting their help to save some person or situation. You just very respectfully approach them with this problem of 99's exploding head, and, just to impress you with their power, they will suddenly turn this whole mess around.

[I know. I know. I'm losing my grip. I should be better in the morning. Pavarotti has just died and I'm at the end of my wits for today.... ]

Agent 99 #27

Good point. It is also illegal if not done properly. I discuss the matter on the contest of the latest of this bill, here.

The "state rights" issue, which you seem to be coming from, is a valid constitutional principle, and it does bear upon the subject at hand. Yes, just how much can congress tell the states how to run elections?

Thank you for bringing the issue up as I have also done.

One thousand hats off to John Dean- Thanks for getting it- This bill must die- rearranging the deck chairs is criminal- The bill does not address the source code and/or central tabulator- Kill the Bill!! CB