BBV: Help Needed Re: HAVA

[RedEagle]

Okay, we know that Ney, Hoyer, Dodd, and McConnel (KY?)are on the list as the prime sponsors of HAVA.

But who put it forward first? Usually, there is a prime on a bill, at least at the state level. That would be the prime sponsor, and first sponsor. Need to know where the bill originated first, the House or Senate. Then, need to know whose brainchild it was or who put the bill forward first.

Help greatly appreciated.

[punpirate]

1. I find a few articles which refer to...

... the several co-sponsors, but a couple which cite U.S. Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as the lead sponsors in the House, and the LWV site lists Senators Dodd (D-CT) and McConnell (R-KY) as the primary sponsors in the Senate.

On edit, from the articles I find, it sounds as if the bill originated in the House, so the two likely culprits are Ney, and/or Hoyer.

Keep in mind that a lot of legislators were swayed, considerably, by the comments in public hearings made by representatives of disabled groups--they could safely say that they were acting in the best interests of the disabled, even though the details of the bill might have been underhanded.

As for the who hammered out the details, you might ask someone on Marcie Kaptur's staff if they know who on Ney's or Hoyer's staff actually did the ground work on the bill.

But, given the way things have been turning for the better part of the past year, I'd put money on Ney=Ohio=Diebold. That's the obvious connection....

[hedda_foil]

2. There was heavy lobbying by ITAA starting right after Florida.

It was discussed last year in the teleconference with all the voting machine manufacturers, ITAA head and R Doug Lewis, that Bev's former publisher listened in on and transcribed. I believe the transcript is at Scoop NZ.

There is a strong possibility that the lobbying initiated the legislation.

[madfloridian]

3. Here is something.

Secretary Cox will join Secretaries of State from Kansas and Oregon on a panel of three election experts. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington. Ms. Cox will present to the committee new data from a just-completed precinct level analysis of the November 7, 2000 Presidential Election in Georgia that identifies variations in undervoting by race and equipment type. Senator McCain has introduced S. 368, which would develop voluntary standards to ensure accuracy of the voting process and authorize a federal matching grant program to assist states with the acquisition of new equipment. The legislation would also provide for a study of the impact of minority status on effective participation in the election process.

Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) is a member of the panel and is preparing legislation that would provide significant federal funding to state and local communities to support the purchase of modern voting equipment. Senator Cleland and Secretary Cox have been working together in drafting the legislation. Senator Cleland is expected to introduce his bill, which is co-sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) within the next few days.

http://www.sos.state.ga.us/pressrel/pr030501.htm

[RedEagle]

4. Good Work Everyone

I was wondering if there was a strong connection between Ney and HAVA, because now we might have a senator pushing legislation beneficial to his benefactor. Yeh, probably not uncommon but in this case, pushing unaduditable voting on the entire country.

But the post about McCain and Clelland is interesting. Wonder if the bill got away from them, or....what? Maybe this begins to explain why Clelland didn't make a fuss. And Cox's involvement at that point is really news to me, I didn't know that before. Wonder who the three election experts were.

Cox/Georgia/Diebold

Kansas/SOS?/at least some Diebold, don't know if it's the whole state

Then later:

Ney/Ohio/Diebold headquarters

Hoyer/Maryland/Diebold

Nah.......

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. Yeah...

those ties are a little too close for comfort.

If you are up call me.

[dmr]

6. Senator Schumer, too, among others

This is from a Google cache of Brownback's Senate website:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:kAzR0sF4iMUJ:brownback.senate.gov/record.cfm%3Fid%3D176112+Senator+Sam+Brownback+Max+Cleland&hl=en&start=2

SCHUMER, BROWNBACK UNVEIL BIPARTISAN BILL TO MODERNIZE NATION’S VOTING SYSTEM
Contact: Erik Hotmire
Monday, December 4, 2000


Legislation Will Fund Comprehensive FEC Study of Alterative Methods and Create $250 Million Matching Grant Program for States Upgrade Their Systems

Bill Has Support of Broad Coalition of Federal, State, Local Officials and Leading Voting Reform Advocates

Standing with a broad coalition of federal, state and local elected officials and a series of leading voting reform advocates, US Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Sam Brownback (R-KS) today introduced the Voting Study and Improvement Act of 2000, comprehensive bipartisan legislation to study and implement alternative methods of voting.

“Despite over two hundred years of elections, we vote as if we still lived in the 19th Century,” said Schumer. “When it comes to something as fundamental as the right to vote, the status quo is simply unacceptable. This bill will work because it will give states the know how and resources to upgrade their systems. And it will pass because it has the type of bipartisan support needed to break through Congressional gridlock and reach the President’s desk.”

“The 2000 Presidential election has taught us that we need to improve the instruments of voting and the means of electing our federal office holders,” said Brownback. “This is the first bipartisan attempt to provide grant money to states to implement alternate means and instruments of voting that provide swifter and more accurate results, and are less susceptible to partisan interference and difference of opinion.” On Election Day, voters across the country encountered a host of headaches, including long lines, broken ballot boxes, registration mixups, and confusion stemming from a host of archaic voting methods. The Schumer-Brownback bill will help upgrade state voting systems quickly and effectively in two steps.

First, the bill directs the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to conduct a study of alternative methods of voting to be completed no later than December 31, 2001. The FEC study, funded at $10 million, will analyze methods that currently exist – including Internet voting, vote-by-mail, computerized voting terminals, expanded voting periods – and develop new ideas. After the examining different methods, the FEC will create a blueprint that states can use to implement new voting methods.

When the FEC’s work is complete, the bill will establish a $250 million matching grant program, giving states the financial incentive to implement the new methods. Many states have experimented with alternative methods of voting in the past, but implementing new systems have often proven too expensive.

“This is not a federal mandate of election standards. We provide the means to states to implement the changes that they deem are most fitting for their needs,” said Brownback.

“Our bill doesn’t automatically select one method of voting and it doesn’t force any one specific method on the states,” said Schumer. “It gives states the expertise and the means to modernize their voting systems without leading us into a constitutional battle over whether the federal government has the right to dictate how we should vote.”

The FEC study should be complete by December 31, 2001, giving states time to begin implementing the new methods in time for the mid-term 2002 elections and offer voters a fully improved and modernized system by the 2004 Presidential election.

Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Max Cleland (D-GA); Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox; Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz; Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause; Bob O’Neil, President of the National Academy of Public Administration; Bill Slate, President of the American Arbitration Association; Eric Olson, Deputy Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy; and Barbara Bartoletti, Legislative Director (NYS) of the League of Women’s Voters joined Schumer and Brownback at a press conference to introduce the bill.

“Both rural and urban areas have unique differences not only with accessibility to voting, but in funding improvements to their voting systems,” said Brownback. “A heavily rural state like Kansas has problems with voting that are different than those faced by New York City. Our legislation will allow each state to implement the changes that are best for them.”

“In the face of declining turnout and lack of interest in the political process, we simply cannot afford to have outdated voting systems that are so cumbersome and frustrating that they discourage people from voting altogether,” said Schumer. “This bill will help make our voting systems as innovative as the people who use them.”

Edit: Clarity

[RedEagle]

7. So....Does HAVA Really Have Federal Authority?

“Our bill doesn’t automatically select one method of voting and it doesn’t force any one specific method on the states,” said Schumer. “It gives states the expertise and the means to modernize their voting systems without leading us into a constitutional battle over whether the federal government has the right to dictate how we should vote.”

This flies in the face of the so called HAVA mandate to eliminate punch cards and use DRE's for the disabled. (Which it doesn't)

I'm questionging if there is any enforceability to HAVA at all, with one HUGE CAVEAT- since I'm not a lawyer, there may be mitigating language elsewhere that mitigates this. We need experts in contract law to go over this thing and figure out what it truly says, expecially give the intent indicated in Schumer's statement above. And if Schumer is correct, why isn't he speaking up?:

Title I
Sec.101
(b) Use of Payment
(1) In General- A state shall use the funds provided under a payment made under this section to carry out ONE or MORE of the following activities:
(A) Complying with the rquirements under Title III (machine and voter registration)
(B) Improving the administration of elections for Federal office
(C) Educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights, and voting technology
....and so on through (H)

(As I read that, as a non-legal expert, it says using the funds for only ONE function is necessary, and it does not have to be the Title III stuff)

Subtitle D- Election Assistance
Part 1- Requirements Payments
Sec. 251
(d) Adoptation of Commission Guidelines and Guidance Not Required to Receive Payment- Nothing in this part may be construed to require a State to implement any of the voluntary voting system guidelines or any of the voluntary guidance adopted by the Commission with respect to any matter as a condition for receiving a requirements payment.



http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

[harmonyguy]

8. Commmittee Transcripts Mar7/01- more background w links

3/7. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to examine voting technology reform . Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC), the Chairman and Ranking Democrat on the Committee, respectively, are cosponsors of S 368, the American Voting Standards and Technology Act, which would direct the NIST to conduct a study of several voting related topics, including "any future and emerging technologies for use in elections, such as Internet voting ." Sen McCain said in his opening statement that "w e must modernize our voting machinery and improve our voting process without barraging the states and local governments with excessive rules and regulations." See also, prepared statements of witnesses:
• Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).
• Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR).
• Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
• Bill Bradbury (Secretary of State, Oregon).
• Cathy Cox (Secretary of State, Georgia).
• Ron Thornburgh (Secretary of State, Kansas).
• Wade Henderson (LCCR).
• Mary Jane O’Gara (AARP).
• Raul Yzaguirre (La Raza).

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:4nEGsMvXjHEJ:www.techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2001/03b.asp+%22March+7,+2001%22+%22commerce+committee%22+++transcript&hl=en


SEE ALSO:

JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In the wake of the mess created by dimpled, pimpled, pregnant, and hanging chads in Florida, virtually everyone in Congress seems to want to do away with the 1960s-era technology of Votomatic machines and punch-card ballots.

But there's a problem: the new technology may actually be worse.

CATHY COX, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: In Georgia, we now believe that replacing punch cards with Opti-Scan would be the electoral equivalent of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

(snip)

KARL: But Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox says that in her state, the problem of disproportionately discarded African-American ballots was actually worse in precincts with the newer technology.

(snip)
KARL: Cox said she didn't know why the newer ballots performed worse, but her revelations shocked Max Cleland, one of several senators with proposals to help states upgrade to newer technology.

SEN. MAX CLELAND (D), GEORGIA: Mr. Chairman, I might say that a lot of my preconceived notions about technology solving our problems has just been exploded today. It crashed and burned. And not only is Thomas Edison's basic lever system of voting, invented in 1900, looking better and better, but the paper ballot is looking better and better.

KARL: But after the hearing, Cleland forged ahead with his proposal to make the punch-card ballot and its hanging chads history.

CLELAND: But it's painfully obvious in testimony before our commerce committee today that the punch-card system has built-in errors in it, as does the optical-scan equipment. KARL: One option would be touch-screen technology, which is considered the most accurate. Although it's also the most expensive, and may not work at all in rural areas that don't have up-to-date digital phone lines.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KARL: The secretary of state for Kansas urged the Senate to avoid forcing states to adopt any kind of new technology. He said that for rural areas of his state and others, that the best technology remains, simply, a piece of paper and a pencil -- Judy.

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:lfBM3r7cWcwJ:cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/07/ip.00.html+%22March+7,+2001%22+%22commerce+committee%22+++transcript&hl=en

[RedEagle]

9. HAVA Does or Does not Mandate?

(Great post Harmonyguy)

In a previous post, I copied language from HAVA that seems to indicate it cannot really tell the states how to spend the money.

But when you get back to Title IV-Enforcement
Sec. 401 Actions by the Attorney General for Declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an apporpriate United States Distric Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, and 303.


I think that pertains to disabled, language, etc., requirements. But even the previous language says they cannot refuse money based on noncompliance, basically.

So what gives?