Text of "Count Every Vote Act" Hillary Clinton/John Kerry/Barbara Boxer

[Eric J in MN]

/Frank Lautenberg bill is here:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf

It's supposed to require voter-verified paper ballots; bring Election Day Registration to all fifty states; make Election Day a holiday; and more.

If you're good at reading legislation, please read it, and post in this thread if you find any loopholes.

[mermaid]

1. I Dunno. I Riffled Thru It And It Looks Pretty Solid

but there a great big gaping loophole with regards to not having to follow certain provisions of the Act, in the event of unforseen events such as natural disaster or terrorist attack.

I don't put it past the Repukes to arrange for a terrorist attack on us to get around certain aspects of the Act...and I don't put it past them to even direct the attack to occur in an area where more blue-state folks live and vote.

I really don't put it past them! these lying, cheating, scoundrel Republicans have shown, time and again, that the rules are for other people, and that they are perfectly willing to engage in smashmouth politics, outright lies and deceit, cheating, and any other method necessary to ensure they get to stay in power. I don't expect that to change anytime soon....unless KKKarl finally up and croaks on us (oh, God how I WISH....)

[Eric J in MN]

2. If there is a hurricane in Florida a couple of months before an election,

will they still be required to have voter-verified paper ballots there?

[Wilms]

3. Only if BFEE can cause a hurricane election night. n/t

[marions ghost]

4. uses the words

"paper record" instead of "paper ballot"--seems very much like Holt Bill on that.

WIll have to read in full to compare the two.

[LeahD]

5. Electoral Reform Experts....please give us

your opinions.

[marions ghost]

6. KICK

[garybeck]

7. I'M SORRY TO SAY, there is a huge loophole in this bill

**everything in this post is under a disclaimer. I have just started going through the bill but I wanted to post my personal initial reaction.

this bill is not going to solve our problem.

in a nutshell

the whole key to election reform has to do with the difference between a paper ballot and a paper record.

Clinton's bill (and all the other bills) only call for a paper record, NOT a paper ballot.

big deal, what's the difference, right?

there's a huge difference.

The paper records that the bills call for are only used in case there's a recount or an audit.

That means the paper record in most likelihood will never be used for anything. It is only a "backup."

The actual vote was sent electronically by the computer.

And what is there in place to ensure that the vote the computer sent matches the vote on the paper?

NOTHING.

Pretend this bill passes and becomes a law. Pretend you're the owner diabolical electronic voting machine company, wishing to rig an election.

Before the bill, you simply took the vote that the person cast on the computer and changed it.

Now you have to deal with this "paper record" thing.

No you don't.

All you have to do is print the paper record to match what the voter voted on, and then still send your changed vote off to the system electronically.

Again, there is nothing in place to ensure that the vote on the paper matches the vote that the computer submitted.

Any person who has taken an introductory course in computer programming could write a program to do that. Print one thing, do another.

The best way around this is to use the paper to actually cast the vote, not just sit there in case of a recount. We all know, recounts are rare. Candidates don't want to be called a sore loser and have been known to concede to preserve their image.

Bottom line is, try to get the first count right.

Bottom line is, this bill still allows for DRE electronic voting machines, which are the real problem.

If you're not going to count the paper, then the next best thing is to AUDIT the system and have manual checks to basically compare the paper to the electronic votes and make sure that the totals match.

Clinton's bill mentiones audits, but it doesn't appear to MANDATE them. It just says the paper is used "if there is an audit". If they are only theoretical audits, they're not much to me. So we fall back on the recount, which must be initiated by the candidate.

The only bill that calls for mandatory audits is Holt's. His bill calls for a 2% manual random audit. I am still not sure how I feel about 2%, if that would be enough to detect fraud.

So while Clinton's bill seems to be more thorough in covering other things that are wrong with our system, Holt's bill is still the best on electronic voting.

I will give the Clinton bill credit for good wording on the open source code, made "available to any citizen." But I am concerned that the code could be changed after it is made "open". I don't know how this could be prevented.

I'm not going to comment on the other points of the bill, because I haven't read them. I'm always drawn to the electronic voting part first.

Gary

[Wilms]

8. Great post. Great Points.

We need a legal beagle on this ballot/record terminology, but not having at least Mandatory Random Audits that are effective means we have gained little, if anything.

Bills do morph. But I must report, a panelist at the Santa Monica/LA "Teach-In" felt all bills were doomed.

Interesting, too. Most of the things we want would probably be just fine with conservatives, even Freepers.

[garybeck]

12. my mistake on the audits

as Bill points out on page 11 there is a requirement for MMRA (mandatory, manual, random audits).

but this still leaves us with 98% of our votes being cast on DRE machines. not good. any good thief could figure a way around a 2% audit.

gary

[Bill Bored]

9. Not all true Gary.

Clinton calls for the same 2% audits as Holt's bill, or something very close to it. See Pg. 11.

Also, OpScans would be grandfathered by allowing the voter to handle the paper record of any machines approved before 2006. DREs do not seem to be mandatory.

The bill goes into effect Nov. 1, 2006 which is also good.

Also no-excuse absentee voting would allow us ALL to vote on paper if we want to, so they better get this machine thing right! Otherwise it's legal for EVERYONE to deluge the bastards with absentee ballots under this bill!

I think there are a few questions, but it looks pretty good. It will take more time to go through it all in detail though, especially the parts about the blind and disabled.

There's no bill that specifically outlaws DREs or touch screens -- not even Ensign's which says "voter-verified paper ballot."

We MUST get a lawyer to clear up this language difficulty though because it's damn confusing to anyone reading these threads! I.e., WTF is the difference between a VVPB and a VVPR used for audits and recounts?

[Wilms]

10. I'd love for them to outlaw DRE's.

But what about Touch Screens Ballot Markers??

It helps some disabled, illiterates, and some BoE's that conduct elections in a lot of languages. So some are screaming for a screen.

If we could pry the DRE off of it (or MMRA, X%, et al), are comfortable with it??

If we can live with that, it may make it easier to sell our story.

Keep in mind. Some BoE's DON'T want electronic because they don't trust or understand or need them. That's great! I hope they use paper. And I hope they aren't forced otherwise. HAVA doesn't force it.

But I feel I want to cut LA County some slack. 30+ languages. (Don't want to say it too loud but I bet the multi-lingual cities is where we want to get voters.) If we can just get the paper out of the machine, I wonder if that is workable.

I, too, share concerns that the voter will fail to examine, that the audit's will fail to uncover actual fraud, etc.

Last thought. I wonder if calling for super-duper non DRE TS Ballot Markers machines with all the bells, etc., will LIMIT deployment to minimums required and free the rest of us to vote with paper.

Or am I dreaming?

[garybeck]

11. Bill, you're right about the audit, but..

I wish they would all get their terminology straight though.

there's a difference between an audit and a recount. what they describe on page 11 looks like an audit to me, not a recount. (that's why I didn't find it or mention it in my post, I was scanning the doc for references to "audit").

However I'm not sure we want to entrust the EAC to administer the audit? I'd rather see the bill stipulate the rules about the audit instead.

I still have problems with 98% of our votes never being checked, and a wide open hole for the companies to print one vote and cast another. I don't know how/where Holt and now Clinton came up with 2% audit as the final guardian of our democracy.

I'm willing to compromise and allow opticscan with open source code, but I will not give up the need for a PAPER BALLOT that is actually counted in the first count. Otherwise prepare for Jeb Bush, 8 more years.

[garybeck]

13. Bill, where do you see that Ensign calls for a paper ballot

I just read the whole thing. Maybe I need another cup of coffee, but it seems to be virtually the same as Clinton's bill. It only calls for a paper record, not a paper ballot.

This is the URL I was reading:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2437:

I also didn't find anything on mandatory audits.

`(iv) The individual permanent paper records produced under clause (i) shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.'.


please let me know if you have other information that suggests the Ensign bill calls for paper ballots or mandatory audits. At the time it came out Ensign looked OK. Now i'd say that Holt and Clinton are better because at least they have a mandatory audit.

still not good enough.

[Bill Bored]

14. Ensign, etc.

VIVA 2005 says:

`(i) permit the voter to verify the accuracy of their ballot (in a private and independent manner), by allowing the voter to review an individual paper version of the voter's ballot before the voter's ballot is cast and counted;'

So OK, it's a paper _version_ of the ballot. But as you know Andy loves this bill and he's the champion of the "VVPB" term. You are correct that there are no audit requirements in this bill. But the paper will be used for any audits or recounts.

I don't know where the 2% comes from exactly. And is it 2% of machines, precincts, jurisdictions, or what in each of these bills? They all say it must be random and/or unannounced.

Why not ask Michelle Mulder from Holt's staff about the 2%?

In NY, we have bills requiring audits of 3% of "machines" in each jurisdiction, similar to the Ohio law which was violated in the recount, except that this would be mandatory and not a recount and hopefully would NOT be violated!

AFAIK, all these bills consider the paper record to be the ballot of record in any recounts, which means you have to recount using the paper. I see your point about using the paper for the first count though. If not, it would have to be left to the audit to uncover any fraud, and none of these bills says WHAT TO DO if the audit doesn't match the machine count. That does suck.

Remember audits are conducted at govt. expense but recounts may have to be paid for by candidates, depending on state laws.

As a compromise, I'd suggest AT LEAST doubling the size of the audit at govt. expense, each time any discrepancy is found. If errors keep cropping up, they pay for a 100% hand count! If not, then it's up to the candidate whether or not to pay for additional audits or recounts. If you start with 2% or 3%, you immediately go to a minimum of 6% or 9% respectively if so much as one vote does not match. And this is govt. funded and not even a recount, which could be 100% of course. But NONE of the bills I've seen have any language about what to do in case an error is found in the initial audit. This is left up to BOEs or the EAC or whoever. I'm not happy with that.

[FogerRox]

15. We all know how the RANDOm 3% recount went in Ohio.

Hava needs to be taken out--seems this is the only true way.
Short of that- VIVA might be doable in the current enviroment.

[garybeck]

16. Andy's support of Ensign was before Holt's (and Clintons) was released

I can't speak for Andy, but I'd guess that he's changed his opinion of the bills, since these others came out, as have the folks at Verified Voting. They used to praise Ensign all the way, now it's Holt they love. Tomorrow I'm guessing they'll endorse Clinton's too.

But it should be noted that Ensign's bill does NOT call for a paper ballot OR a mandatory audit. Unless I"m missing something, it allows for the proliferation of DREs, but only requires that they produce a paper record to be used for recounts and audits, IF there is a recount or audit. That's not enough to bring democracy back to our country.

I think most people will agree that Holt and Clinton are the best now, because they are the only ones that have MMRA (mandatory manual random audits).

they still are not a paper ballot, and the 2% audit worries me.

I think that in addition to the MMRA (hopefully at a higher percentage but i'm starting to doubt we'll get more than 2%, cripes!) it would be great to allow the candidates to hand pick a certain number of precincts, without engaging a full official recount, to be audited. These precincts would not be known or selected until after the first count.

So, if a candidate had concerns or questions about a certain place, they could initiate a small audit without freaking out the public and engaging a full recount. something like what happened in NH I guess.

Just a pipe dream I guess.

[Bill Bored]

17. Cherry picking.

I agree that would be nice.

The good news is that precinct-level OpScans are not prohibited in these bills and if you POST all the totals at each precinct, We (The People!) could easily total them up and detect any central tabulator fraud. It would be a simple matter to establish public websites for each state to post this data, outside of BOE or SOS control. Not very expensive either. The key is to have precinct-level posting of all results.

This could even be done with DREs, although the DRE results could be fraudulent. At least it could rule out fraud perpetrated on the tabulators.

[garybeck]

18. I think the biggest problem is DREs

as you say, the optical scanners, which are problematic now, can be made more secure and open.

DREs on the other hand are a problem that can't be fixed. That's why I'm sticking to my guns on this paper ballot vs. paper record thing. I'm not happy with only 2% of our votes really being counted.

None of the legislation bans, or even discourages, DREs. If 98% of our votes are on DREs, I fear the Bush/Rove dynasty will continue.

[Bill Bored]

19. I'm working on a letter to Holt's staff.

I'm getting tired of not seeing as much security as possible in these bills. H.R. 550 is supposed to be the Gold Standard, but it has some holes too. Hre's one:

The bill says that "No component of any voting device upon which votes
are cast shall be connected to the Internet." No votes are cast on the
central tabulaotrs, but they are certainly counted therein. Presumably
the tabulators can therefore be exposed to Internet hacking under this
law. Not a good idea.

I hope to get the letter out today and will post on its own thread. My own congressman says he's a co-sponsor of this bill, but I can't find his name on the list! He wrote me a pretty good non-form-letter response though which took forever, but at least he seems to have some interest. I'd be willing to meet with him at some point if it would help.

[garybeck]

20. I still say the biggest hole is no paper ballot and 98% DRE

I just don't understand why all the e-voting critics, who are supposedly on our side, are getting in line to support Holt's bill (and call it the "gold" standard).

98% DRE = one more stolen election

[Bill Bored]

21. Actually, it could be 100% DRE

but they all will have voter-verified paper records (ballots??????????????) and only 2% will be audited.

I'm not sure given the way Diebold OpScans work with GEMS, that OpScans are any more secure than DREs with VVPBs. They would be cheaper though and that should be an inducement. The key to all this is in the MMRAs and WHAT TO DO when discrepancies are found!

My letter is done. I think I'll send it and then post it. If anyone wants to make changes, they can send their own! That way they'll get MORE mail and the more the better!

I was off line for a while yesterday due to a DSL problem, and had a chance to think. The good news is that since Jan 6, there really has been a lot of proposed legislation aimed at improving the electoral process. I think we should just keep the pressure so something good will actually get passed.

What we need in the end are less-close elections too! I think most of these bills, except possibly Dodd's, will make it harder to rig elections. That is a good thing. Let's see what's actually passed by the Rpukes in Congress!

We should keep the pressure on. Vote-counting laws should be less-partisan and perhaps easier to get passed (but we have to keep pushing on all fronts). And if the Repukes don't cooperate, we have to make a big stink about that! Ensuring the integrity of the count should not even be debatable! There should be attack ads about this stuff if it doesn't pass!