BBV: URGENT - Super Tuesday must not be repeated in November

[GregD]

NOW IS THE TIME TO ENSURE VERIFIABLE ELECTIONS IN 2004

***Please pass this on to everyone you know***

---------------------------------------------------------
Please DONATE to help pay our new PR firm, which will be publicizing your efforts to pass these bills:
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/Donate/
---------------------------------------------------------

Hundreds of voters were disenfranchised by the use of paperless electronic voting machines on Super Tuesday, March 2. They didn't get to vote for a presidential candidate. We cannot allow this to happen again in November!

Our votes must count!

Our best, and possibly only, opportunity to require a voter-verifiable paper trail everywhere in the U.S. for the November 2004 election is "The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003." The House version (H.R.
2239) was introduced in May by Rep. Rush Holt. The Senate version (S. 1980) was introduced in December by Senator Bob Graham.

VerifiedVoting.org is in the midst of a campaign to contact every Senator as many times as possible to let them know how much we care about passing this bill. We have heard that the House bill may not move until Congress becomes clear on which of the three Senate voting bills (Clinton's S.1986, Boxer's S.2045, or Graham's S.1980) is gaining the most support. It is important that GRAHAM's bill emerge as the obvious choice, or it is unlikely that we will have a paper trail by this election. The other two WILL NOT provide what we need for a verifiable election before November 2004.

ACTION:
1) Call or fax your Senators EVERY DAY until they co-sponsor GRAHAM'S bill.
Guidelines, a toll free phone number, a sample letter, and information resources are here: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/hr2239_volunteers/s1980_effort.asp

To find your Senator's name and current position (if any) on the bill, go to our home page, www.verifiedvoting.org, and select your state in the left nav bar.

2) Report the results of your call to [e-mail].

3) In order to publicize this issue and gain support from off-line citizens, please print H.R.2239/S.1980 petitions. Take them to meetings and wherever else you go, and get them filled with signatures. Then mail them to the address on the petitions. Here are the petitions:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/documents/Petition_to_Support_Bills.pdf

For more information on the voting issue or the bills, go to http://www.verifiedvoting.org.

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!!

WE MUST GET THESE BILLS PASSED IN MARCH.

THERE ARE ONLY 6 FULL DAYS IN APRIL FOR WHICH CONGRESS HAS SCHEDULED VOTES.

[BevHarris]

1. Who is your new PR firm and how much are you paying them?

I ask this because PR firms typically cost thousands, and the goal of getting this into the national consciousness (TV, major press) is already working -- My count so far, CNN has covered this 7 times, ABC twice, MSNBC once, NBC covering it tonight, Fox News twice -- all that in just 8 days time.

It is very expensive, and risky, to spread the message that HB 2239 will fix this situation, because it won't and it can't, unless other steps are taken. Yet, the American public likes things simple, and this can actually mislead.

Here are my concerns:

Voting systems must be in place in May in California in order to be used in November, and they must first be certified, are you promoting the concept realistically?

As you know, I support a voter-verified paper ballot. I am truly looking for answers as to how HB 2239 can possibly take effect in November, because to me, the timelines became impossible some weeks ago. Many states require their systems to be in place six months ahead, so what suggestions do you have to override state's rights in these issues?

It is taking 8 months to get systems certified, so how will you override certification restrictions?

I do agree that we need a paper ballot. However, optical scan systems produced some of the biggest security breaches of all, because we don't have correct procedures in place to audit.

In addition, there are no teeth behind security procedures and auditing measures. For example, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley ordered security procedures to be added -- many of them very good, very important procedures like posting the report at the polling place and comparing it with the county results, thus eliminating many attack points. He also ordered election monitors. Then 10 counties declined to comply, and even the counties who did not rebel simply failed to comply. And did anyone see any "monitors" from the Secretary of State's office?

We don't need another feel-good solution that actually solves very little. And, whatever it takes -- litigation seems most promising at this point, especially if John Kerry participates in preemptive legal efforts -- we need the auditing! Telling people they are not disenfranchised because we will get legislation for a paper ballot, when we failed to get any procedural protections in place, is not doing democracy a service.

What we do need is a meeting of the minds among groups like BlackBoxVoting.org, VerifiedVoting.org, TrueVoteMd.org, Citizens for Voting Integrity, and others and we need a much more cohesive and practical strategy that actually stands a chance to make a real difference.

HB 2239 is only a feel-good bandaid that won't be able to truly protect us. Saying we should settle for something inadequate -- with all the effort and money that must go into getting the inadequate solution -- seems poorly conceived.

Looking for answers...

Bev

[BevHarris]

2. Minimum auditing requirements

Five percent truly random spot check of paper ballots against machine tallies.

Run reports at more checkpoints through the system. (As the vote travels through the system, it gets committed to paper reports, signed by multiple observers, and the votes are compared from checkpoint to checkpoint to see that they have not changed. Simple, cheap, effective.)

Put real teeth into noncompliance. Set penalties for election officials who do not comply.

Take effective action on anomalies. Mismatched reports must automatically trigger an audit of the paper ballots for that system.

And, lest you still think that simply passing a bill requiring paper ballots at some future date will protect us in November, let's take a look at what really happened in California last week:

1) In one polling place, 25% of the machines which had been voted upon printed reports that said "zero votes" had been cast, at the end of the day. Nothing was done about it. They could have examined the flash memory to audit the discrepancy a little bit, just like they could have looked at the paper ballots, if there had been any, but they didn't. You see, there is no rule that says they have to do anything at all about auditing discrepancies.

2) In another county, a voting machine vendor's employee was observed putting a ballot box (memory card) in his pocket and leaving the building with it. He then handed a memory card to a colleague and said "see if this one will work." Nothing was done about it.

3) In several locations, memory cards (electronic ballot boxes) went missing for a period of time. Nothing was done about it because they were "found." (But were they the same???)

4) Absentee ballots -- we still have a gaping hole in chain of custody, when simply running an extra postal receipt and comparing it with the number of ballots that show up at the elections office would help immensely and cost nothing.

5) Even though counties were directed to post results at the polling place (and California law appears to require this) the counties did not comply and there were no penalties. Indeed, poll workers were not even trained to do this.

6) Software, once again, was changed in the system used in San Diego County, just days before the election. No one did anything about it.

The above reports come from election judges, poll workers, voting machine inspectors and voters. Even when in an official capacity, voting officials are often told it is not their business to report these anomalies.

The solutions are simple, but not if we ignore them and talk only about one part of one solution.

Bev Harris

[Andy_Stephenson]

4. Kick....

:kick:

[GregD]

5. Uhh, Bev?

If you want to know who our PR firm is, call us.

If you have concerns about legislation for which a battle for passage has raged for nearly a year, call us.

If you want a "meeting of the minds", call us.

If you want us to endorse your candidate, call us. (I like what I have seen of Andy, and respect what he is doing. But there is a respectful and appropriate manner to go about things, isn't there?)

PLEASE:
DO NOT ASK THESE SORT OF QUESTIONS, OR TRY TO CORNER US, IN DU.

You already know that vendors and other interested parties are watching all these sites. Why in hell would you ask this stuff in public?

[BevHarris]

6. "Do not ask these sorts of questions?"

Look, "these sorts of questions" might just make or break our democracy. I think the answers can be hammered out, and public debate is a healthy way to do that.

I'm not worried about vendors watching. We here at DU represents a whole bunch of very good minds, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with opening up a vigorous debate about the right cause of action. We have very little time and precious few resources.

Let's get the solutions hammered out so they really work well to protect us. We have much talent here at DU, and many talented people working on the clean voting issue. It would help immensely if we could push forward with more unity, and with greater involvement of the whole community of voters. These kinds of questions and debates help inform those who are just now tuning in, and also help us create more bulletproof solutions.

Bev

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. I just want to add...

please stop calling it a paper trail...call it a voter verified paper ballot.

[anarchy1999]

8. I just want a piece of paper, a pen and pencil and a box.

I will volunteer to help count all the x's.

I also want international observers and legal teams everywhere.

Thank you Bev, Andy and all the rest who are working so hard, as though their/our lives depend upon it.

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. Our lives do depend on it....

big time.

[anarchy1999]

11. Sorry, I know our lives do depend upon this.

This is not an "as though" situation. This is life or death.

Sorry once again.

I do believe this issue is more important than anything else facing us as a nation today.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Don't be sorry...

fight this like you have never fought anything before.

We are all in this one together...we have to win. Remember though...always call it a "ballot" not a paper trail. That gives em tooo much wriggle room.

[hunter]

7. verifiedvoting.org listed in Gannet News Service "e" section...

It's been pretty cool pointing it out to friends and family in this morning's paper:

"This site does an admirable job of covering what's going on with electronic voting in all 50 states, and can help you contact the officials who are responsible for keeping the system accountable."

http://www.verifiedvoting.org

[GregD]

10. kick