Holt's response to Bev Harris

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_688.shtml

An open letter to voters clarifying H.R. 550
From Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)


Apr 12, 2006, 01:12

I would like to thank Bev Harris for her work to improve the integrity of elections. In fact, it was through Bev Harris’ work that I first became aware of the virtual monopoly that only a few voting system vendors have over the vote count in the United States. Her work, and that of many others in the grassroots community, played an important role in my development of a solution to the problem of an increasingly privatized vote count.

I would like to correct, however, a few misrepresentations about my legislation included in her recent article.

First, my legislation calls for a minimum (not a maximum) unannounced manual audit of “at least 2 percent” of the precincts in each state, and the sample must include “at least one precinct” in each county. Precincts must be selected “on an entirely random basis using a uniform distribution in which all precincts in a state have an equal chance of being selected.” This provision is calculated to provide a high level of assurance that any irregularity will be caught, but importantly, nothing in the bill prevents states from passing additional state-based audit requirements. Those who believe the federal 2 percent minimum audit requirement should be higher should join me in getting the House Administration Committee to act on my bill, and then push for an amendment to increase the percentage. Working to defeat H.R. 550 at this critical juncture is tactic that will only cement the status quo.

Second, my legislation does not call for simply “adding a ‘vvpat’” to touch screen (DRE) voting machines. It mandates that there be a “voter-verified paper record” for every vote cast, and explicitly lists as examples “a paper ballot prepared by the voter for the purpose of being read by an optical scanner, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device.” H.R. 550 allows the use of DREs only if they print out a paper record that the voter can verify, and that serves as the actual ballot of record.

Finally, my legislation is not calling for anyone to “wait a couple years” before it gets committee action. My first bill demanding voter verified paper records was introduced in May 2003, and it had a November 2004 deadline. My current bill was introduced in February 2005, and it has a first-election-in-2006 deadline. Not only are there no delays built into my legislation, but its sound, reasonable audit requirement is helping it gain yet more bipartisan support. Thanks to the continued involvement of many thousands of people from across the country, H.R. 550 is gaining steam every day. Since hundreds of citizen advocates came to Washington, D.C., last week, almost a dozen more representatives have become co-sponsors.

I agree with Ms. Harris that we must demand an end to voting system secrecy while still protecting the secret ballot. My legislation will accomplish this by requiring voter-verified paper records of every vote, requiring audits, and banning undisclosed software and the use of wireless devices. We also agree on the need for increased citizen oversight, which my legislation facilitates by removing HAVA’s exemption of the EAC from the public bidding process, thus enabling established citizen groups to bid to conduct the audits themselves.

As it has been from the beginning, H.R. 550 continues to be the product of an immense amount of thought, work, and advocacy by concerned citizens, voting experts, and computer scientists. I remain open to constructive advice and fair criticism. Further, I encourage all parties to ask the Committee on House Administration and state legislatures to take action on this critical issue now.

Sincerely,
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)

.

She has come out against Holt's bill. She hasn't actually read it, but she's against it.

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/23277.html

Also, I am debating a 550 opponent here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=421976&mesg_id=422369

To simply shoot herself in the foot. No, she has to use a GE Electric Gatling gun with an ammo bin filled with 10,000 rounds.

On the other hand: Is she still around?

unfortunately, regrettably, yes.

I don't see where she hadn't read the bill. She made some good points.

I don't see where she's doing anything wrong discussing the bill. Mr. Holt's letter is the last entry in the discussion.


It's an interesting discussion happening there. Thanks for the link.

She hasn't read the bill, since anyone who had wouldn't make the remarks she made and require Holt to write her a letter to explain that he said nothing of the sort and the bill says nothing of the sort.

Dr. Mercuri was not so kind, calling Bev's response "deluded".

I concur.

Plus the statement wasn't just hers, it's the group.

There is also a response from BBV to Mr. Holt on the link.

It's well thought out, and I won't be surprized to see Mr. Holt working to create a stronger bill as a result.

Isn't what it's all about? Protecting our vote?

which leaves Bev out, since she is about making money.

I have worked too long and too hard to let Bev Harris scuttle this bill just so she can suck more money out of people.

:)

if 550 passes, her gravy train will end.

forward for election reform.

Nice to know there is a good Rush in the world, too.

"Rush (Holt) Is Right!"

Just think, a freeper gets behind you, and at first they think
you have a "Rush is Right", and then they see the little (Holt).

Thanks, I really needed a laugh.

Good idea though, for real.

First of all, there probably is not anyone who thinks HR 550 will solve
every problem.

Second, it is better than what many have, and has many good pieces.

Third, it sets a floor for standards, not a ceiling.

Fourth, lawsuits are not enough to solve the election integrity
problem.

Fifth, making change requires a tremendous amount of activism,
presentation of facts, persuasion, some lawsuits, and alot of
political or other grassroots push. Public opinion has to change.

Sixth, being right is not enough. It takes a whole lot more to
change things than by just being right.

HR 550 would have prevented this fiasco -

CArteret Citizens, talking about having their vote "eaten".
( done with a cheapo WalMart camera)
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/voting/CarteretCoalition.mov
or
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/voting/CarteretCoalition.mpg

Paper Ballots scare the hell out of Linda Lamone and Cathy Cox - they
don't want them.

The crazy resistance we had in NC convinced me that our law would make
a difference.

If we had paper ballots, we could have saved the 4,400 votes lost in
Carteret.

If we had paper ballots in Burke County, we could have proven that the
4,000 undervotes for President really were votes for (someone), and
not that 1 out of 10 didn't vote for president.

If we had paper ballots in Guilford County, we could have made them
recount the votes after the central tabulator flipped back over to
zero once it reached 32,767 votes, shorting Kerry of 20,000 votes.

If we could have checked the paper to the digital count, we could
have won the argument that digital voting is unreliable, insecure,
and inaccurate.

Instead, we had to prove our argument by comparing undervotes and over
votes from OS counties to DRE to Lever to Punch Card to HCPB.
(A lot harder to prove machines can't count when there is no paper).

It would end the voting machine monopoly, as many would go out of business
rather than comply.

HR 550 would get the issue before the mainstream media,and in front of the congress.

Unlike HAVA, it was not written by voting machine vendors or crooked
politicians receiving donations from vendors or their lobbyist.

And, it would put some people out of business....

If you are who I think you are, Who, I want to thank you for your tremendous efforts to get your state to be one of the first to take some bricks out of the HAVA wall.

Your piece here is a fine detailing of what 550 will jump start all over the U.S. It is a much needed and much welcome law... it is not perfect - what law is? But it gives us a huge foot in the door, and we will be able to kick the wall down after that!

A great weight will be lifted from my shoulder when 550 becomes law, we must make it so.

Joyce McCloy. A REAL champion against the BBV industry. Accept no subsutitutes.

diplomatic "Kiss My Ass, Bev Harris" we are ever likely to see.

Go RUSH HOLT!

hehehehehehehehehehehehe.......

I wouldn't be able to deal with her on that level, not knowing what I know. Perhaps that is what is helping Holt. He doesn't really know her.

Now that he has responded, let's see whether Bev raises the level of bellicosity.

my idea of diplomacy is not cursing :-).

But, given your shredding of the "BevBot talking points" on the other thread, I have to say you're wasting some incredible talent by not going into politics.

As I explained to another poster, we have worked to hard on this to let Bev screw it up.

Al jacta est.

Either support the bill, abstain, or oppose it. If you support the bill or abstain, we will help you deal with problems in your state. If you oppose it, understand that we WILL pass it and when you come around later asking our help to address problems in your state, we WILL remember how you "helped" us.

personally....if you know what i mean..kelvin!!

fly

:hi: honey...

i have a mission........O8)

fly

Let's put Rush Holt on the greatest page of DU.

Respectful and all, but thatz gotta hurt.

thanks for posting!

:kick:

try here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Kelvin%20Mace

I'm so tired of this freeper being worshiped here!

"Non Profits" are supposed to make their tax returns available to the public.

I have been to www.guidestar.org and can't find a tax return for BBV.org
yet.

It seems to be taking longer for her 990 to be published than it took
to get "The Election Center" 990.

I can see why the EC didn't want it's tax returns public, because of its
"reputation".

Where is the transparency in BBV.org ?

The many victems continue to pile up, and BBV would be out of a job
if 550 passed, and probably some lawsuits would dry up too, because the reason
to sue would be gone.

The many victems continue to pile up, and BBV would be out of a job if 550 passed, and probably some lawsuits would dry up too, because the reason to sue would be gone.

And we wonder why the attorney in the group went to DC to lobby against HR550?

The HR 550 debate is complicated and contentious enough without attributing economic motivations that AFAICT don't exist.

But of course you probably think I was paid to say that.

And I mine.

Is that not the case? Did the Patriot Act make opinion illegal?

I don't think you were paid to say that.

as far as I can tell. I'm not really interested in debating whether it is a "gold standard" or a "placebo," but I think it is distinctly better than the status quo. I'm still listening to people who disagree; I've changed my mind before.

My main reservation about HR550 is that it may make life too easy for DREs. Like you, I just don't see HCPB happening.

We tried to outlaw DREs in NC, but just couldn't pull it off. So we required them to produce paper ballot.

We then went county by county and lobbied (and are still lobbying) for OpScan explaining matters of cost, reliability and training.

I know that 501(c)(3)s have 5-1/2 months after the end of their fiscal year to file.

I WROTE Bev and asked for a copy of BBV's 990 tax filing. She responded that BBV's "first" 990 will be filed May 15, this year (at which time it MUST, by law, be nmade available to the public on request). Well, that seems right, that would be fiscal 2005 ..... EXCEPT that Bev was raising big bucks in 2004. Remember when she was on Randi Rhodes (late 2004)?!?!

Anyone know exactly when BBV became tax exempt 501c3? I THINK it was Aug. 2004? I want to see the filings for 2004, when a LOT of $$$ was received.

Anyone here do taxes????????

Let's see. According to Bev Rush Holt joins her growing list of enemies which includes:

Randi Rhodes
Keith Obermann
Avi Rubin
Doug Jones
David Dill
Rebecca Mercuri
Skinner
AP reporter Rachel Konrad
Wired reporter Kim Zetter
Roxanne Jekotte
Andy Stephenson
Cindy Cohn (EFF)
About a dozen people here at DU
The REAL makers of Electile Dysfuntion
Steven Hertzberg
AtheCat (Scoop New Zealand)
John Kerry
The Democratic Party
Anyone who disagrees with her.

Who are her friends?

The creators of scamdy.com
An assortment of freepers
Jim "Happiness is a clean kill" March
People who have yet to disagree with her.

(Oh, and Bev, I know you are reading this. Others here are too polite to say it, but I am not, so: Fuck you, Bev.)

Im not too polite, I thought you had to use @#%#@#
if you wanted to cuss on a message board.

But thank you for the fine service you have performed.


:yourock:

the swearing down to a dull roar, but a good ol' FUCK YOU, BEV! is appropriate at all times, and appreciated by a great many DUers.

of poor ole gun totin' Jim March.

:yourock:

hehehehehehehehehehe

with a LASER site.

We're working HARD here on election reform and open government issues. Why don't you spend some of the energy that you all use on spreading vitriole on helping others who could use that enery?

and, just for the sheer joy of offending you one more time:

Fuck you, Bev Harris!

Okay, well I've written you off as a possible election reform friend.

Cause I'm not looking for friends.

comments. She goes on and on about DU. She still can't get over being banned.

I found your post so offensive, that I sent an alert to the admin. last night. They apparently don't find that phrase inappropriate, though. But it explains why my Norton Internet Security's parental control filter has this election reform forum blocked due to "sexual content."

of "fuck you" have quite clearly been directed at Bev Harris, not to any member of DU.

Your post #55, however, appears somewhat abiguous. I did not alert the moderators on your post because, frankly, I don't much give a fuck.

Dan Tokaji is now a big Bev Harris fan (Dan is a well known opponent of vvpat)

A Remarkable Turn in the Paper Trail Debate

Black Box Voting has long been one of the most vocal critics of electronic voting technology. Led by Bev Harris, the organization has been sharply critical of the lack of security and transparency that it believes to exist with the present generation of electronic voting equipment. It has also sought to expose and publicize problems with paper-based technology, most recently through the Harri Hursti study of Diebold's optical-scan system.

Now, in this opinion piece, Black Box Voting has announced its opposition to the latest version of the Holt Bill (HB 550), which would mandate a "voter verified paper audit trail" or VVPAT. This would essentially require that electronic voting machines produce a contemporaneous paper record ("CPR") that voters could view before casting their votes. The idea behind it is that, in theory, the paper record could be used in the event of an audit or manual recount....

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/04/remarkable-turn-in-paper-trail-deb ate.html

:shrug:

Because we can't observe what a computer is doing.

The only way you could use computers while banning secrecy would be to accept that they are a black box and therefore require that all data going into the black box must be fully disclosed and that all results coming out of the black box must be fully disclosed. The process before and after the black box must be fully transparent.



So, for example, you could hand count paper ballots for each precinct (transparently) and post the precinct level results locally at each precinct (full disclosure of input) then feed those results into a central tabulator (the black box). The results of the central tabulation would then be posted on a statewide website at a level of detail at least down to the precinct (full disclosure of output).

A computer used this way is safe because anyone who wants to go to the trouble can verify that what the computer did was correct.


_{Edit: minor wording}

So I guess you think Georgia's Diebold computers can be trusted?

If Georgia fully discloses the input and output then there is no need to trust the computers.

Are you sure that the Georgia process meets all my rules?

So we should run the headline that Georgia's voting machines can be trusted?

21-2-379.11.
(a) In primaries and elections in which direct recording electronic (DRE) voting equipment is used, the ballots shall be counted at the precinct or tabulating center under the direction of the superintendent. All persons who perform any duties at the tabulating center shall be deputized by the superintendent and only persons so deputized shall touch any ballot, container, paper, or machine utilized in the conduct of the count or be permitted to be in the immediate area designated for officers deputized to conduct the count.
(b) All proceedings at the tabulating center and precincts shall be open to the view of the public, but no person except one employed and designated for the purpose by the superintendent or the superintendent́s authorized deputy shall touch any ballot, any DRE unit, or the tabulating equipment.
(c) After the polls have closed and all voting in the precinct has ceased, the poll manager shall shut down the DRE units and extract the election results from each unit as follows:
(1) The manager shall obtain the results tape from each DRE unit and verify that the number of ballots cast as recorded on the tape matches the public count number as displayed on the DRE unit;
(2) If a system is established by the Secretary of State, the poll manager shall first transmit the election results extracted from each DRE unit in each precinct via modem to the central tabulating center of the county; and
(3) The manager shall then extract the memory card from each DRE unit.
(d) Upon completion of shutting down each DRE unit and extracting the election results, the manager shall cause to be completed and signed a ballot recap form, in sufficient counterparts, showing:
(1) The number of valid ballots;
(2) The number of spoiled and invalid ballots;
(3) The number of provisional ballots; and
(4) The number of unused provisional ballots and any other unused ballots.
The manager shall cause to be placed in the ballot supply container one copy of the recap form and any unused, defective, spoiled, and invalid ballots, each enclosed in an envelope.
(e) The manager shall collect and retain the zero tape and the results tape for each DRE unit and place such tapes with the memory card for each unit and enclose all such items for all of the DRE units used in the precinct in one envelope which shall be sealed and initialed by the manager so that it cannot be opened without breaking the seal.
(f) The manager and one poll worker shall then deliver the envelope to the tabulating center for the county or municipality or to such other place designated by the superintendent and shall receive a receipt therefor. The copies of the recap forms, unused ballots, records, and other materials shall be returned to the designated location and retained as provided by law.
(g) Upon receipt of the sealed envelope containing the zero tapes, results tapes, and memory cards, the election superintendent shall verify the signatures on the envelope. Once verified, the superintendent shall break the seal of the envelope and remove its contents. The superintendent shall then download the results stored on the memory card from each DRE unit into the election management system located at the central tabulation point of the county in order to obtain election results for certification.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=21-2-379.11

The input to a DRE is not fully disclosed. In fact it is not disclosed at all since to do so would violate the secret ballot principle.

A DRE will never meet the requirements I described.

I also don't see any public disclosure requirements anywhere there (unless I missed it). So the central tabulation process doesn't disclose to the public its input and output and therefore doesn't follow my rules either. Maybe public disclosure is actually provided and just not mentioned in the text you gave me. If so, then the central tabulation part might pass muster.

Since you keep changing the rules.

I don't think I changed any rules but would be willing to cop a plea to the lesser charge of negligent explainitude.

Where's the secrecy?

They have invented this entire meme about "secret auditing" when there is NOTHING in the language of the bill that says any such thing.

I am in favor of the Holt audit.

BBV is, as I understand it, saying let's ban secrecy and then we don't need to audit. I would agree with that if and only if there were a proposal on the table that really does totally ban secrecy. If we could get such a system then there would be little need for audits. But the ban on secrecy would have to be very carefully designed and carried out. You could start with public counting by hand of paper ballots. Modification of that elegantly simple system, if any, would have to be exquisitely crafted to ensure that the result remains totally transparent. Any use of computers would need to be as untrusted black boxes.

As far as I know, we are no where near getting a system that rises to this level (unless we're willing to move to the UK and I understand they are currently piloting a new system that will destroy the great transparency of their existing system). And I don't think it is realistic that we will get such a system. So, since we are not going find nirvana, we need to audit.

I am also in favor of source code disclosure but only if we continue to treat computers as untrustworthy black boxes. Whatever computers do in the system needs to either be untrusted and therefore audited or subjected to the black box approach I described a few posts ago. The Holt bill is compatible with my wishes because it brings open source but it still realizes that we need to audit and doesn't act like open source is sufficient by itself to solve the overall problem.

Let me know if that makes any sense.

_{Edit: minor wording}

doesn't guarantee an uncorrupted count. Custody of the ballots at all points is also vital. We let in the opportunity for fraud last time by allowing postal voting on demand - so there was no way of checking that ballots were actually cast by those they were issued to - or even if they were properly issued.

Our system (at present) works not only because we have hand-counted paper ballots, but because the ballots are issued at the polling station, where they are handed to the voter, who marks them, and deposits them in a ballot box. The ballot box available for all to see, and is sealed in the presence of witnesses at the end of the day. The only weak point is the transport of the ballot box to the count, and occasionally they get lost. But when they arrive they unsealed and emptied in front of the general public, and counted in front of the general public, as well as under the close scrutiny of bipartisan scrutineers.

I cannot THINK why we are even CONTEMPLATING anything different, and I can only suppose it is because we are so naive as to have forgotten how important transparency actually is.

As much as some people insist that hand-counted paper is the only way to go, it just isn't practical (yes, they do it in Canada, but they don't have 60 item ballots in Canada).

So, there has to be a way to automate the process.

If we are going to use computers to count, then we have to have audits, software disclosure, paper, and stiff penalties for breaking the rules.

550 gives you the first three, though the audit provision is weak. Individual states must then step in to strengthen the audits and add penalties for breaking the rules.

I don't see how it can be done any other way.

550 is is not perfect. It is a compromise, but its a decent compromise, not a 3/5's compromise.

so I'm with you <wistfully watches his HCPB's recede over the horizon>.

These people want absolute perfection. They don't understand pragmatism. They want nothing to do with compromise.

And, while they fight the ideological battle, election after election is stolen. Right in front of them. And all the proof goes out into the bit and bite oblivion - while they fight for perfection.

After all, if there IS an auditable paper record, some stand to lose their livlihoods.

Kelvin Mace was replying to me so I assume by "these people" you mean me?

Look upstream to my post (#53) that KM replied to and you'll see that I already agreed with his points (before he made them, actually).

And, for the record, my livelihood is totally unrelated to elections. I'm here on my own time.

"Black Box Voting believes..."

When will BBV.org make it's 2004 tax return publicly available?

Here is the link on Guidestar to BBV.org

No tax return listed -
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=100316616

(if that link doesn't work, you will have to go to www.Guidestar.org
and find it by using the search box)

Here is the link on Guidestar to "The Election Center"
(the organization that accepts donations from voting machine vendors,
meanwhile educating our election officials)
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/541/578/2004-541578880-01f5aafa-9.pdf

Guidestar advises that organizations can extend filing by up to 18 months
from their original filing date.

When will the 2004 tax return for BBV.org be filed?

What is IRS Form 990?
Form 990 is an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS. It provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances.

What organizations are required to file Form 990?
With some exceptions (see question 6), federally tax-exempt nonprofits that have incomes of more than $25,000
All 501(c)(3) private foundations, regardless of income

Thank's for asking! :)

Interesting. So this filing will cover July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005.

Something seems odd here, though... if end of fiscal year is June 30, the filing period is 5-1/2 months... bringing the origanl due date to Dec. 15, not Nov. 15.

Nonetheless, May 15 should make for some mighty interesting reading.

Please also see this new thread, which has some good
logic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x422975

"I don't buy the "placebo" argument. I think it's nihilistic. I file it with "things need to get worse before they can get better". It's the view that if you take a small step forward, you deflate the movement's energy or the public's appetite for taking more and bigger steps. Things don't work that way. Victory begets victory. Steps forward are opportunities to build organization and coalition. They make the next steps smaller than they'd need to be now, which makes them easier. And they take nothing away from the energy of an informed, active grassroots movement that wants to do more."

Florida Disability Rights Advocate -- EFF Client -- Travels to DC to Support E-voting Bill

A.J. Devies, president of the Handicapped Adults of Volusia County (HAVOC), today made an impassioned plea to reporters, Congressional staffers, and voting reform advocates to support HR 550 as a way to ensure fair and equal treatment of voters with disabilities. "Disabled voters have been disenfranchised for years," noted Devies, and under the Help America Vote Act, states and counties have been allowed to purchase "accessible" touchscreen voting equipment that actually harms disabled voters.

Polling places in this country, said Devies, are increasingly being designed in a "separate but unequal" manner, permitting counties to use (for example) paper-based optical scan systems for the majority of voters but leaving disabled voters to use paperless electronic systems. The effect, said Devies, is twofold. Not only are disabled voters' ballots frequently not cast in a form that can be readily audited, the privacy of disabled voters is jeopardized when the ballots of disabled voters are collected on a system that is separate from equipment that collects ballots from the rest of the voting population.

Disabled voters should enjoy the same protections as other voters, said Devies, and HR 550 is designed to do away with that two-tiered system that has developed under HAVA.

EFF represented HAVOC in a 2005 lawsuit brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Volusia County, Florida, that sought to force the County to purchase paperless touchscreen voting machines. EFF filed an amicus brief on behalf of HAVOC and in support of the County, arguing that the County should be permitted purchase paper-based accessible voting systems like the Automark. The Court eventually ruled in favor of the County, although the state of Florida refused to certify the Automark, thus far preventing all Florida counties from being able to adopt that technology.

Click here to tell your member of Congress to support HR 550!

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?page=UserAction&cmd=display&id=109

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/cat_evoting_lobby_days.php