HAVA +5 Years and Still NO Electronic Vote Counting in NY! (And no DREs planned.)

From Bo Lipari and NYVV

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win."
-Mohandas Gandhi

I'm pleased to announce that after five years of hard work on the part of
voting integrity advocates, New York State has rejected DREs and approved
only the Automark and the Sequoia ImageCast scanner/marker for use in 2008
polling places. This momentous decision by the State Board of Elections
virtually guarantees that New York State will vote on paper ballots and
ballot scanners when it finally replaces lever machines in 2009.

Those of you who were with us at the beginning five years ago know what an
enormous victory this is. When I first started traveling, presenting and
advocating in New York, election officials, political parties, and the media
assumed that New York State was going to be a DRE state. Precinct scanners
were not under discussion, and only DREs were offered by vendors. Our
experience over these five years reflects the truth of Gandhi's statement -
indeed we were ignored, then laughed at, then fought bitterly by the voting
machine vendors and their supporters in the election establishment. But
finally, truth has prevailed, and what seemed like an impossible dream in
2003 has been made real by our hard work - New York State will be a paper
ballot state.

Just yesterday, it seemed like high powered lobbyists had scuttled our hopes
once again as they maneuvered to keep DREs in the mix even though they were
in clear violation of New York's laws(see my blog entry describing
yesterday's events at http://nyvv.org/blog/2008/01/breakdown-at-board.html).
But this morning, when the Board reconvened, it was immediately obvious from
the commissioners opening statements that those who were pushing for the
DREs had conceded defeat. No small amount of thanks is due to Commissioner
Doug Kellner (D), who firmly held the line yesterday and during a long night
of backroom political maneuvering, vowing he would never approve the DRE
submissions which did not fulfill the requirements of New York State
election law regarding accessible voting machines.

While technically it is possible for a DRE vendor to submit and win approval
for the 2009 lever machine replacement, this is highly unlikely as at least
half of the HAVA funds will be spent on scanner compatible ballot markers.
Since all the approved systems are components of a precinct based scanner
system the least expensive path, and the only sensible one is for the
counties to complete their HAVA implementation with paper ballots and
scanners. We've learned to never be complacent, but this time we have reason
to be confident that the scanner compatible choices of today will inevitably
lead to paper ballots for all New York voters tomorrow.

My deepest thanks to everyone who fought this long, difficult battle. This
is only round 1, and I promise you we will have much, much more to do to
guarantee that our elections belong to the public, and are transparent and
observable. But for today, let's break out the champagne, relax, and
celebrate this great victory. What was once only a slogan representing what
we were fighting for, has now become a reality - Paper Ballots for New York!

Congratulations friends. Together we have changed the course of New York
States election history, and 12 million registered voters in the Empire
State will vote on paper ballots, not DREs.

-Bo Lipari

Can't say I like those much more than DREs.

:shrug:

then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win."
-Mohandas Gandhi

"Our experience over these five years reflects the truth of Gandhi's statement -indeed we were ignored, then laughed at, then fought bitterly by the voting
machine vendors"

How did you win, by cutting the vendors a check to buy their secret vote counting machines.

I don't think that is what Gandhi had in mind when he said "then you win" :shrug:

The lever machines, as much as I like them, will not stand. Optical Scan is better than paperless Dre's, and they have the advantage of a PAPER BALLOT.

The next step is finding a system that has open source software, and legislation that mandates a big enough recount to act as a check...

still voting on those top secret black box machines?

Or better yet, voting absentee and hoping that your ballot will be counted on one of those
black box machines?

Are you paying taxes so that secret private organizations can count your vote?

Are you ???

These paper ballots will be hand counted.

We still do not allow electronic vote counting in NY.

How are you doing there in Idaho, kster?

my tinfoil hat. So here's what the Arcturians are saying to me: When the fascist coup called "The Help America Vote Act" occurred (--$3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle, to fast-track voting systems, all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit-recount controls) (--same month as the Iraq War Resolution, October 2002, and, in my opinion, closely related to it), there were ONLY TWO U.S. Senate votes against it--Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. All other Democrats voted FOR it (and of course all Republicans - 'oh, golly, oh, gee, our guys get to 'count' all the votes with secret decoder rings - whoopee!') Now, this is a strange fact, to be sure. ONLY TWO votes against it in the Senate, both NY Senators. All other Democrats thought it was hunky-dory. Why? I thought about it a lot. Are Clinton and Schumer smarter than other Senators? Or, do they love Democracy so much that they bucked the party leadership on this, and gave ringing speeches about it ("Give me our old, reliable, virtually unriggable lever voting machines--or give me death!")? I toyed with that idea, although it contradicts everything else I know about Clinton and Schumer. And it occured to me, also, that, since NYers are quite attached to their old lever machines, Clinton and Schumer did not want to offend NY voters, and I thought this might be a good sign that, at least to this extent, they were responsive to the people. I even considered the notion that an H. Clinton gig in the White House might be friendly to election reform, or at least not blockade it, and that, once Hillary had gained power, she might not stop us from restoring transparent elections.

But none of this was very satisfactory, as an explanation, and it took time for the Arcturians to figure it out, and beam their findings down to my hat. Time to realize that the Bushite Election Assistance Commission was going very easy on New York, in requiring obedience to their coup, HAVA. Gave them lots of time. Let them lallygag around, through several elections - while other states were being kneecapped into compliance. Even allowed time for election reformers to gather up a head of steam. A lot of soft memos were sent. ('Get with it, New York!'), escalating slowly to stern warnings ('turn your election system over to Bushite corporations using 'TRADE SECRET' code, or you will never see your mother again")--the sort of thing that just gets New Yorkers all huffy. Three Diebold/ES&S national elections later ('02-partial, '04-80%, '06-about the same if not more), with the neverending war in the Middle East cemented into policy and not stoppable, and corporate rule solidified forevermore, the EAC finally gets around to New York, and says, 'Hey, why aren't you guys in compliance? Get on it!' (heh-heh).

By then DREs are so discredited (as expected), that of course New Yorkers reject that nefarious Bushite idea. And they go for...optiscans (and central tabulators), also run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, but just a little harder to rig, cuz there's a ballot that somebody might count some day, if they have the money, the lawyers, the time and the stamina to get a recount (and, by then, of course, "memory cards" can be 'disappeared,' malicious code erased and replaced, "chain of custody" on ballots lost, etc., in the new corporate "culture of secrecy" that will have been introduced, and, at best, only 1% of the vote count is audited - miserably inadequate to detect fraud or 'error.')

Just like everybody else, New Yorkers fall for the optiscan scam. But why did the EAC let them take so long to "comply"?

So, okay, here it is: The bad guys wanted to get this extremely insecure, insider riggable vote counting system (with no audit-DRE, or 1% audit-optiscan, if it couldn't be prevented) firmly entrenched all over the nation, very quickly. It worked in Georgia in '02 (antiwar Senate candidate Max Cleland, a 3-limb paraplegic Vietnam vet, was kept out of the Senate). The biggie was pending. 2004. 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (Feb '03). The massive use of torture had just been exposed (63% of Americans opposed to torture "under any circumstances"-May '04). Bush, a twit--and no debater. What were the chances that the American people--with new voters registering 6 o 4 Democratic to "throw the bums out" and all other indicators looking bad for Bush/Cheney--could be convinced to re-elect these horrors? Virtually none, in a free and fair election. So, the election theft machines had to be installed everywhere really fast, under the radar of the voters.

In California--one gigantic pool of voters who might get smart and reject 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting, controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls, the new Sec of State was kicking up some dust, with a lawsuit against Diebold and demanding to see their secret code (May 04). The dirty tricks team got on him, and he was driven from office on entirely bogus corruption charges before the year was out; meanwhile, because he'd banned Diebold touchscreens and required that county officials provide voters with a paper ballot option, California wouldn't be so easy to turn "red" in a "surprising" Bush/Cheney victory, nor, even with a Kerry win, would they be able to steal as many votes as they wanted to, to manufacture and pad Bush/Cheney's national popular majority - so, they had to steal them somewhere else. (Lots and lots of states to choose from).

And what of New York--the OTHER gigantic pool of voters who might get smart and reject 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting, controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls?

Not only uppity voters, but the kind who might just call up the NY Times and demand news coverage of this fascist coup--Bushite secret vote counting. Uppity voters living in the heart of the country's news establishment, who might alert OTHER voters, across the nation, that something was amiss with this 'TRADE SECRET' code business.

Solution: Don't alarm them! Go easy on THEIR compliance with HAVA, until the thing is cemented everywhere else. And...have the two New York Senators vote against it, so NY voters don't feel so threatened, and don't get onto it in time. It's really the only explanation of those two "no" votes that make sense - and they could vote "no" in the confidence that everyone else was voting "yea," and the HAVA bill--that fascist coup--would succeed.

Peace Patriot, signing off from Arcturus! (Yup, they've beamed me up.)

So why? Why was NY left alone for so long?

Conyers probably did though. Check the House votes -- not just the Senate!

See, there is a bleeding-heart component to HAVA that most Dems found attractive -- Accessibility. And HAVA required voters to be notified/educated about overvoting, which is one reason Gore lost FL. So to the Dems, HAVA wasn't so bad really.

Also, all that secret vote counting stuff was around for many years prior to HAVA. HAVA just funded more of it as you say and gave it legitimacy in the US Congress.

I think Clinton and Schumer voted No for either of these reasons:

1. They were worried about voter ID requirements. A lot of folks in NYC don't have drivers' licenses. There is no need. People take the subway. That's about half the voters in the State and Schumer is from Brooklyn.

2. They were worried about the lack of the a paper trial.

I've heard insiders use the term "voter verification", but I'm not sure in retrospect if this meant Voter ID or no VVPAT. But whatever it means, this is the reason the 2 NY Senators voted No on HAVA and I understand that it was last-minute change to the bill that caused this to happen. (We've seen similar things happen with HR811. Key provisions disappearing without a trace, and sometimes with a trace.)

As far as Op Scan, that's not guaranteed to happen yet. There are numerous options available in the courts and there are NO Federal elections in 2009, so the judge in the DoJ case overstepped his bounds by requiring NY to do anything in 2009.

We'll see how this all plays out. As far I'm concerned, and anyone else who actually reads the law, Lever machines are HAVA-compliant as long as Accessibility requirements are met, which is exactly what NY is going to do now with the ballot marking devices (not DREs). This will actually strengthen the case for keeping levers!

The case for levers being HAVA-compliant has yet to be made in court, but it's pretty strong if anyone bothers to make it. Otherwise, how do we explain all those paperless DREs that are supposed to be "HAVA-compliant" too?

Stay tuned Peach Patriot. As Yogi Berra would say, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

And NY has a 3% audit by the way -- not 1%. Still not always enough, but that too can change if we have to count votes electronically.

Most of the Nays were Republican.

Here's the vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll462.xml