The Holt bill has been called "the Gold Standard" by voting rights activists all over the country. It has been co-sponsored by leading political figures, and many voting activist groups are aggressively working towards the passage of this legislation. Now, with the obstructionist Bob Ney gone, proponents of the bill are gearing up to get it a hearing in Ney's former House Administration Committee.

The bill holds promise, but I am hoping that the authors of the bill are willing to give a good hearing to we the people who oppose those elements of the bill that seek to federalize our election systems through broad empowerment of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

This article explains the inherent problems with the Holt bill, and provides reasons why you, dear reader, should do as I have, and contact Holt's office to ask them to address these concerns and revise the language of the bill accordingly.

First: keep in mind that the US Constitution grants states rights to manage our own election systems. Those founders knew what they were talking about.

Second: keep in mind that the EAC and the proliferation of paperless computerized voting systems both result from the Orwellian-named "Help America Vote Act (HAVA)," which was sponsored by Bob Ney, written in his office, and in large part paid for by computerized voting industry lobbyists such as Diebold, whose lobbying firm at the time was Greenberg Traurig - employer of the now infamous Jack Abramoff, friend of the now implicated Bob Ney.

That should be enough to make you sit up and take pause while you consider the origins and the motivation behind HAVA, which brought us the EAC, which the Holt bill now stands to validate, strengthen, and embolden.

What does the Holt bill (HR550) have to do with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)?

Voting activists are excited about the Holt bill because it talks about mandating paper trails for elections. I think it goes without saying that verifiable paper audit trails belong in any democratic election, and I applaud the bill's attempt to codify this. However, the bill would be strengthened by specifically defining real paper ballots as opposed to allowing for error-prone computer printouts as the vote of record. Printers jam, receipts are not ballots, and adding technology-based printing to the act of voting unnecessarily complicates what is a simple act. But I am not going to dwell on this aspect of the legislation right now. Suffice it to say that the legislation should be revised to remove technology altogether from the act of marking ballots.

More importantly, activists are not paying attention to the elements of HR550 that strengthen the Executive branch's power over our election systems.

HR 550, like several other bills currently supported by senior Dems, supports making the HAVA-created EAC a permanent entity and broadening its powers.

To understand this, please see HR550 Sec. 4 "Permanent Extension of Authorization of Election Assistance Commission." Section 4a gives this Executive entity blanket authority to conduct recounts in any state of their choosing and, "at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved," to conduct recounts of state and local elections!

Think about it. This part of the Holt bill is inviting the Executive branch (the EAC as it is currently structured is an Executive commission) to encroach upon our state and local elections.

It may be undergoing revisions, but the Holt bill as published does not specify parameters around this authority. HR550 also states that the EAC can "contract out" the recounting, opening the door to yet another corporate vendor layer in our voting systems. We have already seen the damage done by inviting private corporations to run our elections. Claiming the "proprietary" nature of their products, these private election vendors remove the transparency required for a truly democratic system.

Additionally, while the bill specifies limited recount authority (2% of the precincts), it doesn't seem to take into account the unintended consequences of random recounts. For instance, what if the limited recount actually indicates a change in the election outcome? The result would be litigation, litigation, litigation. More federal chaos and Supreme Court election selections.

Doesn't anyone remember that this is exactly one of the reasons Gore "lost" Florida? Because he asked -- not for a statewide recount -- but for a partial recount. The partial recount strategy allowed the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the recount procedures by invoking "equal protection" as stated in their decision:

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Here's a scenario I can envision if the Holt bill goes through as currently drafted:

The last NH gubernatorial election gave a slim win to Democrat John Lynch. Sitting Governor Craig Benson ("at the option of the State or jurisdiction") could have asked the EAC to conduct a recount. The EAC contracts out to some EAC recount vendor (a whole new privatized election industry is born), who conducts the recount and determines a revisionist outcome in the 2% "randomly chosen" precincts. This is enough to hand the Republican the win.

Here's another scenario concerning the EAC:

It is the summer of 2006. The standing members of the EAC -- for whatever reason -- are removed from office (voluntarily or not). The sitting president appoints four new members in a summer recess appointment with no congressional oversight.
These new EAC Commissioners announce a new regulation -- it could be small or large, but it shifts the balance of the vote by a mere 2-3%. The new regulation goes into effect just in time for the 2006 elections and favors one party over another.

Think it can't happen? The EAC has already proposed "postponing" the 2004 presidential election because of "terrorist threats."

And Bush has recently made three recess appointments to the FEC, the other oversight body for elections.

For in-depth information about the makeup of HAVA and the EAC see this article:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/files/2005giftsofhava.pdf

Follow the story of the "2.2.6 incident" in this document. It explains how a single line of text in EAC guidelines -- inserted at the behest of a Diebold lobbyist -- can effectively kill paper ballots in the country.

It also provides a possible solution to this dilemma: restructuring the EAC to make it a representational advisory entity rather than a regulatory entity with executive authority.

For more information on this and other election integrity issues, contact the DFNH Fair Elections Committee at fec@democracyfornewhampshire.com.