Before I go forward, I want to state that I have a lot of respect for Black Box Voting. They paved the way for some very important work in e-voting reform. But their list of complaints against HR 811 seem rushed and I found inaccuracies. As there are factions of the blog-world that have reprinted their list without question, I feel the need to respond.

Following are their claims, as they have numbered them:

1. Deceptive Language.

(BBV claims that the use of the term “paper BALLOT” over that of “paper TRAIL” in HR 811, is deceptive. This really seems like an extreme case of pulling hairs. I for one, was not confused by the language of the bill. Legislation is always a bit of a nightmare to read—but this bill was relatively straightforward in its language.)

2. Billion Dollar Unfunded Mandate.
(check www.bbvforums.org/forums.messages/1954/46649.html)

I looked at the two sections of HR 811 that BBV references in her claim of HR 811 concealing within it, a “Billion Dollar UnFUNDED Mandate”. Without getting into mind-numbingly laborious detail, {but in case you want to check: Page 8-line 19 (of HR 811) is amending (42 U.S.C 1548 (a) (3) (B) of the original HAVA bill}

In plain English: HR 811 simply expands the requirement for “disability accessible voting technology”--beyond the exclusive use of DREs.

To reiterate: in the original HAVA bill it was stated that the purchase of a voting machine for the disabled HAD to be a DRE.

HR 811 removes this restriction.

At the time that HAVA was drafted, I believe DREs were the only voting machines that had the necessary features to accommodate disabled voters. Though I’m not entirely certain of this.

Most counties have, by now, already received, and have already utilized their HAVA funding for DREs with text-conversion-capabilities.

So as far as I can tell, there is no unfunded mandate here. Again, most counties now have text-conversion e-voting machines, for voters with disabilities. HAVA already funded this. If I’m wrong about this, I’d be in no way insulted if I someone wished to correct me. I’d really like to know.

Immediately following the above amendment, HR 811 then amends an entirely separate section of HAVA. BBV also references this section in her claim of an unwieldy mandate. Though she seems to have gotten confused about what is being amended here.

If you are not accustomed to reading legislation, it would be easy to lop the two amendments together as they sound related. However they relate to completely different sections of HAVA.

Just in case you want to check: On page 9, line 15 of HR 811, what is being amended is (42 U.S.C. 15381 et seq.) of HAVA.

This section of HAVA is all about proposed studies. The completion date of the “new” study being funded in HR 811, is one that would provide alternative voting machines for the disabled, and has a deadline of 2010 (there is a budget of $1 million allotted for this study).

BBV, later claims in their letter that the 2010 date conflicts with the requirement of text-conversion voting machines to be installed in precincts (2008). But it doesn’t. 2010 is simply an end date to RESEARCH into other voting machines for the disabled, than those already in use.

This DOES get confusing. Put simply, BBV is WRONG.
There is no billion dollar unfunded mandate to be found in HR 811.

3. Makes the Scandal Ridden EAC a Permanent Fixture & Increases Its Power.
(check www.bradblog.com/?p=4119 for latest EAC scandal)

(Yes. I would like to understand this better.)

3. Allows Loss of Secret Ballots for the Military.

This is easy to misinterpret. The Military has been testing programs for military men and women to be able to vote by email, fax and absentee ballot for some time (since 2000 at least). The laws regarding this fluctuate, state by state. HR 811 doesn’t effect these laws in any way. The bill makes allowances for these programs, where they are mandated.

By the way, the state of Washington, where I believe Bev Harris resides, allows soldiers to vote by fax and email. If Bev has a concern with this, she needs to contact her state representative.

4. No Recognition of Citizen Right to Oversight.

(HR 811 dictates that all recounts must be open to the public. I’m not sure what BBV means here.)

6. Conflicting Requirements, ie, must have text converters by 2008 and must study how to best do the conversions by 2010.

(As noted above, this is inaccurate. The implementation of text-conversion DRE’s has pretty much happened! The study to look at other viable alternative voting machines, is an entirely separate issue, and does not necessitate an identical end-date to the purchase of existing systems,)

7. Language on Disclosed Source Code Contains an Error, in that it doesn't deal with "COTS"... meaning any electronics component with a chip on it would be required to disclose source code. There are literally hundreds of commercial off the shelf components in the system that contain firmware, and these are manufactured all over the world. The bill would require companies to open up their code for their commercial products if used in voting machines. Effectively eliiminates the use of electronics while at the same time mandating electronics.

(Wait. I thought this is what we all wanted—full disclosure of software code on voting machines??? I don’t see why electronic companies couldn’t comply with this. They might not want to of course. But then again, I’m not a computer expert. Any of you Braniacs out there have information on this?) 8. "Mush" Language. (Example: "The manufacturer shall provide the appropriate election official with the information necessary for the official to provide the information....")

(Lately I’ve been reading a lot of legislation. For me, HR 811 has been one of the easier bills to sort my way through. No aspirin required, even.)

9. Unreadable. (No Appendix, so sections require the reader to actually go find a different bill and look up sections in order to make sense of the current bill.)

Appendix? Bills don’t come with appendixes. Within the text of the bill, it tells you what is being referenced. Then you look up either the section of the original bill that is being referenced (as in the case of HR 811) or/and you look up the laws that the bill would alter.

I’m new to this too. It’s a bit confusing at first. But I found HR 811 was very easy to reference.)

10. Audit Protocols No One Agrees With, (even fans of audit solutions).

(Bev needs to substantiate this. I have no idea who she is referencing here. Does anyone else know?)

11. Loophole Allowing Internet Connections for Central Tabulators and Ballot Definition Software

(I couldn’t find anything to substantiate this. Anyone?)

12. Loophole Allowing Manual Audits to be Bypassed by States With Computer-Only Recount Protocols.

(I’ve heard conflicting accounts of the accuracy of this claim. Anyone got something concrete?)

13. Loophole Allowing Machine Count to Supercede Voter Verified Paper When "Fuzzily" Described Circumstances Arise. (ie: When there is a paper jam damaging the paper, machine count will trump.

(There really are few instances where this is likely to happen. And even if suddenly there was a wave of incidence, I imagine the precincts will bring attention to themselves, simply by the mere fact that they had this problem.)

14. Supports DRE's. (Touch-screens and other on-screen voting machine techniques that are NOT recommended by NIST).

(I don’t see how this bill supports DRE’s AT ALL. It doesn’t, in and of itself, rid the world of DRE’s. But it certainly opens the door to the possibility of getting rid of them.)

The only other comments I have regarding BBV's “list” is that they open with the following statement as to those objecting to the bill, but fail to mention that three of the objectors listed, have direct ties to voting machine manufacturing. Quote:

“You should know this -- the following groups have come out against the new Holt Bill:
Black Box Voting has publicly come out against the Bill
Open Voting Consortium has publicly come out against the Bill
Brad Friedman (BradBlog) has publicly come out against the Bill
Jon Bonifaz (VoterAction.org / Demos) has publicly come out against the Bill
Paul Lehto has publicly come out against the Bill
Democracy for New Hampshire has publicly come out against the Bill
Decline to support:
John Gideon (VotersUnite, VoteTrustUSA) has publicly refused to support the bill

and there will be more.”

Open Voting Consortium has a DRE of their own, that according to recent articles, is soon to be unveiled and for sale.

John Gideon-Voters Unite (who is one of my heroes and whose web site is fantastic, by the way), his wife Ellen Thiesen has an alternative to DRE, for voters with disabilities. It is called VotePad. It’s my understanding that this unit is already in use in parts of Seattle.

And Black Box Voting-Bev, herself has promoted Harri Hursti’s Votoscope. Harri Hursti being a close associate and colleague of Bev’s.

Even if the above listed persons and organization make no money on the products they promote—I still see the potential for a conflict of interest. I believe their direct connection to voting machine manufacturing should have been disclosed right up front in Bev’s letter/list/blog.

Finally, John Bonifaz and Brad Friedman, in addition to criticizing HR Bill 811, had amendments they wanted added to the bill. These should also have been included by BBV. I thought their amendments were of substance and to write that they came out against the bill in total, is a little misleading.

I am still deciding exactly what I think of HR 811. But for or against the bill, I think it certainly hurts the process of making a fair assessment, when established activists, like Bev Harris, send out on mass, information that is inaccurate at best.

And I believe that we, in the blogosphere need to be more careful what information we spread, and check the author’s facts before redistributing them as if they were gospel.