March 28, 2007
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

I understand that the Committee is considering HR811, the Holt bill. I am deeply concerned about the terms of the bill. No democracy can survive if the elections by which the people transfer their power to their representatives have no credibility. Elections have no credibility if the votes are counted in secret. Electronic vote counting is secret vote counting. HR811 institutionalizes electronic vote counting by creating the illusion of verifiability with “paper ballots” and audits.

Under Holt, the first count is performed in secret by computers. No one counts the “paper ballots,” which are really computer generated paper trails, unless a challenge is made by the losing candidate or his or her supports. The only count in an election that matters is the first count. That is because candidates assume the mantle of office as soon as projections of victory and defeat are made on election night.

Any attempt to verify the election by counting the paper trail requires the challengers to subject themselves to criticism as sore losers and conspiracy theorists. Even those willing to shoulder the criticism must overcome massive obstacles in order to obtain a count of the paper trail such as cost, official lack of cooperation, and legal challenges. Audits also create an illusion of trust. Audits ask elections officials to review their own performance. Such a conflict cannot create the confidence audits are intended to provide. Audits can be manipulated by the auditors to create the appearance of verification.

As Mr. Lewis’s testimony shows, elections officials resent audits as too burdensome. Putting audits into the hands of such officials is bound to result in audits no one will trust. A statistically significant audit has its place in elections. But, only if it is truly random, independent, and required.

The question of access for the disabled should not be an excuse to enrich corporate interests at the expense of a world class democracy. Nor should the disabled be required to sacrifice verifiability for access. Systems are available that can afford those with different abilities to access voter verified paper ballots. Which brings us back to secret vote counting. Much of the efforts of legislation focuses on how to mitigate the disadvantages of electronic election machines.

The efforts create complex and costly systems that would not be necessary if votes were counted with public oversight the first time. It is not that hard to count paper ballots at each precinct with the public observing. While such a system is not glamorous and does not generate income for machine manufacturers, it does generate a democracy. The question we must answer is whether we love democracy more than the convenience of machines. Democracy done right is hard work.

We get out of our democracy what we are willing put into it. The Holt bill may be well intentioned, but it creates more problems than it tries to cure by offering only bandages to the threat posed by secret vote counting. The threat is embodied by electronic voting machines. I urge the Committee to amend the Holt bill to ban all direct recording electronic voting machines in elections, limit the use of computers in elections to giving access to the disabled, and make the first canvass of the vote the one that counts.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Diego County, CA