Tell Congress "NO" to HR2894 (the "Holt Bill"): Counting our votes should at least meet the standards used for open, secure, and accurate counting of our money!

BY Nancy Tobi and Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

ACTION ALERT! We know it's time for action when congress wants to handle our ballots in ways we wouldn't handle our cash, even for a modest bank account. Tell your congressional reps you oppose HR 2894 (1), the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009" (aka "The Holt Bill"). Then call or email every member on the House Science and Technology Committee (2) and tell them the same thing. Contact information listed at bottom of article.

Today more than 90% of American votes are counted by private corporations using concealed vote counting technology. Many, if not all, of these private corporations are embroiled in controversies regarding the transparency, accuracy, and security of the election results delivered by their products. Some of these e-voting industrialists have been openly partisan.

It is a national security threat of the highest level to have our elections conducted by private corporate interests counting our votes in secret.

The only thing Congress and the media (in its supporting role) have to say about election reform is HR 2894 (the Holt Bill).

But the Holt Bill does not help eliminate this fundamental threat; it makes things much worse.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

July 18, 2009

The Cult of Holt and More from Nancy Tobi

By Joan Brunwasser

Part one of my interview with Nancy

Part two of my interview with Nancy

This is the final portion of my interview with voting rights activist, Nancy Tobi.

Initially, the Holt bill had more uniform support among the election integrity community. What happened, Nancy?

Unfortunately, since 2003, Mr. Holt and his suggested legislation have gone through a number of transformations. As a result he has damaged his position as "the Congressional election reform leader", and his legislation is no longer supportable.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

July 15, 2009

Nancy Tobi Spells Out Exactly Why Holt Bill is Bad News for Democracy, Exclusive Interview

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back, Nancy. In the first part of our interview, you laid out the basic conflict between Holt and those who oppose his legislation as being on two mutually exclusive paths. Can you give our readers specifics about how you and Congressman Holt part ways?

I told you that Holt's bill (HR 2894) is an expansion of the Help America Vote Act, which was a computerized voting bill.

So here are four areas where we differ on how to achieve meaningful election reform.

1. Holt calls for requiring paper records in voting systems, so the paperless touch screen voting machines HAVA paid for will need to be reconfigured to support printers and then to be phased out after the next presidential election and replaced with computerized optical scanning machines instead.

SOURCE:OpEdNews

July 12, 2009

Exclusive Interview with Democracy Warrior, Nancy Tobi

By Joan Brunwasser

I have with me democracy warrior, Nancy Tobi. It's nice to have you back for another OpEdNews interview, Nancy. There's a lot of talk about Congressman Holt's new bill. Many in the election integrity movement are supporting it. You, along with Bev Harris and Black Box Voting, and VotersUnite, among others, are not. Why should our readers accept your take on it?

Well, your readers shouldn't accept anyone's take on it. They should read the bill itself to see what it is about. But I understand that reading legislation is not everyone's cup of tea. And this bill, in particular, is most difficult to read because of its obtuse language and expression. This is either sloppiness on the part of Holt and his staff, or deliberate obfuscation. Either way, when the law is unclear it pushes people to the courts to decide on its interpretation. With election law, this is particularly dangerous. The last thing we want to do is pass fuzzy election law that throws our elections to the courts for interpretation. You don't have to look further than the 2000 presidential election that was decided by the Supreme Court to understand the implications of such a set up.

If folks don't want to read the bill itself and prefer to rely on the analysis of others, than I guess I am as good a resource as anyone. I have studied this bill for years, in all of its various iterations. In fact, when I first began to speak out against the bill I was pretty much a lone voice in the wilderness. Everyone in the movement, it seemed, was rallying behind Holt and his bill.

I think most people hadn't even read it and were relying on Holt's reputation as an election reformer or something. And many in the movement's early leadership had been personally approached by Holt. You might say co-opted, in fact.

Why are you against the legislation?

My dissent is and has always been based on a very careful read of the bill and the real world implications if it were to pass. I have not only consulted with real world election officials but I have also worked in elections as a citizen volunteer. I have consulted with attorneys for legal interpretations, and I have traveled around the country to observe meetings and deliberations of the White House's Election Assistance Commission and its Standards Board, which is composed of the nation's top state election officials.

I've done my due diligence on this bill.

And unlike some of the early Holt supporters, Holt's office has never opened its doors to me. They don't seem to want to work with dissent, which accounts for why their bill remains as divisive and controversial as it is.

So I have never had any personal stake in this process. I came at it as an outsider, I have no personal agenda, and nothing to gain from my analysis one way or the other. In this sense, I think I am presenting as honest and straightforward and factually supportable analysis as you will find on this issue.

Fair enough. So, will you walk our readers through the ins and outs of the Holt Bill?

Sure. Legislation like this is presented as a solution to some kind of problem. So I think it is important to first define the problem we are trying to solve here. The problem Holt is trying to solve is very different from the problem as I and many others in the movement now see it.

Obviously, America's elections are broken in a lot of ways. After the tragedy of the 2000 presidential election, Congress and the White House put together legislation called the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), ostensibly as a solution to the election problems that had been exposed in 2000. I'll talk a bit more about HAVA later, but suffice to say that the "solution" we were sold in HAVA had nothing to do with the problems in our election systems.

SOURCE: Black Box Voting Below are the editorials from Black Box Voting, Open Voting Consortium, VotersUnite.org, and Nancy Tobi of Election Defense Alliance and Democracy for New Hampshire opposing and rebutting the latest incarnation of Holt's perpetually flawed proposal for election reform, currently known as "The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009 (HR 2894)"

STATEMENT OF BLACK BOX VOTING AGAINST HOLT BILL

We are in agreement that DRE voting machines need to be eliminated, but not at the expense of human rights. We don't need a "Holt Bill." What we do need:

PROTECT AND DEFEND PUBLIC ELECTION PRINCIPLES

(1) Protect and enforce right to know for every essential component of our public elections -- eliminate practices which allow government insiders to conduct key parts of elections in secret;

(2) Protect and enforce required checks and balances -- strengthen compliance, remedies and enforcement.

(3) Restore necessary mechanics for public elections: Require voter-marked paper ballots unless assistive device is required.

NOTE:

Time for us all to call out the Times AND Congress on their support of illegal, fraud-friendly, privatized e-voting systems.

Write to the NYT: editorial@nytimes.com
letters@nytimes.com

Tell Paul Hodes to NOT repeat his past mistake of endorsing this legislation!

---

SOURCE: BradBlog

Editorial endorsing Rep. Holt's Election Bill Misleads, Gets Facts Wrong...

Posted By Brad Friedman On 23rd June 2009 @ 15:28 In

The New York Times just doesn't get it. You'd think, by now, they would. But they don't. And they should print a correction immediately.

In a brief, unbylined editorial yesterday, headlined "How to Trust Electronic Voting," 1 the paper endorses this year's version of Rep. Rush Holt's election reform bill. The editorial is misleading and, even worse, blatantly (and inexcusably) inaccurate on at least one important point...

The first graf begins thusly:

---

Electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper record of every vote cast cannot be trusted. In 2008, more than one-third of the states, including New Jersey and Texas, still did not require all votes to be recorded on paper. Representative Rush Holt has introduced a good bill that would ban paperless electronic voting in all federal elections.

---

No need to read the piece much further, frankly. The reference to "paperless electronic voting," aside from being so very 2005, is also incredibly misleading. The idea that "electronic voting machines that...produce a paper record" are somehow more trustworthy than those that don't, has long ago been discredited by computer scientists and security experts. For just one such example, see this video 2 produced by the UC Santa Barbara's Computer Security Group for CA SoS Debra Bowen's landmark "Top-to-Bottom Review" of electronic voting systems. The scientists demonstrate how to hack a Sequoia touch-screen voting machine --- one that produces "a paper record" --- in seconds. The same technique can be applied to virtually any other Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting system.

SOURCE: Open Voting Consortium
The main offending part for me is where they say the machine for individuals with disabilities must allow the voter to "independently verify and cast the permanent paper ballot without requiring the voter to manually handle the paper ballot;" This is ridiculous. This the proverbial $900 hammer approach. No machine has this capability currently, and such a machine would be many times more expensive than necessary. Potential solutions would solve one almost non-existent problem and create several others -- besides the expense.

********
Dear Friends of Open Voting:

I need your help today. As you may recall, US Representative Rush Holt has introduced several badly flawed voting reform bills in the past few years. We have opposed them for a variety of reasons.

Last week, Holt introduced his new one: The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009 (HR 2894)
http://holt.house.gov/voting.shtml

As you decry the alleged election fraud in Iran, keep in mind that the majority of the nation's election officials - like NH's state election officials - have knowingly approved fraud-friendly and defective vote counting computers. Across the nation, the vast majority of our local election officials, have long ceased to fulfill their constitutional duties. In NH, most of our election officials prefer to let LHS Associates and Diebold Corporation take over - and I do mean takeover - our democracy. Forget Iran; it's time to say "NO" to concealed vote counting here in America.

---

The New York Times has come out with yet another editorial in support of concealed vote counting in America, hyping it up as "trustworthy" computerized vote counting and encouraging Congress to pass yet another version of Congressman Rush Holt's (D-NJ) corporate-backed computerized voting bill.

Tell NH Congressional reps Shea Porter and Hodes to NOT support the Holt "Voter Confidence" bill.

Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) is getting ready to introduce his 2009 electronic voting bill. Interested readers can review the 65-page proposal here. Holt has been trying for several years to pass one version or another of this bill.

The federal Voting Rights Act requires observable vote counting. Many state constitutions demand a public voting system with public vote counts. The Holt Bill mandates computerized voting systems, and enforces concealed vote counting.

Concealed vote counting violates our voting rights.

The Holt Bill extends the federally sponsored 2002 e-voting Ponzi scheme, when Congress, through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), invested $4 billion taxpayer dollars into a fraudulent e-voting promise, causing the states to scoop up computerized voting machines and voting registration systems that turned out to be as fraud-friendly as the firm of Madoff Investment Securities.

Do the right thing by calling, emailing, and faxing or mailing your Representatives with this simple message:

“I urge you to restore the use of paper ballots which are counted in public on election night in all Federal elections. I am very concerned about this serious issue, and I hope that you will take immediate action to protect democracy instead of undermining democracy. Please do not support the Holt bill, and instead, support Congressman Kucinich’s bill calling for hand counted paper ballots. Thank you.”

SOURCE: OpEdNews

September 19, 2007

How to Take Action on Holt and Fix Our Elections

By Mark Adams

I represented Clint Curtis, John Russell, and Frank Gonzalez in contesting their alleged losses in 2006 in Florida State court and in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our contest was instrumental in exerting the pressure to pass a paper ballots law in Florida which at least gives us something to count if someone can find an attorney who will file a lawsuit or a contest. However, these contests were dismissed WITHOUT any review of the evidence and contrary to the law as well as the rights of the candidates and voters to have the votes counted.

Laying to rest the mythological cornerstone of the Common Cause, Move-On, PFAW, True Majority-supported Holt Bill (HR811), the IT industry explains the fallacy of HR811's paper trail promise. No friends of hand count paper ballot system, the group recommends even more costly and insecure computerized solutions! Nonetheless, this report represents the broad consensus that can be found among disparate groups with differing philosophies against the Holt Bill paper trail proposal.
SOURCE: InfoWorld.com


Group says e-voting paper trail wouldn't improve security

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation says that paper trails will add cost but not security, though many analysts disagree with the assertion

By Grant Gross, IDG News Service

September 18, 2007

Requiring print-outs as a back-up to electronic voting machines would not improve security but would increase costs of U.S. voting systems, according to a report released Tuesday.

National Governors Association (NGA)
National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS)
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Council of State Governments (CSG)
National Association of Counties (NACo)
National League of Cities (NLC)
U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM)
National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT)
National Association of Election Officials (Election Center)
National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks (NACRC)
International Assn of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT)

September 18, 2007

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

The undersigned organizations representing state and local governments across the nation respectfully urge you to resist bringing H.R. 811, the “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007”, to the House floor during the first session of the 110th Congress.

The majority of states already require a voter-verified paper record of every voter’s vote. H.R. 811 would preempt those laws, requiring states to replace equipment they purchased to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 – even if it already offers a voter-verified paper trail – with technology that does not exist yet. As a result, it imposes an unfunded federal mandate of unknown proportions. In addition, it contains unnecessary and overly broad requirements for many states to enact hasty changes to their voting laws in the 14 months remaining between now and the 2008 Presidential election.

SOURCE: Coalition for Voting Integrity


H.R.’ Microsoft 811’ Challenges Our Voting Rights and Democracy Itself!

“"So what I agreed to... I didn't do the negotiations but I understand what they were doing, so I shouldn't say I agreed to them... but I accept the outcome."” -Rep Rush Holt

“Unfortunately, the committee that made this change heard from Microsoft…

They heard that voice” Rep Rush Holt

We present a “debate” with Rep. Rush Holt on “Microsoft 811” using the words of Congressman Rush Holt (NJ) captured on video at a Town Meeting in his district in July 2007. . Since Mr. Holt and major supporters of ‘Microsoft 811’ refuse to debate, then we must use Mr. Holt’s own comments to reply and question.

Holt: “The confidence in the working of our elections has been shaken badly. There are literally millions of Americans who don't believe the results of recent elections…in certain elections.”

Congress is poised to pass another phony bill. Like the "Patriot Act", designed to strip civil liberties from American patriots and other free citizens of the world, or the "Clear Skies Initiative", designed to allow corporations to pump more poisons into our heavens. The "Voter Confidence Act", or HR811, or the Holt Bill, is being brought to the House floor today.

Learn more about this dangerous legislation from its prime sponsor, Congressman Rush Holt himself. View these three short videos, taken from a town meeting with Congressman Holt's constituents in July 2007.

Is his bill good for the nation? You be the judge.

Microsoft811 (5 minutes)

By Mary Ann Gould

Holt: "It's no longer my bill."

In a town meeting in his New Jersey home district in July, Congressman Rush Holt made some disturbing statements which leave no doubt that H.R. 811 has become a bill that protects the interests of software corporations over the rights of citizens. In fact the Holt bill is NOT the Holt bill anymore! It has become 'Microsoft 811'!

Mr. Holt: "The bill has been changed since I introduced it. It's no longer my bill -- well, it's still my bill but it's been marked up in committee."

Further he added:

"Unfortunately, the committee that made this change heard from Microsoft. They heard that Voice. The point is Microsoft did lobby strongly. It wasn't just Microsoft. It was everybody who-"

Audience question: "Diebold?"

Holt: "No, it was software -- the software industry."

There is something seriously wrong when a U.S. Congressman can say that an election reform bill he introduced was significantly changed through the lobbying effort of Microsoft and the software industry....that their voices were heard!

Opinion: Michael Collins

© 2004-06 Rand Careaga/salamander.eps, With Permission

At a New Jersey town meeting this July, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said of his bill, House Resolution 811, "It’s not my bill anymore."

Why shouldn't the world be safe for vendors? Microsoft in particular? After all, they pay the bills. Just let them have whatever they want and let the rest of us be thankful we’ve got jobs. This is the prevailing philosophy in Washington, DC, your capitol and the supposed heart of modern democracy.

House Resolution 811 ("The Holt Bill") is coming up for a vote this week, word has it. The questions are stark. What will our Congress be voting for? Whose interests are represented in the final mark up of this legislation?

SOURCE: OpEdNews

September 1, 2007

By Rob Kall

This is the third or fourth time Moveon has run a bogus poll, setting up the answer by providing incomplete, biased information, this time on a bad bill it looks like they want to support. So they leave out key information, ask members to vote, and if they do, based on the info Moveon provides, it looks like moveon got member support. Shame on Move on.

Those who pay little attention to history are doomed to repeat it.

I call your attention to HAVA: What they really wanted to achieve was purchase of electronic voting systems. Out of political necessity, they stuck in a few checks and balances. The only thing that held to a hard and fast deadline was PURCHASE OF THE MACHINES. The new standards were developed AFTER the machines,
and many of the supposed checks and balances have yet to be enacted.

What is really desired of the Holt Bill is to centralize power under the EAC and destroy efforts by the public to examine the systems. Those are the two things that will take place immediately. All the other stuff will be delayed, never implemented, or will remain unfunded.

" The only way we the people will know if we have fair and impartial elections is paper ballots, hand counted inside the precincts before they are transported to the county clerk. Anything else will be a continuing illusion and a tragedy for this nation. Do Americans want fast-food style elections or honest ones? High-tech can be good, but we cannot allow it to steal the ballot box in favor of speed".

SOURCE: NewsWithViews.com - Merlin,OR,USA
According to several reports, California computer scientists at leading universities were successful at hacking into machines made by Diebold Election ...

by Jim Kouri, July 30, 2007

Scientists may have proven one of Americans' worst fears: that electronic voting machines can be easily manipulated.

According to several reports, California computer scientists at leading universities were successful at hacking into machines made by Diebold Election Systems, Hart Intercivic and Sequoia Voting Systems. Once they hacked into the systems they were able to change votes.