2010: A progressive strategy to win
11-18-2009 – 12:50 pm | Comments

By Brent Budowsky | The Hill
Progressives throughout the nation should rally around a strategy that could bring a surprise victory in the 2010 elections with a clear electoral plan and a program that is patriotic, …

Read the full story »
111th Congress

Healthcare

Israel/Palestine

Obama Administration

war crimes

Home » The Democrats

DNC Resolution in Support of Election Reform

Submitted by kspidel on 11-19-2005 – 2:03 pmComments

The following resolution will be considered by the DNC Resolutions Committee at its meeting on December 1, 2005, in conjunction with the meetings of the Democratic National Committee, December 1-3, 2005.

Submitted by: Donna L. Brazile, At Large/District of Columbia
Hartina Flournoy, At-Large/District of Columbia
Ben Johnson, At Large/District of Columbia

Resolution in Support of Election Reform

WHEREAS, in June, 2005, the Democratic National Committee completed its exhaustive
review of the presidential campaign in Ohio; and

WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” documents
that more than one quarter of Ohio voters reported problems with their voting experience, and
African Americans were more than two times as likely as white voters to claim they encountered
problems with their voting experience; and

WHEREAS, this report confirms evidence of widespread voter confusion; voter suppression;
negligence and incompetence on the part of election officials; long lines at the polls; improper
requests for voter identification, particularly among young voters and African American voters;
the failure to properly process absentee ballots and the improper use of provisional ballots in
Ohio on Election Day 2004; and

WHEREAS, evaluations of the administrative processes and technology used by election
officials in Ohio revealed that inadequate and insecure voting systems were pervasive
throughout Ohio—unreliable punch card systems and insecure, unverifiable direct record
electronic (DRE) machines; and

WHEREAS, 71 percent of white voters in Ohio were very confident their vote was counted but
only 19 percent of African American voters were confident their votes were counted; and

WHEREAS, the right to vote and to have that vote accurately counted is the bedrock on which
our democracy stands and nothing is more fundamental to our freedom than our confidence in
the integrity of our democratic institutions; and

WHEREAS, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio” makes recommendations for
future action by parties, legislators and local election officials to improve future elections;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will
continue to work with Members of Congress, lawmakers in all 50 United States, the District of
Columbia, and all U.S. Territories, local election officials, and community leaders to update and
reform our election laws to ensure that voter confidence in our election system is restored and
maintained;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in
Ohio” recommends several actions; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends states, the District of Columbia
and all U. S. Territories codify into law all required election practices, including requirements for
the adequate training of official poll workers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommend lawmakers adopt uniform and clear
published standards for the distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of official poll
workers among precincts, to ensure adequate and nondiscriminatory access, and that these
procedures be based on set ratios of numbers of machines and poll workers per number of voters
expected to turn out, and should be made available for pub lic comment before being adopted;
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers adopt legislation to
make clear and uniform the rules on voter registration; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and local election
officials adopt clear and uniform rules on the use of, and the counting of, provisional ballots, and
distribute them for public comment well in advance of each Election Day, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not
be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these
systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be
considered the official record; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends remaining punch card systems
should be discontinued; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make it easier for
college students to vote in the jurisdiction in which their school is located; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers develop procedures to
ensure that voting is facilitated, without compromising security or privacy, for all eligible voters
living overseas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers make voter suppression
a criminal offense in all states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. Territories; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends lawmakers and election officials
should improve the training of poll workers.

  • peggy
    Keep talking about this.....This is so important....thanks
  • This resolution does not go far enough. The DNC needs to take a firm stand for decocracy by taking a firm stand against the the privatization of our elections by private corporations using secret software to record and count our votes. A paper ballot is insufficient if because we never look at the ballots unless the race was very, very close. If the race was rigged so that the outcome was not close enough to trigger a full recount, then the paper ballots are useless. Read Bev Harris' book Black Box Voting to understand why the DNC's position is inadequate. Read Mark Crispin Miller's new book Fooled Again. Write to the DNC and demand that they take a more heroic stand and vote on a resolution to end the privatization of our elections and secret recording and counting our votes.
  • Abacus
    Elizabeth is correct.

    Suggest adding another item, to the effect that it shall be legitimate to conduct elections by hand counting paper ballots, without the use of any machines.

    For elections involving complicated ballots this may require changes in long-established practices, regulations and law. However, there is much to be gained.

    Poll workers do not have to cope with complicated technical apparatus. Sound procedures have been worked out over many years in many jurisdictions; fraud though possible is much more difficult than with electronic systems, which can be hacked during elections and subverted by trojan horses implanted in the code...

    First, consider costs.

    Canada conducts hand-count paper ballot elections for $1.81 per citizen per year.

    San Francisco conducted a runoff mayoral election at a cost of $3.27 per citizen. [one election, not a whole year]

    Sarasota County, Florida, spends $8.00 per citizen per year.

    Then here is information about Canada’s system. Their population is like California’s; and nationwide elections cover the continent from west to east.

    Registered voters - 21,243,473
    Number of polling stations - 60,728
    Average of registered voters per station (minimum of 250 per precinct)-350
    Total ballots cast - 12,997,185
    Average ballots cast per polling station - 214
    Ballots rejected - 139,412 or 1.1% -
    Voter turn-out - 61.2%
    150,000 election workers

    Key to timely hand-count: limit the size of each precinct iaw length of the ballot.
    The length of the ballot could determine the number of voters per precinct.

    Within four hours after the last polls closed in Canada's parliamentary election, officials had hand-counted virtually every one of nearly 13 million paper ballots.

    And there are no concerns about incompetent and venal equipment makers.

    Also there is less time to have to endure pundits.
  • rob
    I agree with elizabeth.www.blackboxvoting.org is really eye opening.This should be the top priority of our legislature.
  • citizen USA
    This is a silly resolution. So many inside the Beltway resolutions... on items that, to date, were considered to be what day-to-day operations of US Elections consisted of.

    This draft of reform... doesnt even cast sufficient light on this underlying irony.

    I tell you, the inside the beltway gang of political criminals need to wake up. Donna Brazil should be ashamed of herself. This is a joke... right???
  • Texas Star
    Thank God this resolution is being presented at the Democratic National Committee Meeting December 1-3, 2005. I think it's important to remember that HR 550 has been held at bay by Republican Congressman Ney, Chair of the House Administration Committee since February 2005. So, of course there is absolutely no movement on voting reform right now. None. Our democratic representatives have their hands tied.

    Even California is having problems with their attempts at state voting reform - check this out: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Will_California_s...

    And since the Republican Party has control of everything bringing this issue to the DNC is essential - even with the Republican Party struggling in the polls they still sit in the driver's seat.

    The Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently affirmed what many of us know. Voting fraud definitely occurred in Ohio in November 2004:

    http://www.rockrivertimes.com/index.pl?cmd=view...
  • Pat
    "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will
    continue to work with Members of Congress...to ensure that voter confidence in our election system is restored and maintained."

    That's the best the DNC could do? Just make sure voter confidence is restored? That's ridiculous. That's like...Well, remember when we all believed in Teflon? We had confidence in our non-stick pans. So now that we know how toxic it is, should someone be working to "restore and maintain" our "confidence" in Teflon? No.

    There's a problem with the voting machines. The problem is they belong to private companies instead of the voting public. Remove our vote count from the hands of the private corporations. We the people want the ballots back in our own hands.

    I agree with Elizabeth, Abacus and citizen USA (prior entries).
  • anon@ymous.org
    The "Democratic" Party is as much at fault for phony US elections as the Republicans Party is. This tepid response to election fraud from the Democratics is proof of it. The that the PR-speak resolution only even aims to aims to "restore voter confidence" -- not to produce elections which accurately guage voter intent. Paper ballots, hand marked and counted in precincts which post their own result on election nights. No computers, no machine tabulators. Unless the Democratics or the Republicans propose this simple, reliable solution to wholesale election fraud they're just blowing smoke.
  • Anon Ymous
    The "Democratic" Party is as much at fault for phony US elections as the Republicans Party is. This tepid response to election fraud from the Democratics is proof of it. The that the PR-speak resolution only even aims to aims to "restore voter confidence" -- not to produce elections which accurately guage voter intent. Paper ballots, hand marked and counted in precincts which post their own result on election nights. No computers, no machine tabulators. Unless the Democratics or the Republicans propose this simple, reliable solution to wholesale election fraud they're just blowing smoke.
  • Anonymous
    The "Democratic" Party is as much at fault for phony US elections as the Republicans Party is. This tepid response to election fraud from the Democratics is proof of it. The that the PR-speak resolution only even aims to aims to "restore voter confidence" -- not to produce elections which accurately guage voter intent. Paper ballots, hand marked and counted in precincts which post their own result on election nights. No computers, no machine tabulators. Unless the Democratics or the Republicans propose this simple, reliable solution to wholesale election fraud they're just blowing smoke.
  • Joe Cubells
    I fully support this important resolution. We should push the Democrats in Congress to introduce a similar one on the floors of the House and Senate; ditto for every state legislature. I also agree with Anonymous' contention that the Dems are at as much fault as the Reps-- why hasn't this issue been constantly in the headlines for a year already? Answer: no elected Democratic leader (with the exception of John Conyers) has had the courage to stand up and make this an issue over and over again.

    Please broadcase an email giving us the link to the actual report mentioned in the resolution.
  • Jeanie Williams-West
    There are so many of us with questions still about the black boxes, I voted early here in Louisiana because i was campaign staff and I was the only one who had attended VRI classes prior to the election, i am not a lawyer but doing this helped me deal with questions and wheter I needed to call our attornies to investigate the allegation of an irregularity further. I did the local polling in my parish I had 12, 000 Democrats voting a straight Democratic ticket however when pol results were published the numbers were far from what I had. We had 7000 vote absentee last November inclusive of both partiea and the independents, these votes were cast on black boxes as were the votes of the 1st Congressional District of New Orleans which is predominantly black and includes the 9th ward of New Orleans , do you see a pattern here , Rep. Bobby Jindal lives in the first district , as did Senator David Vitter when he was elected to Congress , moving to the Lake view Area of Metairie only after his election ,the Lake View area is not the first district, My poll numbers were off by exactly 4500 which would have been the 3500 Democrats that voted prior to the election and the 1000 Independents, my vote was in that group in this parish which has 21,000 registered voters, so yes we need reforms very badly need reforms .
  • John in Cincinnati
    It is a good beginning.

    Two things are missing, both of which I can be justified for tactical reasons, but I hope for more under the leadership of Chairman Dean.

    One, a number of the problems cited are violations of election law in Ohio (pursuant to the Revised Code). A violation of Title XXXV Elections of the Ohio Revised Code is a prima-facie case of fraud. To wit,

    "§ 3599.42. Prima-facie case of fraud.

    A violation of any provision of Title XXXV [35] of the Revised Code constitutes a prima-facie case of fraud within the purview of such title."

    Ergo, it would not be stretching things to state the DNC found evidence of fraud. Let's call it what it is.

    Second, regardless of whether it changes the outcome or not, candidates have a responsibility to the citizens to ensure that every vote counted. Both Kerry in '04 and Hackett in '05 chose to vacation rather than stand and fight with those of us on the ground. Candidates must demand a recount if there is even a hint of shenanigans. I would like to see that practice incorporated into the resolution.
  • It would not be that difficult, nor expensive, to post all the votes/subtotals as they are adding up - this lets any number of independent groups check counts, statistical anomalies, etc AS THEY HAPPEN - there's nothing to inspire confidence in the number 13733 like watching it rise smoothly from zero with no bumps, no jumps, no reversals. Combine this with small districts, and the entire aggregation from districts up to the total become completely transparent.
  • It would not be that difficult, nor expensive, to post all the votes/subtotals as they are adding up - this lets any number of independent groups check counts, statistical anomalies, etc AS THEY HAPPEN - there's nothing to inspire confidence in the number 13733 like watching it rise smoothly from zero with no bumps, no jumps, no reversals. Combine this with small districts, and the entire aggregation from districts up to the total become completely transparent.

    And at any rate, "expensive" is a red herring anyway. Like any other vital portion of our country, we need to fund it at whatever cost it takes to make it work right.
  • Robert Annecone
    Giving every voter A RECEIPT THAT CONFIRMS WHO THEY VOTED FOR IS NOT ENOUGH! How can we be certain the TOTALS were not electronically MANIPULATED? I believe it was Stalin who said, it doesn't matter how they vote, it's how you count the votes that matters.

    THERE IS AN ANSWER. If every voter received a receipt that confirmed which candidate he/she selected, and ALSO stated THE TOTAL VOTES FROM THAT PRECINCT FOR THAT CANDIDATE, AT THAT MOMENT, then evidence of who is winning would be in the hands of the voters. If my wife voted after I did, and voted for the same candidate, the total on her receipt had better be at least one vote higher than the total on my receipt. And the total reported by the precinct the next morning had better not be lower than the total on the receipt of the last to vote before the precinct closed. Evidence of the actual totals will be in the hands of the voters.

    After the 2000 election in Florida, and the 2004 election in Ohio, and after numerous computer companies such as Compuware reported voting machine totals could be manipulated, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SIT BACK AND TRUST TOTALS REPORTED BY VOTING MACHINES THAT WERE SUPPLIED BY COMPANIES WHO SUPPORT REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNS?
  • Robert Annecone
    Giving every voter A RECEIPT THAT CONFIRMS WHO THEY VOTED FOR IS NOT ENOUGH! How can we be certain the TOTALS were not electronically MANIPULATED? I believe it was Stalin who said, it doesn't matter how they vote, it's how you count the votes that matters.

    THERE IS AN ANSWER. If every voter received a receipt that confirmed which candidate he/she selected, and ALSO stated THE TOTAL VOTES FROM THAT PRECINCT FOR THAT CANDIDATE, AT THAT MOMENT, then evidence of who is winning would be in the hands of the voters. If my wife voted after I did, and voted for the same candidate, the total on her receipt had better be at least one vote higher than the total on my receipt. And the total reported by the precinct the next morning had better not be lower than the total on the receipt of the last to vote before the precinct closed. Evidence of the actual totals will be in the hands of the voters.

    After the 2000 election in Florida, and the 2004 election in Ohio, and after numerous computer companies such as Compuware reported voting machine totals could be manipulated, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SIT BACK AND TRUST TOTALS REPORTED BY VOTING MACHINES THAT WERE SUPPLIED BY COMPANIES WHO SUPPORT REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNS?
  • Robert Annecone
    Giving every voter A RECEIPT THAT CONFIRMS WHO THEY VOTED FOR IS NOT ENOUGH! How can we be certain the TOTALS were not electronically MANIPULATED? I believe it was Stalin who said, it doesn't matter how they vote, it's how you count the votes that matters.

    THERE IS AN ANSWER. If every voter received a receipt that confirmed which candidate he/she selected, and ALSO stated THE TOTAL VOTES FROM THAT PRECINCT FOR THAT CANDIDATE, AT THAT MOMENT, then evidence of who is winning would be in the hands of the voters. If my wife voted after I did, and voted for the same candidate, the total on her receipt had better be at least one vote higher than the total on my receipt. And the total reported by the precinct the next morning had better not be lower than the total on the receipt of the last to vote before the precinct closed. Evidence of the actual totals will be in the hands of the voters.

    After the 2000 election in Florida, and the 2004 election in Ohio, and after numerous computer companies such as Compuware reported voting machine totals could be manipulated, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SIT BACK AND TRUST TOTALS REPORTED BY VOTING MACHINES THAT WERE SUPPLIED BY COMPANIES WHO SUPPORT REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGNS?
  • Robert Annecone
    Giving every voter a receipt that confirms who they voted for is not enough! How can we be certain the totals were not electronically manipulated? I believe it was Stalin who said, it doesn't matter how they vote, it's how you count the votes that matters.

    There is an answer! If every voter received a receipt that confirmed which candidate he/she selected, and also stated the total votes from that precinct for that candidate, at that moment, for that candidate, at that moment; then evidence of who is winning would be in the hands of the voters. If my wife voted after I did, and voted for the same candidate, the total on her receipt had better be at least one vote higher than the total on my receipt. And the total reported by the precinct the next morning had better not be lower than the total on the receipt of the last to vote before the precinct closed. Evidence of the actual totals will be in the hands of the voters.

    After the 2000 election in Florida, and the 2004 election in Ohio, and after numerous computer companies such as Compuware reported voting machine totals could be manipulated, are we really going to sit back and trust totals reported by voting machines that were supplied by companies who support republican campaigns?
  • eridani
    "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the DNC recommends touch screen (DRE) machines not be used until a reliable voter verifiable audit feature can be uniformly incorporated into these systems and that in the event of a recount, the paper or other auditable record should be considered the official record;"

    Not enough, not by a long shot. It means jack shit to have auditable systems unless audits are actually REQUIRED. Also, there was no mention of the problem of proprietary software, the existence of which is vote theft by definition.

    If I take your ballot from you, ask you how you want it filled out, and then fill it out where you can't see what I am doing, I have stolen your vote. If I'm a computer programmer, that makes your situation worse, not better. This remains the case even if I fill it out the way you want me to--I don't have the right to fill out your ballot in secret, period.
blog comments powered by Disqus