On the Withdrawal of Rep. Weiner’s Single-Payer Amendment
Headline »
On the Withdrawal of Rep. Weiner’s Single-Payer Amendment
11-6-2009 – 4:15 pm | Comments

n the eve of what could have been the first vote on single-payer legislation in our nation’s history, we have just learned that because of last minute developments, the vote and debate on Congressman Weiner’s …

Read the full story »
111th Congress

Healthcare

Israel/Palestine

Obama Administration

war crimes

Home » Election Protection

Holt Bill – Yes or No?

Submitted by Bryan Buchan on 3-27-2009 – 8:02 amComments

WE ENCOURAGE YOU AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE TO VOTE IN OUR PDA BLOG POLL REGARDING THE HOLT BILL. THE POLL AND A LINK TO THE ACTUAL BILL (PDF) IS LOCATED ON THE TOP RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE. THANK YOU!

By Paul Letto | PDA Blog Contributor

I’m an independent election law scholar and former election law attorney. On all the major reform promises of the Holt bill, Ive been there done that, and its nothing to be happy about or to work to nationalize as a model.

As lead plaintiff in Lehto v Sequoia, I sued to get rid of paperless touch screen DREs. County supervisors got rid of the DREs and my case was then moot according to the court because the DREs went away. But optical scanners with their secret invisible corporate vote counts took their place, so Ive never celebrated this and Holt shouldnt claim this as a benefit or reform either.

As lead counsel, I litigated a congressional election contest called CA50 that was an optical scan election with a mandatory audit and one of the most corrupt Ive ever seen much less litigated. We sued for a recount, and the audit showed problems, but nothing was done. Just like Bush v. Gore, the secret machine counts declare the winner and were Fooled Again into thinking that something that happens after the election can actually reverse a corrupt election (when it really counts), but it never has in modern history not against the wishes of the incumbent party that is in control of the vote counts. (The examples of Gregoire in Washington and possibly Franken in Minnesota are cases where Democrats predominantly controlled, whereas CA50 was a Democrat challenging Republican control).

The Acid Test for Freedom and Democracy is exactly this: Does a voting system guarantee our ability to remove CORRUPT incumbents including corrupt election officials? This is a yes or no question. The answer determines if we are free and if we have a real democracy, or not. We can not be half free, and half measures are like being half pregnant or half dead compromise on core rights is just a violation of those rights because a right is something you have that nobody can take away. Compromise is par for the course only in regular legislation not involving core rights.

Martin Luther King said now is not the time for the tranquilizing drug of gradualism, now is the time to make the promise of democracy real. Gradualists and incrementalists are not voting rights advocates like King was, King always pushed for the full measure of rights, and only accepted less when forced to by defeat.

Why accept half freedom, half accountability or half transparency when the errors and frauds will always flee to the concealed unaccountable secret parts?

The Holt train is headed completely in the wrong direction: it simply invests all of its claimed reforms in the post-election basket, and the post-election basket works so infrequently, and so EXPENSIVELY and litigiously, that it can not be the kind of compensation for secret vote counts it is claimed to be. I hereby advise any future attorneys to warn their clients if the Holt bill passes that their chances are slim indeed and warn Americans that fundraising to battle every bogus looking election to pay lawyers is a poor solution or reform. Even if a Franken can do it, can a state supreme court justice candidate do the same?

The goals, and the goalposts for reform are not set by the brainstorming of organizations like PDA, they are rights of all for which it is the #1 duty of the government to guarantee those rights in full. Why advocate for half measures on voting the right that protects all other rights would we advocate for freedom of speech only half the time, or weekends off from torture? Compromise on core rights is pure nonsense. It is the governments JOB to guarantee us our rights, instead they try to lecture We the People about what is realistic. Even if an individual wishes to waive their own right to vote in a transparently counted public election, nobody has a right to, nor is it possible to waive the inalienable right of We the People to self-government and control of our own elections. But what we cant see we certainly cant control.

The necessities for democracy include but are not limited to *global transparency* of counts, because the public is the ONLY party that can check and balance elections. The government can not investigate itself, audit itself, or whistleblow on the secret counts they wish to institutionalize with the Holt bill concerning THEIR OWN RE-ELECTIONS.

The only solution to problems of government, whether they be bailouts, campaign finance, and especially vote counting, is GLOBAL TRANSPARENCY.

Anything less than global transparency is like locking 4 out of 5 windows and doors and then PUBLISHING via the statutory Holt audit formulas whats locked and whats not locked. The cheaters know just what to do, they dont even need to try the four locked ones to know where to go.

Furthermore, as a class, without exception, all post-election remedies (both audits and recounts) are subject to legal challenge, just as in Bush v. Gore — at the worst possible time. Coleman will raise exactly these arguments and has been setting this up for appeal from the beginning as his lawyers recently bragged to the press. The only hope to avoid court-decided elections is to get it right on election night.

In contrast, just three weeks ago Germany got the full measure of their rights restored: The German Federal Constitutional Court found that “public elections” in the US-signed and approved post-WWII German Constitution requires that (1) the public may not be required to have expert knowledge to interpret the election, (2) no amount of government tests or audits or checks can substitute for the requirement of fully transparent, public vote counts, and (3) The German (Computerized) Voting Act was thrown out entirely — and any new voting act will have to have fully public counts. See http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg09-019en.html

The Holt bill, besides investing in “integrity” at a point of time thats WAY too late to catch any but a small percentage of errors or frauds, puts us in a very poor strategic position from which to take “next steps.” Paper ballots are a feel good placebo when its the vote counts that really matter. Instead, we must get it right on election night like New Hampshire does with precincts of up to 3000 people and long ballots. Theres no excuses for not being able to achieve what weve done in many places for a century, and any extra workers that might be needed can be summonsed just like they are with juries — and without which the jury system itself would collapse. Whatever the excuses are for not giving us real public elections on election night, administrative convenience and all other conceivable reasons pale in comparison to the importance of elections.

We can certainly restore election integrity if we want to: fully 92% in a August 2006 Zogby poll support the RIGHT of Americans to OBSERVE vote counts and obtain any and all information about vote counts. http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1163

What DEMOCRATICALLY legitimate objection or force can overrule that uncontested will of 92% the American people? Only some kind of force or corruption or tyranny can. We should not compromise with phantoms or corporate forces, and we must not compromise our freedom or democracy. It’s not ours to give up what so many have sacrificed so much for.

Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor

WE ENCOURAGE YOU AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE TO VOTE IN OUR PDA BLOG POLL REGARDING THE HOLT BILL. THE POLL AND A LINK TO THE ACTUAL BILL (PDF) IS LOCATED ON THE TOP RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PAGE. THANK YOU!

* Successfully litigated empty victory to help get rid of DREs,
replaced by opscans, see www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

* Litigated optical scan election with mandatory audits, among most corrupt ever (CA50). If lawyers disagree, that means elections get litigated and we all lose, litigation takes too long and terms expire as in Sarasota and CA50 http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4313

* Wrote article showing that machine-marked ballots are “Ultimate Nightmare for Democracy” See http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_leh_070521_ultimate_nightmare_f.htm

  • Vote "YES" to the "Holt" bill:

    BENEFICIAL FEATURES OF HOLT'S VOTER CONFIDENCE BILL

    * Requires voter-marked paper ballots

    -Replaces all paperless voting systems by 2010

    -Requires voter-marked paper ballots at all polling locations by 2010

    -Requires voter-marked paper ballot voting systems by 2016

    * Gives individuals a private right of legal action to file complaints about violations

    * Requires manually counting the ballots in 3, 5, or 10% of all precincts in post-election audits, allowing and giving incentives for using a more scientific alternative mechanism for conducting post-election audits that are approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

    -Requires the entity conducting the audit to meet the GAO independence standard

    * Unlike today’s DRE voting machines, the Voter Confidence bill requires ballot secrecy

    * Makes Paper ballots the official ballot and the true and correct record of votes cast and says that in the event of damaged paper ballots the electronic tally may not be the sole basis

    * Requires recounts of Federal elections to count ballots by hand

    * Includes absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters in all requirements

    * Requires accessible paper ballot verification for voters with disabilities

    * Requires public disclosure of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) test protocols, all communications with the vendors, and to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the results of the testing

    * Requires public disclosure of voting system technology (w/ a NDA) to “government entities with responsibility for the administration of voting and election-related matters”, “a party to pre- or post-election litigation challenging the result of an election or the administration or the use of the technology…”, “a person who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology solely for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology.”

    * Requires that any technology developed under its grants are non-proprietary public property, including

    - a study overseen by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of accessible ballot verification for voters whose primary language is not English and for voters with disabilities

    - research for development of “election-dedicated voting system software”.

    * Decentralizes Power Over Elections, Giving it to Local Jurisdictions by:

    - Prohibits the use of election-dedicated voting systems not certified by the State

    - Requires States to reimburse local jurisdictions for costs for conforming to the requirements (Thus removing the ability of States to force all jurisdictions to purchase the same voting system)

    * Prohibits wireless communications devices in voting systems

    * Prohibits Internet voting

    * Requires public disclosure of secure chain of custody for ballots and machines

    * Prohibits conflicts of interest of Federal testing labs & establishes a process for voting system testing to meet Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSGs)

    * Requires the EAC to promptly notify Congress, State election officials, and the public when a testing laboratory accreditation is revoked, suspended or restored or experiences a security failure

    * Funds the replacement of voting systems in non-conforming precincts


    ----------------------

    For exact quotes from the bill and a link to the bill see:
    http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/2...

    The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would provide more voting rights and more election transparency than American’s have had in US history.

    Please do not be misled by the forces that oppose federal election reform. Urge Congress to increase the transparency and verifiable accuracy of US elections and to increase the . Support this critically important bill that will ensure that voters determine who takes Federal office.
  • mcv2
    Holt's Bill will provide a voter verified paper ballot of our votes. Please read the points provided by Kathy Dopp. Many states (13?) including my own state, Pennsylvania, do not require a paper record of any kind. Most of PA, including Pittsburgh and Philadelphia vote into a black box. This bill will put an end to that kind of voting and give us the paper record that we can audit and recount if needed, as Al Franken was able to do in Minnesota. Yes, we need more effective audits and recount procedures, but first thing is first -- We need a paper ballot, first, or we cannot recount anything. We have been fighting for years for a paper ballot bill. Here it is. Thanks to Holt. There are no other bills on the horizon. To oppose this bill is to allow states like PA to continue to tally their votes mysteriously. To oppose this bill is to prevent states like PA from recounting suspicious results. To oppose this bill is to PREVENT MUCH NEEDED PROGRESS. PROGRESS IS MADE step by step. Come on Progressives! help us move forward. Vote YES to endorse the HOLT BILL!
  • L. D'Andrea
    If you have posted this opinion big as life here, how do you expect people to vote? Don't you think most will all vote "no" after reading it? Why not have two arguments for and against published here? We need federal election reform so badly. Without it, we have years more of wrangling when we clearly know that what we are doing is NOT the way. At least Holt is SOMETHING. If your position is "no" on Holt, why ask us what we think?
  • Marti C
    Anyone who has followed this issue closely since 2000 knows that there are powerful, very persuasive forces aligned to stop virtually ANY election reform. We live in Texas, which is another state where paper ballots are not mandated. That means there can be no recount, if needed. If this bill is a step in the right direction, why oppose it? Seriously. Sometimes, like Obama said about the banks, the first thing to do is put out the fire, and then look around for who's responsible and what to do to prevent it in the future. Anyone who sows the seeds of doubt when it comes to moving in the direction of reform that is vitally needed, can't be trusted.
  • Robert D. Klauber, PhD
    Why not, as another commenter noted, provide TWO views on the issue, one from each side? PDA should post Kathy Dopp's comment as a second position paper on the Holt bill. Otherwise, this is little more than a "railroad" job, such as that PDA often accuses government entities of.

    I have debated with Paul Letto and his friends on this issue for past Holt bills (that were thwarted by the Bush White House), and still, for the life of me, cannot comprehend why they insist on 100% of what they want or nothing. This, opposed to taking a bill that gives us 98% of what voting rights activists have asked for for years, and later working to get the last 2%, if one so wishes.

    We have a good chance of getting the Holt bill. We have no serious chance of getting what Letto wants, and thus, by going in that direction, a high probability of ending up in the same horrid place we have been for years, with no end in sight.

    The all or nothing philosophy, as opposed to taking what you can get, one step at a time, is quite beyond me.
  • Al McCullough
    I have come to realize that for over a century over 97% of the laws written in the United States are corporate laws. That is, as Frank Adams and Richard Grossman have so expertly documented and explained, laws that are written by agents of corporations, in the employee of the corporate, moneyed elite, for the benefit of corporations and those who hide behind that facade. They are not laws that groups of everyday citizens have gathered together and discussed and petitioned our representatives to draft and enact for the benefit of our families, communities, states and our nation.
    Who actually drafted the Holt bill and who paid to have it drafted? That information should be required to be appended to the head of every bill for all the citizens to consider. That, indeed, might be legislation we everyday citizens need to petition to have drafted and passed into law.
  • PDA Maggie
    VOTE YES! Even though it is ridiculous that PDA has decided to decide about this desperately-needed bill with this stupid, unscientific, easy-to-freep poll (and then led off the "debate" with a horribly biased blog post against it), VOTE YES!

    I live and vote in Pennsylvania and this bill will allow me and about 7 million other voters in around fifty of my state's largest counties to vote on hand-marked paper by 2010. But if this bill goes down, I (and seven million other Pennsylvanians) will be throwing votes down the black hole of a paperless touchscreen for the foreseeable future, maybe forever.

    IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT, PAUL LEHTO AND PDA???

    This new Holt bill is actually true reform and within our reach. As another poster says it gives us 98% of what we have been working for and we can go for the other 2% later. Supporting this bill is a no-brainer, and opposing it is so foolish and against democracy as to be beyond words.

    VOTE YES.

    PS --- PDA, as an organization you better think long and hard about the many supporters you will lose if in the end you decide to oppose this bill, especially after this stupid poll and one-sided biased articles against the bill. I will be one.
  • Dan Stanton
    The Help America Vote Act or HAVA was an open invitation for corporate corruption and fraud. The system HAVA created needs to be dismantled and a return of trustworthy elections starting with hand counted paper ballots on election night with results immediately posted in each precinct. In precinct, hand counted ballots under public scrutiny is the gold standard of a democracy. Voters not elections officials determining results. No other election system provides enough public oversight. Electronic vote counting systems constitute secret vote counting, " faith based elections". Elections officials are partisan and should never be trusted on faith, public oversight is the only answer..
  • s abrams
    why do none of the reform bills provide for receipts to the voters as groceries provide which could be used for issuing challenges and verifying samples or total votes. Machine entered ballots could be printed out and manually prepared provided with carbon type duplicates. Citizens wishing to challenge totals within their voting unit should be able to petition yhe local officials entity with a proportion of the voters with receipts which would be tied by coded number to their recorded vote.
  • zapkitty
    The "discussion draft" of Holt's latest is fatally flawed and contradictory in several places... possibly because the latest changes were simply piled on top of the old bill.

    But even given that excuse it's painfully obvious that Holt is still up to his old tricks, saying one thing and doing the opposite:

    Holt's primary concerns have *always* been in centralizing control of elections at the federal level (which will really work out well the next time a Karl Rove gains access to power.) and to service the corporations.

    An example, just one, but it's the one Kathy Dopp was on about:

    Holt's misled proponents:
    "BALLOT SECRECY!!!!!!!!!"

    The "discussion draft":

    ===

    (III) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verified paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any
    time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote without the voter's consent.

    ===

    This is exactly the OPPOSITE of ballot secrecy.

    The text "... without the voter’s consent." means tracking the voter with their vote is not only possible, it is allowed.

    This is a violation of just *how* many state laws?

    If the voter can be connected with their ballot after it is cast then the voter can be compelled to identify their vote... whether voluntarily or not.

    Which of course renders the voter vulnerable to coercion and vote-buying.

    This impossible condition will be changed of course... and in the changes something else toxic will be slipped in. Again. The "1 step forward 2 steps back" mutability of Holt's perenial "election reform" bill is legendary by now.

    But the fatally flawed basis of the bill and the way it shifts powers from the states to the federal government and breaks the "balance of powers" model our system was founded on will never be addressed. And Holt offers nothing but a corporate power grab in return.

    And the power it gives corporations at the expense of the public right to oversee their own elections is always there in his bill in one form or another.

    People, we've been through this before.

    And it's time you accepted that it's deliberate.

    As a corporate-centered "New Democrat" Holt is apparently interested in the public good only so far as it furthers centralized control of elections and corporate interests.

    It's same ol' same ol': with the new "reforms" as window dressing to distract and split the EI community... again... while Holt tries to "fix" the balance of powers system and also give the corporations as much as he thinks he can get away with.

    Everything else is populist window dressing.

    People, we need to talk.

    the zapkitty
  • Randy
    I am not one who "wishes to waive their own right to vote in a transparently counted public election" and I doubt anyone on this site is so let's not forget we are on the same side and differ only on the questions of strategy and tactics. The question on Holt is whether supporting it or opposing it will more effectively restore our voting systems to a state allowing that right to be exercised.

    Mr. Lehto, you imply that your experience spearheading laudable changes in California state law have informed you with the knowledge that similar changes on the Federal level will be as ineffective as they were in California. But it seems to me there is a very big difference and it appears premature to suppose the results would be equally disappointing. For example, the national and international newsworthiness of a clash with Federal law would be much greater. And perhaps the US Congresspersons whose names will be associated with the Holt bill will be able to influence the process more effectively than state politicians could.

    But even if Holt proves as inadequate as your California reforms it seems to me likely that passing it and letting it fail will be the fastest way to prove that to a sufficient number of citizens.

    Finally, I don't see what is wrong with telling our national representatives exactly what is wrong with the Holt bill at the same time we urge them to support it, so they will be clearly aware that it is only a step on the way to a solution similar to Germany's even in the minds of many Holt supporters.
  • dumpthedlc
    "But even if Holt proves as inadequate as your California reforms it seems to me likely that passing it and letting it fail will be the fastest way to prove that to a sufficient number of citizens."???????
    Letting the system fail as in 2000-2004, arguably 2004-2006 as well? This allowing another neo-conservative(s) to control the 3 branches of Government and truly bring down this country. This is another make it or break it time in our quest to make our voting system fully transparent, safe, accurate and verifiable. If we don't get everything we need in a true voting reform bill right the first time, there will not be a do over! We need a reform bill that get the vote count right on election night and HCPB at the precinct level is the only way this can happen, period. This is our democracy, and again, we need a bill that gets it right the first time and the Holt bill is NOT the right bill, tear it up and start from scratch!
  • Valerie Lane
    Thank you Paul,
    As one who has joined you in the front lines I understand your message. The present system is so full of holes it is a cruel joke. Any citizen election observer who has a clue as to what is taking place during our elections knows that there is no possible "meaningful" ' citizen oversight . The new Holt will not correct this critical problem. If and when the inadequate CA election code and regulations are violated there is no accountability. We just call it human error. Yes the audits can be, have been and will be "fixed" as well as the manual tally. I must ask those who support this bill why should we trust " the "independent auditors". Just exactly who are these independent auditors?
    To file a valid complaint you have to have evidence. Ok, if you are lucky enough and you manage to get your evidence ...what happened to Diebold in Humboldt County?. What happened to the ROV in Riverside County when the independent audit found a failure to comply with 8 of 41 Conditional Use procedures? Good luck Charlie! I would be willing to guess that the defeat of this bill in the past was due more to the Vendors fight against it than the grassroots. II will be happy to discuss the issue and explain my opposing point of view with anyone who contacts me at savelections@gmail.com.
  • couchblog
    As one who values democracy above all else, I do not support this sham bill, and I am furious with Congressman Holt who I had believed to be a more intelligent man than he now shows himself to be in this sham legislation. As a NJ resident, I had hoped that he would one day run for the Senate or some other higher office, but now I see that he is just another corporatist who cannot be trusted. This bill would make us reliant on another piece of machinery, and that is just not something we can allow. The ONLY possible remedy for a democratically elected populace is an OBSERVABLE HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOT! CHEAP, EASY, & RELIABLE!!! NO CORPORATIONS NEED APPLY!!!
  • zapkitty
    While hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) are, properly set up with transparency and oversight, are indeed one workable solution, I want to point out that opposition to Holt's bill does not and should NOT be equated with demanding that HCPB be mandated in the bill.

    As long as hand counts are allowed by, and not impeded by, the bill that is the best that can be hoped for at this stage.

    My own objections to the bill, for one, do not require that HCPB be mandated :)
  • couchblog
    Observable hand counted paper ballots are the ONLY way to run an honest election!

    We have been "HOPING" for far too long, and if we don't start "DEMANDING," we will never make any progress!
  • Frank Henry
    1. no pre election day counting

    2. have voter mark a paper ballot

    3. bring all ballots to respective ward/precinct for check-in and count

    4. count all ballots by hand or machine (CLOSING count)

    5. after closing reports an sealing machines ( if used) do a VERIFICATION count
    of all position of all ballots by manual hand count.

    6 have an resonable RECOUNT process.


    Machine count process and hand count process are bothe error prone.


    Thanks and Good Luck
    Frank Henry
    Tel: 928-649-0249
    e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com
  • "Holt Bill - Yes or No?" by Bryan Buchan is right on target. He makes the critical point that we need an election system that gets it right the first time, Long experience shows that we can't rely on post-election procedures to detect and correct errors or fraud. And we can't expect any inspection scheme to detect clandestine features of e-voting systems, whether DRE or optical scan.

    Fortunately we don't NEED high tech systems for voting. Hand-counted paper ballot systems (HCPB) do the job very well, provided reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the entire election process is out in the open, properly monitored by representatives of competing political organizations. If there is not such transparency, then disaster is likely regardless of the level of technology. Actually, cheating is much easier for high technology systems. HCPB is also less costly than e-voting.

    More detailed support for Buchan's arguments can be found at
    http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/man...

    Stephen Unger
  • williamjkelleherphd
    Maybe Holt is wrong?

    “PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC ELECTION UPHELD BY GERMAN SUPREME COURT.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/PAPERLESS-EL...

    Two losers in an election to the Bundestag applied to that body for “a scrutiny of the election.” They argued, inter alia, that the high-tech process was undemocratic. The Bundestag denied their claim. Then they appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court. After a careful review of the issues, the High Court upheld the election. I suggest that the legal arguments in this decision pave the way for Internet voting in Germany, and by implication, the US and the world.

    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
    InternetVoting@gmail.com
blog comments powered by Disqus