A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency

Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.

Comments

Stinkers

[baffled]

That's cute, TFS calls them 'stinkers'. I might call them 'all-too-common evidence of corruption in Congress'.

Re:Stinkers

[clang_jangle]

It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through.

It's their job to be informed, and to "think it through". Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now? What will it take for the people of this nation to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding government shenanigans?

Re:Stinkers

[oGMo]

Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.

Hell send 'em to jail. They broke the Constitution---the highest law in the land. If that's not worth some jail time, what is? What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed? Awww... ;-)

Re:Stinkers

[PopeRatzo]

On the other hand, warrantless wiretapping is blatantly unconstitutional. It'll be overturned as soon as (if) it hits the Supreme Court

Not with the current Supreme Court makeup. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts love the idea of the "unitary" executive and are purely partisan actors. As long as there is a Republican president (or confidence in enough Republicans in the Justice Dep't or federal court), they will grant the President whatever powers of arrest and surveillance he wants. Warrantless wiretapping would sail through the current Supreme Court. I was shocked that they gave the Guantanimo guys the right to federal court access, but I think there were too many honest JAGs to guarantee they would get a full set of convictions. This way, when they find that many of the Guantanamo detainees are innocent, they can blame the radical "liberal" justices in the Federal Court.

Believe me, we have reached a point where the Bush Administration does not believe they have to listen to the Supreme Court even. Just look at how they are gaming the ruling from last year about the EPA having the authority (and are required actually) to regulate emissions. Bush basically is telling them to fuck themselves. After all, what are they gonna do? The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce anything. It's like the subpoenas of the Bush lawyers by Congress. You think that a prick with ears like Atty Gen'l Mukasey is going to disobey his boss and enforce the law? Again, what is Congress gonna do about it?

There is a Constitutional crisis of the most serious proportions going on in our government right now, and the media is absolutely unwilling to cover it. Wexler and Conyers are trying to lay the groundwork for a case against the White House, and the report from the Justice Dept about Monica Goodling is just the president throwing a little fish under the bus.

I can't write any more about this now. My wife says she can tell when I'm writing about the Bush Administration because I grind my teeth, and I have to stop right now and go out in the garden with her.

Anyway, you're a bright bunch. Go read this stuff for yourself.

Re:Stinkers

[daemonburrito]

Playing the devil's advocate, what you call "legaleze" appears indecipherable because it uses specialized forms to eliminate (or try to) ambiguity.

This is almost a meme on slashdot now: Legal language is similar to code, in that both must use arcane structures to be unambiguous; ideally, any machine will interpret code the same way every time according to the rules of the language, and, ideally, an interpretation of a legal document will be similarly consistent.

That's often not the case, of course. But when it is abused, it is not the language that is at fault but the obfuscation. Banning legal language would be like banning C because it can be so spectacularly obfuscated.

Step #1: Organize Observers....

[mikelieman]

I'm not convinced the votes are even being *counted* in the first place, so I think we need to have spotters at every step of the process to ensure it's fairness in the first place.

Once we have the ability to actually tell what is going on, *THEN* we can start patching the bugs.

We need end to end verification

[linzeal]

We need E2E (End to End) voting systems period. Note the period.