Make your own free website on Tripod.com
votefix
Voter Confidence/Increased Accessibility Act 2003
Home
Vote Fix Links
Paper Ballots, Emergency Ballots, All-Mail Voting
Investigation-less election
Voter Registration Rolls Online?
Illegal This But Not That?
Solution or Problem: Federalize Voter Registration for Federal Elections
PA Power Insight
Myth or Fact
Question Them All
"little" Fraud?
Assorted Items
PA Watch
Populism vs PA Constitution
2007 Watch: PA Constitutional Convention
Move toward PA Con-Con
Guidelines for Variety election issues and observing at the Polls
Initiatives and Referendums: Gutting Republicanism
No Voter ID = Passport to Fraud
Illegal Immigrants Voting in U.S. Elections Facts
Goals of HAVA:
Paper Ballot Make It A Voter Choice
PA SB 977 and HB 2000
Both Sides: Electronic Paperless (Selker) vs Paper (Mercuri)
Know It: Second Chance Voting
Holding Breath Will Fayette Purchase Paper Ballot eScan and Electronic eSlate?
Discussion Sites
All laws repugnant void
Activists Absent
Board Discussion
Chat
Opinion None of the Above
To Show or Not to Show State Rep. Roberts Phone Calls
Discussion PA Politics 101.2 Media Woke Up to 1 Man Agenda?
Discussion PA Politics 1000.2 PA Clean Sweep's Reform Agenda
Discussion PA Politics 102
Voter Registration Lists
PA Law Changes First Time Voter
Discussion PA Politics 101
Discussion PA Politics 1000.1 Candidates
Lawmakers Arrogance
Blogging Net the Truth Online
Hodgepodge
Voting Technology 2006
e-Voting Truth
Should taxpayers fund WW2 memorial with religious engravings?
Net the Truth Online About Election Fraud
Issue File Voting by Mail
Powerful Information
Citizen Advisory Group Proposed
Demand PA SURE used
Inspector/s of Voter Registration
Interviews of Note
SURE about SURE
Motor Voter Law and Deceased
Back to the Future?
John Fund's Political Diary
Year 2000 Highlights Palast Update
Buchanan Vote 2000 Hoax
Fraud 2000: The Confusion
Fraud 2000: Holes
Fraud 2000: The Machines Background
Fraud 2000: Quote of the Millennium
Fraud 2000: Spotlight
Fraud 2000: Undervotes Trail-less
Fraud 2000: Built on the Past
Fraud 2000: Solution in search of Problems
Fraud 2000: Recounting the Ways
Fraud 2000: Dimples
Alert: Fraud 2000
Fraud 2000 Proof
Fraud 2000: Flaws
Fraud 2000: Courts
Fraud 2000: Count and Recount
Fraud 2000: Count and Recount 2
Fraud 2000: Analysis Debate
Fraud 2000: Past to Future
Ballot Fraud of Old
1984 Florida Ballot Problems
Local, State, National Election News
Daily Developments
Voting Fraud Tale Spin
Discussion Internet Free Speech on Trial?
STOP tax reform plan Guts PA Constitution
PA Constitution Doesn't Need Makeover
About Vote Fix
Why Vote Fix Is Up
Overview
Security concerns electronic voting
Paper/Opti-scan vs Touch-screen
Voter Confidence/Increased Accessibility Act 2003
Vote Fix Guestbook
PA election reform status
Fayette County Watch
Election 2007 Watch Fayette Politics
United States a republic, not a democracy
Suggestions
Voter Identification (ID) Proof
Citizens Demand Security
Solutions Here
Federal Legislation Update
Testimony HAVA
Net Voting
So Little time
Useful Items
Comments on voting machines
Public Comment on voting machines
Supporting material
Link resources submitted to commishes
Vote Fix Research
Contact/Voice a View
Motor Voter Happenings
Trail of Treachery Chad-Fraud
Fraud 2000: How it went
Fraud 2000: How it Went Then
Trail of Treachery: Varied News & Opinions
Track Vote Fraud

Key provisions attention prior to any vote on funding new machines

Follow this page warrenslocum.com for latest updates on this legislation
 

Introduction of bill:  THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003
 
 
 
Bill  H.R. 2239 - Bill introduced by Mr. Holt---May 22, 2003

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes. 

http://www.house.gov/cha/nbillsreferred1.htm

Holt:
 
Key provisions of my bill include
1) A requirement that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits. A system using optical scanning of cards marked by the voters is one acceptable version. For those using the increasingly popular direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines (such as `touch-screen' machines), this requirement means those machines would print a receipt that each voter would verify as accurate and deposit into a lockbox at the polling station for later use in a recount. States would have until November 2003 to request additional funds to meet this requirement.
 
(2) A ban on the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems
 
(3) A requirement that all voting systems meet these increased standards of protection in time for the general election in November 2004. Jurisdictions anticipating that their new computer systems may not be able to meet this deadline will be able to use a paper system, as an interim measure and at federal expense, in the November 2004 election.
 
(4) A requirement that electronic voting systems be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006--one year earlier than currently required by HAVA. Like the voting systems used by persons without disabilities, those used by disabled voters must also provide a mechanism for voter-verification, though not necessarily a paper trail. Jurisdictions unable to meet this requirement by the deadline must give disabled voters the option to use the interim paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing.
 
 (5) A requirement of mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5 percent of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5 percent of overseas jurisdictions.

PRESS RELEASE:
 

ON ELECTION DAY 2004, HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF YOUR VOTE IS PROPERLY COUNTED? 

ANSWER:  YOU WONT

Rep. Rush Holt Introduces Legislation to Require All Voting Machines To Produce A Voter-Verified Paper Trail  

 

Washington, DC Rep. Rush Holt today responded to the growing chorus of concern from election reform specialists and computer security experts about the integrity of future elections by introducing reform legislation, The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. The measure would require all voting machines to produce an actual paper record by 2004 that voters can view to check the accuracy of their votes and that election officials can use to verify votes in the event of a computer malfunction, hacking, or other irregularity.  Experts often refer to this paper record as a voter-verified paper trail.

 

We cannot afford nor can we permit another major assault on the integrity of the American electoral process, said Rep. Rush Holt.  Imagine its Election Day 2004. You enter your local polling place and go to cast your vote on a brand new touch screen voting machine. The screen says your vote has been counted.  As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder.  How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote?  The fact is, you dont. 

 

Last October, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), groundbreaking election reform legislation that is currently helping states throughout the country replace antiquated and unreliable punch card and butterfly ballot voting systems.  HAVA, however, is having an unintended consequence.  It is fueling a rush by states and localities to purchase computer-voting systems that suffer from a serious flaw; voters and election officials have no way of knowing whether the computers are counting votes properly.  Hundreds of nationally renowned computer scientists, including internationally renowned expert David Dill of Stanford University, consider a voter-verified paper trial to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity and security of computer-assisted elections.

 

Voting should not be an act of blind faith.  It should be an act of record, said Rep Rush Holt. But current law does nothing to protect the integrity of our elections against computer malfunction, computer hackers, or any other potential irregularities. 

 

There have already been several examples of computer error in elections.  In the 2002 election, brand new computer voting systems used in Florida lost over 100,000 votes due to a software error.  Errors and irregularities were also reported in New Jersey, Missouri, Georgia, Texas, and at least 10 other states.

 

A recount requires that there be a reliable record to check, said Holt.  Without an actual paper record that each voter can confidentially inspect, faulty or hacked computer systems will simply spit out the same faulty or hacked result.  Every vote in every election matters. We can and should do this in time for the 2004 federal election.

 

Key provisions of The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 include:

 

1)      Requires all voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits and recounts.  For those using the increasingly popular ATM-like DRE(Direct Recording Electronic) machines, this requirement means the DRE would print a receipt that each voter would verify as accurate and deposit into a lockbox for later use in a recount.  States would have until November 2003 to request additional funds to meet this requirement.

 

2)      Bans the use of undisclosed software and wireless communications devices in voting systems.

 

3)      Requires all voting systems to meet these requirements in time for the general election in November 2004.  Jurisdictions that feel their new computer systems may not be able to meet this deadline may use an existing paper system as an interim measure (at federal expense) in the November 2004 election.

 

4)      Requires that electronic voting system be provided for persons with disabilities by January 1, 2006 -- one year earlier than currently required by HAVA.  Like the voting machines for non-disabled voters, those used by disabled voters must also provide a mechanism for voter-verification, though not necessarily a paper trail.  Jurisdictions unable to meet this requirement by the deadline must give disabled voters the option to use the interim paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing.

 

5)      Requires mandatory surprise recounts in 0.5% of domestic jurisdictions and 0.5% of overseas jurisdictions.