Uh-Oh. Larson (D-CT) H.R.470: Election Fraud Whistle-Blower Gag Order

[Wilms]

Hadn't heard of this bill:

Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT)

H.R.470

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require the software used in the operation of an electronic voting machine to meet certain requirements as a condition of the use of the machine in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

Sounds very nice. Right?

Now WTF is this...? :grr:

`(3) CLARIFICATION OF STANDING REQUIRED FOR FILING COMPLAINT RELATING TO FAILURE OF VOTING MACHINE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT- An individual may not file a complaint under this subsection with respect to an allegation that a voting machine or other equipment used in an election is not working properly unless the individual is eligible to cast a vote on or otherwise use the machine or equipment which is the subject of the complaint.'.

Sounds like a whistle-blower gag order to me.

Who is Larson? :shrug: What's in a name? :eyes:

Bill Summary & Status Page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00470: It'll come up blank. Add a colon to the url and hit enter.

[indianablue]

1. i think it means you can't file unless you voted there.

So someone from the outside can not file a complaint in an area where they are not eligible to vote.

[Wilms]

3. Yes. And I worry about such a restriction.

Now there's no point in bringing in Poll Watchers from outside a precinct.

[Virginian]

12. In our case, pollwatchers can be outside precinct but registerd in county.

Our poll watchers must be registered to vote in the county, but do not have to be assigned to the precinct where they watch. The same is true for the Election Officers (Poll workers)

[Wilms]

13. Thanks for that.

I take it that's in Virginia. Correct?

And here, we're just talking Poll Workers. From the look of the bill, anyone not about to use that machine can't say boo about it.

[Mugweed]

2. No shit?

Sounds interesting. Like that time here in Florida where a law was passed so that an environmental group had to have members actually living in the area of concern for that group to be able to file any petitions in the State of FL regarding any environmental concerns (which here = development gone wild). That was a Jeb Bush special. This, of course, is much more insidious and disturbing.

[Wilms]

4. And sort of like what Blackwell did to Cobb/Badernak. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. This has overtones that made me think of this other thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1260437

This thread is on a press release titled:
More Than A Thousand Whistleblower Cases Dumped; Special Counsel Dismisses Hundreds of Disclosures and Complaints in Past Year

The press release itself (linked to in the thread) should be read in its entirety in my opinion, and it has links for more relevant information. The main point seems to be that whistleblower cases are being dumped on the excuse of increasing efficiency.

I don't know if the Larson bill is deliberately designed to undermine whistleblowers, but this kind of thing does seem to be in the air. At least Larson himself did vote against Gonzales and so isn't a total administration hack like Liebermann.

[Wilms]

6. Funny, I was just talking with a neighbor about that.

It's in the air.

[Amaryllis]

7. kick

[me b zola]

8. Like HAVA wasn't bad enough, a wolf in sheep's clothing

And this guy is a Dem?:wtf:

But it does not surprise me. We have been called to action to return Democracy to the people. The people who subvert the Constitution & our Democracy are not limited to repubs, but they ALL must be stopped.

Power, and the lust of power, is an overwhelming force that is the motivation of many. Our founding fathers knew this, thus the painstaking deliberation of separation of powers to stave off the beast.

Not only should this bill be defeated, but ANYONE who would place more power in the hands of the powerful, and deny a voice to the people should be shown the door, as well.

[berniew1]

9. Rather ridiculous; voters don't have expertise to prove fraud

Only technical experts, computer types, analysts can actually deal with the technical aspects of what caused the types of touchscreen fraud and other manipulation seen in the 2004 election. But I guess experts can seek out a voter who had a problem occur and cooperate in a suit. This is pretty unwieldy however, and seems crafted to make it hard to prove there were problems.

[ProgressiveConn]

17. Except

The poll watchers and poll workers are the ones with the experiance and knowledge needed. They are there for the benefit of the voter. The power should lie with the voter not with an outside observer. If you watch someone being cheated as a poll watcher it is your job to inform them of their rights and probably help them file the complaint. If you cant get anyone to stand up with you maybe your complaint is baseless. I don't really see a huge fault with this.

Larson is usually spot on too.

[berniew1]

10. The only way to get meaningful election reform is by initiative process

in all the states that allow it. The voters want it and will vote for reform. Those in power in Congress and the Legislatures are unlikely to vote for meaningful reform. Working there is likely mostly a waste of time. But real reform is very doable if people start organizing to get real election reform on the ballot in as many states as possible. See action plan in
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

[Wilms]

11. Link's title "Patterns of Touchscreen Voting Machine Vote Fraud..."

Is it that these "Touchscreen Voting Machines" were really "Touchscreen Voting DRE's", some with a paper output of some sort, some without?

It seems to me that a "non-DRE Touchscreen Voting Ballot Marker" would be OK with us, except that we hear the term "Touchscreen" and assume a DRE with out any paper output.

Do you think our terminology may be tripping us up?

[Land Shark]

14. The flip side is that a voter DOES probably have standing

by virtue of being a registered voter (I'd need to read the whole bill, but this seems quite likely).

Under existing law, if a plaintiff is just one of many having a generalize grievance (these darn things don't work) they often don't have "standing", but this would appear to clarify that any voter in the jurisdiction would have standing with regard to malfunctioning machines, perhaps without any more of a showing than that.

If so, it's a liberalization of existing standing rules (which are harsh, often.

I think a great deal of the reaction here is to the present standing doctrine in law.

The Rehnquist court has not repealed the bulk of the rights created under the Warren court. But what they have done is cut back on citizens' ability to get into court and STAY there by tightening up standing and other "justiciability" doctrines.

Basically, if your rights have been violated you better hope it's in some dramatic concrete way so you have standing. But if you've lost even a single dollar, most of the courts in America will welcome you with open arms, except those that have jurisdictional minimums, but even then there's a lower court that will hear the case on the merits.

I'd hold off on slamming Larson until talking to his staff and getting the context here.

[Wilms]

15. Thanks for the heads-up.

I just tried emailing, but it's restricted to those in his district.

In Larson's bill, Sec. 4 is at issue.

It amends HAVA 2002 Sec. 303(b)(2), and Sec. 402(a)

Here's HAVA 2002:

http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

[Bill Bored]

18. ...cast a vote on or otherwise use...

"An individual may not file a complaint under this subsection with respect to an allegation that a voting machine or other equipment used in an election is not working properly unless the individual is eligible to cast a vote on or otherwise use the machine or equipment which is the subject of the complaint."

Could a Diebold tech blow the whistle because he/she is eligible to otherwise use the machine, while not necessarily casting a vote on it?

Who else could blow a whistle under this paragraph? Someone from the testing lab? Perhaps it's broad enough to allow complaints from anyone who votes on the machine, or anyone else who might have the knowledge to support the claim?

Regarding Sect. 2:

The only way to know for certain that the software on a given machine is the software that has been certified and inspected, is through the use of a digital signature. This is the same way a vendor on the Net authenticates itself to accept credit card transactions, except it's used to authenticate the code itself. E.g., Diebold VoteHacker 2000 Version 1.0 has a digital signature which is published as a digest of the code that can only apply to this version of the code. If one bit of the code is different, the digest changes too. The digest itself is then authenticated by using a public encryption key owned by the vendor, or the author of the code. The key proves that the digest is the correct one for the software version in question on every machine at the time of the election.

I don't see this in any of these bills. They were not written by IT security professionals. If you're going to have secure e-voting, I think this should be a mandatory feature checked on every machine by poll workers on election day. If an Internet browser can do this, and they can be had for free, it can't cost too much to incorporate this feature on a voting machine.

Then you need to keep the machines secure during the election process itself by preventing any changes to the code, and/or by randomly checking the signatures on some sample of machines.

The idea of legislating something like this is anathema to me. It's not law -- it's engineering. I guess it's possible but I actually prefer Land Shark's approach of making the process transparent to the average voter. No one understands how these digital signatures work. If they did, they'd be legislating them.

[Wilms]

16. I grabbed the relevant text from HAVA and the legs.

HAVA reads...

SEC. 402. NOTE: 42 USC 15512. ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE-BASED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES TO REMEDY GRIEVANCES.

(a) Establishment of State-Based Administrative Complaint Procedures To Remedy Grievances.--

(1) Establishment of procedures as condition of receiving funds.--If a State receives any payment under a program under this Act, the State shall be required to establish and maintain State-based administrative complaint procedures which meet the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Requirements for procedures.--The requirements of this paragraph are as follows:

(A) The procedures shall be uniform and nondiscriminatory. <[Page 116 STAT. 1716>]
(B) Under the procedures, any person who believes that there is a violation of any provision of title III (including a violation which has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur) may file a complaint.
(C) Any complaint filed under the procedures shall be in writing and notarized, and signed and sworn by the person filing the complaint.
(D) The State may consolidate complaints filed under subparagraph (B).
(E) At the request of the complainant, there shall be a hearing on the record.
(F) If, under the procedures, the State determines that there is a violation of any provision of title III, the State shall provide the appropriate remedy.
(G) If, under the procedures, the State determines that there is no violation, the State shall dismiss the complaint and publish the results of the procedures. (H) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> The State shall make a final determination with respect to a complaint prior to the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the date the complaint is filed, unless the complainant consents to a longer period for making such a determination. (I) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> If the State fails to meet the deadline applicable under subparagraph (H), the complaint shall be resolved within 60 days under alternative dispute resolution procedures established for purposes of this section. <<NOTE: Records.>> The record and other materials from any proceedings conducted under the complaint procedures established under this section shall be made available for use under the alternative dispute resolution procedures.

Larson would amend it thus:

SEC. 4. POSTING OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES IN CASE OF FAILURE OF VOTING MACHINES.

(b) Clarification of Standing Required for Filing Complaint- Section 402(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15512(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting `(subject to paragraph (3)' after `any person'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) CLARIFICATION OF STANDING REQUIRED FOR FILING COMPLAINT RELATING TO FAILURE OF VOTING MACHINE OR OTHER EQUIPMENT- An individual may not file a complaint under this subsection with respect to an allegation that a voting machine or other equipment used in an election is not working properly unless the individual is eligible to cast a vote on or otherwise use the machine or equipment which is the subject of the complaint.'.


The 2nd part of it..

The bill says “Section 303(b)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(b)(2))…”

I couldn’t find it. :shrug:

But I think they meant 302. It seems to fit: :eyes:

So HAVA reads...

HAVA SEC. 302. NOTE: 42 USC 15482.

(b) Voting Information Requirements.—

(1) Public posting on election day.--The appropriate State or local election official shall cause voting information to be publicly posted at each polling place on the day of each election for Federal office.

(2) Voting information defined.--In this section, the term ``voting information'' means—

(A) a sample version of the ballot that will be used for that election;
(B) information regarding the date of the election and the hours during which polling places will be open;
(C) instructions on how to vote, including how to cast a vote and how to cast a provisional ballot;
(D) instructions for mail-in registrants and first- time voters under section 303(b);
(E) general information on voting rights under applicable Federal and State laws, including information on the right of an individual to cast a provisional ballot and instructions on how to contact the appropriate officials if these rights are alleged to have been violated; and


Larson would amend it thus:

SEC. 4. POSTING OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES IN CASE OF FAILURE OF VOTING MACHINES.
(a) Posting of Notice- Section 303(b)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F) and (G); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new subparagraph:
`(E) information regarding the availability of the administrative complaint procedures for individuals who believe that a voting machine or other equipment used in the election is not working properly or who otherwise believe that a State or jurisdiction is not in compliance with the requirements of this Act;'.

[Wilms]

19. Just spoke with the Dem Committee on House Admin.

They said that, indeed, the intent is to restrict who can make a complaint.

The Staffer explained that it was to prevent disruption at the Polling Place.

I can imagine a scenario where that could happen but this still makes me uneasy.

I also asked what prompted that provision. The guess was discussions with citizen groups, but he wasn't sure.

Any thoughts?