Laura Ruderman is going to make one hell of a Secretary of State

[ashling]

I went to the Sec. of State website today. There is a tribute to an ex- sec of state who died this year (with a picture.) on the other side of the page was a picture of that pig Sam Reed. Actually Reed looked more dead than the other guy.

Ruderman will make it her job to go out and register voters wherever they are. She is one fired up candidate. And she'll be working at the Burger Booth in Olympia at Lakefair on Sunday July 18 from 1:30 - 5.
.
.

[barbaraann]

1. My opinion is that Laura would do anything she tries well.

She's a rock star!

[barbaraann]

7. Just want to say Andy is a rock star, too!

Primaries are so painful...

But I think one victory we have already won is that many more people realize how important the Secretary of State position is and I don't think that was fully understood before.

[eridani]

2. Not enough to register voters

Not if the votes aren't counted. I want a firmer stance against black box voting myself. That's why I'm backing Andy Stephenson.

www.andystephenson.com

[jono]

3. I agree

Her website is calling for a "voter-verified audit trail." Not good enough. We demand a paper ballot!


www.andystephenson.com

[flamingyouth]

4. I'm backing Andy too

No BBV in Washington!

[woofless]

5. Me three.

[Generic Other]

6. Andy does more than look cute and smile (he does that too) but he also

has shown that he cares about the electronic voting issue. That's all I want from a Sec. of State. Don't need perky. Don't need a guy in a kilt (Ralph Munro), or any other fancy dancer. Need someone who wants to count votes honestly and has a one-track mind where that issue is concerned.

Andy for Sec. of State of Washington!

[ashling]

8. And that's what you'll get with Laura

"A one track mind where that issue is concerned."
She is as concerned about this issue as much as anybody out there. To imply that she is not is simply misleading.

Laura is very strong on accuracy.

[ashling]

9. The links on Stephenson's web site do not seem to work,

so, therefore I am not able to address his issues directly to make a direct comparison. However, I can tell you about Laura.

First of all, she is a very exciting candidate who has shown that she can win against a Republican incumbent in a Republican district and hold the seat as a Democrat. No small feat.

She has 6 years experience in the legislature, which will be very valuable in dealing with the electronic voting problem, as it will require a legislative solution.

As to a paper ballot vs. an audit trail. Laura doesn't use "paper ballot" in the speeches precisely because she wants to make the point clearly that we need - we require - a verifiable tracking system. She would be the first to agree that a paper trail should absolutely be given the status of a ballot and have the force of law if it differs from the electronic count.

This is precisely what was written into the audit trail legislation that Laura worked on this year.

Also, while I realize that you are vitally interested in this issue -as are we all, but the Secretary of State has to be concerned in a lot more than that.

The Secretary of State is responsible for preserving the history and historical documents of the state as well as overseeing the state library, registering corporations (commercial and non-profit) and charities, and hosting foreign visitors who are often here to purchase WA State products (like airplanes, wheat, potatoes, and apples - big deals to our economy).

I said it before, and I'll say it again (and again and again if necessary) Laura Ruderman is going to make one hell of a Secretary of State!

.

.

:dem:

[eridani]

10. What legislation was that?

If it was the Sam Reed legislation, not adequate.

[ashling]

12. Certainly not as put forward by

Certainly not as put forward by Reed.

By the time it came out of Technology, Telecommunications, and Energy,
the bill was virtually unrecognizable as Reed's. At this point the bill still needed work which could have been done as the bill sat in Rules. However, it never became eligible to be pulled to the floor.

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. Here is the real story of what Ms Ruderman did.

Ruderman is one of the main reasons WA State did not passa voter verified
paper ballot bill this session. Let me give you a little of this years
history, that might shed some light-

Identical bills were sent to the respective House and Senate committees from
the Secretary of State. A citizens bill was also submitted in both Houses.

The citizens bill got good sponsorship, but no committee elected to pursue
it.

Before the legislative session began, an agreement to send the House bill to
the Technology committee was struck. (Ruderman is Vice Chair of the House
Technology committee) The bill belongs in the State Government committee.

It is my understanding, and please note that caveat, that the House bill was
largely rewritten by Ruderman. That bill died in the Rules committee and was
largely opposed by many, including advocates of voter verified paper
ballots.

The issues were: to get language that mandated voter verified paper ballots
of ALL voting systems and to insure that changes in voting technology would
have to go through the legislature first, via legislation. This is not an
easy process and would provide for input from many sources, including
citizens. It needs to be hard to change how we vote, not left up to the
opinions of a few, like the Secretary of State. Look what is happening in
Ohio, where it appears that the legislature there put a hold on Blackwell's
plans to Diebold the state of Ohio.

We also needed better auditing.

At every turn, the Secretary of State's office made it appear they were
giving what people wanted, without actually doing so in any meaningful way.
Paper ballots were only mandated for poll site based electronic voting
systems, leaving Internet (not poll based) options wide, wide open. Audits
would only be required of those poll site based electronic devices. That
means touch screens, which will not probably be the majority in Washington
State, given the huge number of people who vote absentee, and the fact that
the state optical scan systems are almost all CENTRAL COUNT- NOT at the
polls. In effect, the audit provisions from the Secretary of State would
cover probably less than 20% of the vote.

Ruderman addressed none of those concerns in the House legislation, in spite
of the committee having them pointed out to them during the whole session.

The Senate didn't, either. In fact, their bill was passed with an amendment
(really, non-changes) that supposedly, the voting advocates agreed to. We
never saw them.

Status: House bill dies. Senate passes their bill and it's sent to the House
Technology committee. EVERYONE was working on making the Senate bill
acceptable. If amended in the House, it would go back to the Senate for
approval, or at least a committee of the two branches to hash things out,
which is not as desirable because it leaves citizens more out of the process
than ever.

Washington State is not a full-time legislature and one year is a long
session and one a short- 60 days. This year was a short session, so there
wasn't a lot of time.

One more public hearing occurred with the House Technology committee. Two
vendors, Advanced Voting Solutions and VoteHere testified. BOTH talked about
electronic verification.

Keep in mind that when Sam Reed, current Secretary of State, gave in on
paper ballots, he mentioned at the end of the press release he was also
keeping options open for electronic verification. That caused so much flak
that he withdrew it, at least publicly, but tried to keep it in his
legislation. Know too, the long, long relationship of the Secretary of
State's office in WA State, with VoteHere. VoteHere does Internet voting and
is now promoting an electronic verification scheme and is partnered with
Sequoia, the only touch screens currently in use in the state, to put that
scheme in Sequoia's touch screens. The connections are a little too cozy for
comfort.

The day before the Technology committee is to meet one last time on the
voting bill, (not open to the public) Ruderman makes sweeping changes to the
bill- and not ones everyone had been asking for or working on. She took the
Senate bill, kept the name and number, but replaced it entirely with the
failed House bill, adding a few items to it.

That bill maintained specific language allowing electronic verification if
approved. While she had told people how hard it is to pass legislation,
sometimes taking years, her solution, instead of having to introduce a bill
to allow a new, non-paper voting system, was to have to introduce
legislation to STOP a new voting system, if approved by the Secretary of
State and a committee.

Ruderman wanted the proposal for a new system to be introduced at the start
of a new legislative session, and could not be a done deal until the session
ended. What this really meant, was that someone would have to introduce a
bill, at the beginning of a session, get it passed, in ONE session, in order
to STOP any new voting technology approved by the Secretary of State- a very
dangerous proposition.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. I met her last weekend...

...at the 44th district Democrats convention. I was quite impressed with her speech especially when she spoke about black box voting.

[govegan]

13. What state would that be?

Andy Stephenson is destined for the office in Olympia.

Laura can talk all she wants, but she has to do more than a pale imitation of Andy Stephenson's stance on the voting issue.

[ashling]

14. Not enough

I had hoped to foster some open debate by discussing Laura's positions.

All I get from Stephenson supporters is a terse "not enough," or "unacceptable."
Yet they won't say what is.

I have gone to Stephenson's website, but the links to issues, etc. don't appear to work.

I can only conclude that his supporters are not sufficiently versed in the issues to discuss them or to defend their candidate. Trying to talk to them here is like talking into a . . . black box

A one issue condidate is simply not good enough.

[govegan]

15. This is what you wrote - exactly

I went to the Sec. of State website today. There is a tribute to an ex- sec of state who died this year (with a picture.) on the other side of the page was a picture of that pig Sam Reed. Actually Reed looked more dead than the other guy.

Ruderman will make it her job to go out and register voters wherever they are. She is one fired up candidate. And she'll be working at the Burger Booth in Olympia at Lakefair on Sunday July 18 from 1:30 - 5.
***************
Upon those meagre words you boasted that "Laura Ruderman is going to make one hell of a Secretary of State."

As a concerned voter and citizen of Washington, not Texas, I am not interested in burger booths. America's love affair with dead cows is well known. I have not the time now to delve into all of the negative connotations of such backward thinking. Eating and/or serving burgers is fine for Texas Republicans, fundies, moderate Democrats from the SW, and others who dabble in the details of the passions of appetite. How does serving/eating burgers qualify one for Washington's Secretary of State?

By the way, Andy Stephenson is not a vegetarian, but whether he is or isn't is not an issue for his qualifications for Secretary of State. I don't see where he has tried to make it one either.

Lots of folks and candidates of all stripes "make it (her) job to go out and register voters." How does registering voters (whatever you mean by that) qualify one for Washington's Secretary of State? And how is that even an issue?

[ashling]

16. As your reply to my original post is the 13th post on this thread,

I assume that you, as a concerned citizen and voter in Washington, have actually read the other posts in this thread. Your post would indicate otherwise.

No, my original post was not intended to debate Andy Stephenson supporters. It was an enthusiastic "cheerleading" post about an exciting candidate.

However, once I had a reply from one of his supporters, I took more time to address the issues. You see, I too am a concerned voter and citizen of Washington.

I wrote in subsequent posts about Laura's legislative experience and about the bill in the House which deals with the issue of black box voting.

However, the only responses to this have been rather short one liners, like "not enough" without further saying what they would consider "enough" to be. These no response responses have only strengthened my support for Ruderman's candidacy.

I said twice in this thread that I have been to Stephenson's web site without being able to get his links to work. (this is no way a negative comment) I had hoped that someone would fill me in on exactly what his positions are.

No such luck.

So I posted a short, rather terse statement - the one that got your response. I am still no closer to finding out about Stephenson's positions or experience.

I do, however know that you are a vegetarian, he is not, and you, apparently, have no time for anyone else who is not. That is fine. It is not an issue, and I never said it was.

Since you bring it up, however, the Demoburger booth is used by the Thurston County Democrats as a rather effective fundraising tool. Most of the money raised from the booth goes to the candidacies of local Democratic Candidates. It is also a good venue for Democratic candidates to meet the public. I might also add that since I began managing the booth I have made it one of my priorities to be sure that we also serve veggie burgers.

However, back to the issues in this race.

As I have already posted, Laura is extremely concerned about counting all of the votes and counting them accurately. This will ultimately be handled as a legislative issue. Laura has shown her leadership on this issue and other issues on the floor of the State House of Representatives.

As to the issue of voter registration. Voter registration and outreach is a very important part of the Secretary of State's job. It is something that Sam Reed cares nothing about.

Why?

Because when the people of this state are mobilized to vote, they will vote for Democrats.

I am glad you felt moved to respond to my post. I would hope that in the future you would, however, read the thread before responding. This helps to frame the discussion.

Regards, from Tumwater Washington.

[govegan]

19. I did read the thread, but your first post needed responding to.

In my opinion, Laura's limited legislative experience does not qualify her to be SOS. Nor does anyone's legislative experience necessarily qualify that individual for the SOS office.

The SOS is vastly different from a state legislator, and frankly it may well require a different set of skills. Most of the previous SOS's did not serve in the legislature prior to being appointed or elected to the SOS office.

The individual vote is the foundation of a representative democracy. As a matter of fact, one could argue that the very legitimacy of the government itself rests upon that foundation.

I do not believe that Laura has the technical and legal grasp of this issue to the same degree that Andy does.

I am glad that you are interested in this issue, and in the importance of the SOS office. I hope that you will continue to explore the pertinent issues and provide your energetic support to Andy when he receives the Democratic nomination.

I could not respond sooner due to commitments with the King County convention last weekend and others subsequent to that.

If you PM me, I will give you a personal email address, and I will be glad to provide more information on Andy's positions. I am a little pressed for time right now, but here is some information about the ballot issue:

“Voter-Verified Paper Ballots” not “Paper Trails”
In order for the paper ballot to be a truly separate audit layer for election officials to validate the accuracy of the machine count, the paper must be the final legal record of the vote count. In short, the paper hand-count must trump the machine count.
Currently, in the State of Washington, machines with ballot cards, like the Diebold Optical-Scan units used in King County, use the machine count as the legal record of your vote. In the event of a recount, the “ballot cards” are simply fed into the machine again. So if the machine is altered, and the software is hacked, the “recount” is simply the same process all over again. This is not a proper way to audit the system, and will not catch malfeasance.
Hand-counting the paper record, and comparing it, openly and in public, to the machine count is necessary to ensure both accuracy and public trust in the system.

Proper Auditing Procedures
Voter verified paper ballots allow each individual the ability to audit their own ballot, the legal record of their vote, before it is placed in the ballot box.
Individual machines should print reports before being transmitted to any central tabulation unit, and these reports should be made public.
Random 5% hand-recounts of paper ballots compared to machine count should be mandatory for all elections.
Precinct level tally reports must be posted publicly before transmission.
Proper chain of custody rules in handling absentee ballots should be established.
Contracts with private companies for the collecting and sorting of our absentee ballots should be terminated immediately.
New rules should be established to eliminate for profit corporations from controlling the vote count software. Vote counting software should be written on a for-hire basis, and should be retained as a public good, the code should be owned by the people, and open to inspection by the people.
Open Source Software allows computer scientists the ability to audit the code.
Voters and all citizens must take an active role in monitoring their own elections systems, and officials.

Thanks for making veggie burgers a priority at the booth :-)

[geniph]

17. Ruderman DOES support a paper audit trail

To say she does not is misinformed, to say the least. I have her campaign brochure right in front of me; it says that right on it. I've met both her and Stephenson, and she has my vote. Andy's a great guy, don't get me wrong - I've corresponded with him here at DU and attended some of the BBV press conferences he's put on with Bev Harris, and his commitment to fair voting is undeniable. But that doesn't mean Ruderman isn't just as committed. After talking to her one-on-one and listening to her campaign speech, I was very favorably impressed. I think she can beat Reed in November.

She's also a big supporter of open source code for any electronic voting. We won't be able to put the brakes on electronic voting forever, so open source code is one way to keep the bastards from cheating.

(She says half the people she meets either have no idea what the Secretary of State does, or want to know why she's running against that cute Ralph Munro.)

[ashling]

18. Andy may be a great guy, but his website is very misleading.

I was finally able to get a look at Andy's website. He makes a big point of not being a politician, but he is good at obfuscation: makes it appear that Sam Reed and Laura Ruderman are joined at the hip.

OK, maybe that is a little harsh, but not by much.

It practically says that she 'championed' Sam Reed's bill. More like took it from him and forged it into someting completely different. It still had work when it died, but Laura is a skilled legislator who understands the process and the issue. It will take someone like her understands the issue AND has the legislative skills to back it up.
:dem:

[eridani]

20. The Ruderman legislation and its competing legislation

--are posted right here in the WA state section. I have bolded the problems with her legislation. The first is that THE AUDIT TRAIL WILL NOT BE THE LEGAL BALLOT!! The second is that there is an addendum specifying that they can implement some other audit method whenever they feel like it.

Her bill has some of the things we want, but it fails.

[Andy_Stephenson]

23. See post 21...

obfuscation??? Merely reporting what happened.

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. "She's also a big supporter of open source code for any electronic voting.

I have video of her saying differently...