Election Reform

Initiative 1001 Instant Runoff Voting

JacksonMillikan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:13:13 -0500

Its time to help in the grass roots effort to gain signatures for Initiative 1001. Please view the website: www. votehope.wordpress.com. Also, you may see I-1001 in its official cpacity at http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=2008 . Our state is ready for this. Get it on the ballot, and it WILL pass!

DNC Calls for 'Immediate Firing' of DoJ Voting Chief in Wake of 'Outrageous Comments', 'Outright Attack on Voting Rights'

davidswanson — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:33:08 -0400

Says John 'Minorities Die First' Tanner's Recent Remarks 'Underscore the GOP's Utter Disregard for the Integrity of our Nation's Election System'
Statement Issued in Advance of Tomorrow's U.S. House Judicary Hearings Featuring Testimony from Embattled DoJ Voting Rights Chief...
By BradBlog

In advance of tomorrow morning's House Judiciary Committee hearing to feature testimony by DoJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief, John "Minorities Die First" Tanner, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Donna Brazile of the DNC Voting Rights Institute have issued a statement calling for Tanner to be "immediately fired."

"In their latest scheme, the Republican Administration has manipulated the mission of the Department of Justice, firing US Attorneys who were unwilling to pursue phony 'voter fraud' cases, and politicized the Civil Rights Division," the statement (posted in full at the end of this article) reads.

The release goes on to decry the politicization of the Bush Department of Justice, and what is described as their "outright assault" on the right to vote.

"Tanner's outrageous comments underscore the GOP's utter disregard for the integrity of our nation's election system and are an affront to the spirit of the Voting Rights Act," Dean and Brazile said, before declaring that the embattled Voting Rights Section chief "should be fired immediately and replaced with someone who will work to make sure that all citizens are able to vote and have their vote counted."

They call on Judge Michael Mukasey, if he is confirmed as the next Attorney General, to "commit to replacing Tanner with someone who will protect our rights, not ignore them for a partisan agenda."

As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, however, Mukasey made clear in his recent Senate Confirmation hearings that he does not object to restrictive polling place Photo ID laws which critics contend may disenfranchise anywhere from 10 to 30 million largely Democratic-leaning voters who do not have such ID.

Previously, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have called for Tanner's firing. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote Mukasey last week to ask if he will review the matter and consider the termination of Tanner.

Tanner's objectionable comments were made several weeks ago during a panel discussion on Photo ID issues at the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles. Tanner, who approved a controversial Georgia Photo ID law on behalf of the DoJ against the advice of the majority of the career staffers in the Voting Rights section, admitted the law would disenfranchise some elderly voters and added that while that was a "shame", minorities would somehow be positively effected by such laws since "they don't become elderly. They die first."

(A short clip of Tanner's comments is posted at left.)

The Georgia ID law was later found unconstitutional and overturned by two federal courts who compared the restriction to a modern day Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Paul Kiel at TPM Muck has a few more thoughts in advance of tomorrow's Judiciary Committee hearings.

Though Tanner comments were originally video-taped and reported by The BRAD BLOG. The DNC press release credits Fox News.com (thanks guys!)

The complete DNC statement from Howard Dean and Donna Brazile as just issued, follows below...READ IT at BradBlog

Historic DC Voting Rights Bill Goes to Senate Floor

davidswanson — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:19:32 -0400

www.dcvote.org

First Time in 30 Years that Senate Will Address DC's Denial of Voting Representation

Washington, DC - At 2:15 PM today, the United States Senate is scheduled to begin debate on a procedural vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act (S. 1257). DC voting rights supporters on and off the Hill are confident that the measure will receive the required 60 votes to proceed to the next step of debate and a vote on the bill itself.

A press conference is scheduled immediately following today's procedural vote in Room S-115 in the U.S. Capitol Building.

Yesterday, DC Vote and civil rights leaders from Kentucky and DC met with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to urge the Senator to forego efforts to stall the DC Voting Rights Act. McConnell indicated that he would follow the wishes of the Republican Caucus and oppose this historic civil rights bill by using all procedural means to block a vote.

"We are deeply disappointed that Senator McConnell wants to use tactics reminiscent of the days of segregation to thwart this bill," said Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of DC Vote. "This is an opportunity for the Senate to unite Americans around an American ideal, and instead he is choosing to pursue a strategy that takes us back to a time in our history when a small group of Senators worked against the expansion of civil rights."

The DC House Voting Rights Act would give DC residents their first ever voting member of Congress. A DC voting rights bill hasn't been brought to the Senate Floor in nearly 30 years.

_____________

UPDATE:

Strong Vote Sign of Victory to Come

Washington, DC - Today, in a procedural vote on the DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 1257), a small group of Senators blocked the bill from being debated with a vote of 57 yeas - 42 neas. In order to overcome a filibuster, 60 votes are required.

While DC Vote is disappointed that these Senators are standing in the way of democracy for the nearly 600,000 tax-paying Americans living in Washington, DC, we remain encouraged that the Senate will pass this bill during this Congress. Ilir Zherka, Executive Director of DC Vote, released the following statement which may be quoted in part or in full:

"For the first time in 30 years, we secured the vote of a strong majority of Senators in favor of DC voting rights. We are outraged that a minority of Senators, led by Senators Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott, prevented the majority from voting on our bill. McConnell and Lott chose to filibuster a bill extending democracy at home at a time when they are pushing for democracy in the Iraq.

"Shame on them. Shame also on Senators Thad Cochran, John McCain and Gordon Smith, a group of Senators that did not have the courage to stand with us and against the outrageous tactics of their party leaders.

"This is the first filibuster of a voting rights bill since the era of segregation. Their opposition reminds us of a time when a minority of Senators blocked the door to democracy and freedom.

"We have not gotten this far by giving up. We have a majority of Senators who support voting rights for Americans living in Washington, DC. We will prevail in our cause because our cause is just. We will work closely with our allies in the Senate to get this bill up again in this Congress."

Microsoft Authoring Our "Election Reform" Legislation? Were We Short on Viruses or Something?

davidswanson — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:09:08 -0400

From Clare Maher via Mark Crispin Miller:

'MICROSOFT 811'

Holt: "It's no longer my bill."

In a town meeting in his New Jersey home district in July, Congressman Rush Holt made some disturbing statements which leave no doubt that H.R. 811 has become a bill that protects the interests of software corporations over the rights of citizens. In fact the Holt bill is NOT the Holt bill anymore! It has become 'Microsoft 811'!

Mr. Holt: "The bill has been changed since I introduced it. It's no longer my bill -- well, it's still my bill but it's been marked up in committee."

Further he added:

"Unfortunately, the committee that made this change heard from Microsoft. They heard that Voice. The point is Microsoft did lobby strongly. It wasn't just Microsoft. It was everybody who..."

Audience question: "Diebold?"

Holt: "No, it was software -- the software industry."

There is something seriously wrong when a U.S. Congressman can say that an election reform bill he introduced was significantly changed through the lobbying effort of Microsoft and the software industry....that their voices were heard!

Since when was the rule passed in Congress that whoever lobbies hardest gets to determine the content of U.S. legislation?

When a U.S. Congressman can agree that "the software industry won!" - as Mr. Holt admitted at the July meeting, we have a critical problem that threatens the foundation of our Democracy.

This bill is no longer the Holt bill...he said so himself. Clearly, the bill is now 'Microsoft 811!'

When Congressman Holt - the election reform leader in Congress - puts his trust in an audit that many experts say is inadequate, when he advocates for questionable paper trails linked to secretly programmed machines and then adds " I don't care what Microsoft does with their electronics in there" (as he did), it begins to look like our elections are a game of Russian roulette.

Where once the bill called for complete openness, full public disclosure of all software used to count OUR votes, now we have the opposite. 'Microsoft 811' enshrines in LAW the right of corporations to privatize our election through control of programming secrecy, prohibiting public disclosure of what's inside OUR voting machines! Only under strict conditions, people selected for very specific purposes can review the software, but only after signing non-disclosure agreements. Thus, what should be a contractual agreement is enshrined in federal law.

When you vote on Election Day you will not know what is happening inside that electronic machine. Under 'Microsoft 811', on Election Night the results reported will be generated from those secretly programmed electronic bytesŠ.from the very machines that top security experts have labeled "fatally flawed." Can we trust the results? How will we know?

A few months ago in New York State, during the hectic closing days of the legislative session, Microsoft along with other software vendors/lobbyists tried to sneak through provisions to destroy some of the strictest, hardest won, voting security legislation in the country by attaching those provisions to another bill which was simply about a minor change in the primary. Fortunately activists were vigilant and raised an alarm. Thousands of New Yorkers called their legislators in the next two days and the vendors' effort was defeated. Citizens can win if they speak out.

Now we have a far bigger challenge. Microsoft and other software companies are trying to get another bill passed that would protect their rights over the rights of the public. It is up to We the People to say "No" Š say it loud and clear till OUR VOICES - not the corporations' - are heard and heeded.

There are more problems with 'Microsoft 811' than just the assault on the public's right to know. See http://www.votersunite.org/info/hr811Report.pdf . Right now it must be stopped, and then we must demand that Congress pass a "stripped down" bill focused on the most vital steps to better secure election 2008. We MUST BAN DREs and provide states funding to replace them with systems that use paper ballots, marked by hand or by accessible ballot-marking devices, and counted by hand or by automatic tabulator. And any time we use computers to tabulate votes, we must have statistically significant hand-count audits to check the accuracy of the machines then continually improve the entire system.with citizen involvement.

People "say" Congress will never ban DREs. But where's the proof? Congress' reason for being is to serve "We the People." It is up to all of us to act. So, call your Representative and engage at least ten other people to call or fax. Call until you are have been heard. Tell Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 811 and to insist on a real election reform bill that bans DREs and restores to our elections the requirement of true separate and independent checks and balances which can be open to the American people. Only our vote should be secret.

Abraham Lincoln said, "Elections belong to the people. It is their decision."

Would that Congress heard these words rather than the words of 'Microsoft & Co.'

So now it's time to have our voices heard, and make it OUR decision.

Microsoft 811 will be on the floor for a vote this week. It is vital that you act now. We are up against some powerful interests but New York citizens won, so can all of usŠif each of us takes action. Stop Microsoft 811! Then Ban DREs!

To get telephone number of your representative or get info: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?action=myreps_f...

Congress Members to Ask Pelosi for Better Election Reform Bill

davidswanson — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:48:59 -0400

Ask your Congress Member to contact Congressman Kucinich to sign onto this letter.

Speaker Pelosi:

We have been made aware of a growing concern with H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007.

Many constituencies important to the Democratic Caucus, including but not limited to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, VotersUnite.Org, and Election Defense Alliance, have expressed frustration with our offices about the process and current legislative text of the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.

These constituencies represent a broad range of interests that reflect many of the core values of our party. H.R. 811 now finds opposition from organizations focused on upholding the integrity of our elections and local and states governments. For these constituencies, H.R. 811 falls short of its intended goals to ensure votes are cast and counted as intended by the voters.

Below are representative examples of the negative feedback we are receiving.

VotersUnite.Org statement by founder Ellen Theisen

After more than three years of supporting election reform bills introduced by Representative Rush Holt, I am saddened to see the many severe flaws in the version of HR 811 as it was passed out of committee last month." June 11, 2007

National Association of Counties letter to Congress

County officials welcome federal lawmakers' interest in strengthening the integrity and accessibility of our most basic democratic institution. We look forward to working with you to address the myriad challenges facing county officials in this environment of unprecedented change in election technology rather than exacerbating these challenges by enacting legislation such as H.R. 811. March 14, 2007

Before this bill is scheduled for a vote before the House of Representatives we urge you to ensure the legislative process addresses these very valid concerns and a substitute is developed that has broad, vocal support.

Sincerely,

Member of Congress

Kucinich Insists on Paper Ballots, Drops Support for Holt Bill

davidswanson — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:48:13 -0400

BradBlog has the story here:

PETER B. COLLINS: You have recently removed yourself as a co-sponsor of 811, am I correct?

KUCINICH: I have. Rush Holt's a fine person and I really enjoy serving with him. But I have to say, the bill does not address the concerns that Americans have, to do something about electronic voting, and to make sure that we protect ourselves from the kind of manipulation of an election that can occur with the insufficient controls on software and hardware in this era of electronic voting.

That's why I've advocated paper ballots in all federal elections. That's the paper trail. That's that old time religion in politics where at least you had a chance for a fair count. Every American deserves to know that his or her vote counts and is going to be counted.

And you may remember that in the last election, when it came to the Electoral College, I was one of the few members who challenged the election in the Electoral College and voted against certification of the election based on what happened in Ohio. As did, by the way, Senator [Barbara] Boxer [D-CA], she was one of the leaders on that.

PBC: Indeed, yes...

KUCINICH: And so, we have to stand up and be counted. I'm hopeful that Congressman Holt will modify his bill before he pushes for passage of it.

Altruismin Politics

princess of puters — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:51:01 -0500

When I was really little my Uncle Leroy was the Alderman for our Ward, that is what the district was called then, in Wilmington De.

Not big politics but we were horribly impressed. Uncle Le always appeared to be doing things for others. He helped my mother get our first apartment; it was the second story of a row house, close to grand mom’s of course. See my father died, I was 2, my sister 4 and my mother pregnant with my baby brother. And well in 1960 a woman couldn't always rent a place on her own. "A man would have to sign, see, you might nit make it alone there missy, with all those kids and all."

So Uncle Le signed, and we got our first place, we shared the bathroom with the people on the third floor, but it was not in Grand mom’s house anymore, and Mother was so proud. And Uncle Le, well he made it all possible.

It seemed Uncle Le was always doing for others, every time I turned around, feeding that family, clothing another, paying the rent, or buying coal (source of heat)

My grandfather called it Altruistic, that Uncle Le had been elected to represent he people of the Ward, and wanting that job, working for the job, meant uncle Le had to be better than most.

Wikipedia

Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, a God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not.

Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition

There in lies my issue, the regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.

Uncle Le was never honored for what he did as our Alderman, you can't even find his name on the Internet (horrors). Because what he did, he did for altruistic reasons. He went in to politics to make the live of the people living in the 5th Ward in Wilmington, DE better.

Now I don't know how much money it took Uncle Le to get elected, but I cant' not imagine it was much, he worked at the dairy, and had a wife crippled by MS.

And yet he gave to others. THAT is real Politics. THAT is why you run, why you take the job.

Now I am married to a man who could be called Altruistic, he never seeks attention or recognition for what he does. He is a pure soul who treats those he likes and dislikes in the same manner. He has never harmed a soul, except hurt my feelings now and then. If there is a neighbor or friend who needs help, they can and do always count on him. He will help with anything and everything he can. I have seen him rebuild a house for a neighbor; sacrifice a car for weeks for another. Run to his mother’s house, when she saw a snake, and she lived 40 minutes away.

If you gave him a million dollars, he would save it for a rainy day. (no kidding) You never see him in boastful cars, clothes, or attitude.

These are the kinds of people we want in office. Uncle Le was like this, and he was a good politician. If we had my hubby run today though, he would have to compromise himself, compromise his values, and honesty, to get the money needed to run for office. I hear others talking about my new Governor as if he were altruistic, but he is supported by the beltway bandits, defense contractors, and very large insurance lobbyist. Hard to stay honest and true in that shark pool.

So have we set ourselves into a system that causes corruption? If it takes 100 million to get in the game, then who and what are you to take that kind of money? How can you be altruistic, if you are in debt to so many for your election?

I have a real problem with the money everyone is talking about raising for this election. I have a problem with the greed it takes to raise that kind of money. I have a real problem with the kind of person it takes to raise that kind of money.

Why can’t we find an honest Politician? The Money.
Who paid for you to run, who is paying for you to sit there, and what do they want.

Wikipedia

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. In Buddhism it is considered a fundamental property of human nature.

Will Democrats uphold ethics and justice or give us the run around?

Seeking justice — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:29:05 -0500

When the constitution has been broken and america has given the democrats a chance to correct the wrongs will they?
www.impeachpresidentbush.com

Rep. Holt Says His Bill Will Require Paper Ballots - Probably?

davidswanson — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:42:30 -0500

Brad has the story here.

A Proposal for Election REFORM by Coordinated State Ballot Initiatives

thepen — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:12:34 -0500

Dear Friends and Activists,

We all worked enormously hard this election for the most progressive candidates we could find, and we had a couple winners. In addition, Ciro Rodriguez is in an upcoming runoff in TX-23 with very excellent prospects. In truth we probably had even more winners but for the election shenanigans we knew would be a handicap and which certainly took place. But the good news is that in spite of them, and thanks to your valiant participation, the people have regained both the House and the Senate. This at least allows us the power and opportunity to fight another day, and it is critically important that we continue to speak out in ever increasing numbers now that we have majorities who are more likely to influenced.

In the meantime, we have put a lot of thought into the next major strategic move. There will be bills in Congress to attempt real election reform, but there is no assurance that anything of substantive impact can survive a veto, assuming we can even pressure its passage. Therefore, we propose opening up a collateral front by putting together as many state ballot initiative campaigns as possible where laws can be passed directly on to the books. What we have in mind are two separate propositions in each such state, with the idea that there is synergy in collecting signatures for two related initiatives at the same time.

1) A paper ballot initiative of some kind

2) A clean money campaign financing measure

PAPER BALLOT REFERENDUM: http://www.usalone.com/paper_ballots.php

Critical to the success of these initiatives will be to establish a consensus of what we should shoot for, and to get everyone on the same page up front, so to speak. We recognize that with the question of paper ballots there are two camps who so far have been working perhaps at cross purposes. Some support H.R. 550 as an attempt to add on some kind of afterthought accountability to the existing electronic voting machines. Some others strongly oppose any variation of that bill because it doesn't go far enough, and are pushing for total elimination of the infernal Accu-Hack machines with their secret proprietary software.

What we are asking you, our participants, to do is to weigh in on what direction you think we should go in. We have set up a special referendum page where we ask if there should be mandatory paper ballots in all elections. Especially if you are one of the movers and shakers in the election protection movement, please email us so we can engage you in the drafting of the actual proposed initiatives.

PAPER BALLOT REFERENDUM: http://www.usalone.com/paper_ballots.php

While it is true that such initiatives cannot be pursued in all states, among the many where they can are most of the key presidential swing states. And by passing parallel state propositions where we can we would hope to build a de facto national standard, adding to the momentum for federal legislation, as in the recent spate of minimum wage increase intiatives, all of which succeeded.

With regards to clean money legislation, initiatives have been successful in AZ and ME to date, although limited to state office candidates only. We think we would like to also see some kind of help for federal candidates from state voters while we are working also to pass federal legislation. The recent measure in CA failed in large part because its supporters did not have the support of most of the unions for whatever reason, with the nurses association alone responsible for most of the votes it did get.

We are very interested in taking another shot at CA in particular with an initiative to public finance political campaigns for candidates, attempting to craft a measure that more people on our side can get behind, and as above to spark plug parallel initiatives in as many other states as possible where that can be done. So again, if you are an interested think tanker in the clean money movement, please email us so we can welcome you on to the team.

We would like to thank each and every one of you again and again for your magnificent and generous contributions, without which some of the candidates we were helping would have had no campaigns at all. And these same former and future candidates will be playing a key role in signature gathering for these upcoming state initiatives as they develop. We have moved the ball down the field and we are not going back.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours.

To be added to the list go to http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm