Voting Rights Institute

Support The "Confidence in Voting Act of 2006"

Posted by Donna Brazille on September 28, 2006 at 06:36 PM

Fellow citizens,

We still have time to address the e-voting security crisis!

The November 7th mid term congressional and statewide elections are around the corner -- and fears and concerns about the integrity of our electoral system and the security of paperless electronic voting systems have increased daily.

But there is time to act!

Before Congress adjourns for the November elections, we must pressure our lawmakers to support legislation that would help produce a fair and transparent election. Please call your lawmaker now and asked them to support the "Confidence in Voting Act of 2006."

This legislation, sponsored in the Senate by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Russ Feingold (WI), along with Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) in the House of Representatives will allow the states to use optical scan or other paper ballot-based voting systems to opt in to a program for this November's election whereby they would be reimbursed for giving voters the right to cast their votes on paper ballots.

The "Confidence in Voting Act of 2006" would also:

  • Reimburse States at the rate of 75 cents per printed ballot for offering voters, upon their request, the right to cast a vote by means of a contingency paper ballots, regardless of the voting equipment otherwise in use at the precinct;

  • Mandate that the voter's right to cast his or her vote by means of such a contingency paper ballot be conspicuously posted at polling places;

  • Mandate that jurisdictions treat contingency paper ballots as
    regular ballots, and count them accordingly and not as provisional ballots (unless a voter is otherwise required to vote provisionally); and

  • Authorize such sums as are necessary to reimburse the States under the program.

We still have time to address the e-voting security crisis!

Every citizen deserves the right to vote and have that vote counted as cast. This is the system by which we hold our elected officials accountable and the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. A wide variety of non-partisan, objective studies have shown deeply troubling irregularities in the conduct of the 2000 and 2004 elections, as well as in some of the primary elections this year that call into question the fairness and accuracy of our current election system and demonstrate that the problems have not been fixed. Many of these voting irregularities are a direct result of malfunctioning electronic voting machines and poll workers who may be untrained in administering this new technology. Some of the problems could be eliminated by the use of voter-verified paper ballots. It's time we act and call upon our lawmakers to ensure this election is fair and transparent. Given the recent rampant election irregularities and discrepancies, voters are justifiably concerned about the integrity of their votes cast through potentially flawed and unreliable machinery.

That is why I am calling on Democrats to stand firmly in support of H.R.6187, the Confidence in Voting Act of 2006.

Comments (14) «

Time? They better hurry up, because I'm almost ready to sign off on my proofs from Diebold.
Dayton Legal Blank won't have the ballots ready for us by Oct 3rd to begin no excuse vote by mail let alone have a larger order to accommendate the voters who want paper. (shouldn't they request and receive an absentee/vote my mail?)
Looks like the vendors made out again...first billions in atm wanna be touchscreens, now with this added perk. They will just up their price so that the counties and the feds pay up.

Too bad HAVA 2002 had to take place and all the taxpayers money was wasted.

How about a comprehensive measure? Vote my mail with common sense procedures of what is legal and what is not as well as having the USPS pay for all election related materials?

1
Esmeralda on September 28, 2006 at 09:02 PM

Roster Of Shame (Dems who voted Yea on getting rid of habeas corpus today).

Carper, D-DE
Johnson, D-SD
Landrieu D-LA
Lautenberg, D-NJ
Lieberman, D-CT
Menendez, D-NJ
Nelson, D-FL
Rockefeller, D-WV
Salazar, D-CO
Stabenow, D-MI

I hope the check I sent to the DNC today is not going to any of these people.

2
Shelley on September 28, 2006 at 09:59 PM

I will never vote a Democrat again, that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for a Republican (hell no). You Democratic Senators are a bunch of mother fuckers. I went to this war that you voted for without even thinking twice about. I was severly injured in this war, luckily I was never captured by the enemy, now I hope that none of my fellow servicemembers never get captured by future enemy governments. You sold us out, from now on I will only vote for independents, unaffiliates, greens and any other party that believes any form of torture is wrong. Democrats believe in torture, you can't spin that vote!

3
IraqWarVeteran on September 28, 2006 at 11:21 PM

IW you're frustration is understandble but don't say the democrats are for tourture cause that's karl rove talk. He and the DLC wants to see us go into a civil war and fight against each other.

How would feel if dean gets smeared and get in trouble by the DLC. If we don't watch his back and help him out we'll never be united.

So don't give up on the democrats and fight for them and get rid of the DLC'ers in congress. Come on IW you're a better person than this,stand up and do what's right for us,do it for dean and for our nation.

4
ap215 on September 28, 2006 at 11:51 PM

My Senator already had the balls to sponsor this legislation.Sen.Feingold has always stood on the side of the American people.So,I will just urge others to contact their senators and urge them to support this legislation.

Fight for your VOTES,people!

:)

5
FreedomOfSpeechForProgressiveMajority on September 29, 2006 at 12:18 AM

Donna Brazile

you are surely joking! where in the sam hill have you BEEN?

how dare you pull this stunt NOW!

line up with the Dems for torture. we've known this since Election Protection reported it two years ago.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

6
fade2bluz on September 29, 2006 at 12:20 AM

h/t RedLetterRev

Dems for Torture

i nominate nancy, who has done considerable damage to my nerve endings on a very bad day for Constitution loving left-wingers.

honestly, i don't know how much more of this i can take. wait around for two years to decide that maybe there might be some freakin' problems?

you didn't see the hearings in OHIO?

nancy, i hope your contract with america ends soon.

7
fade2bluz on September 29, 2006 at 12:27 AM

I feel every voter should have a right to a paper ballot. In Vermont, where everyone is regesterd Independent.(Voters list show no affilliated party) Any voter can ask for a absentee ballot, no strings attached, 3 weeks before the election.

We Must vote out these Yellow Dog republicans, to think that all of them, and 12 Democrats voted for tha unconstitutional Bill(Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill) Which the Supreme Court ruled on a like bill on Habeas Corpus, which said in no way can you rule out Confrontation.It would violate the 5,6, 14 admendments of the bill of rights. When someone accuses you of a crime, you have a right to confront them, so they are sworn in, and it isn't hearsay. Hearsay is not evidence! and no matter what a person charges you with, it is nothing until they are sworn in and take the oath! If they are not there, how can they be sworn in? Exception, is a deathbed confession.

Supreme Court of the United States March 8,2004 Crawford V. Washington 541 US. Look it up. Chief Justice Rehnquist made the opinon.

I thought Congress was sworn in to up hold the constitution of the United States, and not shread it! Can you imagine what would happen with out Habeas Corpus, they could grab anybody and make up lies, this sounds like Hitler and the Nazis!

This is what they said in 1769
Hearsay is no evidence. . .Though a person Testify what he hath heard upon Oath, yet the person who spake it was not upon oath; and if a man had been in court and said the same thing and had not sworn it, he had not been believed in a court of justice.

8
DemocracyWon on September 29, 2006 at 12:47 AM

Posted by fade2bluz on September 29, 2006 at 12:27 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice that they are mostly Southern Hicks and a few Mindless Midwesterners?

I noticed it.

Total shame!

9
FreedomOfSpeechForProgressiveMajority on September 29, 2006 at 12:47 AM

THIS POOR GUY WORKS WITH A BUNCH OF STUPID AZZ BABOONS!

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition of the Military Commissions Act

small snip.Note: Read it all.There's a LOT and this is nothing copmpared to the rest of his statement:

Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act.

Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Please,Let Sen.Feingold know you appreciate the fact that he's fighting for you.

10
FreedomOfSpeechForProgressiveMajority on September 29, 2006 at 01:43 AM

REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF 'LIE AND TORTURE'

11
JSal on September 29, 2006 at 09:09 AM

Donna Brazille? Is she kidding?

12
desperate_housemice on September 29, 2006 at 09:24 AM

**********Class War**********

The entire population of the United States is in a "class war".

At the beginning of the 21st Century, we as an American People are witnessing an emergence of a "New Class" from the Working and Poor Class and Culture.

The result of the emergence of a "New Class" in a two-party political system is that one of the three classes is NOT REPRESENTED by a political party.

Prior to the start of the emergence of the "New Class" there were two political parties, the "Old Class" [the Elite Capitalist Class] and the Working and Poor Class.

The "New Class", the intellectuals and the intelligentsia are emerging as a "New Class" from the Working and Poor Class and Culture and as the leadership of the Working and Poor Class and Culture, the "New Class" are representing their own emerging "New Class and Culture", rather than the Working and Poor Class and Culture.

If we the people in the United States are going to find a political solution that will preserve democracy in the United States, we are going to have to find a way to deal with three classes and cultures: the Old Class, the New Class and the Working and Poor Class, THREE CLASSES in a Two Political Party System.

At present the "New Class" is the Political Leadership of the Working and Poor Class and Culture, and they choose to represent their own emerging "New Class and Culture", rather than the Working and Poor Class and Culture.

Class War is going on in the United States to determine which class controls the Democratic Party and the Government of the United States, the "New Class", the "Old Class" [the Elite Capitalist Class], or the Working and Poor Class and Culture.

If we are to preserve democracy in the United States, we must first recognize the three-class reality. An emerging "New Class" creates three separate and distinct political classes and cultures in the United States' TWO PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM, while confining the two classes, the "New Class" and the Working and Poor Class and Culture to representation by one political party, the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party will not represent the interests and agendas of two different classes and cultures, the "New Class and Culture" and the "Working and Poor Class and Culture".

At present, the majority portion of the Democratic Party leadership is leadership by the "New Class", the Democratic Leadership Council, DLC; and the Working and Poor Class and Culture, the "grassroots", are engaged in Class War with the DLC Leadership of the "New Class" for control of the Democratic Party.

If the "New Class" loses the Class War, the 20% minority population of the "New Class" will not be represented by the Democratic Party. And, if the Working and Poor Class loses the Class War, the 70% majority population of the Working and Poor Class will not be represented by the Democratic Party.

The United States Political System needs a better solution that a TWO PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM that has no option available other than Class War over the control of one political party, the Democratic Party and relegates the losers of the Class War to being unrepresented as "swing voters" in support of a TWO PARTY AGENDA that does not represent the loser of the Class War.

We as a part of the 70% MAJORITY POPULATION of the Working and Poor Class and Culture must vote for the Democratic Party as our Political Party. But, we must also clean out the house of the Democratic Party and purge it of the "New Class" leadership, the Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC, that represents the "New Class" to the exclusion of the Working and Poor Class and Culture.

We, the Working and Poor Class and Culture, must make the Democratic Party be the party of the people once more, rather than the party of the intellectuals and intelligentsia [technocrats], the Professional Class that have chosen to be a "New Class".

For more information on the "New Class", please read the following book: "THE FUTURE OF INTELLECTUALS AND THE RISE OF THE NEW CLASS" by Alvin W. Gouldner, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.


13
ThomasG_ on October 1, 2006 at 03:26 PM

I hope you're right that there's still time to do this for the November elections. The will to do it -- strong in the people. And we are at the mercy of Congress after all, aren't we?

I don't even think I trust the scanners. I don't see why we can't have a simple, straightforward, old fashioned paper ballot. It isn't that the vote still can't be rigged with them, it just lends itself to oversight so much better than anything else. So, so often the low-tech answer is the best one.

Like all Democrats, I have this incurable optimism about my fellow human beings. I so hope you're right about this. I'd say we'll see in a few weeks, but hey, we might not.

One can hope anyway.

14
Prospero on October 5, 2006 at 02:35 PM


« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.