WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today joined Congressional
leaders and activists in calling on Congress to pass H.R. 2239, legislation
by U.S. Representative Rush Holt that requires paper audit receipts on
electronic voting machines prior to the November election.
“At
a time when the eyes of the world are upon us, what could be more important
to our democracy than to ensure that every vote is counted? How can
President Bush and Republicans leaders speak about exporting democracy
and freedom to nations across the world if we can’t guarantee that our
own citizens’ votes are counted and counted accurately?” Schakowsky asked.
She
added, “It is common sense that every electronic voting machine must produce
a voter-verified paper trail, a receipt. We get a receipt for buying
groceries, filling our cars with gas or taking money out of the ATM.
And like the New York Times editorialized on June 13, we want our
voting machines to operate as ‘honestly and accurately’ as Las Vegas
slot machines. ‘… [T]he truth is,’ the editorial continues, ‘gamblers
are getting the best technology, and voters are being given systems that
are cheap and untrustworthy by comparison. There are many questions yet
to be resolved about electronic voting, but one thing is clear: a vote
for president should be at least as secure as a 25-cent bet in Las Vegas.’”
“Let’s
not gamble on our election or bluff when it comes to our democracy.
It’s time to pass H.R. 2239,” Schakowsky concluded.
H.R.
2239, Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003
The
Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was an important piece of legislation that
took many important steps towards electoral reform. However, in helping
states replace notoriously problematic and antiquated machines, HAVA appears
to be creating a headlong rush to purchase computer voting systems that
suffer different flaws.
Unfortunately,
because computer voting machines are not currently required to produce
a voter-verified paper trail, any errors and irregularities they cause
are difficult or even impossible to discover. A growing host of nationally
and internationally-renowned computer scientists consider a voter-verified
paper trial to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity and
security of computer-assisted elections.
The
Voter Verification Bill seeks to incorporate the voter-verified paper trail
by amending HAVA immediately. If passed, funds expended under HAVA
will be utilized in a manner that ensures that this minimum standard of
protection will be built into computer voting systems now, without the
necessity of replacing or upgrading such voting systems later. Key
provisions of the bill include:
1.
Requires all voting systems to produce a voter-verified paper record for
use in manual audits. For those using the increasingly popular ATM-like
“DRE” 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, and limits electronic communication to outgoing reports
of vote totals only.
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 do meet this deadline may use a
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 .5% of domestic jurisdictions and
.5% of overseas jurisdictions. |