Go to Original
GOP Objects to Bill Allowing Recounts
By Ben Adler
The Politico
Friday 25 April 2008
Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments
pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from
elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal
in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.
The result: The elections in November will likely be marred by the same accusations
of fraud and error involving voting machines that arose in the aftermath of
the 2004 presidential race.
When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt's Emergency Assistance for
Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee
on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support.
But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the
bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill
to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn't make
it that far.
Larry Norden, director of the voting technology project at the Brennan Center
for Justice at New York University's law school, called the vote "a
sad statement on how little Congress has done on the issue of making sure elections
are as secure and reliable as possible."
In May 2003, Holt proposed the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility
Act. That bill would have mandated a paper trail for voting machines so that
voters could verify their vote and a recount could be performed, if necessary.
The measure faced conservative objections on states' rights grounds and
failed to make much headway.
So Holt introduced his new bill in January. Under the Emergency Assistance
for Secure Elections Act, the federal government would help localities switch
to paper ballots or attach printers to their electronic voting machines in time
for the November elections. To overcome states' rights objections, Holt
crafted the bill as an opt-in: Nobody would be required to switch technologies
or conduct audits, but federal funding would be available to offset costs for
those who did.
Without a mandate, Holt's bill drew more bipartisan support; Rep. Tom
Davis (R-Va.) was one of the 92 co-sponsors. "We need standards to ensure
that things are auditable, verifiable and give the voters confidence, and [Davis]
doesn't think that what we have now does that," said Davis spokesman
Brian McNicoll.
"The principle reason for the bipartisan consensus is that this was opt-in,"
Holt told Politico after the bill passed committee. "Everybody, Democrat
and Republican, would prefer fewer disputed elections and better ways of resolving
disputes. You can't resolve disputes without a paper trail."
But Holt's bill hit a snag on April 15 when the White House put out a
statement of opposition on the grounds that it was unnecessary to spend the
money appropriated in the bill when funding could come instead from the Help
America Vote Act.
Republicans say it was the bill's cost, not the White House's opposition,
that caused them to change their votes. "The version that passed committee
on April 2 did not authorize a specific dollar amount," said Salley Collins,
a spokeswoman for Republicans on the Administration Committee. "We didn't
receive the [Congressional Budget Office] score until the 14th of April, one
day before it went to the floor.... So we did not know that the proposed
legislation would cost $685 million - $50 million more than Holt's
first version."
Holt and his staff dismissed that objection. "There's no reason
to expect it would actually cost $680 million," he said, arguing that
the $680 million estimate assumes more local governments will opt in than he
believes is likely.
Republicans also cited concerns regarding implementation. Collins said Holt's
bill is "overly prescriptive with the hand recounts," and she suggested
that it might not be realistic to expect local governments to adopt new technologies
in such a short timeframe. "It could wreak havoc on a hotly contested
election," she said.
Holt says these issues are red herrings: Because of the opt-in nature of the
bill, any state worried that it could not complete the process in time could
simply choose not to participate.
While some election reform activists would have preferred a mandatory bill,
many saw it as the best they could hope to get in time for the next election.
"On Election Day, if machines are breaking down and there are no paper
ballots, the failure of this bill will be one place to look for explanations,"
said Norden.
Holt is predicting exactly that: Ultimately, he said, the bill's failure
will mean that "millions of voters will leave the 2008 election questioning
the process and whether their vote means anything."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story