Iowa Voters

Representatives King and Latham joined 85% of the Republicans in the US House yesterday to vote down a paper ballot bill that could have re-imbursed Iowa for the expense of replacing our touchscreens.

Democrats tried to pass the bill under a suspension of the rules, a maneuver that requires a 2/3 majority. Such smooth sailing appeared possible because the bill had passed out of the House Administration committee unanimously. This time the same committee Republicans voted against the bill!

There were no mandates in the bill, only incentives for states to use verifiable methods of balloting, re-imbursements for new equipment, and money for auditing election returns.

He signed the bill that chases DRE touchscreens out of our state. He’s a better governor than he was Secretary of State.

Thank you, Governor Culver.

Secretary Mauro was on the radio yesterday, taking an hour long victory lap over this and same day voter registration. He’s a very credible Secretary of State with nearly 25 years of election administration under his belt.

Thank you Secretary Mauro.

The House has followed the Senate, voting for paper ballot systems througout Iowa. The bill protects our next Presidential election from the terrible touchscreens:

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, for elections held on or after November 4, 2008, a county shall
use an optical scan voting system only. The requirements of
the federal Help America Vote Act relating to disabled voters
shall be met by a county through the use of electronic ballot
marking devices that are compatible with an optical scan
voting system.

It’s nice to see how non-controversial this has become. Although there was a grumpy editorial in the Dubuque newspaper this week, the current news story at the DM Register has not even drawn any anonymous comments as of this posting.

The Governor’s signature is expected in due course.

The Iowa Senate has taken us halfway out of the paperless touchscreen trap on a 47-1 vote for an all paper voting system. Jennifer Jacobs has the story.

One legislator said on the radio today that we are hereby modernizing our voting system. That sounds like a refrain from just 3 years ago when we were suckered into new touchscreens–the “modern” system of its (brief) time.

Jacobs reports that touchscreens “have fallen from favor in the last couple of years as watchdog groups rail about equipment failures and security vulnerabilities.” She ought to say that the really credible watchdogs have been computer scientists. And they were “railing” in plenty of time to have avoided this whole fiasco, had the election officials been listening.

Michael Mauro listened. He never fell into the touchscreen trap. Now he is getting us out. Next step: the Iowa House.

A new bill approved by committee today in the Iowa Senate moves us much closer to paper ballots. Senate Study bill 3262 mandates paper ballots for the fall election and the state picks up the tab!

This goes a step beyond previous plans passed last spring to phase out touchscreens as they wear out. That bill also required paperless touchscreen terminals to have printers added to them. Arguments over the cost and who would pay for the printers, as well as over the poor performance they have showed in other states, prompted Governor Culver to flirt with a vote by mail system instead of buying more equipment to replace our 2005 purchases.

When the all mail ballot idea was panned by the state’s auditors this winter, Culver agreed to fund ballot marking devices for all counties that preferred them to touchscreen printers. Today’s legislation amends last year’s Iowa law by phasing out the touchscreens after September’s school board races.

No doubt the recent revenue estimate for the state has made this move much easier–state tax collections are exceeding expectations

State Representative Mary Gaskill wants to check on those computerized ballot scanners by counting 5% of the ballots by hand. She has filed a bill creating a state election audit board to oversee the process. The board would also have broad authority to review election administration in five randomly chosen counties after each general election.

Gaskill’s bill, HF 2206 is simple. Each county must hand count ballots in enough precincts to reach the 5% goal. If the count shows the machine was off by more than 1/2 % the audit would be expanded. If an actual recount of the entire race is invoked by a candidate, the audit would be unnecessary.

Not every race on the ballot will get reviewed during the audit. The bill says

The postelection audit shall be conducted for elections for the offices of president of the United States or governor, United States senator, United States representative, and at least a total of two additional partisan offices or public measures on the ballot, which shall be chosen by lot at the same time, and in the same manner, the precincts are chosen.

Such an automatic audit could have saved New Hampshire from the recount of its Democratic presidential primary last month. For now the Gaskill bill does not cover primaries, but can go into effect for November 2008 if the legislature approves. Let’s hope they do.

What a sad state of finger-pointing we have come to regarding Iowa’s tarnished election administration. In the Sunday Des Moines Register Governor Culver blames counties for the paperless voting machines he let them buy when he was Secretary of State. Story county auditor Mosiman defends her purchase, saying she acted on information available at the time.

They both need better alibis than that.

There was plenty of information available at the time (here, too, and here). If auditors and then Secretary Culver had paid more attention to computer experts like our own Doug Jones in Iowa City, we could have avoided this mess. Instead Mosiman went to Des Moines to testify against a paper trail bill. Auditors listened to savvy salesmen who managed to make those paperless touchscreens work long enough to close the deal. And besides, it was only tax money, much of it coming from the feds.

Culver’s correct that counties made the actual purchase decisions. He’s right that he (belatedly) urged them to have some sort of paper trail. But he was timid as a pussycat, never speaking against touchscreens. Worse than that, he even asked Professor Jones to resign from the Board of Examiners of Voting Machines during the crucial decision making period. Jones had single-handedly protected Iowa from Diebold during the many years he was on the board.

Culver should not prevent the legislature from mopping up. He should tell our Congressional delegation to back the Holt bill that would bail us out of our troubles (with yet more federal money).

Mosiman and the other county auditors who fell for touchscreens should admit that they were not paying adequate attention to the critics who sought to warn them before they spent the money HAVA provided.

Kiss and make up, you two. The legislature is trying to help.

Update: Loebsack is a co-sponsor of Holt’s bill.

A new federal bill could resolve the tension between two of Iowa’s top Democrats–the Governor and the Secretary of State. Today’s Register reports that Mauro wants to get all our votes on paper ballots, but Culver is content to buy “paper trails” for the tempermental touchscreens that now infect the state’s polling places.

It’s a question of money (big surprise!). The good stuff that Mauro wants costs $10 million. Culver is content to waste $2 million on the widely cussed paper trail printers.

They should put their egos aside for a minute and agree on one thing: to call on our state’s Congressmen to support the brand new HR 5036. That new bill by New Jersey’s Rush Holt pays for replacement equipment when states wise up and dump their DRE touchscreens. It is not a mandatory bill, so there is only one point of contention: Do we have the money in the federal budget to mop up the mess HAVA made of voting machines all over the nation. States that are loving their mess don’t have to do a thing. States that are ready to wash up can have the soap paid for by the Congress that caused this problem in the first place.

None of Iowa’s Congressmen have signed on to this bill yet. I called Latham’s office in Fort Dodge this morning. Can you do your part?

Boswell in Des Moines (toll free) (888) 432-1984
Braley in Davenport: (563) 323-5988 or more choices
Latham in Ames: 515-232-2885 or tom.latham@mail.house.gov
Loebsack: email or in Cedar Rapids 319-363-2288
King on the web or in Sioux City call 712.224.4692

As New Jersey enacted an exemplary election audit law and New Hampshire waded into another recount, Computerworld reporter Todd Weiss called Iowa to ask, Can audits restore confidence in elections? His inquiry is “Today’s Top Story” at the Computerworld website.

Weiss already knew that real paper ballots had saved Pottawattamie County in the 2006 primary when Auditor Drake turned off her errant scanner machines and counted ballots by hand.

Our Secretary of State Mike Mauro told Weiss

“I think there’s a place for post-election audits, where they are randomly selected, and of a certain percentage of the vote, to look for anomalies,” Mauro said. “It will [be] up for discussion this year. We will be discussing it this session.”

“First, we’re trying to get everybody across the state on the same machines first,” he said. Some Iowa counties are using optical-scan machines while others use DRE machines or a mix of the two. The goal is to move toward 100% use of optical scan machines, in part because such machines provide a verifiable paper trail.

“Random audits, of a certain percentage, I’m not opposed to any of that” to ensure accurate and fair elections, he said.

Parts of New Jersey’s law are being crafted into an Iowa bill. Next time Computerworld calls Iowa, here’s hoping it’s because we are more like NJ than like NH.

Here’s a short version of a platform plank being advocated by Iowans for Voting Integrity. The full resolution is in the comment section below, as is another resolution for auditing election returns. Take these to your caucus if you want verifiable elections.

WHEREAS, an accurate and verifiable tabulation of votes is essential to democracy, and

WHEREAS, direct-recording electronic voting machines do not allow the voters to see how their votes are recorded and do not allow for an independent recount, and

WHEREAS, experience in other states has shown that adding printers to electronic voting machines in an attempt to produce a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail fails to resolve either basic security issues or the difficulties of conducting recounts on this equipment, and

WHEREAS, voter-marked paper ballots, counted by optical scanners or by hand, provide the most reliable record of voter intent,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we support allocation of sufficient state funds for counties to replace all direct-recording electronic voting machines with optical scanners and ballot marking devices to serve voters with disabilities, in time for the November 2008 General Election; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we support federal legislation allocating funds to reimburse states for purchase of optical scanners and ballot marking devices.

Congress is in chaos over the Holt bill, HR 811. It was even called “Microsoft 811″ yesterday by Alcee Hastings, a Floridian on the Rules Committee which refused to advance the bill.

Courtesy of activist Bob Bancroft from VotersUnite.org here are 7 steps you can take in the wake of this blowup:

************************
Action Plan: 7 Easy Steps to Keep the Signal Loud & Clear

(1) Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Chair, House Rules Committee
(202) 225-3615, Fax (202) 225-7822
Applaud Rep. Slaughter’s courageous stand against the serious flaws in the Holt bill. Ask her to insist on a good bill. Urge her to resist any pressure from House leadership to move a badly compromised bill forward.

(2) Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Member, House Rules Committee
(202) 225-1313, Fax (202) 225-1171
Applaud Rep. Hastings’ powerful stand on behalf of We the People. Let him know that he has your full support as he continues to insist on complete transparency and disclosure in our elections.

(3) David Dreier (R-CA), Ranking Minority Member, House Rules Committee
(202) 225-2305, Fax (202) 225-7018
Ask Rep. Dreier to begin to play a constructive role, on behalf of his party, in this important debate. Remind him of the compelling results of CA’s own Top-to-Bottom review. He knows these machines are not fit for use in our elections. We all know it. Ask him to help transfer that knowledge into law.

(4) Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Majority Leader
202.225.3130 (Leader’s office), (202) 225-4131 (Personal office), Fax (202) 225-4300
Tell Rep. Hoyer that he must cease his continued attempts to force expensive, unfit, unwanted technology upon us. With the help of People For the American Way, he has managed to steer this bill even further off course. The reaction of his own party, and the subsequent exploitation of this by House Republicans, is a direct result of Hoyer’s bad judgment. Help him get his priorities straight!

(5) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House
(202) 225-0100 (Speaker’s office), (202) 225-4965 (Personal office)
Tell Speaker Pelosi that her leadership is needed on this issue. Explain to her that the Majority Leader has been unduly influenced by lobbyists like Jim Dickson, and that he is attempting to force a bill that neither the American people, nor even ranking members of her own party, desire. Ask Speaker Pelosi to intervene, and help deliver a clean bill that will restore the public confidence in our elections.

(6) Susan Davis (D-CA)
(202) 225-2040, Fax (202) 225-2948
Thank Rep. Davis for her brave amendment to curtail DREs. Let her know that she is on the right track, and that she has the support of many, including grassroots watchdog groups, large advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org, and major periodicals such as The New York Times. Ask her to consider revising her amendment to require an outright ban on DRE voting, along with full disclosure and transparency in our elections.

(7) John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader
(202) 225-4000 (Leader’s office), Fax (202) 225-5117 (Leader’s), (202) 225-6205 (Personal office)
Ask Rep. Boehner to do something more constructive than simply poking fun at Democrats who disagree with each other. Remind him that Rep. Slaughter took the right stand, and should not be chastised for it. Tell Rep. Boehner that he should work with his party to offer a clean bill that addresses the following core requirements: (1) full transparency and disclosure, (2) full deference to States rights, (3) an end to the failed experiment of electronic voting. Tell him that you are counting on him to set aside the partisan politics, and work with all interested parties to address the badly eroded public confidence in our elections.

*********************
Yesterday I made the calls I was asking you to make. It took less than a minute for each one and the note-taker at the Congressional office was accommodating in each case. Surely you can find one or more of these calls appealing to you. The calls to Davis and Hastings should be especially fun to make. As soon as I push the Publish button for this post, I’ll start my own calling, so if you get a busy signal, that’s probably me tying up the line. Let freedom RING!

UPDATED BELOW—ANOTHER UPDATE–THIRD UPDATE

Washington Congressman Norm Dicks told one of his constituents that Congress was being “inundated with calls in favor of the Ban-DRE amendment.” DRE is lingo for touchscreen voting machines.

The calls came pouring in when a rumor arose that the House Rules committee would allow a vote on such an amendment when the Holt paper trail bill reaches the floor. At this writing it is unclear if the Rules committee has adopted such a rule or even if the bill will make it to the floor this week as had been expected.

So YOU have time to call, too. DREs are the evil heart of the election Frankenstein we deal with today. Every time they are investigated by impartial computer scientists, DREs flunk. They should definitely be banned.

Here’s the Rules Committee phone number: 202-225-9091

For good measure, here’s the phone of Rules chairwoman Louise Slaughter of NY: Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822

And don’t forget your own Representative:

Bruce Braley (202) 225-2911
Dave Loebsack http://loebsack.house.gov/contactform
Leonard Boswell Phone: (202) 225-3806
Fax: (202) 225-5608
Tom Latham– Toll Free:866-428-5642
Steve King–Phone: 202.225.4426
Fax: 202.225.3193

Let freedom ring!

UPDATE: Thursday’s New York Times has editorialized in favor of the DRE ban:

It is unfortunate that the bill does not contain a provision banning the use of touch-screen voting machines. A touch-screen ban would encourage states to use optical scan machines, which rely on paper ballots read by a computer, like a standardized test form. Optical scans are less expensive and less vulnerable to vote theft.

There is still time before the bill becomes law to add a ban on touch-screen voting. If the House fails to do so, the Senate should, and it should fight for it to be in the final bill.

Read it here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Expect this bill to be taken up by the Rules Committee Friday morning. Call now. Ask them to allow a DRE ban amendment or even ask to have an “open rule” which will allow any amendments that may be drafted as the bill is debated.

THIRD UPDATE: Friday Rules Committee meeting cancelled. Use the extra time to tell your own Congressman what you think. They are paying attention now!

Once called HR 811, but now called Microsoft 811 by some, Representative Rush Holt’s paper trail bill is set for a vote this week in the US House. Some former backers of Holt’s efforts have jumped ship and want you to jump, too.

Many good points of the original bill are gone now:

1. Software disclosure demands got removed. The bill now bars public disclosure of software.

2. Internet connections were banned in the bill last winter, as were any type of wireless connections. Both now suffer from muddled language added in committee.

Here’s the conclusion of Ellen Theisen, an early paper ballot advocate:

In my opinion, the flaws in this bill are more damaging to democracy and our future election process than the good that might come of the minimal safeguards it could provide for our elections in 2008 and beyond. So, far from celebrating that a Holt election reform bill will finally come to the floor for a vote as I might have been back in 2003, or even 2005, I am now filled with sadness. This bill should never be passed as it is currently written.

Others still back the bill. Verified Voting (started by California professor David Dill) needed over 2200 words to explain why it backs the bill in spite of all the negative changes it has undergone this summer. Their closing words are cautionary at best:

The proposed changes to the Committee bill open the door for hundreds of millions to be spent on touch screen equipment and flawed inaccessible printers in 2008 — equipment that would need to be replaced yet again in 2012. We still believe the good in the bill outweighs these changes, but we urge Congress to implement these reasonable corrections as the bill moves forward.

So even the bills backers hope it won’t be enacted without some improvements. Typically the argument goes like this–”Pass this bill, anyway, because the Senate can do better. Then the conference committee will select the best from both bills. We hope.”

Trouble is, there is no better bill that has any legs in the Senate. There are worse bills in the Senate.

Passing what’s still called HR 811 appears to be as risky as defeating it.

Here’s a briefing on the VOICE bill by Jenifer Parsons. She produced this work April 2, 2007 for the Iowa House Democrats. Parsons is a member of their research staff. It has been shortened just a little bit by my editing.

VOTER OWNED IOWA CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT
HF 805
Current Status: House Appropriations Committee

This new Act gives candidates for public office a choice in how they fund their campaign for elective office. It is completely voluntary on the part of the candidate. VOICE provides qualifying candidates—who agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources—with a set amount of public funds to run for office.

In general, VOICE candidates receive full public financing for the primary and the general elections. They qualify for funding by raising a high number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters in their districts or state. VOICE is not an attempt to patch up the current system, but instead is designed as an alternative to it. VOICE reform provides another way for candidates to finance their campaigns.

A similar law has already been enacted in Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut. New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina and Vermont have enacted the “clean money” option for some races.

VOICE has passed constitutional muster to date by working within the confines of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The Buckley ruling states that government can place limits on the amount of money an individual or PAC can contribute to a candidate. However, government cannot place limits on spending UNLESS public financing is offered and the system is voluntary.

VOICE is funded with $10 million from unclaimed and abandoned properties in the custody of the State Treasurer’s office. In other words, it is not funded with tax money. Other funding sources include a $5 income tax check-off ($10 joint return), voluntary contributions to the VOICE Fund with up to a $200 tax deduction, unspent seed money, and qualifying contributions.

Funding measures of the bill take effect January 1, 2008. The VOICE option for candidates does not become effective until November 3, 2010, which gives the VOICE Fund ample time to collect enough funding to become self-sustaining.

Highlights of the bill are as follows:
• VOICE Fund is a separate fund within the State Treasurer’s Office. The State Treasurer is required to annually deposit $10 million into the VOICE fund from the proceeds derived from the sale of unclaimed property. If the proceeds from the sale of unclaimed property do not equal $10 million, the State Treasurer must transfer unclaimed utility deposit refunds to the VOICE Fund.
• Candidates apply to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Disclosure Board to become a VOICE candidate by collecting a set number of signatures and $5 contributions from registered voters in their district. The contributions are deposited into the VOICE Fund.
• Qualified political parties are those whose candidates received at least 20 percent of the total number of votes cast in the previous general election. (This weeds out nonviable third parties and their candidates).
• Requires that a nonpartisan voter information program and advisory council be established by the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. The council is required to publish and distribute a voter information guide.
• The VOICE qualifying period begins 90 days before the primary election and ends 30 days before the primary election. It is during this 60 day window (March, April) that a candidate must obtain the necessary signatures and $5 contributions from registered voters to qualify.
• Participating candidate means a candidate on the ballot who qualifies for VOICE funding.
• Non participating candidate means a candidate who is on the ballot but has chosen to privately finance his/her campaign with individual contributions and PAC contributions, or a candidate who is on the ballot and has applied for but has not satisfied the requirements for receiving VOICE funding.
• Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Board (IECFB) has 5 days after receiving an application for VOICE funding to determine if a candidate has satisfied all of the requirements. If so, the IECFB provides the candidate with a debit card and a set amount of money is deposited into the candidate’s Campaign checking account.
• Allows a person to voluntarily contribute to the VOICE fund through a $5.00 checkoff on their income tax return.
• If the opponent of a VOICE candidate has decided to privately finance his/her campaign, a trigger is in place for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB) to release additional funds in the form of a dollar-for-dollar match up to 200% of the initial allocation to a VOICE candidate if any of the following occurs: the privately funded opponent exceeds the initial allocation, or money is spent by 527 committees or other independent groups to benefit the opponent. The IECDB will know when this is happening through additional reporting required by privately funded candidates as well as groups spending money independently.
• There is an exploratory period of 18 months (November through May). During this time, candidates decide if they will publicly or privately finance their campaign. Candidates can raise “seed” money during this time to cover any expenses associated with becoming qualified for VOICE. This is the only private money a candidate can spend. An individual cannot contribute more than $100 of “seed money” to a candidate. Candidates are limited to raising and spending seed money to become VOICE eligible as follows:

• Governor/Lt. Governor: $25,000
• Other Statewide offices: $15,000
• Iowa Senate: $ 2,000
• Iowa House: $ 1,000
• Political parties can contribute up to 5% of the initial allotment in cash or in-kind contributions to a VOICE candidate. In addition, political parties can provide a staff person to assist a candidate.

Contributors must be registered voters who reside within the candidate’s electoral district and who are eligible to vote for the candidate

VOICE funds to qualified primary election candidates; adjusted to CPI on 12/31

Office Funding Maximum
Governor/Lt. Governor $750,000 $1,500,000
Other Statewide $75,000 $150,000
Iowa Senate $22,500 $45,000
Iowa House $15,000 $30,000

VOICE funds to qualified General Election candidates

Office Funding Maximum
Governor/Lt. Governor $3,000,000 $6,000,000
Other Statewide $200,000 $400,000
Iowa Senate $40,000 $80,000
Iowa House $30,000 $60,000

Contributions Limits for Non-participating Candidates:
1. Candidates for statewide Office:
a. $1,000 in the aggregate per individual contribution.
b. $5,000 in the aggregate per political committee contribution.
2. Candidate for the Iowa Senate and House of Representatives;
a. $500 in the aggregate per individual contribution.
b. $1,000 in the aggregate per political committee contribution.

The state convention of Iowans Citizens for Community Improvement was held Saturday in Des Moines. Clean elections were a central issue for the members.

The pro-VOICE workshop was held in the biggest room. It featured a publicly funded winner from the Arizona state senate, Meg Burton Cahill. She barely upset a powerful senior incumbent of the AZ legislature on her first try for elective office. She ran with public financing. She has become so popular that in the most recent election she carried every precinct in her district, despite being in the “wrong” party for that district.

The Senator argued that current law demands two skill sets from legislators: ability to craft public policy, and ability to raise campaign money. She said these skills don’t often reside in a single person. As a result some legislators depend on party leaders to raise money for them and thus lose their independence. She also waved a brochure for an upcoming campaign workshop in DC which featured many fundraising workshops, such as “It’s All About the Benjamins” and “Give and Take, and Take and Take”.

Later the CCI members heard from former Iowa Congressman Berk Bedell. He said it’s great to work on an issue like VOICE. No politicians are against it, he noted, but added that none of them do anything to advance it.

Common Cause also sent a representative who briefly answered questions about the federal clean elections bill and referred the audience to their website for further information. Bedell said Common Cause may place full-time staff in Iowa to advance the issue.