Verified Voting Is Coming Soon

Feinstein's statement (4.00 / 1)

Here is a December 1st statement by Dianne Feinstein on voting reform.  She doesn't mention Holt or the House bill, but I guess that the way Senators operate.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 04:50:27 AM UTC

Its understandishable... (4.00 / 1)

I find it amazing that news coverage doesn't point the finger at those to blame.  Republican leadership has SILENCED this bill for over 2 years.

I remember speaking with one of Ferguson's staff about the bill in 2005 and being told, "I'm sorry we're unfamiliar with the contents of HR 550."  To which I answered, "Really?  Cause that's what this office said almost a year ago, don't you guys do any work?"

Coverage on this issue should ALWAYS remind the reader that this bill is several years old and that Republicans made it their business to sweep it under the rug all the while.


-- Mitch
ManzellaNews.com

---

by: mitch @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 05:01:55 AM UTC

that's a great point (0.00 / 0)

"Having stalled for over two years" edits out all notion of cause.  I guess it just happened, like having an unusually cold winter.  Is the New York Times afraid of the Republicans?
Or do they think it is so obvious it is fine to omit it?  That's not right. 

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 06:01:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A little background (0.00 / 0)

The first version of the bill was very close to the current version and was assigned HR 2239.  That bill was introduced in the House in 2003 and died in committee.  The current version, HR 550, was introduced in February of 2005 (so it has been close to two years that the legislation is around) and assigned to the House Administration Committee.  The intent of the Republican leadership was to kill it in committee again.  Bob Ney was chairman of the committee at the time.  Ney, as you may recall, represented the 18th congressional district of Ohio, but he's gone from Congress now following his conviction for accepting bribes in the Jack Abramoff scandal.  Vernon Ehlers (R-MI-3) then took over the chair of the House Administration Committee.  Forced by publicity and the large number of co-sponsors to hold hearings on the legislation in, I believe it was, September of this year, the HAC web page published a report on those hearings that was so whitewashed you would think there had never been an error in voting in the entire country since the first ballot was scratched with a quill.  However, the verified voting pressure has continued to grow and the shenanigans in Florida's 13th CD show what a sham those hearings were.  A Democratic majority in the House will give the bill an opportunity to get to the floor of the House.  As Congressman Holt said recently, "students of civics will note that does not guarantee passage", referring to the 221 co-sponsors, 3 more than the number required to pass the legislation in a full floor vote, but it's an awfully good indication that it will pass.

The co-sponsorship is bi-partisan, which is worth remembering.  Verified voting is not a partisan issue.  Although one should remember that the bill has been held back by Republican leadership, one should also remember that there are Republican co-sponsors and supporters.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 15:09:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tom Cole (R-OK) is a cosponsor (0.00 / 0)

Here's what he had to say about the bill:

"I think my colleagues were initially worried this [legislation] would re-fight the 2000 [presidential] election," said Tom Cole, R-Okla. But he added that not knowing election results undermines democracy.

Cole should know. He was chief of staff of the Republican National Committee in 2000 when the presidential election was disputed. "I still regard it as one of the great tragedies of American history," he said. "We in some ways don't know who won the election."

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 20:29:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair and Free Elections (0.00 / 0)

Should not be a partisan issue...but, let's face it; an America in which ordinary poor, working/middle class people vote in large numbers....AND have their votes accurately COUNTED, is an America in which the current brand of Republicanism will fare poorly.

So, it's in the short term self interests of Bushistic Republicans to obstruct any real reform.

The question is can we get 60 votes in the Senate and then be prepared to overturn a Bush veto to get this modicum of reform through?

Further, there is a need to increase the criminal sanctions for electoral fraud so that they are on a par with those we now have against terrorists.  Electoral fraud is even worse, in many ways, than the overt violent terrorism of an Al Qaeda.

More on this another time as I've already gone somewhat off the topic of this thread.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 06:54:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

About time.... (0.00 / 0)

What's it been? Six YEARS? Good God.

Got to clean up New York as well.

---

by: NYBri @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 06:16:45 AM UTC