Verified Voting to be Delayed Again?

by: JustCountEmRight

Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST

Cross-posted at DKos.

The New Jersey Legislature passed a law to require voter-verifiable paper records in 2005. The state needs that law badly: the voting machines used in most of the state are unreliable, hackable, and have miscounted ballots in a Presidential primary. The Clerk of Union County actually encouraged voters not to use the machines and vote absentee in the November election.

Anyway, the law was supposed to be implemented by 2008. It wasn't, and if lawmakers pass bills now moving in both Houses, the law may never be implemented. Click here to send a message to legislators opposing irresponsible delay.

JustCountEmRight :: Verified Voting to be Delayed Again?

To meet the requirement for voter-verified paper, the state chose to retrofit its existing machines with one-of-a-kind, expensive printers. They don't work so well. In fact, one lawmaker calls them "Rube Goldberg machines." They did not have to do it this way: 60% of the nation's voters vote on optically scanned paper ballots. Optical scan is the most cost-effective, most auditable electronic voting system on the market.

So the bills moving in both NJ Houses would undo any firm deadline and conduct a "pilot study" of voter-verifiable paper records. Pilot study. 39 states have adopted verifiable systems of one kind or another without pilot studies! And what will the study examine? The same printers that have failed for three years. And guess who is a lead the sponsor of the bill to study the Rube Goldberg printers? Assemblywoman Joan Quigley, who said she'd rather change a tire than use them:

"What made the difference was this summer," said Quigley, who sponsors the bill. "I went to see what this Rube Goldberg machine would look like. I'd rather change a tire. . . . I think we need to step back."

Why spend any time and money studying machines no one wants when there is a better system available? It's beyond words.

The State Government Committee of the Senate will meet tomorrow (Dec. 11) on its version of the the bill. Click here to send a message to legislators. Legislators need to know that an embarrassment this bill will become if they pass it.

Tags: verified voting, election law, voting machines, Election Integrity, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Verified Voting to be Delayed Again? | 3 comments

Did you read the ammendments? (0.00 / 0)

There were ammendments made to the bill which I wrote about here that allows for testing of optical scan systems in addition to the printers.
My thought is that if we don't extend the date, we'll likely end up with the printers which were not shown to be acceptable so far.
If we have the pilot and show that the optical scan system is better, we will likely have a better system in place for the long run.
I expect that the Senate will pass the bill with the same ammendments, and hope that we will push to have every county try both methods during the pilot.

by: agr @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 15:01:40 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Well, (0.00 / 0)

that is is a small step in the right direction, though given the extensive deployment of optical scan systems throughout the country, in jurisdictions large, small, and in between, there is no need for a pilot study to evaluate the benefits of optical scan. It's a proven system. A pilot rollout in the June primary makes sense, in preparation for a statewide switch by November 2009.

This is exactly what Tennessee did recently; the state legislature voted to require optical scan by 2010, and there are pilots going on to help make the deployment go smoothly:

http://www.timesnews.net/artic...

November 2009 is doable; states have switched successfully in less time, and given all the delay, this should be done fast. The gubernatorial election should be verifiable.

And the printers don't need a pilot at all; junk 'em.

I was not aware of the Assembly-side amendments; thank you for posting them.

by: JustCountEmRight @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 17:55:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jay Did A Great Video On This.... (0.00 / 0)

Also, see my own diary (which has the bill # in the title A3458) which shows the testimony of some expert activists and one enthusiastic amateur. And shows Assemblyman Conway's gloriously righteous indignation when it became clear that he was "getting it".

That's how virtually ALL the people of NJ will feel when they actually understand what his bill is trying to do....and that is to put off for two more years what could have been fairly easily accomplished two years ago. This isn't rocket science, and Sequoia isn't the only vendor in the universe.

Bottom line, we all need to move on this one and move fast.

If there are even 10 activists present on Thursday, it would be very big....20 would be explosive. !00 and this bill is derailed.

The bill is seriously flawed on many levels....there is another way to go.

The more light we all shed on this the better!

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 17:15:41 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Verified Voting to be Delayed Again? | 3 comments