Rush Holt Says NJ Needs Optical Scan Voting ASAP!!!

What happened to the Assembly Ammendments? (0.00 / 0)

The assembly committee added ammendments to A3566 which

1) make it optional for a county board of elections to participate in an additional component of the pilot project by using optical scan voting machines that have been certified to conform to federal voting machine standards or to the voting machine standards of this State or of a state other than New Jersey

Did the Senate also include an optical scan component? It isn't included in the statement on the senate bill.  

---

by: agr @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 16:12:21 PM UTC

Not Sure, But I Believe That.... (0.00 / 0)

....the amendment, or some form of it is also in the Senate bill.

My sense is that the "fix" is in to keep the Sequoia machines and that the "option" to test optical scan won't be picked up by many (if any) counties.  

Further, the real effect of this bill is to put off until November 2010 any compliance with a law they passed in 2005 and have already put off before.

They really don't want to change anything imho.

And Sequoia is continuing to get paid for R&D when they keep on failing to meet legislatively imposed "deadlines".

The machine they showed wasn't even fully set up with the additional LCD readouts it's supposed to have...so they don't even have a fully functional/working model of what they propose to test.

There are all manner of agendas here.  

Without strong opposition this bill will easily sail through in the dark moonless legislative (end of year/holiday season)  night sky.

The case against this bill is a complete slam dunk.  The legislature should be hanging their heads in abject shame for being behind this pig of a bill.  

Will be putting up more of the testimony, from both sides, later.   And a brief question or so I got to ask Congressman Holt in the lobby.

Kudos to Loretta Weinberg for at least abstaining from voting yes.   There must be massive pressure from "the leadership" et al to "move this along".

And the fact that Jennifer Beck was the only NO vote is downright scary.   She actually "got it".  (Or she's just playing some kind of political game...but her vote was correct either way.)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 16:51:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pilot program is only like 10 machines, no? (0.00 / 0)

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 19:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I Recall, Each County Will Test... (0.00 / 0)

a few of the Sequoia machines with the window on the right that allows a voter to view the printout of their vote.  (It should also be visible in an LCD at the bottom of the machine....though that wasn't ready for the machine that was in room 6 in Trenton)

I suspect it might work ok in a primary where most machines will only be counting a 100 or so votes.

The paper could fall wrong and jam things up or the printer could jam or the ink jets could run dry etc etc etc.   This is an add on mechanical fix on top of an add on/retrofit of the interface and of the "chip" that runs the machine.

As Mike Shapiro (NJ Tenants Union) said, most folks aren't going to bother to try to read the printout through the little window on the right anyway....and those that do may have a hard time reading/understanding it as it won't look like the surface/interface they just voted on.

It seems jury rigged and ugly; but, in theory, it can work.   We'll see next year.

The testing to the optical scan systems will be totally "voluntary" and as I recall it would only be one machine per county.  (I hope I'm wrong on that ans it's one per district.)

In any event, the lady who spoke for Bergen County elections was quite adamant that BC would NOT even test the optical systems.   (I guess they don't thnk much of Rush Holt's views on the subject in BC.)

This will pass on Monday (though I would love to be surprised!!!!) unless a bunch of legislators experience a sudden attack of conscience informed by the facts and good  common sense.   Hopefully some new amendments will be introduced on the floor (can they do that?) that will make this more palatable.

And, of course, given "the deadline" Corzine will claim he's forced to sign it.

If this stays in the dark.  There will be no change til November of 2010 (and even that is a big maybe).   What's to stop them from waiting to the last minute again and simply putting it off another few years?  

Unless there's some kind of movement to publicize this and to have the people actually understand what's going on and what the stakes are; this is a "done deal" that won't be revisited for two more years.

Seqioia will make a fortune retrofitting ancient machines and maintaining them when they break down.  

The crooked pols (if there are any such in NJ ;-) get to "enjoy" the continued existence of having machines that are hackable (in close elections all it takes is a few votes).

Incumbents enjoy the continued structural "party line" architecture that's built into the Sequoia and into the habits of the voters...and that makes it almost impossible for anyone to win "off the line" in a primary.

It's business as usual in Trenton. Rationality, fiscal responsibility,  and democracy be damned.  

It would be interesting to see if Jennifer Beck is able to get a bunch of Republicans to vote (with her)  against this so the onus of any possible negative outcomes would be on the Democrats......though I don't think that's likely......then again, maybe she reads this site!  LOL

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 21:10:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Nick. (0.00 / 0)

Matt is good people.

Why is NJ a Sequoia State?

Has Diebold and ES&S agreed to stay out of NJ, if Sequoia returns the favor in another state?
Why are voting machine purchases in NJ exempt from an open bidding process?

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 21:59:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

up to 10 precincts per county (0.00 / 0)

The pilot program requires that each municipality select a town with at MOST 10 precincts for a test of the electronic machines with attached printers. There is also an OPTION for each county to test optical scans in a similar town (10 precincts or less)

---

by: agr @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:39:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

W/O audited VVPB we need precinct level results (0.00 / 0)

posted online. Some counties do it, like Bergen, but not Essex.

Precinct level results posted online allow for some crude audit work and this level of transparency will raise confidence levels after the over vote problem in the June 2008 primary.  

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 19:29:34 PM UTC

The People From The Parties Are There.... (0.00 / 0)

...just as the polls close and the tapes/numbers are read aloud to them.

My sense is that that's open to the public if anyone cared to hang out a few minutes and watch.   If there were enough independent volunteer watchdogs to go to each precinct and call in the results to a central site the initial results could be up on the web within 30 minutes of the polls closing.

But if there is a malicious hack in the machine none of that would matter anyway...since the "votes" only exist at the virtual level of electromagnetic energy on the the cartridge that came out of the machine.  That's why we need VVPBs.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Dec 13, 2008 at 21:18:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Want to alert you all to this on Kos (4.00 / 1)

Please go and recommend it and use the link to contact your representatives dailykos.com
Urgent: New Jersey About to Do Away with Verified Voting

This is sickening.

Both Houses of the New Jersey Legislature will vote on Monday on the question of whether or not to eliminate - not delay, as they have done twice already, but eliminate - any legal requirement for voter-verified paper records on the state's voting systems.

If you live in New Jersey, click here to send a message to state legislators now. New Jersey folks only, please.

We worked like mad to get Verifiable ballots here in NC and we have to keep working to be sure the law is not undermined. Coincidentally my best friend lives in Monmouth Junction and Rush Holt is her Congressman.

---

by: loftT @ Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 02:24:54 AM UTC

Thanks for that... (0.00 / 0)

...it's the same action link that's already  in the diary text above; but the more we all point to it, the better.

I recommended the Kos diary; but, let's face it...this issue can't even make it to the "front page" of a New Jersey progressive blog.  This really should be on our front burner.    There should have been hundreds of people signed up to testify and to protest this attempt to delay for two more years.

We progresives haven't yet found a way to make this a "sexy" issue for the general public's consumption.....so the pols will continue to play games that result in the maintenance of the status quo.

It's wonderful to have folks in North Carolina urging New Jerseyans to stand up for the preservation of our state's democratic process!   Thank's lofT!!!

Sadly, this is very likely to pass on Monday....they knew exactly what they were doing in terms of the timing.

It would/will take making this a voiting issue in all of the upcoming primaries to get a reversal.   That means some kind of major mobilization of public interest and public opinion and public activism.

There are no good/clean reasons to vote for this additional two year delay.   Holt is right.

Sadly, in NJ politics merely being right/rational/cheaper/better isn't good enough; not when the fix is in.

This is all connected to pay to play, to keeping the "party lines" system as is and to the "maintenance" of things, in general,  just as they are.  

I'm not saying that success (in terms of reversing this momentum/trend/bill) is impossible; only that it won't happen unless progressives find new and more effective tactics in the contest of new and more effective strategies...and fast.    

If the stae legislature and Corzine truly wanted to, we could have certified optical scan machines (that inherently use voter verifiable paper ballots) in place for the November 09 election.

The problem is that they just don't want to.  Note that there wasn't a single question for Rush Holt.....not a single challege to what he was saying.   They couldn't refute him so they just ignored him and then (with two exceptions) they voted against Holt's advice.    Pretty effed up, eh?

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 04:57:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Nick (0.00 / 0)

I encourage you if you are interested in mounting an ongoing campaign to oppose the status quo bunch to learn more about how North Carolina has done it. There are many people on the ncvoter.netlistserve who are from other states and follow these issue all over the country. You would find lots of support there. We are really all affected when there is injustice anywhere in our election system.

It takes several dedicated people (an expert or two helps), finding a few friends of the issue in your legislature and lots of folks joining and adding pressure. A true grassroots effort. Even after our NC bill was passed we still need to advocate for fair voting.

---

by: loftT @ Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 15:56:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Work Nick!! (0.00 / 0)

thanks for all your intelligent posts.

the legislators and election officals  apparently prefer the  opaque voting system that can't be audited.  

It makes the elections much easier that way.

---

by: Ann R @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:57:49 AM UTC