BBV: Graham Introduces Legislation To Ensure America's Votes Count

[GregD]

OK BBV'ers - here we go - a companion bill in the Senate. None of us (VV.org) have looked at it closely yet, so I can't comment on it at this time.

Assume that the efforts we have all made the past few months to enlist support for HR2239 will need to be applied to this bill.

We are already establishing a Senate database in VerifiedVoting.org, and will have it up in the next few days.

And since we put the call out for you to research the holiday recess schedule for your Congressmen, figure we need to do the same for our Senators now, and to go see them and push for support.

================================================


press release --

http://www.senate.gov/~graham/pr120903.html

For information call: 202-224-3041
Graham Introduces Legislation To Ensure America's Votes Count

December 9, 2003
Senator Bob Graham, D-Florida, today introduced the Voter Verification Act, legislation that would require computer voting systems to produce a paper record.

"After the election of 2000 and the mid-term election - where stories of voter problems were not uncommon - we have to put an electoral system into place in which Americans can have full confidence," said Graham. "This legislation will take us one step further to ensure that every vote really counts and we do not have another debacle like the 2000 election."

Key provisions of the legislation include:
- Requiring that all voting systems produce voter-verified paper records for use in manual audits
- Banning the use of undisclosed software and wireless communication devices in voting systems
- Requiring mandatory surprise recounts in .5 percent of both domestic and overseas jurisdictions.
- All voting systems would have to meet these requirements in time for the November 2004 election.

There is bi-partisan companion legislation already filed in the House. HR 2239 is sponsored by Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, and 94 other members.

Graham's bill will be referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

[GregD]

1. I guess everyone is busy with the debate

[ConsAreLiars]

2. Not everything

but the pre-11/04 implementation date is notonly essential, it adds Graham's voice to those warning about the potential for widespread vote fraud as a technique for consolidating illegitimate control over the state apparatus.

[Eloriel]

3. Great

It's not perfect, but it's a start -- we need it to mandate that the paper is to rule in recounts. (A more robust auditr would og course be nice.
0

[flpoljunkie]

9. Bravo for Graham! Kit Bond,Mo, got up at end of Senate session and urged

that we pass the needed funds for HAVA as soon as possible. This sent up a red flag. Expect the Rethugs to try and block Graham's bill in the Senate and Rush Holt's bill in the House.

The Rethugs play hardball, and they want the system just the way it is. Public pressure will have to be brought to bear; Bob Graham is a good man to get the word out.

[Bushfire]

4. Look for Wisconsin senators to support Graham

if this legislation is identical to Holt's. I've had positive responses from both Senators' offices so far, leading me to believe they didn't want to be the one to introduce it. They certainly know the word "Diebold", and "robgeorgia" by now.

:kick: for Graham

[ripplingwater]

5. keep this kicked gang

between the debate and the SF Mayor race, there's lots of traffic.

I got the Senate database built tonight, working on the rest of the site mods now

[althecat]

6. Kick n/t

[Myra]

7. Kick

...

[LuCifer]

8. i'll gladly kick this up!

Here's who I support for the nomination ABB/Graham!

There I said it, now get da hell outta here!
Lu Cifer

PS I wonder if Randi Rhodes talking to the members of both houses has had anything to do with this?

[GregD]

10. Conversation with Graham's, Clinton introduces bill

We spoke to Graham's office this morning. Turns out that Graham discovered this issue (HELLO BOB!!!!) this weekend and sat down to write the bill.

My guess is that he heard all the candidates (his former competitors) speak strongly about the issue at the FL convention last weekend and got the clue.

A frustrating point was that the guy who is in charge of Graham's bill knows little about the issue, so Ellen brought him up to speed and we will work closely with them to make sure they benefit from our experience.

Another frustrating point is that they did this without Republican support, so we have sent him off to try and find someone like McCain, etc. Any suggestions?

Also of interest Hillary Clinton introduced a bill this morning as well - and we are expecting yet another. Ellen is already calling Clinton's office, and we plan to try to encourage these folks to all work together on one bill so we can focus our efforts.

Any thoughts on all this?

[rucky]

11. It's a solidly bipartisan issue

I'm not as up on this as others, but there have been irregularities that have worked in favor of Democrats as well. I wish i knew which states off the top of my head, but if you find those R senators...

[RedEagle]

12. Keep it up front

Oh gee, let's see if I have my houses mixed up,

Snowe of Maine ?
Chaffee ?
Jeffords (I)


Greg, we've got some good types over at BBV.org that can disect that bill when you get it.

Language is very important.

I'd ask the Republicans how they can seriously be partisan about our voting rights, protecting our vote is patriotic.

[GregD]

13. OK, more news about Graham's bill

Item 1 -
For starters, we have a bill number for Graham's bill: S.1980 It looks like it is a clone of HR2239.

Item 2 -
As mentioned earlier, Clinton introduced a bill as well, and it is not as strong as 2239. We have no plans of standing behind it in its current form, but a reliable NY volunteer is working with some folks and trying to get it improved. If it gets fixed, we'll look at it. In the mean time, we are pressing for S1980.

Item 3 -
No Republican cosponsor, so please help us find a few - we need them!

From what we learned over the past several months, not having Republican support is the "kiss of death" so it is imperative that we seek their support right out of the gates.

Item 4 -
Since it is a copy of HR2239, there are some weaknesses. We hoped it could be changed RIGHT NOW, but we were too late, and it has to wait for the Committee (see below) to make any improvements.

Item 5 -
Their press release was in error:
<<<Graham's bill will be referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.>>>

Instead, it is going to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, who are listed on this page with all contact information:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/fair_elections.asp

So, we have the following fine folks. If they are yours, please contact them. If they are NOT yours please contact them. If you are uncertain whose they are, please contact them.


Republican Committee Members
============================
Trent Lott, Chairman (MS)
Ted Stevens (AK)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Don Nickles (OK)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Bill Frist (TN)
Gordon Smith (OR)
C. Saxby Chambliss (GA)

Democratic Committee Members
============================
Chris Dodd, Ranking Member (CT)
Robert C. Byrd (WV)
Daniel K. Inouye (HI)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Charles E. Schumer (NY)
Tom Daschle (SD)
Mark Dayton (MN)
Richard J. Durbin (IL)

[RedEagle]

14. Bill looks like a draft version

Greg,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with just an "S" designation, that sounds like a draft version. If it works like in our state, there can be several drafts. I don't know that it can't still be tweaked.

RE

[RedEagle]

15. Support Graham on this one

Kick!

[David Zephyr]

16. Kick.

:kick:

[Zhade]

17. Kick

Get back up there.

[dusty64]

18. This is great, but

where the hell is the "leadership" on this one. I still do not recall hearing ONE word about this from them.

[RedEagle]

19. Who are you referring to Dusty?

Kick!