One of the ten bills in Harry Reid's Democratic Agenda

[HomerRamone]

He's asking people to sign on as a "citizen cosponsor". What do you guys and gals think of this, the election reform part?

http://democrats.senate.gov/vote.html

Democracy Begins at Home S. 17

Democrats are united in our effort to making voting reform a reality for all Americans. It is time for the opportunity of a fair and transparent voting system to be available to every voter. The Help America Vote Act made important steps forward and now it is time to continue to make reforms that will ensure each voter gets the opportunity to vote and all votes are counted.

Voter Verified Ballots. All voters must be able to ensure that their vote is accurately recorded. The bill requires that all voting systems used in Federal elections provide a voter verified ballot that is fully accessible to the disabled and ensures privacy and independence.

Election Day Registration. The bill requires each state to adopt Election Day registration procedures for Federal elections.

Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Standards for Counting Provisional Ballots. The bill requires that states count any otherwise eligible provisional ballot if cast anywhere in the state.

Shorter Lines at the Polls. Numerous and often widespread reports of long lines at the polls hinder the voting process. The bill requires states to meet Election Assistance Commission (EAC) mandatory standards that establish a minimum number of voting systems and poll workers which must provide geographic distribution.

Create a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. The bill creates a National Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (NFWAB) for Federal office that every and any eligible voter is entitled to cast from anywhere inside or outside the United States and requires the NFWAB be counted without regard to which polling place, precinct, local unit of government, state, or country the NFWAB is cast in.

Accurate and Transparent Voting Rolls. The bill requires states to provide public notice of all proposed purged names from voting rolls 60 days in advance of a Federal election. It also prohibits states from purging names of voters from the list without specific notice provided in accordance with National Voting Rights Act (NVRA).

Establish Early Voting. The bill requires states to establish early voting periods for a minimum of fifteen calendar days prior to a Federal election, with uniform mandatory Saturday hours, and a minimum of four hours per day, including Saturdays.

Investigate a Federal Election Day Holiday. The bill requires the Election Assistance Commission to study and make recommendations for a national voting holiday within six months of enactment of this Act.

Upgrade Voting Machines and Improve Ballot Designs. The bill requires punch card voting systems to provide in-person notice of over-votes and prohibits central count optical scan systems from meeting the voter verification requirements through an education system to ensure all votes are counted.

Create Uniform and Inclusive Voter Registration Standards. This bill establishes the right of a citizen to use the Federal voter registration form under NVRA to register to vote in Federal elections and directs the EAC to issue a revised form that requires a mandatory affidavit/signature attesting to both citizenship and age.

Establish Fair and Uniform Voter ID Rules. This bill expands the means for establishing voter identification to allow a voter to execute a written affidavit attesting to their identification.

Impartial Election Administrators. The bill requires notice provisions, public statements, and other transparency/accountability measures with regard to election administrators, changes in state election laws prior to Federal election,; modifications to polling places, and denial of requests by international and other non-partisan observers for access polling places.

Increase Funding to States. The bill provides additional appropriations to states for the requirement grant payments to meet the new requirements included in this bill.

[Beth in VT]

1. An excellent start but we need hand-counting or

at least open source code.

[SharonRB]

2. I agree

Most of this is great, but we need to get rid of the machine counting of ballots. That's where the biggest problems are that are not transparent to the voter.

I posted a summary of Harry Reid's 10 bills under the Democratic Party Forum.

[AtLiberty]

3. KILL THE MACHINES, HARRY!!!

[Kosmos Mariner]

4. I like the effort...

I feel like we are getting to the point were some higher profile Dems are offering ideas and vision instead of just being Anti-Bush. There is plenty about the GOP to protest, but now is the time to move to the next level and regain America's trust in our party's ability to be successful stewards of American democracy.


:dem:

[EC]

5. signed as a

civilian co-sponsor

[iconoclastNYC]

6. A good start but what about....

- Completely transpaprent exit polling not controlled by the media to keep everyone honest

- Paper ballots counted by humans! No machines. Not to cast and not to count. Like in Canada and Germany.

- Constitutional Amendment, individual right to vote, shall not be abridged

- All election rulings decided 90 days prior to the election by bipartisan commisions

- Public financing of elections

- Fairness Doctrine

- Free media for candidates

- Election officials that break the law trigger automatic FBI investigations, and if convicted go to federal prison

GO for everything and the inevitable compromise might be somewhat acceptable.

[kster]

16. Agreed I'd like to HAVA

paper ballot.

[hedda_foil]

7. Where's the PAPER, Harry?????

Where's the fucking paper?????

[skids]

8. Ahh... I think I may actually sign onto this one.

I'll still have to comb it over a bit, but I was relieved to see that when calling of "uniformity", this was for voter reg puposes and not the election system itself. Too many people have been advocating a "uniform" voting system, which may sound nice, but it's a bad idea. Having different technologies and different types of ballots (like absentee mail-in versus booth voting) allows one system to be used for a baseline to check for error or fraud in the other.

This is less of a concern with voter registration as most problems cropping up can be resolved, or at least will be known, before the election, rather than after. (Though the below does still apply.)

I don't want to discourage anyone from signing on to whatever they believe in, but one thing I do encourage is you give stuff like this serious inspection. Consider that it was parts of HAVA, a progressive voting reform law, that were used to disenfranchise voters.

Any lack of clarity in whatever gets proposed, and any confusion arising from its implementation, can and will be used by those who wish to subvert the election systems on the local level. So each point should be examined -- how will it be implemented, who will implement it, will it have loopholes, will the transition open temporary loopholes, is the system simple enough to leave very little room for "error"?

You should ask these questions both in the general sense, and most especially, in the local sense -- for your county or for a county you have been studying. Only efforts by local activists to ensure that whatever comes from the top is used to improve, rather than further contort, our voting system will save us now.

[autorank]

9. LETS TELL HIM WE'RE BEHIND HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Positive reinforcement is a huge factor, as we've seen with Senator Boxer and Rep. Conyers.
Let's give Harry some support on this one.

http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

My missive:
-------------------------
Thank you so much for your support of fair elections and our foundations of democracy through your strong support of the election reform bill, part of your top 10 bills (S.17 I believe). That is critical to restoring public faith in the electoral process and to giving Democrats the chance to actually win some elections!

I'm a big booster of yours among my cadre of avid Democrats and this initiative is right on target.

Thank you.

[autorank]

10. KICK KICK KICK KICK

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[eaglenetsupport]

11. This really really I mean REALLY ticks me off........

I really don't feel like being placated any more. With the frustrations that occurred in 2000, and the promise "never again" we were placated. No this needs to come out of the hands of the politicians. They had their chance and blew it and now we have to deal with bush for four more years with no telling how much damage we will have to contend with in that much time.

I’ve been a life long democrat with loyalty that has literally dripped blood. There has never been a single issue that has me more pissed with my party than the job they did on election reform after 2000. I’ve personally fallen on my sword for not pulling HAVA myself and looking at the implications. Had I looked I could have sent out my own alarm bells. In hindsight, Ohio was destined to happen again. One doesn’t need an attorney to look at the democrats’ efforts as insufficient. But I heard no significant alarms going off, alarms we SHOULD have heard. I seen no cases brought through the Civil Rights Commission investigations that clearly showed a crime and a conspiracy had been committed in 2000. This debacle should have ended already with prosecutions. We prosecute to punish those who violate the law, but more importantly to detour others from committing similar acts. The people we were counting on were busy being republican lites.

All those provisions in the OUTLINE (not written in legal format) are good reforms and they should have occurred after the first bush “election”. How many of those provisions will remain once the republiclones get done amending. Very few I will project. Let’s not forget who controls the congress. This should have been done last time as a result of public outcry after a trial and heads rolled. Had that occurred, even with a republican controlled congress, the pressures would have been enormous to not reform election processes.

The politicians will not do what needs to be done. They will not do what the people want and desperately need. I’m not buying into it this time. NO. This MUST be done by the people. They are the only ones that will do it. I warn you all don’t be fooled again. This is a setup if I’ve ever seen one.

Sorry chummily but here’s the plan. Take the outline of what needs to happen in election reform and give it teeth/language that will actually count every vote. Place that language in form for each of the individual states own laws, (section #’s and what have you), and introduce them as initiatives. Create a national agenda around the subject by simultaneous release of the proposed initiatives. Empower the people in the process. We have 43 states with the initiative procedure. The center piece, register register register. Remember that the electorate are not the politicians in initiative procedures and will vote as people and not in lock set. It is doubtful that ANY red states would turn down election reform.

If anyone believes that this will not work then take a good look at the last significant time the politicians were cramming down the throat of the voters something they didn’t want. Prohibition. That’s right initiative procedures in 8 eight states simultaneously released by the “Committee of Lawyers” created an over whelming national agenda in one press conference in one day. So overwhelming in fact the congress on the first day and first hour back in session suspended the rules and with 20 minutes of debate for the wets and 20 minutes for the dries re-amended the constitution and killed prohibition. That’s right folks, this isn’t new, empowerment of the people, it’s been done before. I’ve been around too long in the trenches to fall for this one. It’s time to bring the boomers to power.

[hootinholler]

12. I'm with him!

Sounds like the only route that will bypass all the bullshit. Where do I sign up?

-Hoot

BTW, It's time for us Boomers to realize we're in power. We have been for some time, but, no one seems to know that.

[Melissa G]

13. Power to the people! No more HAVA scams.

Lets write it as we need it to be and get the politicians to sign onto OUR agenda. NOW. HAVA screwed us the last two elections. We need to provide them the correct legislation.

[eaglenetsupport]

14. It's about 90% finished

We are writing it now. We have our own "Committee of Lawyers" looking at the language. Our intentions are to submit it to a larger nation body of attorneys that will buff it into the various states requirements (section #'s etc.).

We can no longer trust the democrats will dig into these issues to the degree necessary. Therefore we the people must do it. Soon, this Counsel will release what will become Colorado’s Affirmative action response to the electoral debacle. I believe it will be the model for the nation. Our initiative covers all the bases. We viewed all the tactics being put to use by the republicans, with particular emphasis on the final ten points released at the end of the Conyers Report (Preserving Democracy – What Went Wrong in Ohio) on what occurred in Ohio. No paper trail, illegal, same day registration, the law. Party heads paid or volunteer can’t hold a position in election processes. Equipment, must be certified under strict guidelines . It creates a Commission that is charged with the responsibility of maintaining fair elections by the strict guidelines set out in the Act, The Independent Elections Commission. The Commission is charged with regulating such matters as number of booths per precinct and procedures governing the conduct of poll workers. The Initiative creates two class 3 felonies for those who would attempt to disenfranchise voters by any means and a conspiracy statute when two or more commit an act in furtherance, is a class 2 felony. The initiative gives broad public investigative powers including the right to subpoena and compel testimony, and the requirement to promulgate administrative rules for it’s conduct under The Administrative Procedures Act. The Act will pretty much dump everything added in the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) and replaces it with something that will actually count every vote.

[Spiffarino]

15. Hey short-timer...

Keep on kickin' ass!!

:yourock:

[hootinholler]

17. Add end Gerrymandering to that.

I think there should be a national algorithm (NIST Standard) that draws districts.

You should also speak with Andy Stephenson. He's raised the point that a paper trail isn't legally defined, whereas paper ballot is.

Any news on the Marshals?

-Hoot

[eaglenetsupport]

18. "Add end Gerrymandering to that."

Got a contact for Andy or a place to view his work?

I believe "paper trail" isn't defined (we can define if needed in initiative process), but I don't think it is necessary. I think the term is colloquial, however everyone knows what is meant by paper trail. In essence, setting and requiring recounts at certain trigger points, usually 1/2 percent spread, you are REQUIRING a paper trail. That's how I arrived at the understanding all touch screen tech (and any other non-audit-able methods)is subject to immediate injunction due to conflict with existing law, recount. The recount ability and capability MUST be defended. No auditing can occur otherwise. Even Ronnie new enough to say trust but verify.

[eaglenetsupport]

21. Gerrymandering question

We are looking at that issue. I and everyone on our Counsel believe some kind of Independent Commission or something must be charged with this responsibility.

Initial response from legal eagles states we would enter into a gray area by adding re-apportionment. We have a consensus to stay out of gray areas lest they kick the whole thing in court. The problem is most states have a clause, popularly referred to as the "single issue clause" in their initiative procedure that state only one issue may be dealt with in each initiative. Our final product will stand in court and contain every reform that we can get in there that remains constitutional. If we can deal with re-apportionment we will. If it takes another form of legislation then so be it. That reform will come once the democrats get their pee-pees whacked in any event.

[hootinholler]

24. Drawing districts based on population density and geographic

Boundaries, or other parameters is a perfect problem for an algorithm. The algorithm need not be aware of party. When the population changes are registered from each census, you plug in the new numbers, get the new districts.

No State legislatures in exile. No muss. No fuss. It just is, and it's predictable.

NIST computational scientists have solved harder problems. They already have the authority to develop and govern any national standard. They only need to be told to do it.

-Hoot

[eaglenetsupport]

22. "caging" difficulties

We have been finding the most difficult issue to deal with is how to illegalize caging. The difficulty is how to illegalize something that's already illegal and being screwed as legal under the guise of "voter reform". The voters don't need reforming it's the electoral system that needs to be reformed.

I know there are a number of state legislatures (lightly) grappling with this issue and there are some groups looking (diligently)at initiative procedures. If anyone runs across methods and ideas dealing in particular with caging it would be helpful at this time to please send over to me at

<[e-mail]> or quicker to me at <[e-mail]> thanks

Our current plan is to establish guidelines, to illegalize any activity that would disenfranchise voters. It is a duty of the commission (Colorado Independent Elections Commission)to determine what did/will disenfranchise (required to promulgate administrative rules under Administrative Procedures Act) and to cause prosecution of those that would engage in the activity. We empower that Commission with investigative powers (subpoena and compel testimony similar grand jury powers) and arm them with three new felonies added to existing election law.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi eaglenetsupport!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NationalEnquirer]

19. Not enough, he should visit DU.

Hand counts of paper ballots, I have been convince here on DU.
Its slower, more expensive (maybe), but in the end, its the only way to make SURE, and THAT is priceless!

[skids]

25. Have a constituent...

Send his staff a link to this thread, when we are done chewing things over.

[johnaries]

20. Andy_Stephenson, where R U? I want to hear what you have to say

before I sign on. You've had the most experience of anyone I know, and I trust your advice over anyone's.

[Andy_Stephenson]

45. S 17 SUCKS!!!!

see here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=306505&mesg_id=306505

[hedda_foil]

26. I've read the actual bill and it SUCKS!

Sadly, it does not require a voter verified PAPER ballot, does not require any voter verification at all until Jan 1, 2009, and doesn't try to do anything about anything until after the 2006 off-year elections.

It leaves the door WIDE open for horrendous cryptographic smokescreens like VoteHere's "solution" instead of a clearly readable paper ballot.

Many other things are very, very wrong with this bill, but these are enough to mean we're going to have to fight it.

Oddly enough, Republican Senator Ensign has a VERY good VVPB bill he is reintroducing shortly. All it does is require a voter verified paper ballot that is the ballot of record for recounts and audits. We're trying to tighten up one minute potential loophole, but the bill is actually written by Verified Voting's legislative liason. Companion legislation will be introduced in the house. The best thing about this bill is that it should be not only bipartisan, but primarily Republican, so it can be passed quickly!

Since states and counties have purchase orders out for paperless touchscreen machines right now, we have to get a decent VVPB requirement now and not later! Dodd's bill ... supported by Dodd ... would only make things worse.

Please write Dodd and Reid and tell them this isn't what we want!

[New Earth]

27. you've got to be kidding

Jan. 2009? oh great, RIGHT after the next Presidential Election?

that is pure bullshit.

[Bill Bored]

28. Ensign's bill sounds like HR 278!

See this thread and my comments which, after some consideration, agree with yours Hedda! At least the VVPB will be there by 2006 in all states and we can move on from there at the state level or maybe in Congress to get random audits and proper recount laws.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x303273>
Reid mentioned this on Jan 6 and mentioned Ensign by name. I'm not sure what he's doing with this other bill.

[Bill Bored]

29. eaglenetsupport, I hope your initiative won't just rely on MARGINS

to trigger recounts or audits. With computerized voting, margins don't mean squat! We need mandatory random audits of 5% of precincts, regardless of the initial margin. If they turn up any discrepancies, hand count the whole county, as was supposed to happen in Ohio.

With these machines, you may never see a 1/2% margin again! Every race could be programmed to be at least a 0.6% margin if it would mean there won't be a recount. It doesn't seem like Kerry understood this, but I hope you do!

Also, how about a citizen's oversight committee to select voting equipment, staffed by people with NO ties to the vendors?

[loudsue]

30. We need to hand count to begin with....paper ballots: hand counts.

Canada does it, Germany does it....all kinds of rational countries do it. It needs to be counted AT THE PRECINCT, wide open, with as many eyes watching as want to. Then the PRECINCT posts the totals, BEFORE they are sent to the County. ALL PRECINCT TOTALS should be published, so that anyone with a calculator can add them up to make sure the County comes up with the correct tally for all precincts. Then, the COUNTY totals are published, and then sent to the State.

So much of this past election was stolen by machines counting fictitious ballots all along the route to the state level. These vote counting machines run on SOFTWARE. The companies that produce and maintain the machines are running SOFTWARE that they won't let anyone check except their own people.

90% of the votes counted in this country, are counted by FOUR main election machine companies. They are NOT companies that are free of political ties....they have HUGE lobbies. We need to put them out of the election business. Our elections SHOULD NOT BE PRIVATIZED!! They should be run, tallied, and posted by WE, THE PEOPLE. They should be TOTALLY transparent, which means no source code in any machines....hand counts only. We did it for two hundred years, until corporations got involved, and we can do it again.

As for being able to vote anywhere in the State, I question how they're going to prevent people from voting in a dozen different precincts at a time....especially if we have a couple of weeks worth of voting. After all the shenanigans I saw during the 2004 election, I can tell you right now, there are groups of people who will vote 20 and 30 times, if they think they're not going to be found out. Who is going to check all those voter registrations? Unless they have polling books that list all of a state's voters in each and every precinct, and then somehow put each voter's name in a state-wide computerized log book as they log in, I don't know how you're going to keep a clean vote. Mr. Reid's bill is full of shit for this reason, as well as for the reasons hedda_foil listed.

We need a solution NOW....not in 2006 or 2009, for chrissake.

These guys must think we're all frikkin' asleep!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Bill Bored]

32. I don't like the early voting thing.

Make Election Day a national holiday and that's that.

[marions ghost]

41. early voting is great

...and gets a lot more people to the polls in general. And reduces lines on election day. Making election day a holiday in addition to that would be good.

what's wrong with early voting--assuming you can make the system secure.

[Bill Bored]

43. But you can't make it secure.

Those early votes are sitting around for weeks. How can they really be secure? I don't trust BOEs! Look at Ohio! They couldn't even do a LEGAL recount!

Also, I think early voting trivializes the whole process. Anyone who gets a day off from work and won't go out and vote doesn't deserve to live in a democracy.

And people can change their mind at the last minute. Suppose they vote for Shrub and he has sex with an intern or something the next day? I know most of his supporters would just blame Bill Clinton for that, as they did in the case of 9/11, but some might have 2nd thoughts about voting for Shrub in such a case. But it's too late -- they voted early! Their stuck with a decision they made based on old information.

There should be enough machines not to have long lines on Election Day! Early voting is just a band-aid. There's also the confusion of WHICH polling place to go to during early voting vs. Election Day voting. How many votes were lost as people showed up in the wrong precinct or county during early voting?

The whole thing just sounds like a big SCAM to me. The fact that it was done in FLORIDA is reason enough to be suspicious!

[Zan_of_Texas]

46. agree -- scratch early voting.

Yeah, it's convenient. But you can't protect the votes for two weeks. They have Early Voting here, and precinct judges have been known, with permission and encouragement, to take machines home with them for safekeeping. That's just not right, folks.

(PS There was a fuss, and I think they don't do that anymore. Still.)

I agree -- with a national holiday for voting, people should shuddup and JUST VOTE. If they'd boot the damn machines out, there would be almost no lines anyway.

[eaglenetsupport]

34. Hand count ONLY issue.....

Well as I said earlier, we stopped short of making hand counts mandatory but requiring hand count capability mandatory. The root of this position came for me as I own an ISP and I know for a fact that machines could work if they (just like any computer system) maintain verification standards that can be audited.

However, every were we go with this we are receiving this same feed back and probably the majority are maintaining this position. It might very well be that too much damage has occurred to elections systems that most are feeling like copping back to what they know is safe (low tech rules).

We are in the biz of finding a consensus and moving that consensus forward. If people just want hand count only and even if not majority wise, lets say 33% insist on hand only then that will be how we will go. As we're not republicans we can bend to include a third that have legitimate concerns. Personally I'm opposed to the typical political notion, I got 51% F you. In the end as long as I got anything to say about it we will shoot for the widest base of support possible.

One thing for sure I see a great advantage politically when it comes to voting on the measure. LOW TECH RULES - has a certain ring to it that could catch on and become an all encompassing slogan that every one understands, no matter what state they're in. The reason being my experience dictates in initiatives that the people love simplicity. Maybe a poll after a few days of hashing will lend clarity.

I think it does need more discussion. I can see the republiclones twisting this. Some looking into their potential arguments are in order.

[Bill Bored]

38. See this thread for a counter argument

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=305271#>

The other argument is that ballots are very complex with lots of candidates and issues. We probably shouldn't have any laws to simplify them because this would inevitably lead to less democracy i.e., fewer parties, candidates, initiatives, etc., so we have to live with the complexity. We could save some issues for off-year elections only, but even this limits the voice of the people somewhat. Ballot complexity makes all-manual counting difficult, but not impossible. I'll give you some more links in response to another of your posts. Stay tuned.

[eaglenetsupport]

33. Good point

Mandatory screening, by hand, in each precinct. I can see the merit. It may be cumbersome to figure out a random method of selection. Do you know of any other groups or states looking at this?

[hootinholler]

35. Method of selection:

Mandatory 10% audit.
Selected not randomly, but by candidates.

With 2 candidates, each select precincts until thier selection goes above 5%.

With 3 each select unitl > 3.3%

With more the top 3 select until > 3.3%

This assumes the campaign staff will know where it is likely they were done dirty. I think that is reasonable and directly represents thier interests. It also removes the 'what is random' question.

-Hoot

[Bill Bored]

39. Candidates could pick and choose.

Or you can go random and litterally pick them out of a hat, or use an open source random number generator. A hand calculator could do that!

I'm not sure if candidate selection is wise because the hackers might be able to predict which precincts a candiate would want to audit, and just hack elsewhere. Random is better is it's a large enough percentage.

See this sample letter to legislators from New Yorkers for Verified Voting:

<http://nyvv.org/actionConferenceCommittee.htm>

"While I support the use of optical scanners to count paper ballots, they are still computers, and their use opens the possibility for software defects, malicious code, or back door data manipulation, all of which could affect the results of our elections. Before they are used we need the following protections put into law:

1. Make all software used in electronic voting and ballot tabulation equipment freely available for public examination.
2. Ban wireless communication devices in voting and tabulating equipment.
3. Specify standards, procedures, and timeframes to guarantee voters and candidates the right to petition for and obtain manual recounts before certification of the winner of an election.
4. Conduct mandatory random recounts of at least 5 percent of precincts.
5. Convene a citizen's advisory committee of election officials, representatives of the disabled community, and independent computer professionals without ties to voting machine vendors to make recommendations for the choice of voting system for NYS."

[eaglenetsupport]

36. Equipment Vendors

Do people see this as a major issue that should be the initiative?

For sure if we went with the hand only proposal it wouldn't be.

But if we went with the less stringent method, is there evidence of vendor potential to influence outcomes if ALL political campaign staff, volunteer or paid, are barred from election systems? There are some first amendment implications to barring vendors from "talking" to elections officials that don't come into play with elections staff. Even for staff you have to be careful, but there IS precedent that allows staff infringements when those staff are government employees or functioning as temporary volunteers as, essentially agents of the government. It gets more difficult when your talking about barring activities of private individuals or companies.

One way to look at it is to not cement it in but issue guidelines that the commission establishes governing vendor interface. If a rule is written pursuant to guidelines gets challenged, after the election, it doesn't kill the whole initiative. An initiative should have as few provisions as possible while still accomplishing the desired result. The more provisions the greater the potential for challenge. Remember keeping it as simple as possible but as complex as necessary is the name of the game.

[Bill Bored]

31. kick nt

[KerryReallyWon]

37. Upgrade voting machines??? He just doesn't get it,

still.

[torque]

40. I don't trust anyone but Conyers AND paper ballots n/t

[Bill Bored]

42. kick nt

[Andy_Stephenson]

44. I cannot and will not support S17....it has holes

you can drive a truck through.

It is BAD legislation!

Voter Verified Ballots? WTF...

We want Voter Verified Paper Ballots!

See this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=306505&mesg_id=306505