The Disability Lobby and Voting

[struggle4progress]

Two obvious requirements for a fair election are that voters should have complete confidence about their ballots' being counted accurately and that everyone, including the disabled, should have access to the polls. It is hard to imagine advocates for those two goals fighting, but lately that seems to be what's happening.

The issue is whether electronic voting machines should provide a "paper trail" — receipts that could be checked by voters and used in recounts. There has been a rising demand around the country for this critical safeguard, but the move to provide paper trails is being fought by a handful of influential advocates for the disabled, who complain that requiring verifiable paper records will slow the adoption of accessible electronic voting machines.

The National Federation of the Blind, for instance, has been championing controversial voting machines that do not provide a paper trail. It has attested not only to the machines' accessibility, but also to their security and accuracy — neither of which is within the federation's areas of expertise. What's even more troubling is that the group has accepted a $1 million gift for a new training institute from Diebold, the machines' manufacturer, which put the testimonial on its Web site. The federation stands by its "complete confidence" in Diebold even though several recent studies have raised serious doubts about the company, and California has banned more than 14,000 Diebold machines from being used this November because of doubts about their reliability.
<snip>

Some supporters of voter-verifiable paper trails question whether disability-rights groups have gotten too close to voting machine manufacturers. Besides the donation by Diebold to the National Federation of the Blind, there have been other gifts. According to Mr. Dickson, the American Association of People with Disabilities has received $26,000 from voting machine companies this year.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/opinion/11FRI1.html?th

[PATRICK]

1. Representative Advocacy

that predicate their influence on their championing of specific groups of people are rarely elected by those legions of trusting souls who get brochures and get used a power base. The boards of same advocacy councils are made up of familiar faces who probably have very little time themselves for accountable stewardship. The actual decision makers, sometimes outrageously confident of their base who never elected them and probably couldn't spell their name if they knew them, are easily clipped by flattery and "donations" if not outright plants by outsiders with an agenda(NARP).

Moreover to be effective lobbyists and advocates they color and slant themselves to the prevailing winds. Even Labor does that.

It is not surprising in our failed representative Democracy of late our fall back on representative advocacy is a weak wall as well. The wedge has specifically been computer technology, that in its wonkish innocence and modern shine is too complex for easy scrutiny, a perfect tool of the flim flam artist and special interests. But you have to be especially irresponsible with daily stories of hackings and viruses and privacy invasions to listen with open mouthed trust to Diebold salespeople and sell your people out. Even if you don't know at all what makes computers or software tick. Maybe ESPECIALLY since you don't know what is going on under the hood.

In any event, you can't take any representative advocacy for granted and let them sign off in your name so automatically. Their values and choices are sometimes not OURS at all, but just try to tell anyone that even many voices of dissent. Suddenly the people's government and organizations for people know better, choose otherwise.

[stellanoir]

2. this has been most troubling. . .

granted the disabled fully and unquestionably deserve the rite for thier vote to be honored, but not at the expense of accountability for 30 % of the general population's vote.

This issue was the source of great consternation last fall, when BBV issues and concerns were at the top of Moveon.org's forum. Rumor had it that Moveon wasn't going to involve themselves because of an affiliation with the ACLU and their concerns for the disabled.

Since then and most recently, I finally got an e-mail from Moveon encouraging support for HR 2239 & S1980. I was most relieved.

Does anyone have the scoop on this or know what changed or if that rumor had any substance whatsoever. . .?

[Merlin]

3. MoveOn is on board. So is True Majority. I think there's a chance for LWV.

Today (Saturday) will tell the tale. Barbara Simons goes up against Kay Maxwell for the LWV presidency. Even if she does not win, there will surely be a floor fight over the LWV's position against VVPBs.

The good new here is that the NYT confirms and exposes what has so far only been rumor: that Diebold effectively bribed the blind lobby to shill for them.