OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070528_hr_811__28the_holt_bil.htm
|
May 28, 2007 HR 811 (The Holt
Bill): Let the debate begin By Nancy Tobi There is a raging and
often destructive debate among voting activists. The source of the discord is
"The Holt Bill", a piece of federal election reform legislation
named for its primary author, Democratic Congressman Rush Holt from the great
state of New Jersey. The destructive nature of the exchanges among activists
has led some of us who oppose the bill to propose, in the best of our
American democratic traditions, a public debate on the merits of the bill. We who oppose
believe anything that stands to so dramatically transform, and possibly
violate, the nature of American democracy deserves robust public debate,
based on facts and principle. Congress has already
held its so-called public hearings on the bill, but those hearings were
stacked with many pro-811 witnesses, and the few opponents of the legislation
were not debating what we oppositional citizens believe are the real issues
that need a good, public airing: ·
The
bill violates state sovereignty and cements control over
the nation's voting systems in the hands of four white house
appointees. ·
The
bill codifies into federal law the use of secret vote counting
technologies in the United States of America. ·
The
bill mandates impossible, ineffective and controversial audit
and reporting requirements and timetables. ·
The
bill confuses technology with democracy, embracing the
tenets of the one over the other. ·
The
bill furthers the misguided and undemocratic direction initiated with the
Help America Vote Act that replaces observable voting with verifiable
voting Unfortunately, in what
appears to be a desperate desire to keep the rhetoric flying and the
facts suppressed from any public discourse, supporters of the bill
have refused every offer for real public debate. Some of the more vocal
supporters of the bill state that if we opponents are questioning the
confusing language of the bill, it must be that we are not as
"intelligent" as they are. Sort of like the way a sales person for
an exclusive item will look down his nose and tell you, "if you have to
ask what it costs, you obviously can't afford it." If we have to ask what this bill means to our
democracy, we are obviously in the wrong shop. I, for one, would like
to see robust debate on the merits of this complex bill. For one
thing, the principles of democracy are at stake. The American
people deserve to hear honest debate on if and how this proposed election
reform supports the fundamental principles of American democracy without
which our elections are nothing but a sham. As well, the
language of the 62 page bill is so dangerously ambiguous in so many
critical areas, that we ought to expose the ambiguities to the light before
HR811 becomes the law of the land and our elections are thrown to the courts
to decide what means what. And finally, public
debate is called for because of the complex, often conflicting, and
seemingly impossible and impractical requirements of the bill. These
requirements are outrageously expensive, the costs of which will be borne in
large part by American property taxpayers as the nation's towns, cities, and
counties struggle to meet the bill's unfunded high tech mandates. And a careful analysis of the bill's timelines, equations, and
reporting requirements indicates they just don't seem to add up to anything
that will actually work in the real world. This fundamental flaw
in the bill puts every state in the nation at risk if it forces them to try
to run legal elections when the law itself is unsupportable. This is not the
birthright of democracy the framers of the U.S. Constitution bequeathed us. The Holt Bill, in its
former incarnation as HR 550, languished in committee under the former
Republican majority, and was never released to the full House for a vote.
With the Democratic takeover, the bill resurfaced in its current incarnation,
HR 811. Within days of the November 2006 victory, Dem leaders were predicting
the swift passage of election reform. They were going to "own" the
issue that had been stymied under the Republican rule. Unfortunately, the new
leadership was stuck holding the same moldy bag of election reform that had
been decaying in the former Republican majority's pantry. And time was not
kind to the Holt Bill. As it languished, its unpleasant odor wafted through
the ranks of citizen activists, many of whom, one by one, began to experience
an unmistakable squeamishness about the bill. When HR 550 was whisked
out of the pantry, washed down, spiced up, and placed on the table of the
House Administration Committee in its new form as HR 811, many former
supporters found they could no longer stomach the bill, even in its shiny new
form. One might even say, especially in its shiny new
form. The ranks of
ordinary citizens, who laboriously studied the bill and its implications, the
nation's election officials, counties, legislators, and even the e-voting
industry itself, uniformly rose in loud and raucous opposition to its
passage. HR 811 quickly became a
disputed and controversial bill, left only with its primary supporters being
well funded lobbying groups like Common Cause, MoveOn, TrueMajority, Verified
Voting and VoteTrustUSA. Nonetheless, rumors
abounded that the bill was going to be "fast tracked" through the
Committee, on to the House floor, where it would be swiftly passed by a
leadership-sponsored "unity" Democratic vote and dropped into the
laps of the American people. But apparently the bill's
controversial nature has slowed down the fast track. Now the bill sits on the
table, waiting for someone to take a bite. But while it is tempting and
delectable to some activists and their seemingly well funded lobbyists,
others of us are as repelled by the odor emanating from the bill as ever
before. The arguments proposed
by HR 811 proponents are as effective in addressing the problems of the bill
as spitting on a house on fire: ·
"This
is the best bill we can get passed by Congress." ·
"If
we don't pass this bill now we won't have any election reform in place for
2008." ·
"Even
if the bill supports secret vote counting, at least we'll force the states to
conduct election audits." ·
"At
least our elections will be, if not observable by the citizenry, verifiable
by 'qualified' persons and 'experts'." ·
If
you oppose the bill you are not as intelligent as we are. The problem
is that the defects of the bill are not small and can not be dismissed, as has been
attempted with each new version of the bill, through copyediting,
wordsmithing, and vagaries of text. In fact, the bill's
flaws touch at the deepest levels our very notions, ideals, traditions, and
fundamental constitutional rights with respect to American democracy. In a recent email
exchange inviting Holt proponents to a public debate, activist and attorney
Paul Lehto was accused by a central Holt Bill proponent of "blowing hot
air and quoting 18th century statesmen." Does this mean that this
particular HR 811 proponent, whose organization has recently hired a high
powered lobbyist just to get the bill passed, agrees with what George W. Bush
is rumored to have stated, that our Constitution is "just a piece of
paper"? God bless Paul Lehto
for quoting "18th century statesmen." They are the revolutionary
spirits and first American patriots, who rose in opposition to a centralized
power that used its authority to make bad and dangerous decisions for the
people of this country. It is to them that we owe our freedoms and our
dignities. It is not
enough for us to breeze past their messages and to sit content in our air
conditioned homes, driving our Mercedes, eating our abundance of food. Our country, the United
States of America, was founded on ideals and principles, the principles of
freedom and democracy, bolstered by robust public dissent, dialog, and
debate. It is the strength of these principles that have enabled us to become
the greatest superpower on earth. It is the words of those "18th century
statesmen" that we must shine like a beacon to light for us the way
forward, to remind us that our country is a country of the rule of law, and
the basis and foundation for that rule of law is the U.S. Constitution. This revolutionary
document and declaration of democratic principles, written in the midst of
much public debate and honest dissent and discourse, has stood the test of
time. Our Constitution must be in the forefront of everything we do when
tinkering with anything as crucial as the foundation of our democracy: our
elections. Lehto provides this
quote from 18th century statesman, American patriot and founder James
Madison: . . . [T]he Declaration of Independence is the
ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny. . . . The principles
contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those
principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all
foes, and at whatever cost." --James Madison Lehto also reminds us
that the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence are clear: we
the people are the masters, our elected officials are the servants. Our
democracy guarantees us the right to "kick the bums out" when our
servants are misbehaving. And this means that we can not allow our elected
representatives to enact laws facilitating the rigging of our elections,
debasing the tenets of our democracy, and enshrining secret vote counting,
which is the foundation of fascism and not democracy. Lehto, like
Madison, reminds us that this right is worth defending, at whatever the cost.
We who oppose HR 811
believe that a public debate on the merits of this legislation is not too
high a cost to pay in defense of our country. Authors Website: www.democracyfornewhampshire.com Nancy Tobi is the author of numerous articles on election
integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund,"
"What's Wrong with the Holt Bill,"and "We're Counting the
Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit." She is Legislative Coordinator of
Election Defense Alliance, co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire and
Chair of the New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee. Her writings may be
found at www.electiondefensealliance.org and
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com |