07-21-2008, 06:27 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
This is why this Republican wants electronic voting with a paper trail.
And, interestingly enough, the Democratic majority in my state is the one fighting all attempts to repair the system in Maryland by replacing Diebold or adding paper trails. So I think it probably has to do more with keeping the people paying for the machines in power.
|
In fact, the Republicans proposed one weak bill in 2002 and have repeatedly blocked a much more comprehensive bill that had bi-partisan support snce 2003....first, they blocked the the “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act in 2005, 2005 and 2006, and most recently,the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008.
Quote:
Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.
When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.
In May 2003, Holt proposed the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. That bill would have mandated a paper trail for voting machines so that voters could verify their vote and a recount could be performed, if necessary. The measure faced conservative objections on states’ rights grounds and failed to make much headway....
...So Holt introduced his new bill in January. Under the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, the federal government would help localities switch to paper ballots or attach printers to their electronic voting machines in time for the November elections. To overcome states’ rights objections, Holt crafted the bill as an opt-in: Nobody would be required to switch technologies or conduct audits, but federal funding would be available to offset costs for those who did....
But Holt’s bill hit a snag on April 15 when the White House put out a statement of opposition on the grounds that it was unnecessary to spend the money appropriated in the bill when funding could come instead from the Help America Vote Act.(which, btw, was false)
... Republicans say it was the bill’s cost, not the White House’s opposition, that caused them to change their votes. “The version that passed committee on April 2 did not authorize a specific dollar amount,” said Salley Collins, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the Administration Committee. “We didn’t receive the [Congressional Budget Office] score until the 14th of April, one day before it went to the floor. … So we did not know that the proposed legislation would cost $685 million — $50 million more than Holt’s first version.”
GOP objects to bill allowing recounts - Ben Adler - Politico.com
|
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
Last edited by dc_dux; 07-21-2008 at 06:36 PM..
|
|
|