Iowa Voters

The creative plan to elect our President without the electoral college and without having to amend the Constitution is making slow gains. Last year it passed in California but their Governor terminated it.

It has just passed both houses of the Maryland legislature. Governor O’Malley has promised to sign it, making Maryland’s ten electoral votes the first to go into the pool. Only 260 more to go.

Currently one house of the legislature has approved the plan in Colorado, Hawaii, and Arkansas. It was introduced in Iowa as a study bill, but our legislature is too busy with other election reforms to take it up this term.

UPDATE–The markup of HR 811 described below did not occur. Officially it was because of the committee chair’s illness. Some opponents of the bill claim it is because they stirred up so much last minute opposition that they threw the committee off its plans. Markup is now expected in mid-April.

************
One paper trail bill passed the Iowa Senate yesterday, while another paper trail bill gets committee action in Washington tomorrow(see below). There is some risk to Iowa in this timetable, as the federal bill appears to ban what Iowa may decide to do.

Congressman Holt’s HR 811 appears to ban the reel to reel paper trail printers that use thermal printing. These are called “toilet paper” printers by critics because of the reel and the low quality product. If Iowa requires printers to be installed by next year, we will likely have to buy the toilet paper version. Then we will have to replace them with newer, better printers to meet federal law should HR 811 pass with this required improvement.

The safe way down this trail is to switch now to voter-marked paper ballots with ballot marking machines for handicapped voters. Then we’ll be ready for the federal bill with no additional disruptions or new equipment needed.

#############
The House Administration (full committee) is planning to markup Rep. Holt’s Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (HR. 811) on Thursday, March 29th at 10am. Any letters in support of or opposition to this bill should be addressed to House Administration and faxed to them today or tomorrow so they can be inserted in the Record. The fax numbers for the committee are listed below. The letters can be the same letters you have been sending to your Congressional delegation, simply readdressed to Chairwoman Millender-McDonald and Ranking Member Ehlers.
Members of the Committee on House Administration
Democrats – Fax Number 202-225-7664
Republicans – Fax Number – 202-225-9957

It passed 45-5. It spells the end of touchscreen voting in Iowa, since current equipment can be replaced only with scannable paper ballot systems. That’s good news.

Unfortunately there’s more. The bill allows the new paper trail to be “machine readable” as well as visually readable by real people. This opens the door to misuse of the paper trail, wherein one set of software creates the trail and another set of software reads it. If no one’s eyes are ever employed to examine the paper and compare it to the alleged vote tally, we are hardly better off than we were.

Besides that Rep. Libby Jacobs has filed an amendment to gut the bill when it comes up in the House. She wants to use the ephemeral “electronic ballot image” as the official ballot and ignore the paper trail altogether. Why order the purchase of printers at a cost of a million dollars or more only to ignore the trail they print? The Jacobs amendment is a monkey wrench being thrown into the gears of democracy and an insult to all concerned.

The VOICE bill is in a House Appropropriations subcommittee of Jacoby, Oldson, and Roberts. My apologies to Dwayne Alons for mistakenly directing email to him instead of to Rod Roberts of Carroll county.

Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us

I’ll be asking Rep. Roberts if he supports giving all Iowans a VOICE instead of just a vote.

No reply so far from Rep. Oldson of Des Moines. I’ll try again.

Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us

Johnson county state representative David Jacoby says HF 805 (VOICE bill) is “darn good” and he is “not opposed”.

He did not say he would do anything to advance the bill out of his subcommittee of the appropriations committee, but I didn’t ask that. I slipped up by merely asking if he was opposed to the bill. (Also see comments in the previous post.)

He noted, however, that finding the money to fund the bill means something else won’t get funded. I can see everyone ostensibly supporting clean elections but not actually enacting the legislation out of cost concerns. Jacoby says something else will have to get cut. Surely he means something will get a smaller increase, since the state budget revenues are growing sharply.

I think clean elections will pay for themselves once they get going. If legislators don’t have to do favors for contributors, the state coffers should be easier to manage. Those private campaign contributions don’t look like state money, but they often get repaid with state money–either tax cuts for special groups like factory farms or pork barrel spending like the Iowa Values (corporate welfare) Fund.

In the mean time, bite the bullet: fund the future with clean elections. It’s your move, Rep. Jacoby. Advance the bill.

Readers can encourage him via this address:

David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us

Here’s the full email from Rep. Jacoby:

“I am not opposed to the bill. It is a darn good bill.
The policy section needs some clean up (a little too complicated). The bottom line is where to find $ 10 million (at least) in the budget. No proponent of the legislation has offered an idea of what area to cut. The $ 10 m does come out of the general fund and will directly affect someone else.

Dave

And now the BAD news. Two reports in the last two days of Democrats opposing clean elections legislation that has already passed the state government committees in both House and Senate.

First I heard it from Senate President Jack Kibbie, speaking in Pocahontas Thursday night. Kibbie backed the bill but said it had opponents “even in the Democratic Party.” sounding surprised. He didn’t say if they were senators or representatives.

The next morning Ed Fallon emailed his I’m For Iowa followers saying “leadership” was seeking to smother the bill in another House committee. Fallon says a House appropriations subcommittee currently has jurisdiction. It has only three members–David Jacoby, Jo Oldson and Dwayne Alons.

Will they do the dirty deed? Do they themselves oppose the bill? I plan to ask them. If you ask–if they answer you–let me know.

David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us
Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us
Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us

The bill to permit voter registration on election day passed the House state government committee yesterday 12-8, but not before opponents argued the case against it.

I heard two arguments against the bill on radio news coverage. Neither one said there would be chaos in the polling place or that auditors couldn’t handle the change due to administrative constraints. So why oppose the bill?

Opponents pointed at undesirable voters.

One committee member said people should make an effort to vote, not just remember at the last minute. His patronizing attitude would make certain personal habits a criteria for voting. Call it the “plan ahead test”.

Another member warned about serial voters who could roam from poll to poll, registering and voting, registering and voting, registering and voting from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. She didn’t say how this criminal would obtain photo ids (which will be required for same day registration) showing various addresses, but we know one thing: THAT voter would have to plan ahead.

Perhaps better arguments were made in the committee and the radio just didn’t get the proper sound bites. I doubt it. The case for a law much like Minnesota and Wisconsin already have is too strong for the silliness I heard coming from opponents yesterday.

State Senate Appropriations chair Bob Dvorsky is looking for money to replace the nearly new (but undesirable) touchscreen voting machines in Iowa. Good for him.

With Secretary Mauro’s committment to getting a good paper voting system, Dvorsky’s money can solve the problem. Just get Mauro the money, and he’ll take care of business. He wisely bought a paper based system for Polk County. Now he will get it done for all of Iowa.

What to do now: Tell your state senator to back Dvorsky’s bid for money to replace touchscreens.

Representative Mary Gaskill has filed an omnibus election bill that should help ease the poll worker shortage. She makes it easier to send in a second shift. Only the precinct chair would have to stay all day. Currently a majority of the group must stay all day.

Another Gaskill bill (HF 155) allows No Party voters to work the election. Current law permits only Republicans and Democrats to run the polls. Since a third of Iowa voters are registered No Party, the current law is too restrictive. These independent poll workers can comprise up to one-third of the staff at at the polling place.

Iowa City state senator Joe Bolkom wants high school seniors to vote for school board. He has introduced a bill to expand the franchise in the board elections that occur in September. The age would drop from 18 to 17.

The bill can be read here: SF 104

Would this help get youngsters to vote? Maybe if the polling place is in the school lobby. Or if the students personally know the candidates. But in Pocahontas county many school board races are uncontested and even the adults don’t vote.

Still, it’s a nice gesture. What voter knows the state of the local school better than a senior class member? I support this bill.

Dubuque Representative Pam Jochum has filed two bills that would open Iowa elections to more voters and more candidates.

HSB 46 allows voters to register at the polls. This change more than any other would boost turnout. The states that have it now–including Wisconsin and Minnesota–have the highest rates of voting.

Today she introduced a bill that takes ownership of campaigns away from private donors by financing state campaigns from the public treasury. Sort of the way some institutions pay people to come for a job interview, Jochum would pay the campaign expenses of applicants for public office.

In criticizing the bill on Iowa public radio, Senator Mark Zieman said it would be the “incumbent protection act,” because challengers could not outspend incumbents as a way of overcoming the incumbent’s advantage.

Jochum countered that incumbents are already protected by their superior ability to raise money and get news coverage. She noted that over 90% incumbents get re-elected now.

If incumbents win under either system, I’ll take incumbents who are not in hock to contributors.

An odd bill was introduced this week in both chambers of the IA LEGIS. It looks like a paper trail bill. Most of the usual backers of paper trails have quickly signed up for it. But it has a very serious, indeed fatal, flaw.

Most of the words in the bill come from last year’s paper trail bill which passed the Senate 48-0. Some words were added . . .and some others are missing. Hmmmmm. The revisions change the substance of the bill. In fact the revisions destroy the intent of the bill passed by the Senate last year.

The bill creates a new section of the Iowa Code, requiring a paper trail for users of paperless touchscreens to verify. BUT, it gives this paper no standing in the event it is actually needed for an audit or a recount or to recover lost data from a computer crash.

Elsewhere the words added to a different section of the code have played the trick of awarding standing to something else–the mysterious “electronic ballot image” that lurks in the motherboard or in the smart card or on the hard drive or wherever it is that 1’s and 0’s lurk while waiting to become official documents that can decide disputed elections.

Here is the offending part of the bill.

2 8 b. Store an electronic image of each ballot cast separate from the ballot tabulation function, which ballot image shall be reproduced on paper and considered as evidence in the case of a recount, manual audit, or machine malfunction. This printed ballot image shall be the official record for use in a recount.

This bill requires a voter-verified paper audit trail, and then requires that a “printed ballot image” voters have NOT verified be used for recounts, audits, and machine malfunctions. The verified papers would be used for nothing.

Only the vendors will win if this becomes law. They get to sell printers that will cause headaches, fool voters, and serve no useful purpose whatsoever, since the VVPAT’s they print will never be used. We get disposable paper trails. We’ll be the only state to have them.

And think about this: This bill would require using a record printed from a malfunctioning machine to check the accuracy of the malfunctioning machine. This makes no sense.

Some of the sponsors of this bill have realized the flaw in the bill. Contact your legislators and point out to them:

- the importance of having a paper ballot the voter has actually verified
- the uselessness of requiring such a paper ballot unless it has legal standing
- the fact that if a machine malfunctions, its electronic ballots may be corrupt.

Iowa should dump touchscreens altogether. Some counties already have a better system. Every county should follow Polk, Woodbury, Webster and the others (even tiny Van Buren) who got it right the first time.

Western Iowa’s Congressman Steve King has helped stall the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. King wants to remove a provision that requires ballots be prepared in other languages if more than 5% of the voters in the jurisdiction routinely speak the other language.

This probably doesn’t happen in his district. He says it is an unfunded mandate and a divisive practice that runs counter to the melting pot theory of American history. Eighty Representatives joined in King’s effort.

One must be a citizen to vote. And to become a citizen one must show proficiency in English. So why do any voters need non-English ballots? Judiciary chairman Sensenbrenner points out that anyone BORN in the USA is a citizen, even if born to non-citizen parents or Indian or Alaskan native parents who don’t speak English. He says most of the voters who don’t speak English were born here. So this is not a case of pandering to foreigners unwilling to learn the dominant language. It is a case of accommodating our citizens who have the freedom to speak whatever language they want.

Thus opponents of current hispanic immigration have joined old racists of the South to derail one of the proudest pieces of federal legislation—the bill that ended literacy tests and other roadblocks to voting. House Republicans never bring up a bill unless it is supported by more than 50% of the Republican members. That appears to be the bump in the once smoothly paved road to renewal of the VRA.

by Sean Flaherty

If you live in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District (or for that matter, anywhere else) and you are concerned about election integrity, thank Congressman Leonard Boswell (contact information). Boswell became H.R. 550’s 191st co-sponsor last week (list of co-sponsors). H.R. 550, as is often said on this blog, is hands down the strongest election integrity bill yet proposed in the U.S. Congress.

Susan McAvoy, Rep. Boswell’s legislative director, said in a telephone call today that Boswell has watched with growing concern the voting problems across the country, and sees an urgent need for Congress to act to ensure that our election results are accurate. Another important fact: “It’s a bipartisan bill,” she said, and added that there is a realistic chance of it reaching the floor.

It is indeed bipartisan, with a cosponsor list that includes Republicans as diverse as Appropriations Committee power Frank Wolf of Virginia, Iowa’s moderate Jim Leach, and the very conservative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. The bill would govern federal elections only. It would require a voter-verified paper record of every vote and establish that the paper record would also serve as that official ballot in a recount. It would also require a hand audit of at least 2% of the precincts in the nation, including one precinct per county. Under 550, voting system software would have to be publicly disclosed and available for any citizen to review, and no conflicts of interest between voting machine companies and voting machine testing laboratories would be allowed.

The bill continues to build momentum, gaining 23 new co-sponsors in the last three months. It still needs more support, so if you live in Mr. King’s, Mr. Latham’s, or Mr. Nussle’s district, put the pressure on.

The Colorado state senate has become the first legislative body to reflect the popular will by spurning the electoral college. This could be the beginning of the end for the widely disliked way we elect our President.

An ingenious plan has been devised to skirt the college without actually repealing it. The plan can take effect when enough states join a contract to act together. They will then each select as their slate of electors the group who plan to vote for the candidate that won the most votes nationwide.

This plan was unveiled this winter. Now it has taken its first step. It is also under consideration in Missouri and Illinois and was endorsed by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Iowa is surrounded by activity.

The electoral college undermines democracy. Andrew Gumbel even reveals how its creation was part of the accomodation to slavery in his book Steal This Vote.

Using the popular vote should
– boost turnout by counting every vote equally;
– restore some faith in our system by making it more direct, and
– provide at least one federal election not subject to gerrymandering.

What Iowa legislators will introduce this plan next January?