Defenders Of Democracy

The SB367 electronic voting receipts bill was essentially renamed to SB500 and it has been posted on the legislative web site. It is being co-sponsored by Senators Stephens, Staton and Wiles. Like the original SB500 that Sen. Stephens co-sponsored in 2004, the bill provides receipts that would only be used for recounts and election challenges. The original SB367 required a three county trial run for the 2006 election but that has been paired down to one precinct in each of those counties probably based on input from the Sec of State's office.  This legislation leaves 99.8% of Georgia citizens voting on evidence-free voting machines during the 2006 elections.

From an AP story at Macon.com ...
(Secretary of State) "Cox, a Democrat, supports the Stephens plan and her office has worked with him crafting the legislation, said Cox spokesman Chris Riggall."

SB500 would provide a paper trail for our voting machines, but it is not an ideal bill. 

1.  SB 500 is a step in the right direction, towards creating physical evidence of every vote cast.

2. Our ideal bill is the Original Vote Count Protection Act, SB 591.   HB 790, while not as strong as SB 591, is significantly stronger than SB 500.

3.  It was noted in an AP story recently that Sen. Bill Stephens worked with Secretary of State's in crafting this bill.  The Secretary of State's office has had an relationship with the vendor of the State's voting machines that has been too close and has not been open to public scrutiny.  Secretary Cox's former boss, Lewis Massey, was a lobbyist /salesman for the vendor, GEMS/Diebold, at the time the state contracted to purchase our voting machines.  Diebold has continuosly provided technical mis-information to the state when convenient, especially when more equipment sales for as much as $70 million are at stake.  That is what it will cost to "toss and buy new" voting machines, which is exactly what Diebold recommends.  We are concerned that Sen. Stephens bill is weak because of the influence of the Secretary of State's Office, and their sole source of technical information, Diebold.  We are also concerned that the bill language does not specify that a RFP should go out and that the lowest bidder be given prime consideration in providing the printers.  In fact, while the bill does not specify Diebold by name, the only computer and election hardware to be tested during the bill's trial period is from the state's current vendor, which is Diebold, and that language is explicitly written into SB500.  Based on Diebold's performance in states where their Secretary of State has not drunk Diebold's poisoned "Kool-Aid", a responsible legislative approach would an open printer purchasing  process. 

4.  SB 500 has language as follows, which needs to be stricken: "however, that it shall not allow the elector to have actual physical possession of such record".  This language reflects the wholly delusional idea that a voter would walk out of the precinct with their "record of their vote", or their ballot, in their hand, and not cast this ballot or record in the ballot box.  This scenario probably never occurred with the state's old punch card system.  By promoting this delusional idea repeatedly, officials from the Secretary of State's office have created the false need for a much more expensive printer system than required if the voters were permitted to cast their ballot or record in a ballot box.  Historically, Diebold Election Systems /GEMS has a record of hiring unrepentant convicted felons and embezzlers to provide low-quality software and equipment to our state.   We are concerned that input from the Secretary of State's office will lead to a no-bid contract to purchase overpriced election equipment from a vendor has been sued in other states for not delivering what they have promised. 

5.  In the 2004 committee hearings for SB 500 (2004 version), funding for printer purchases was repeatedly falsely raised as an obstacle.  Let every committee member be aware that every one of Georgia's Voting Machines has a built-in, certified printer that is not being used, that could print out every voter's ballot when they press the "cast ballot" button.  Computer Programmers in Georgia have offered to upgrade the voting machine software for free, and make the added software module available for public review.  Unlike at Diebold, no convicted embezzlers will be allowed to program these printers.  Ballots printed on these printers will be legible, though not pretty.

6. The cumulative result of points 3, 4 & 5 above mean that SB500 makes election accountability falsely appear to be an expensive commodity that Georgians cannot afford.  The Secretary of State's office is expected to withhold that opinion until after the Nov. 2006 elections are complete.  But we are blowing their strategy of telling you that accountability "just isn't affordable" by giving you, Georgia voters,  computer science facts.  We can reprogram these voting machines, at no cost to taxpayers.  I'm sure the Diebold sales team is very upset that an easy Computer Programming 101-type assignment will cost them the $70 million in sales for replacement Voting Machines, but computer science facts should never be ignored when $70 million in our tax dollars is at stake.

7.  SB 500 should be replaced by substitute with SB 591, the Original Vote Count Protection Act , a much stronger piece of legislation that has public support, and has been described as the strong remedy required for Georgia's unaccountable election system.

8. Skip the pilot program. This technology has been ready before these voting machines were delivered in 2002. Voters in other states have been printing ballots, and Georgians should take a back seat to nobody.

It is important to recognize that Georgia's election system is broken.  Let's fix it right the first time, statewide, in time for the 2006 primary election, with the language of SB 591, the Original Vote Count Protection Act.  We urge  legislators to fulfill their ethical and moral responsibilities to the Georgia Constitution and pass the Original Vote Count Protection Act and be the heroes Georgia voters want you to be.
###

Read a critique of the original bill  SB 500 is based on, SB 367, by clicking here.

The SB500 summary can be seen at:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/sb500.htm

The SB500 text can be seen by clicking here.