|
Green Party of Michigan
http://www.migreens.org
News Release June 15, 2003
For More Information Contact:
----------------------------
Marc Reichardt -- Party Chair, GPMI
phone: 734-668-9628
e-mail: chair@migreens.org
Ray Ziarno -- 2002 Candidate for Secretary of State, GPMI
e-mail: razar@voyager.net
John Anthony La Pietra -- Elections Coördinator, GPMI
e-mail: jalp@internet1.net
Ziarno Says State Plan Should Include Advanced Voting Methods
Elections Chief Cancels Public Comment Time at
Meeting, Misleads HAVA Committee Members About IRV Cost, Legal Status
<
Ray Ziarno, Secretary of State candidate for
the Green Party of
Michigan (GPMI) in 2002, emphasized Wednesday to a committee appointed
by Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land the need to allow for advanced
voting methods in its plan for implementing last year's Federal
"Help
America Vote Act" (HAVA) and spending the Federal funds available
to
make the required improvements.
Ziarno wants the State Plan Advisory Committee
to require vendors
of voting machines purchased with Federal funding under HAVA to build
in the flexibility to handle advanced voting systems -- such as
instant-runoff voting (IRV).
Vendors have told the Federal Elections
Commission, and a survey
by the non-profit Center for Voting and Democracy, that they could do
this for new equipment at no extra cost. And word from one of the
major equipment makers offers the prospect of a cost-effective upgrade
option for some older machines.
The meeting was to be the last before the draft
plan was put out
for a required 30-day comment period. After that, the plan (with
comments appended) would be sent to the Federal Election Assistance
Commission for posting in the Federal Register and a 45-day comment
period.
Public comment was on the agenda at the meeting
-- but Bureau
of Elections chief Chris Thomas, chairing the committee for Land,
adjourned the meeting half an hour before its scheduled noon ending
without opening up the floor to comments from the roughly 50 people
in the audience.
Ziarno was the first on the sign-up list to
speak. He identified
himself on the sheet as a representative of M-FORE (Michigan Focus on
Reforming Elections).
Before the adjournment, as the members and
staff representatives
of the committee were winding up their discussion, Ziarno raised his
hand and asked for time to present evidence contradicting claims by
Thomas attacking the popular advanced voting method known as
instant-runoff voting (IRV).
In IRV, voters can indicate not only their
first choice for an
office, but also their second choice -- and as far down the line as
there are candidates they can support. If no candidate gets over
50%
of first-choice votes, the candidate at the bottom of the list is
defeated and votes for that candidate are re-distributed to those
voters' second choices.
This continues until someone has support from a
majority of those
voting. This is a benefit in itself, and the other impacts are
also
beneficial: more people can express more of their preferences, and
get more of what they want out of the election, without spending tax
money on an expensive run-off election.
Committee member and Jamestown Township Clerk
Ruth Pruis had asked
Thomas if ranked-choice voting methods such as IRV could be included
in the upgrades under HAVA. She mentioned that she had gotten many
letters from the public asking that new machines bought with HAVA
funds have this capability.
Thomas answered, "I don't think it's an
issue for this committee."
He implied that the cost would be prohibitive, and claimed that the
Legislature would first have to approve IRV and put it into the
state's voting system standards.
In fact, Michigan's home-rule laws already
allow cities and
villages to specify "preferential" voting methods in their
charters.
Ann Arbor elected its first ever African American mayor, Al Wheeler,
in 1975 using instant-runoff voting; a referendum led by the losing
candidate repealed the charter clause the next year.
Ziarno cited experience in California that
including flexibility
described in new Federal Voting Systems Standards in specifications
for purchasing new voting machines did not increase cost, or reduce
the number of equipment vendors willing to bid.
He also offered correspondence between vendor
Election Systems &
Software, Inc. Vice President of Product Management Steve Bolton and
GPMI Elections Coördinator John Anthony La Pietra. In an e-mail
message, Bolton stated that an upgrade to enable existing Optech Eagle
optical-scan machines to handle IRV was being used in one
"account"
this year, and would be available after November for an estimated
equipment cost of $350-$550 per machine.
This, Ziarno pointed out, would let county and
local governments
faced with the most urgent need to meet new HAVA standards -- despite
Federal funding of only $3,200 per precinct to do so -- upgrade six
to nine machines, not just replace one.
Thomas repeatedly tried to cut Ziarno off, and
steer him to an
unspecified future meeting about voting systems. Afterward, there
was mention of the committee's holding two meetings during the 30-day
statewide comment period after the release of the draft plan was
announced to the public as required by law. However, no dates were
discussed.
Committee member Simone Lightfoot of the Flint
Area Coalition
to End Racism (FACTER), representing the NAACP, took up Ziarno's
comments and called on the committee to require the capability to
use IRV and other advanced voting systems. The Michigan State
Conference of NAACP's recommendations for HAVA policy include
requiring that voting systems "be able to accommodate ranked order
and cumulative voting ballots"; IRV is mentioned specifically.
Lightfoot also asked Thomas how the state would
ensure that
implementing HAVA would represent everyone fairly, and not impose
hidden costs on or even disenfranchise some people. She cited the
example of the 1974 "motor-voter" act NVRA and the indirect
costs
later imposed by defunding and privatization of driver's education.
Thomas dismissed this as well, saying HAVA was
really not a
voter-registration law and that Congress had taken great care not
to change NVRA. He doubted whether the state could "go beyond
what
HAVA has prescribed" and added that the law says "a government
ID
with a photo on it."
When a surprised Lightfoot asked if he meant
the committee
couldn't recommend anything more than was literally spelled out in
HAVA, Thomas said, "We can, but not for Federal elections."
In fact, Section 303(b) of the act allows
voters who register by
mail to go to the polls and present "a copy of a current utility
bill,
bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government
document that shows the name and address of the voter" as proof of
identity. And the introduction to the section specifies that
states
must implement ID requirements "in a uniform and nondiscriminatory
manner".
The 2002 GPMI platform supports broadening
voter participation
as part of comprehensive political reform, points out party chair
Marc Reichardt. "Greens support reforms including on-site and
same-day voter registration; first-time mail-in registration for
young voters; voting by mail; and an Election Day holiday for all
federal elections. The basic fairness and broad application of
HAVA called for by NAACP are what will help Americans vote --
not the limited and limiting visions expressed by the current
administration."
In reviewing the funds available, Thomas
described the purchasing
process as one where the state would take "bids", loosely
described,
from vendors and then counties would pick equipment under those bids.
Lightfoot asked who in the counties would decide; Thomas said that he
expected county clerks to pull together ad-hoc committees of their
local clerks, arrange for some vendor demonstrations of equipment,
and let the local jurisdictions buy under the state "contract"
of
their choice.
La Pietra notes, however, that this is dodging
responsibility.
"As long as it's the state -- the Secretary of State and the Bureau
of Elections -- that decides what the machines can do, it's the state
that is keeping the benefits of advanced voting systems and new voting
technology from Michigan voters. We need a plan with flexibility
for
the future -- a plan that helps make voting more expressive, more
meaningful, more attractive, and more possible for voters . . .
a plan that lives up to the name of the 'Help Americans Vote Act'."
GPMI will work with M-FORE and other groups
backing real election
reform to make sure the people of Michigan have more than just a few
legal ads to inform them of the committee's draft plan. The party
encourages everyone to contact the committee during the 30-day comment
period. "Letters from ordinary citizens have already forced
the
committee to recognize the issue of advanced voting systems," says
Ziarno. "Now, we need to make them pay attention -- to
recognize
the need -- and do something about it."
# # #
Green Party of Michigan * 548 S. Main
Street *
* Ann Arbor, MI 48104 * 734-663-3555
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Green Party of Michigan was formed in 1987 to address environmental
issues in Michigan politics. There are Greens organized in all 50
states
and the District of Columbia. Each state Green Party sets its own
goals
and creates its own structure, but US Greens agree on Ten Key Values:
Ecological Wisdom
* Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
* Nonviolence
Community Economics
* Decentralization
Feminism
* Respect for Diversity
Personal and Global
* Future Focus/
Responsibility
Sustainability
created/distributed using donated labor
====================================================================
Supplementary Supporting/Reference Material for 6/15/03 GPMI Release
====================================================================
from _Preliminary State Plan:
Executive Summary of Recommended Actions_ (June
11, 2003)
A voting system selection for Michigan's
uniform voting system
will be made prior to the formal submission of the State Plan. The
members of the Secretary of State's State Plan Advisory Committee
will be convened as the advisory committee identified under PA 91
of 2002 [N.B. this is the Michigan law passed to institute a uniform
voting system]. While the advisory committee will select a
specific
balloting method for Michigan's uniform voting system, a specific
voting system brand name or vendor will *not* be selected by the
advisory committee. . . .
------------ * ------------ * ------------
* ------------
THE HOME RULE VILLAGE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 278 of 1909
78.23 Village charter; mandatory provisions.
Sec. 23.
Each village charter shall provide for all of
the following:
(a) The election of and compensation for a president who shall be
the executive head, a clerk, and a legislative body.
An election
may be by a partisan, nonpartisan, or preferential
ballot or by
any other legal method of voting.
. . .
(g) One or more election districts; the time, place, and means of
holding elections; and the registration of electors.
THE HOME RULE CITY ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 279 of 1909
117.3 Mandatory charter provisions.
Sec. 3.
Each city charter shall provide for all of the
following:
(a) The election of a mayor, who shall be the chief executive
officer of the city, and of a body vested with
legislative power,
and for the election or appointment of a clerk, a
treasurer, an
assessor or board of assessors, a board of review,
and other
officers considered necessary. The city charter may
provide for
the selection of the mayor by the legislative body.
Elections may
be by a partisan, nonpartisan, or preferential
ballot, or by any
other legal method of voting. . . .
(b) The nomination of elective officers by partisan or nonpartisan
primary, by petition, or by convention.
(c) The time, manner, and means of holding elections and the
registration of electors.
------------ * ------------ * ------------
* ------------
correspondence between John A. La Pietra, GPMI Elections Coördinator,
and Steve Bolton, ES&S Vice President of
Products Management
Subject: Re: Optech Equipment
Capabilities
Responses
From: John Anthony La
Pietra <jalp@internet1.net
Date: Fri,
30 May 2003 23:28:03
-0400
To: "Bolton, Steve"
<smbolton@essvote.com
"Bolton, Steve" wrote:
John, I would like respond to your
questions directly within
your original email, so I pasted it into this
email for ease of
following the responses. See below
for responses.
Thank you very much for replying. I agree that your process seems
like a pretty easy-to-follow way of addressing the various questions.
To clarify still further, I am taking the liberty of doubling the
""
character for lines of my initial inquiry, distinguishing them from
the text of your reply.
. . .
* Ability to handle cumulative voting and ranked
ballots:
Many governmental bodies,
including some in Michigan
(nearby Kalamazoo and
Ferndale among them), are looking
seriously into such reforms
as instant-runoff voting (IRV)
and other similar systems
using ranked-choice and/or
cumulative balloting.
(There are places in the US now
using both these systems.)
Which if any of such systems
can the OpTech handle?
Which if any are Calhoun County's
machines currently
equipped/programmed to handle? What
time, effort, equipment,
programming, etc. would be required
to expand this ability?
We are currently working to implement IRV
on the Optech Eagle.
We plan to use this function in the November elections in one
account. It will not be available for use until after this
November
election. We plan to shake the system down and may have to
make
some minor changes to it after the full beta testing is completed
this November, so it is limited to one account for this year.
When
completed, this should be available for existing Optech Eagle
customers. The Optech IV-C is not included in the upgrade
to IRV
at this time. The upgrade to IRV for the Optech Eagle
requires a
new circuit board to be installed which houses a PCMCIA card for
storage of ballot images. I do not know the exact cost of
this at
the current time as it is just now being completed, but it will
be
in a range of $350 to $550 for the circuit board and PCM card,
not
including any services to install and test.
Our go forward line of products, the
Model 100, Model 650, and
iVotronic touch screen systems will all be upgraded for IRV
sometime
in 2004 and these systems will meet the new 2002 FEC voting
system
standards.
------
excerpt from Help America Vote Act (Public Law 107-252)
from FEC Web site:
http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt
SEC. 303. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15483.>>
COMPUTERIZED STATEWIDE
VOTER REGISTRATION LIST REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
VOTERS
WHO REGISTER BY MAIL.
(b) Requirements for Voters Who Register by Mail.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding
section 6(c) of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-4(c))
and subject to paragraph (3), a State shall, in a
uniform and
nondiscriminatory manner, require an individual to
meet the
requirements of paragraph (2) if--
(A) the
individual registered to vote in a
jurisdiction by mail; and
(B)(i) the
individual has not previously voted in an
election for Federal office in the
State; or
(ii) the
individual has not previously voted in such
an election in the jurisdiction and
the jurisdiction is
located in a State that does not
have a computerized list
that complies with the requirements
of subsection (a).
(2) Requirements.--
(A) In
general.--An individual meets the
requirements of this paragraph if
the individual--
(i) in the case of an individual who votes in person--
(I) presents to the appropriate State or local
election official a current and valid photo
identification; or
(II) presents to the appropriate State or local
election official a copy of a current utility
bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck,
or other government document that shows the name
and address of the voter; or
(ii) in the case of an individual who votes by mail,
submits with the ballot--
(I) a copy of a current and valid photo identification;
or
(II) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
government check, paycheck, or other government
document that shows the name and address of the
voter.
(B)
Fail-safe voting.--
(i) In person.--An individual who desires to vote in
person, but who does not meet the requirements of
subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot
under section 302(a).
(ii) By mail.--An individual who desires to vote by mail
but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph
(A)(ii) may cast such a ballot by mail and the ballot
shall be counted as a provisional ballot in accordance
with section 302(a).
(3)
Inapplicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the
case of a person--
[[Page 116 STAT. 1713]]
(A)
who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of
the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-4) and submits
as part of such registration
either--
(i) a copy of a current and valid photo
identification; or
(ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank
statement, government check, paycheck, or
government document that shows the name and
address of the voter;
(B)(i)
who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of
the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-4) and submits
with such registration either--
(I) a driver's license number; or
(II) at least the last 4 digits of the individual's
social security number; and
(ii) with respect to whom a State or local election
official matches the
information submitted under clause
(i) with an existing
State identification record bearing
the same number, name
and date of birth as provided in
such registration; or
(C)
who is--
(i) entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1 et seq.);
(ii) provided the right to vote otherwise than in person
under section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ee-1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or
(iii) entitled to vote otherwise than in person under
any other Federal law.
|
