Re: The Bill -- version A

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Jan 25 2006 - 17:31:21 CST


> It still represents progress over what we've got -- as long
> as legislators don't get the idea that it "fixes" all the extant
> problems with e-voting systems. You should make it clear
> that this bill is the first step toward improving e-voting security,
> not the last one.
Absolutely. That's exactly what it is designed to be: an incremental step.
I don't think we can get everything we want all at once. It's a bill that
should pass. As with SB 1438 and SB370, it has limited scope but would be
an important step.

Still, it has some pretty tough and important hurdles. It says if a vendor
refuses to disclose, they get decertified. This is a pretty big battle,
potentially, all by itself.

We do have opportunities for improving the language so I encourage people to
provide suggestions. The "bill" has already been sent to legislative
counsel (couple hours ago). It will look different when it comes back from
there in about a week. Then, we can make changes before it's introduced.
After it's introduced, it may undergo further changes in committees. It can
be changed over the coming months but it gets harder to change the further
along it gets. We want to have our lobbying efforts in gear so it is not
weakened in the process.

If someone wants a completely different bill, that's possible too. I think
this language fits pretty well with what Assemblywoman Goldberg wants to do.
I have discussed some things about possible bills with Senator Bowen but
nothing has been decided on that yet. I need specific language more than
general ideas about what we need.

Alan D.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon Jan 8 20:24:34 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 08 2007 - 20:24:39 CST