CT Legislature Supports VVPT's-- Now what?

From: Brendan LeFebvre <brendanl_at_iname_dot_com>
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 05:16:39 CDT

Today I learned that the legislature in my home state of Connecticut has
passed a law requiring that any voting machines purchased by the state
create a voter-verifiable paper trail.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-vote0603.artjun03,0,6182249.story

Support for the bill was unanimous, which is heartening. But it only
addresses the problem of paper vs. bits. The next step is to address the
open- vs. closed- source issue.

The article doesn't specify the company or companies being considered to
provide the machines; they may already have a contract signed with
Diebold or Sequoia. In any event, I don't think it is either too late or
too early to bring up the issue of open vs closed-source machines,
particularly with the momentum created by this paper-trail bill.

So I'm making this post for two reasons: 1) hoping to find a Connectican
with more details on the status of the state's bids/contracts/whatever
with respect to new voting machines. 2) a general question: What is the
best next step to make CT legislators aware of the open-source issue?
The unanimity of the paper-trail vote suggests they will be receptive.

Brendan LeFebvre
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Jun 30 23:17:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT