Holt Bill Pushed Back Again

by on September 8, 2007 · 2 comments

I can’t say I’m too disappointed that a House vote on the Holt bill has been pushed back once again. Apparently the proximate cause was two Democrats on the rules committee—which normally votes along party lines—bucking the leadership and threatening to vote against bringing the legislation to the floor unless further changes were made. It’s becoming increasingly clear that new rules won’t be ready in time for 2008, which means our focus should be on getting the rules right in 2010 and 2012. And although the Holt bill is a step in the right direction, it certainly leaves substantial room for improvement. Hence, I found the comments of the dissident committee members reassuring:

Slaughter quickly indicated she didn’t like the bill, and raised questions about the quality of the new paper ballot machines.

“I am very much concerned that we are passing this law that you have to have it by a certain date,” Slaughter said during the hearing, “when experts tell us there is not a machine that will do this right.”

In an interview, Slaughter said New York election authorities would have trouble getting equipment to replace their lever-pull machines in time for the deadline mandated in the bill.

She wasn’t the only one to express concerns. Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Democrat from Florida, said the bill didn’t go far enough.

“I need to be persuaded. Otherwise I would do something that I have not done since I have been here, and that is vote against a proposed rule,” Hastings said, according to a transcript. “If we ain’t gonna fix it all, then we oughtn’t fix something that ain’t a fix and is not an assurance that we have done the best we can. This isn’t good enough for me.”

These are precisely the questions House members ought to be asking: are these deadlines feasible, and will this legislation fix the problem or will it require the next Congress to come back and deal with the problem yet again? The obvious compromise is to completely drop the new requirements for 2008 in exchange for more robust requirements (e.g. source code disclosure and no thermal printers) in 2010 and beyond. I don’t know if that’s where Slaughter and Hastings are headed, but at least they’re asking some good questions.

Previous post:

Next post: