Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-N.J.) Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act seemed like the kind of bill that should sail through Congress. The legislation would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines, adding safeguards to potential recounts and a layer of integrity to the election process.
Indeed, Holt’s bill was so obviously worthwhile, when it came for a vote in the House Administration Committee a few weeks ago, even House Republicans voted for it — unanimously.
It was a very encouraging development. Five years ago, Holt nearly passed a similar bill, before it was blocked by far-right lawmakers. That the bill cleared committee unanimously suggested the elections in 2008 would not be marred by some of the problems we’ve seen in recent cycles. Finally, something everyone could agree on.
[T]wo weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far. […]
Under the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act, the federal government would help localities switch to paper ballots or attach printers to their electronic voting machines in time for the November elections. To overcome states’ rights objections, Holt crafted the bill as an opt-in: Nobody would be required to switch technologies or conduct audits, but federal funding would be available to offset costs for those who did.
Without a mandate, Holt’s bill drew more bipartisan support; Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) was one of the 92 co-sponsors. “We need standards to ensure that things are auditable, verifiable and give the voters confidence, and [Davis] doesn’t think that what we have now does that,” said Davis spokesman Brian McNicoll.
“The principle reason for the bipartisan consensus is that this was opt-in,” Holt told Politico after the bill passed committee. “Everybody, Democrat and Republican, would prefer fewer disputed elections and better ways of resolving disputes. You can’t resolve disputes without a paper trail.”
For too many conservative lawmakers, that apparently doesn’t matter.
First, the White House announced its opposition. Soon after, the same House Republicans who’d voted for the bill in committee didn’t even want it to reach the House floor. (A spokesperson for Republicans on the Administration Committee said lawmakers didn’t realize how expensive it would be, and $685 million for reliable election results was apparently too high a price — though Holt insists it would actually cost far less.)
The result: The elections in November will likely be marred by the same accusations of fraud and error involving voting machines that arose in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race. […]
Holt is predicting exactly that: Ultimately, he said, the bill’s failure will mean that “millions of voters will leave the 2008 election questioning the process and whether their vote means anything.”
The mind reels.