From the day our "Fore Fathers" first began debating the language that
evolved into our Constitution, a tug of war has existed. Should we
expand the involvement of the common working class in the new
government? Or should we limit their involvement? Both sides
believed they had good arguments supporting their position. Today the
struggle continues, with the current administration favoring the "less
involvement" position. But if we are going to throw in with the,
"more involved" folks, we need to understand that the war is much
broader than whether we have the right and means to vote. The war
must be directed toward the Corporate Capitalism that is now
controlling the American government. If we merely succeed in gaining
the right to vote, we can still lose the war. We must focus on
seizing control over the Corporations that are taking us toward
Dictatorship, and place the power in the hands of the People.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/24/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
White House Blocks Bill That Would Protect Elections
By Alexander Nazaryan, Yahoo News
24 August 18
Abill that would have significantly bolstered the nation's defenses against
electoral interference has been held up in the Senate at the behest of the
White House, which opposed the proposed legislation, according to
congressional sources.
The Secure Elections Act, introduced by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., in
December 2017, had co-sponsorship from two of the Senate's most prominent
liberals, Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as well as
from conservative stalwart Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and consummate centrist
Susan Collins, R-Me.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was set to conduct a markup of the bill on Wednesday
morning in the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs. The bill had
widespread support, including from some of the committee's Republican
members, and was expected to come to a full Senate vote in October. But
then
the chairman's mark, as the critical step is known, was canceled, and no
explanation was given.
As it currently stands, the legislation would grant every state's top
election official security clearance to receive threat information. It
would
also formalize the practice of information-sharing between the federal
government-in particular, the Department of Homeland Security-and states
regarding threats to electoral infrastructure. A technical advisory board
would establish best practices related to election cybersecurity. Perhaps
most significantly, the law would mandate that every state conduct a
statistically significant audit following a federal election. It would also
incentivize the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper record of
votes cast, as opposed to some all-electronic models that do not. This
would
signify a marked shift away from all-electronic voting, which was
encouraged
with the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002.
"Paper is not antiquated," Lankford says. "It's reliable."
A paper record could prove effective against hackers if they tried to
change
the reporting of votes on the internet, as opposed to altering the votes
themselves. Election officials needs to be able to say, "'Nope, we can
check
this,'" as Lankford puts it. "Here's the paper, here's the machine, here's
our poll count."
In a statement to Yahoo News, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters says
that while the administration "appreciates Congress's interest in election
security, [the Department of Homeland Security] has all the statutory
authority it needs to assist state and local officials to improve the
security of existing election infrastructure."
Under current law, DHS is already able to work with state and local
authorities to protect elections, Walters wrote. If Congress pursues the
Secure Elections Act, it should avoid duplicating "existing DHS efforts or
the imposition of unnecessary requirements" and "not violate the principles
of Federalism."
"We cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves
power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and
operation of elections," she added. However, the White House gave no
specifics on what parts of the bill it objected to.
In a statement, Klobuchar thanked Blunt and Lankford, making clear that
they
were both allies in the effort. "They tried valiantly to salvage the votes
for this bill on the Republican side," Klobuchar's statement said. "In the
end we had every single Democrat on the committee committed to vote for the
bill. Any changes that were recently made to the bill were made to
accommodate the Republican leadership."
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who sits on the
Rules Committee, declined to say whether the majority leader, widely
renowned on Capitol Hill for his backroom tactics, was involved in efforts
to hobble the Secure Elections Act.
Blunt's office would not comment on the record.
The Trump administration has been unable to settle on how elections should
be secured, and whom they should be secured against. Despite consensus from
the nation's intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in 2016,
President
Trump has dismissed the threat, even as others in his administration have
issued unambiguous warnings. Trump has instead asserted that millions voted
fraudulently in New York and California for Hillary Clinton, thus giving
her
an edge of some 3 million votes in the 2016 presidential race. No evidence
of statistically significant voter fraud has been uncovered.
Lankford, Klobuchar and others had worked for months to persuade their
peers
that electoral security is a nonpartisan issue. Supporters expected the
legislation would make its way out of committee and become law, a rare
bipartisan success story in the current Congress. As the chairman's mark
approached, they appeared to have won the votes they needed in the Senate
Rule Committee.
Speaking to Yahoo News on Tuesday afternoon, Lankford seemed confident. He
acknowledged that the federal government should not encroach on states'
administration of elections, but he also argued that states had to show
more
awareness of the high stakes involved. "Your election in Delaware affects
the entire country," he said. "Your election in Florida affects the entire
country."
In an earlier television appearance with Lankford, Harris rendered the
issue
of electoral security, and hacking by foreign powers, in stark terms: "We
have to be prepared for wars without blood."
But some apparently remained unconvinced. A staffer for a Republican
senator
on the Rules Committee described unease with "certain provisions in the
Secure Elections Act" on the part of secretaries of state, who oversee
elections. "In order for a truly bipartisan election security bill to reach
the floor, additional majority support is necessary."
The bill's sponsors disputed the notion that it lacked support, noting that
secretaries of state had had plenty of time to comment on the proposed
legislation.
Lankford, a rising young Republican legislator, vowed to press on. "The
issue of election cybersecurity is very important and more must be done
now," he said in a statement. "Congressional inaction is unacceptable."
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
