Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  The Voter Confidence and Increased ...


The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009


Update: The bill has been introduced - you can read Rep. Holt's official press release here.

Also, the New York Times has posted an editorial in favor of the bill.




Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey is preparing to introduce the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009. VerifiedVoting.org strongly supports this long-overdue measure to provide accessible and verifiable elections for federal office.

The VCIA bill is similar to bills introduced by Rep. Holt in previous Congresses, but unlike previous versions, the new legislation would end the use of direct-recording electronic voting machines (DREs) and require voter-marked paper ballots for every vote cast in federal elections. Counties that use DREs equipped with voter-verifiable paper audit trails have until 2014 to phase out their DREs, and counties now using paperless DREs must replace no later than November 2010.

Below is a summary of key provisions of the VCIA; you can also click here to download a pdf of the bill's complete text.

Key Provisions of the VCIA

• Every vote cast in federal elections will be recorded on a paper ballot that a voter marks by hand or by using a ballot marking device (pages 3-4, proposed amendment to the Help America Vote Act, Section 301(a)(2)).

• Voting systems that produce paper records (including thermal reel-to-reel systems and systems accessible to voters with disabilities that also used or produced a paper ballot) that were used in 2008 elections can be used until 2014; only systems that used no paper ballots at all must be replaced or upgraded by November 2010 (page 40, proposed Section 301(d)(2)(B)).

• The paper ballot is the vote of record in all recounts and audits, and shall be counted by hand as a check on electronic tallies (page 4, proposed Section 301(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)).

• In jurisdictions that use already-deployed voting systems that produce paper records paper (and such systems must be replaced by 2014), all voters are entitled to vote by paper ballot for any reason, and to be notified of that right at the polling place (page 42, proposed Section 301(d)(2)(B)(iii)).

• Routine random audits must be conducted by hand count in at least 3% of the precincts in all Federal elections, and at least 5% or 10% in very close races, but races need not be audited when the winning candidate received at least 80% of the vote (pages 48-50, proposed Section 322(a); and page 48, proposed Section 321(a)(2)(B)).

• States can use alternative audit mechanisms if the National Institute on Standards and Technology determines the alternative mechanism offers a 95% chance of leading to a full recount if such a recount would show a different prevailing outcome (page 52, proposed Section 322(b)).

• Wireless devices, Internet connections, uncertified software and undisclosed software are banned in voting and tabulating machines (pages 18-19, proposed Section 301(a)(8)) .

• $1 billion in funding is authorized for system replacement, and $100 million each fiscal year is authorized to fund the audits (page 32, proposed Section 257(a)(4); and p. 60, proposed Section 326(e)).

• An arms-length relationship is established between test labs and voting machine vendors (pages 23-27, proposed Section 231(b)(3) and (4)).

• States must document a secure chain of custody for ballots and election media, and the EAC must develop best practice guidelines for the chain of custody (page 20, proposed Section 301(a)(10)(B)(i); and page 21, proposed Section 301(a)(10)(C)).
Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map