From Brad Friedman:
If you write to PFAW to protest the group’s position on the Holt bill, you’ll get back a canned reply.
That reply is not encouraging. Check it out:
The position paper/analysis PFAW refers to makes it
clear that they are not only against a ban on DREs, but
are actually advocating in their favor.
PFAW is pushing for the use of DREs all over the country!
See the following-and don’t let up on them!
From PFAW’s analaysis of the Holt bill:
From page 2 & 3L
Additionally, many civil rights and disability rights organizations that have been engaged in the protection of voting rights for many years have testified that DRE technology offers better access options to voters with disabilities and voters who have minority language needs.
Indeed, in our own experience through our Election Protection efforts and otherwise, we have seen for ourselves the opportunities such technology affords to voters with disabilities or minority language needs.Whereas optical scan technology requires the printing of thousands, if not millions, of ballots in multiple languages, the distribution of those ballots in adequate numbers for each precinct, and the training of poll workers to distribute those ballots to those voters who seem to need them, DRE technology is much more effective for minority language voters.In particular, DRE technology allows voters to decide on their own whether they need a minority language ballot, all of which would be preloaded onto all DREs in a jurisdiction (thus reducing printing costs as well).
Similarly, DREs afford voters with disabilities an opportunity to cast an independent secret ballot- something that optical scan paper ballots cannot fully do. It is important that jurisdictions with large numbers of minority language voters and voters with disabilities have the flexibility to use DRE equipment