HR 5630 and Auditing Standards

Here is the text of the weakened House Substitute to HR5036:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/HouseAdminHR5036-MAR28... [1]

Compare to the bill HR5036 as introduced by Holt:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills... [2]

Please tell any House Admin or Technology Cmte members' staffers that

"There cannot be valid election audits without a requirement for the
public release of a report of all the machine-counted vote counts
which might be selected for audit 'before' making the random
selections of such vote counts to manually audit."

All the votes to be audited must be first counted and then
publicly released BEFORE randomly selecting which precincts (or other
audit units) will be audited; and the audit units must be selected
from this publicly released report of vote counts -- not, as in Utah,
where the "audited" vote counts are never publicly released.

See these docs for a description of some sham election audit procedures that the
House Admin Substitute version of HR5036 would allow if it is not fixed:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/CO/Ltr2ColoradoLegislature.pdf [3]

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/CO/NEDA-Response2... [4]

http://utahcountvotes.org/ltgov/Response2LtGov-Audit-Recount.pdf [5]

A valid election auditing procedure is described here:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/legislative/VoteC... [6]