I have been vocal in demanding election integrity for some time. Below you will see a letter I sent to the Texas Secretary of State when I was a city council member in 2006.
Fortunately, conditions have improved. In Texas we get paper ballots that each voter can see and confirm their votes before putting them in machines. That paper trail is used to hand verify a sample of election day, early voting, and mail in ballots to verify the results.
Of course, we need to know that voters have the residency and legal status to register. Much has been made of requiring identification such as passports and drivers licenses, but there are legal residents who don’t have cars and don’t leave the United States. Perhaps a solution is to put photos or other biometrics on voter registration cards.
While there can be improvements, no system is perfect. I believe elections in Texas are conducted properly and the results are legitimate. I also believe Trump lost to Biden without anything stolen or rigged.
***
DATE: March 23, 2006
TO: Elections Division, Secretary of State
FROM: Patrick Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
Lago Vista City Council, Place #1
SUBJECT: Testimony, Diebold Voting System, Public Hearing
Our city council voted on my motion to send the following letter to the Travis County Elections Division in January of 2006:
“This letter is to express the concern from the City of Lago Vista that the lack of a verifiable paper trail in the voting process is troubling. Our city feels that it is important to ensure the integrity of the voting process.”
“We do not make any allegation that the Travis County Elections Division has been negligent or fraudulent in the voting services provided. We understand the merits of efficiency in the use of electronic voting machines, and understand that they are mandated by the federal HAVA (Help America Vote Act) law.”
“However, we urge Travis County to consider offering such voting machines with the option of producing a hard copy ballot to be used for validation and recount.”
I am happy to read in the reports of Tom Watson and James Sneeringer that the Diebold system does present the option of a paper audit trail. It seems that there are concerns with its design, and that a simpler method could be employed. Perhaps such a system could print the final ballot, allow the voter to inspect it, and drop it into a ballot box if a recount is required.
The examiners also report some concerns of security and privacy in the system, and that Diebold has repeatedly ignored these concerns.
It appears that some measures are being made to improve the system to restore faith in the voting process. However, it is troubling that there appear to be concerns that are repeatedly ignored.