Blind, Disabled Voters Finally Call for 'Immediate Ban' on DRE/Touch-Screen Voting!

Two Different Statements from Civil Rights Leaders Call for Discontinuation of Insecure, Unverifiable, Disenfranchising DRE/Touch-Screen Voting Technology

After years of DRE-supporters -- and those who support the disgraced Bob Ney's Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 -- having used the canard that blind and disabled voters must use DREs to vote privately and independently, a number of leaders in the disabilities community are finally speaking up against their having been used as a wedge to force the nationwide implementation of such disenfranchising, dangerous voting technology! Full Story »

Posted by Mike LaBonte
Tags Help
Subjects: Politics
Topics: Election Reform
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Mike LaBonte - Mar 15, 2007 - 1:40 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Mike LaBonte
3.1
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Accurately represents the contents of the linked documents. Unfairly casts a shadow on HAVA by reminding us that Bob Ney has been "disgraced". Mostly well supported, but key statements are not. The story is accurate, but it still might not convey a sense of what is wrong with DREs for some people. No voting system vendor viewpoint.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Sydney LaCour
4.6
by Sydney LaCour - Sep. 30, 2009

Again, this is a topic not touched upon in mainstream news because it does not seem to directly effect the community at large. but if analyzed more deeply, one would realize that the use or ban of "touch screen" voting machines affects the entire community of voters. something that simplifies a task for part of the community completely disenfranchises another part. For that reason alone it arise attention and evokes interest while being pertinent to a massive audience. Therefore yes it is quality journalism.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.3

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (12% confidence)
Quality
3.4
Facts
3.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
3.5
Insight
5.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.0
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
3.0
Context
3.0
Popularity
3.1
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
3.6
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!