Group Launches Divestment Campaign Against Voting Firms

The Velvet Revolution has begun! This time, however, it’s not in Ukraine, but right here in the United States. Led by Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com, the Velvet Revolution (VelvetRevolution.us) is a coalition of 80 progressive groups who say they have united to bring accountability and transparency to American voting procedures. Targeting the nine leading vote machine manufacturers–Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems, Election Systems and Software, HartInterCivic, MicroVote, Danaher-Guardian, TriadGSI, UniLect, and Advanced Voting Solutions–the Velvet Revolution hopes to open vote-counting procedures in America to greater public scrutiny.

"These companies are behaving terribly," Friedman said. "They are all Republican companies that insist on keeping their information private."

Friedman and the Velvet Revolution coalition insist that because such corporations are contracted to serve a public function — to manage vote-counting systems — they should be accountable to the public in the same way government agencies are. The coalition takes issue with the fact that all nine companies refuse to release their software, saying it is proprietary, and will not issue paper ballots or receipts.

The voting machine companies disagree.

"This looks fairly political and not something we'd pay a lot of attention to," said Alfie Charles, a spokesperson for Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the firms singled out by the campaign.

To coincide with the President's Day holiday last week, the Revolution sent letters to executives of all nine vote tabulation companies, announcing the launch of their "Divestiture for Democracy" campaign. The letters ask that the companies "help make the electoral process fully transparent and trustworthy" by agreeing to nine chief demands.

Among them are that companies make all hardware and software used in their voting machines public; that they create auditable, voter-verified paper ballots for every vote cast; and that the firms enact a zero tolerance policy prohibiting voting company executives from supporting any candidate for public office.

The Revolution will allow the companies 60 days to respond to their inquiries. If the firms don't accede to their provisions, Friedman says they will face "a massive and sustained divestiture campaign."

Drawing upon the large constituency reached by the 80 affiliated organizations, the coalition hopes to wreak economic havoc upon the uncooperative companies by urging anyone with a financial stake to withdraw their support — including stockholders and investment banking companies.

Perhaps more significantly, members will urge all state and local governments against purchasing equipment from these companies. There is an easy rationale for government entities to cooperate, explained Friedman: "Counties may think twice about investing in operations that have significant financial divestment campaigns against them."

An effort is also underway to secure legislative support to deny Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funding for any of the companies that refuse to participate.

"HAVA has become a major source of revenue for them to develop vote-counting technology," Friedman declares, "and if that's not there, it hurts their bottom line."

According to a House aide, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) will likely endorse the divestment effort.

At the time of publication, none of the nine companies had yet responded to the Velvet Revolution letter. Friedman remains hopeful, however, that in due time the vote machine companies will respond positively. "This is about democracy, about America," said Friedman, "it's just good business."

The vote tabulation companies, however, see it differently. RAW STORY reached five of the firms, all whom said they had received the Velvet Revolution letter.

read the article»