http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=5582&District=45

As describing in my short press release, I've seen firsthand that the more you allow voting outside the confines of the clerks' offices, the more opportunities fraud will occur - in 2001 while running for re-election to Auburn Hills City Council, one of my opponents was actually deputized by the city clerk and was going around with AV applications and ballots!

And as much as you feel you're right to "call Republicans out" on the issue, I feel I'm right to call you out for a post that was over the top in tone and negativity in the way it called Republicans out.  We're not "agreeing to disagree" - you say this is a priority core defining issue and moment for Republicans.  I say it isn't. You attack the 12 for dissent and call them out.  I'm calling you out for making the tent too small.  And ironically, I agree with you on the issue.

Sure, we can agree to disagree on all that if you mean that we agree to be polite and respectful, and I've always been that here (and hopefully elsewhere).  But you're saying the 12 are dangerously wrong and that sold out for non-ideological reasons - I'm saying that your argument is itself dangerously wrong and I understand their ideology on a tough issue and I implore you to back away from at least the parts that assign dishonest motivation.  I'm not going let you off that easily on that part - but that doesn't mean either I can't work with you in the future. I think disagreement itself is healthy - questioning motivation without very good evidence is not.

And it may be an important bill - and important to the future of the country.  But this bill is nowhere near the battle we're going to fight on spending and taxes soon - again - in level of importance.

Tom;
You're case deals with a corrupt City Clerk - who would probably have used some other method if AV wasn't available.  Why punish other voters for that sin - legislate tighter against clerk manipulation and increase penalties on them since they take an oath of office to protect the Constitution?  I agree with you though - AV voting should have security at least co-equal, and public official interference with it should be tightly regulated it.  Your case also proves how the e-mail/fax portion of this bill could be misused to mass produce the type of inappropriate influence/activity by a public official in your case. I'd call this the sanctity of the booth argument - although even the booth can be influenced by corrupt city clerks and local elections officials exercising pressure on voters.