Re: AB 2097 -- Proposed Amendment

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Apr 21 2006 - 01:02:07 CDT

You make some good points, Ron. Right now, our audience (Legislators) is
struggling with some very basic issues here. I think the bill had just the
right level of detail (not much) for our hearing on Tuesday. We know it is
likely to be amended several times.

The current proposed amendment is designed to address the main issue of
concern right now. We'll get to more detail about what it means to comply
in due course.

Alan D.

> This seems like a good plan, though, if no vendors comply, the timing is
> likely to end up being very tight. But I suspect that some will comply
> -- though in a highly legalistic manner. This re-raises my prior set of
> amendments (attached), which are intended to make it more difficult for
> vendors to hide stuff that we ought to know. As writ, vendors will drive
> trucks through the existing bill's "voting system specific" language,
> among other things. For example, Diebold probably will argue that its
> touchscreen-input code is not "voting system specific" because "we use
> the same code in our ATMs". Once this occurs, years of litigation will
> ensue, during which voters will be no better off than they were before
> the bill's enactment. Let's try to make the bill as tight as possible
> within the constraints of legislative politics.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue May 2 21:06:53 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 02 2006 - 21:06:54 CDT