Re: HR 811 text?

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Tue Feb 06 2007 - 20:44:43 CST
Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
On 2/6/07, Ron Crane <> wrote:
 Further, sec.5(sec.327) exempts from the "mandatory" audit requirement (and
thus from sec.2(a)(2)(B)(iii)'s "any recount" requirement) all state-law
automatic recounts that are triggered by winning margins (e.g., < 0.5%).
Many (probably all) states have these provisions, and, of those, probably
all of them permit or require the automatic recounts to be conducted by
machine. The upshot? When the margin of victory is smallest, and your need
to locate fraud is, consequently, the greatest, this bill throws away the
paper and lets the state certify the machine recount.

Note the "in this subtitle" language of sec. 327... which means that
2(a)(B)(iii) would still apply.   That is, 327 is under Subtitle C
(Audits) and the "any recount" and "true and correct record" language
is under a different Subtitle. best, Joe

Sec.327 makes the entire audit scheme inapplicable when automatic recounts are required. Automatic recounts thus proceed under state law. 2(a)(2)(B)(iii) applies only "in the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between" electronic tallies and hand tallies. But there won't be any hand tallies unless state law requires them. The "true and correct" language applies only when there have, in fact, been hand tallies.

If, in fact, this language is intended to require state automatic recounts to be done by hand (as you imply), it must be changed to make that much more explicit.


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 Wed Feb 28 23:17:08 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST