Re: Understanding difference between TLV, EML, VVPB and what the vendors want to flog as VVPAT

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sat Jul 02 2005 - 20:42:11 CDT

On Jul 2, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Jim March wrote:

> Charlie Strauss wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Jim March wrote:
>>
>>
>>> David Webber (XML) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just for Bev Harris and her staffs FYI - paper only is a dog
>>>> that will not hunt - simply because HAVA mandates (its the
>>>> law) that you provide computer assisted voting - and so
>>>> manual-only systems technically *must* be replaced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> First, a state needs to be HAVA-compliant -=in order to get the
>>> HAVA money=-. If they turn down the Federal money, they can do
>>> any damn thing they want. HAVA has no hard requirements, only
>>> cash incentives.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The common understanding is that this statement is completely
>> false. Can you support it? I'd really like it to be true so I'd
>> like a reference. Every person I've talked to including the head
>> of NASED has implied that the federal law specifies ADA
>> requirments regardless of whether you take the cash.
>>
>
>
> It'll take me a bit but I'll get back to the list with details. I
> may have to flat-out read HAVA itself.

Jim I read HAVA too. But always found it confusing as to whether the
clauses were supposed to be taken as a whole or separately. For
example money is mentioned in one section. Accessibility related
compliance amplified further in another. In yet another it say no
jursidiction will be compelled to replace its machines. So were
left wondering take the money--have to replace. Dont take the money--
still have the Accessibility provisions which basically force
replacement anyhow. I never figured it out myself.

So if you know how to actually read a bill or have a reference on
HAVA's implications it would be peachy to get.. By the way getting it
to me ASAP would be especially useful as I meet with the governor's
office to make some reccomendations this friday. Could use the
knowledge. Have been working on the assumption that HAVA had to be
implemented with our without taking the money....

>
> One possibility I'll look into: HAVA may not say anything about
> disability access, but disability access may be an "integral need"
> due to Federal voting rights principles, ADA, God knows what.
>
> IF that's the case, the "head of NASED" (would that be R. Doug
> Lewis by chance?) might be sorta correct, except that if the actual
> disability techniques aren't specified, a Rhode Island style
> "tactile ballot with audio track" would suffice.
>
> BUT let's also recall that R. Doug Lewis is a bullshit artist par
> excellence, a rigid proponent of paperless DREs and somebody who
> admits to being funded by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and the like.
> David Jefferson had some pithy comments on some of this "scholarship":
>
> http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=68
>
> Not knowing that David had penned that, shortly thereafter I wrote
> my own rebuttal to the same R. Doug Lewis blathering and if
> anything I was even more harsh than David (certainly more snide):
>
> http://www.equalccw.com/lewisdeconstructed.pdf
>
> I would take anything from that idiot with a massive helping of
> salt and a heavy spritz of deodorant plus a fleabath for good measure.
>
> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT