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

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 12:20:05 CDT

On 7/2/05, Charlie Strauss <cems@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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.

(This is in no way legal advice. Please consult your attorney if you
make decisions based on the following remarks.)

Title III of HAVA (Sec. 301 et seq.) is not optional, no matter what
money a state accepts under Title I or II.

(As a reminder, Sec. 301 defines the minimum requirements for voting
systems used in elections for federal office (pre-casting vote
verification and opportunity to change vote, manual audit capacity,
disabled and alternative language accessibility, error rates, uniform
vote definition and the effective date to meet these requirements (1
Jan 2006)).)

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
<http://josephhall.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 23:17:13 2005

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