Re: Election Center Report - Houston we have a problem...

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 10:19:19 CDT


Thanks - that is immensely helpful.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Crane" <>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <>; "Open Voting Consortium
discussion list" <>
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Election Center Report - Houston we have a

HAVA is quite clear about what it mandates and what it permits.
301(a)(3) says, in pertinent part:

...The voting system shall--
                     (A) be accessible for individuals with disabilities,
                 including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and
                 visually impaired, in a manner that provides the same
                 opportunity for access and participation (including
                 privacy and independence) as for other voters;
                     (B) satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A)
                 through the use of at least one direct recording
                 electronic voting system or other voting system equipped
                 for individuals with disabilities at each polling

This quite plainly says that a jurisdiction can satisfy the
requirements of (A), including the "same opportunity for access and
participation (including privacy and independence)" requirement by
providing "at least one" of the systems specified in (B). Further,
301(a)(1)(B) explicitly contemplates the continued use of "paper
ballot voting system[s]", "punch card voting system[s]", "central count
voting system[s]", and systems using "mail-in absentee ballots and
mail-in ballots". 301(c)(1) then goes on explicitly to say that HAVA
does not disqualify systems used in 11/2000 if they otherwise meet HAVA
requirements, and (c)(2) further protects paper-based voting systems
from decertification.

To say that HAVA requires DREs is to make all this language about
non-DRE voting systems a nullity. This ignores a cardinal rule of
statutory construction, which is that any statute must be construed to
give as much effect as possible to all its provisions, on the simple
idea that when a legislature writes something, it usually means it.


On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:27 PM, David Webber ((XML)) wrote:

> Actually several problems:
> The new report contains many assertions that are clear
> designed to make DREs inevitable - and required by law.
> The biggest is this assertion that HAVA mandates independent blind
> voting.
> This is clearly a paper + optical scan killer - if totally true, since
> its
> not enough to provide a DRE for blind people, and everyone else uses
> paper -
> because then that is not a private vote.
> This is a very subtle not strong argument that needs to be examined
> because
> clearly the line is - and therefore everyone has to use DREs - like it
> or
> not - its the law.
> DW
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Jun 30 23:17:05 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT