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

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Thu Jun 09 2005 - 10:46:25 CDT

You're welcome. Remember that this is for rhetorical use only, and is
not intended as legal advice to voting officials, et al. They should
consult attorneys licensed in their respective jurisdictions.

-R

On Jun 9, 2005, at 8:19 AM, David Webber ((XML)) wrote:

> Ron,
>
> Thanks - that is immensely helpful.
>
> DW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Crane" <voting@lastland.net>
> To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>; "Open Voting Consortium
> discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 1:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Election Center Report - Houston we have a
> problem...
>
>
> 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
> place;....
>
> 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.
>
> -R
>
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:27 PM, David Webber ((XML)) wrote:
>
>> Actually several problems:
>>
>> http://www.electioncenter.org/
>>
>> 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
>> 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 Thu Jun 30 23:17:05 2005

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