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

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