January 1st 2006 is the
correct date for the HAVA drop-dead date.
Paul
Tiger
-----Original
Message-----
From: kellen
carey [mailto:kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:12
PM
To:
bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
letter to the editor, 11/11
Ms. Rhodes has indeed
written an intelligent and useful letter. However, she somewhat mispeaks
when she says HAVA "has mandated that all 50 states have computerized voting
machines by 2004 elections."
HAVA mandates only that all
precincts have an (meaning at least one) ADA-compliant voting
machine for the disabled. That means DREs because DREs are the only
technologies currently capable of allowing the disabled to vote privately and
unassisted.
There is no mandate that
all other voting equipment (i.e. for the 98% "abled" voters) be any
particular method/technology, as long as it is not punch card or lever
style voting equipment. Paper ballots and handcounting are perfectly
acceptable under HAVA.
Also, I don't think the
deadline of 2004 (for ADA compliant voting equipment) is correct; I think the
correct time by which these systems must be up is by Jan
1, 2006.
Please let me know if I am
wrong.
kell
Evan Daniel Ravitz
<evan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll invite Donna to tomorrows
meeting. She's a longtime friend of
mine...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003,
Laura Price wrote:
> There is a wonderful letter to the editor in
the Camera today that echoes many
> of our sentiments. Not sure if Donna
Rhodes is involved with CVV, but thought
> I should share this
piece...laura.
>
>
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_2417818
>
,00.html
>
> VOTING
>
> Electronic systems vulnerable
to fraud
>
> I challenge the Daily Camera to do some real
investigative journalism, to be
> bold, question authority, and uncover
the truth about the push for computerized
> voting in the next major
election. It is possible that the greatest voter fraud
> in American
history is set to take place in the next presidential elec! tion, and
>
it will make the last one seem trivial in comparison, unless we citizens
do
> something about it.
>
> The "Help America Vote Act" has
mandated that all 50 states must have
> computerized voting machines for
the 2004 election and Boulder officials are in
> the process of
selecting ours. On the surface it appears to make voting much
> easier,
but it makes fraud much easier too. The law does not require a
printout
> or ballot of our vote and the computer manufacturers are
discouraging the use
> of this available technology. Why would anyone be
against a verifiable paper
> trail, a check system of sorts? Here are
just a few of the problems encountered
> in 2002.
>
> In
Scurry County, Texas two Republicans won by a landslide when polls had
been
> predicting the Democratic candidates to win by a large margin.
The county clerk
> demanded a recount both manually and electronically
using ! a new computer chip
> and indeed the Democrats did win. A faulty
chip was to blame that counted
> Democratic votes as Republican. They
did not demand a recount in Comal County,
> Texas when three Republican
candidates received the exact same number of votes —
> 18,181. How
likely is this coincidence?
>
> In Georgia, the first state to use
all-electronic voting, a Republican governor
> was voted into office;
the first one since the end of the Civil War, and pre-
> election polls
showed the Democratic candidate to be in the lead.
>
> Voters in
Florida reported touching the screen to vote for the Democratic
>
candidate for governor and having the computer screen show that they had
voted
> for the Republican incumbent, Jeb Bush.
>
> In
Nebraska, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was the former CEO of ES&S,
the
> voting machine manufacturer that supplied all the voting machines
for the state
! > of Nebraska. For more information on this subject
check out
> www.blackboxvoting.com.
>
> Talk to our local
officials about their options in selecting a computerized
> voting
machine for us. Get informed, demand a verifiable paper trail and make
>
your vote count!
>
> DONNA RHODES,
Boulder
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with
Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard