Re: HAVA punch card timetable

[ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx]

Hi Paul,

(Federal HAVA law)

(1)  HAVA does NOT require the replacement of punch card voting systems by
November 2004, despite Drew Durham's opinions.  Please cite the language in
HAVA you think requires replacement and I will show you where such
interpetitions are in error.  Much of HAVA is vague; this portion is not.

(3) This is one of the vague parts.  Note: I am not proposing remaking the
Datavote voting machines.  The voting machine we are proposing is the
VotePuncher(TM), a machine based on the Datavote but without some of the
Datavote's shortcomings.  HAVA specifically lists seven brand names, including
the Datavote but not mentioning the VotePuncher.  I assume they are brand names
since they are all capitalized.  Punchcard is one of the names listed.  Is it a
brand name?  If not, why is it capitalized?  If not a brand name (certainly
most of the seven listed are), what does punch card mean?  It is not further
defined in HAVA.

The language in the Colorado HAVA Plan, the one you forwarded to me, define a
punch card voting machine as the Votomatic type and clearly excludes the
Datavote type and the VotePuncher as being prohibited.  There is a lot of room
for HAVA interpetition here; those interpetitions should be done in the light
of what has transpired since HAVA was written.

Before we get into discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin, let's come back to reality; the writers of HAVA didn't think this issue
through.  They lumped all voting machines that could roughly be classed as
punch card into one catagory, including the Datavote and the Votomatic.  The
Votomatic (and Pollstar and similar devices) is the one with the relibility
problems, not the Datavote.  Neither the Datavote nor the Votomatic addressed
the disadvantaged citizens such as blind, disabled and non-English proficient
voters.  The VotePuncher does.  Sequoia was anxious to get rid of the Datavote
since they thought they could make much more money on a DRE.  HAVA was clearly
influnced by the voting machine lobby.  Just as clear is the fact the voting
machine industry didn't anticipate the opposition to their products.  New laws
on elections are on the way; we should keep that in mind while nit-picking
HAVA.

(State Law)

Can you cite the specific state law passage you are referring?  I would like to
read it.

The writers of HAVA didn't anticipate the problems with electronic voting or
anticipate the groundswell of opposition from the heartland.  It's a new day.

regards,

-ivan



Quoting Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach <outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Ivan,
>
> This info comes from Drew Durham at the SoS office and should answer your
> questions about end-of-life for the punch card devices:
>
> Federal HAVA Law:
> (1) Required replacement of punch card voting systems by the November 2004
> presidential election;
> (2) Provided limited funds/precinct;
> (3) Specifically included the punch card voting system type deployed in
> Boulder County in its definition of punch card voting systems;
> (4) Permitted a state to extend replacement date to January 1, 2006.
> (Colorado sought and received extension.)
>
> State Law:
> Punch Card Voting Systems or any voting systems that require a voter to
> pierce a ballot may not be used in any election in Colorado after January 1,
> 2006.
>
> Paul Tiger, Outreach Director of the Libertarian Party of Boulder County
> Outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 303-774-6383 voice and messages
> 720-323-0570 cell
> www.LPBoulder.org
> "The government that governs best, governs least."
>                             Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.