Reply #34: read the other points

[OnTheOtherHand]

I noted that one point was enigmatic because I think it is. Some people think that Plan B is HAVA-compliant, but the SRO doesn't. If you have an interpretation in which that doesn't mean that levers are non-compliant, I would be glad to hear it.

The question isn't whether HAVA calls for the end of levers; it is whether levers (or, more specifically, New York's levers) are HAVA-compliant. Nor is the question whether the judge tried to "argue" that the levers aren't HAVA-compliant. He doesn't have to "argue."

I don't think that a district court finding ever establishes precedent for other districts, whether in a remedial order or otherwise.

Who says that the judge "gutted a section of HAVA"? HAVA doesn't say that levers in general, or New York's in particular, are or can be (or aren't or can't be) compliant with its requirements.

I think you're quoting "highest court in the land" out of context. I don't know why. We just plain disagree about that. Let me just say I think Ananda was right to withdraw her original article.

At least by December 2007, I think Bo was entitled to conclude that HAVA effectively banned lever machines. Time may prove him wrong.