Reply #62: I'm going by 4, which I quoted

[OnTheOtherHand]

But if you want to go to 5, then then I take "and" there to have the same sense as "specifically including" in order #3. While order #3 does not in itself say that this specific inclusion is necessary for HAVA compliance, you still haven't proposed an alternative interpretation of finding 4.

I don't think the reference to the defendant in 4 has anything to do with the question of what is HAVA-compliant. I assume it has to do with what is possible in 2008. The key is that the court considers the deployment of BMDs to constitute "partial compliance" with the voting system requirements. But if you choose to cite the reference to the defendant, then I will note the multiple references to the amicus briefs. Did Novick submit her amicus brief? Was it accepted? Do we have reason to believe that the judge didn't read it?

All this would be moot if Bo Lipari weren't on trial. Whatever the judge said, he could unsay, or someone else could unsay for him. But I get the impression that Bo's problem isn't that he said anything ridiculous, but that he stepped on someone's talking points.

I simply don't buy the argument that what the SRO says in finding 4 is irrelevant unless the SBOE argued against it. And you apparently don't have an alternative interpretation of it. So it stands, as far as you have shown me, that the court has found that the combination of levers and BMDs constitutes only partial compliance with HAVA section 301. But if you want to say that it isn't a "ruling," fine. I happen to think that's a bad reason to say that what Bo said is "exactly the sort of deception that computerized voting vendors employ." You can't even convince me not to agree with him. Call it "intransigence" if you like.