You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: the ground is getting a bit boggy [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. the ground is getting a bit boggy
I don't think that 2005-005 establishes that 301(a)(2) is clear and unambiguous. Whether it's reasonable to say so is a closer call. I think NYVV would be on more solid ground to say that so far the language has been interpreted as clear and unambiguous by the most authoritative arbiters, the EAC and Judge Sharpe. (The first time I got to wrangle over this issue, last July, it was because Bo Lipari had said pretty much that -- and some folks weirdly argued that he had made Sharpe sound like SCOTUS and I'm not sure what-all else.) But what John and Ellen have to say seems reasonable, too.

(On the second point, I read the language the same way they do: I don't see why, in principle, the state can't simply repay the money.)

As for the DRE paper trail, I agree that DREs can produce a permanent paper record, and that HAVA doesn't require it to be voter-verified (despite the opinion of Darryl Wold to the contrary). The advisory actually raises a third issue: whether the paper record (whether or not voter-verified) needs to document each individual vote. It may be the case -- I'm far from an expert on DRE administration -- that present-generation DREs all are capable of doing that, but that in practice in non-VVPAT jurisdictions, it isn't done. My impression is that it's routine to print summary tapes which, by the reasoning of the advisory, aren't HAVA-compliant as "a limited paper record (documenting only vote totals)." But then, it seems that the HAVA requirement applies to systems, not to procedures, so all that matters is that the machines could produce records of individual votes. Does that seem about right?

I may be overreading between the lines, but apparently you and I both think there is more than one reasonable way to read this poorly drafted language. A lot of the ire generated over it (I'm not referring to John and Ellen's calm analysis) doesn't seem to me to have much to do with HAVA, or with the objective characteristics of lever machines and ImageCasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC