(NY) Who is this asshole State Senator Flanagan . . .

[djg21]

ALBANY, N.Y. -- An influential state senator called Tuesday for a federal judge to reject a plan the lawmaker said could leave New York's disabled with too few fully accessible voting machines for this fall's elections.

John Flanagan, chairman of the Senate's Elections Committee, also said he was introducing legislation that would provide a $10 million infusion of state funds so counties could buy more accessible voting machines in time for the elections
. . . .

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--votingmachines0516may16,0,652124.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork


Does this idiot want chaos at the polls, or is he a shill for ES&S or some other voting machine manufacturer?

[nicknameless]

1. Which machines does he plan to purchase?

I didn't think that any of the anointed ones complied with HAVA.

:shrug:

[Bill Bored]

2. He is only calling for the release of HAVA funds, AFAIK.

The legislature doesn't certify machines -- the state Board of Elections does.

In addition, the legislature, of which he is a part, said in the law that it's OK to keep lever machines! While this is widely misunderstood and needs to be brought to the attention of every BoE in the state, the fact is that the old machines are NOT banned! He's just trying to address the concerns of the disabled community, which was one of the true intents of HAVA.

I'm not sticking up for the guy; Flanagan is responsible for DREs being allowed in NY (with VVPATs, source code escrow, random audits, and other safeguards such as the full-face ballot requirement that bans many of the machines on the market), but I'm sure there are also Dems who are responsible!

There was a 10-person committee, 5 Dems and 5 Repukes. At least one of the Repukes wanted paper ballots statewide. That means that there had to be at least one Dem on the Committee who "voted" for DREs.

The reason given for allowing DREs was for one-machine rural polling places where one DRE could be used for all voters -- disabled and non-disabled. This is cheaper than a scanner and a ballot marker, but NOT cheaper than keeping lever machines, which is also allowed.

I don't think this particular action by Flanagan is necessarily a bad thing, as long as there are no poison pills in there that would ban lever machines. Let's wait and see.

Meanwhile, everyone in NY should be telling their local BoE that it's legal to keep lever machines as long as HAVA Accessibility requirements are also met.

[djg21]

3. That's not entirely right!

This is not about HAVA Funds, which have already been allocated by the State Board of Elections, but not yet distributed. It is about additional funding from the State's coffers.

Nor is it about lever machines. If you read the filings in the USDOJ lawsuit, you'll see that its ONLY about disabled-accessible machines.

The issue is not dollars, its about the time and staffing needed to implement the disabled-accessible machines, and to train pollworkers before the September Primaries. The following is excerpted from an article in todays' NY Times:

"But with the September primaries approaching fast, city and state officials said that there was not enough time to replace all the voting machines in the state without causing chaos in the elections. So late last month the state offered — and the Justice Department reluctantly agreed to support — a vastly scaled-back stopgap measure.

. . . .

But the counties say that it is not just the money, but the lack of time that they have to buy new machines, test them and train workers in their use. And they note that delays at the state level were mainly responsible for their predicament."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/nyregion/17vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Regarding HAVA compliance of lever machines, the EAC has said that lever machines MAY BE HAVA compliant, not that they definitely are compliant. In any event, NY legislation (ERMA) requires replacement of lever machines.

Flanagan is a moron. He just doesn't get it. Even the disabled advocacy groups believe that full compliance with HAVA should wait until next year. Insofar as I know, there is no machine currently manufactured which is acceptable to all of the many disabled voter advocacy groups.

If Flanagan wants to be helpful, he should introduce a bill calling for the State to rimburse the Couty BOEs for the money they will expent this year in achieving the limited partial compliance that will be required to appease the USDOJ, so that the counties still have all of their HAVA funds next year, to use in achieving complete compliance!

[nicknameless]

4. I should have specified:

“complied with HAVA’s requirements regarding the disabled”.

I have never said that all Dems are good guys or that they’re all doing the right thing. What I have said is that there are major DINO operatives -- like Conny McCormack -- who are clearly working to insure republican “wins”.

It’s surprising to hear that DREs cost less. From what I’ve read, they looked to be more expensive to purchase than Op-scans, plus more expensive to maintain.