Reply #86: HAVA Misinformation

[RedEagle]

This is a little bit off topic, but when officials tell you they HAVE to buy touch screens to get HAVA money, ask them why?


THE MYTH OF HAVA (The Help America Vote Act)

It is not true that counties have to discard punch card voting machines. The election reform passed by Congress, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) states:

“(B) A state or jurisdiction that uses a paper ballot voting system, a A PUNCH CARD VOTING SYSTEM, or a central count voting system, (including mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in ballots), MAY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS of subparagraph (A)(iii)by-
(i) ESTABLISHING A VOTER EDUCATION PROGRAM specific to that voting system that notifies each voter of the effect of casting multiple votes for an office; and
(ii) providing the voter with instructions on how to correct the ballot before it is cast and counted (including instructions on how to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if they voter was otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error).”


Federal law does not mandate a Touch Screen machine for people with disabilities at each polling site:

“Accessibility for individuals with disabilities-
The Voting system shall-
Satisfy the requirement of subparagraph (A) through the use of at least one direct recording electronic voting system OR OTHER VOTING SYSTEM equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place.”

Disabled-friendly voting systems costing a fraction of what Touch Screens do, such as ballot templates, used in Europe and Rhode Island, are acceptable under the HAVA Act.

Federal legislation requires HAVA implementation by the first federal election in 2006, which would be in November, not January 1, 2006:

“...will be replaced in time for the first election for Federal office held after January 1, 2006.”

While the clause above includes time frames about punch card and lever replacement, Title III of the HAVA Act specifically allows punch cards with an educational program.

http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

Deadline: Title I, sec. 102, (a)(3)(B)
Punchcards: Title III, sec. 301, (a)(1)(B)
Disabilities: Title III, sec. 301, (a)(3)(B)

As a general rule, when they talk about the cost of voter verified paper ballots, the additional cost per machine is only based on upgrading existing, non-voter verified paper ballot producing DRE’s. If a voter verified paper ballot is incorporated into the machines design from the beginning, as in the Avante and Accupoll systems, the cost of the system is much less and almost the same as machines that do not produce a paper ballot.

These potential mitigating factors are not taken into consideration.

The state does not lose all of its HAVA money if it does not eliminate all of the punch cards:

HAVA PAYMENTS- It does not appear that the whole state must comply

Subtitle D- Election Assistance
Part 1- Requirements
Sec. 251
(d) ADOPTION OF COMMISSION GUIDELINES AND GUIDANCE NOT REQUIRED TO RECEIVE PAYMENT.--Nothing in this part may be construed to require a State to implement any of the voluntary voting system guidelines or any of the voluntary guidance adopted by the Commission with respect to any matter as a condition for receiving a requirements payment.

Title I
Sec. 102
(d) Repayment of Funds for Failure to Meet Deadlines.--
(1) In General.-- If a state receiving funds under the program this section fails to meet the deadline applicable to the State under subsection (a)(3), the State shall pay to the Administrator AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NONCOMPLIANT PRECINCT percentage of the amount of the funds provided to the State under the program.
(2) Noncompliant Precinct Percentage Defined.-- In this subsection, the term "noncompliant precinct percentage" means, with respect to a State, the amount (expressed as a percentage) equal to the quotient of--
(A) the number of qualifying precincts within the State for which the State failed to meet the applicable deadline; and
(B) the total number of qualifying precincts in the State.

http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

I don't read this as an "all or nothing" where replacing punch cards is concerned. In fact, HAVA is full of qualifying language that says, basically, it can recommend but cannot deny. I think some states that are going for all optical scan systems have this figured out.

HAVA might be worth an expert review by an attorney not affiliated with a State Elections office as to just what HAVA must be done.