Punchcards: Title III, sec. 301, (a)(1)(B)
Disabilities: Title III, sec. 301, (a)(3)(B)
(The additional cost per machine to provide voter verified paper ballots is only
based on upgrading existing, non-voter verified paper ballot producing DREÃ 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.
But for some reason, reporters never ask this question and election officials
never look at existing systems that do what is needed.
In addition, some new voter verified paper ballot voting systems make available
the ability for each county to produce their own optical scan ballots, with
options for optical scan readers that are integrated into the system, a
potentially big savings for counties replacing entire systems that must also
make provisions for absentee voting. Other new companies produce systems that
can be integrated with optical scanners to count ballots. 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:
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
PRECINT 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. What it says is that if a county can't meet the deadline, the
percentage of the monies for that county- not the entire State, must be
returned. 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.
Therefore, there is no need to prohibit punch cards, putting a grave fiscal
burden on some counties, in light of almost total non-funding of HAVA. (At the
time this was written, HAVA was almost entirely non-funded)
This brings to a point the problem with informing people in an article of law.
Most folks will have to take at face value that the changes being made are a
response to, and a solution for the latest problem. In this case mis-reported
issues in the last Presidential election. The issue was not "all about punch
cards," as most folks think.
* * * * *
Wishing you the very best,
Bev Harris
Founder
Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
* * * * *
Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections watchdog group.
If you want Black Box Voting to exist, here is where you can vote with your
credit card: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
