The EAC has failed to comply with its mission to date, and Congress should not convert this dysfunctional, secretive, partisan, temporary agency with a limited mission into a regulatory agency with power to set policy for state and local elections.
Solution
Disband the EAC and let states run their own elections. Give citizens a private right of action to compel timely compliance with legal requirements. Establish requirements for citizen observation as described above in "2. Audits" and appropriate remedies.
5. Exemption from Paperwork Reduction Act
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title44/chapter35_subchapteri_.html
The EAC would be exempt from compliance with Freedom of Information requests[8].
Wrong!
The EAC has been secretive and unresponsive to requests for information from citizens and states. For example, New York State had to threaten legal action to get information about Ciber, the Independent Testing Authority, after it was revealed by the New York Times on January 4, 2007, that Ciber was not certified by the EAC. This exemption would not serve any public purpose, but would erect one more barrier to public accountability of the EAC, and to citizens' ability to know how our elections are being managed and provide appropriate citizen oversight of government.
Solution
Eliminate this provision.
6. Accessibility
At least one voting system per polling place must be equipped for individuals with disabilities and allow the voter to privately and independently verify his or her paper record through conversion of human-readable printed vote selections into accessible form[19], and ensures that the entire process, including vote verification and vote casting, is equipped for individuals with disabilities[19a]. This requirement does not preclude the supplementary use of Braille or tactile ballots[20].
Wrong!
Conversion of human-readable printed vote selections to accessible form requires use of text conversion technology, none of which has been implemented on DRE voting machines, much less certified yet.
The language "ensures that the entire process, including vote verification and vote casting, is equipped for individuals with disabilities" raises a red flag, because similar language has been used to argue that paper ballot systems should be illegal because they require some voters with disabilities to have assistants carry their marked ballot from the marking device to the scanner, and insert it into the scanner.
Solution
The Vote-PAD and AutoMark, devices for use with voter-marked paper ballots, convert vote selections to accessible form. The Vote-PAD is not a computer device. The AutoMark is a computer device and has been certified. The law should make explicitly clear that computer devices and DREs are not required for accessibility.
Solution
Disband the EAC and let states run their own elections. Give citizens a private right of action to compel timely compliance with legal requirements. Establish requirements for citizen observation as described above in "2. Audits" and appropriate remedies.
5. Exemption from Paperwork Reduction Act
The EAC would be exempt from compliance with Freedom of Information requests[8].
Wrong!
The EAC has been secretive and unresponsive to requests for information from citizens and states. For example, New York State had to threaten legal action to get information about Ciber, the Independent Testing Authority, after it was revealed by the New York Times on January 4, 2007, that Ciber was not certified by the EAC. This exemption would not serve any public purpose, but would erect one more barrier to public accountability of the EAC, and to citizens' ability to know how our elections are being managed and provide appropriate citizen oversight of government.
Solution
Eliminate this provision.
6. Accessibility
At least one voting system per polling place must be equipped for individuals with disabilities and allow the voter to privately and independently verify his or her paper record through conversion of human-readable printed vote selections into accessible form[19], and ensures that the entire process, including vote verification and vote casting, is equipped for individuals with disabilities[19a]. This requirement does not preclude the supplementary use of Braille or tactile ballots[20].
Wrong!
Conversion of human-readable printed vote selections to accessible form requires use of text conversion technology, none of which has been implemented on DRE voting machines, much less certified yet.
The language "ensures that the entire process, including vote verification and vote casting, is equipped for individuals with disabilities" raises a red flag, because similar language has been used to argue that paper ballot systems should be illegal because they require some voters with disabilities to have assistants carry their marked ballot from the marking device to the scanner, and insert it into the scanner.
Solution
The Vote-PAD and AutoMark, devices for use with voter-marked paper ballots, convert vote selections to accessible form. The Vote-PAD is not a computer device. The AutoMark is a computer device and has been certified. The law should make explicitly clear that computer devices and DREs are not required for accessibility.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
