HAVA advisory-- title III section 301 THIS IS BIG for the DRE junkie

This re-affirms stuff I ve been saying locally for a while now- but now its clear. First the pdf goes on about Handicapped access--
BUT at the end it mentions error rate standards.
In a nut shell---

A DRE must meet FEC 3.2.1 accuracy standards, as per section 301.
If not-- it is not eligible for HAVA funds, &
CANNOT be USED IN A FEDERAL ELECTION.

I suspect that these machines do not meet these standards-
SEquoia Advantage
ES&S iVotronic
Unilect Patriot

If you have these machines in your area you can use setion 301 of HAVA to boot the suckers out--If they want to but these machines they are crap out of luck


http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf

As Foger said, this is big.

But don't obsess over the accuracy requirement. The 2002 requrement is just as meaningless for dre as the 1990.

1990 certified DREs do not meet sections 2.4.3.3 and 2.2.7 of 2002 rules. Now comes the EAC stating that HAVA equipment must meet them.

And from the report: Conformance with Section 301(a)(3) is a complex matter.

Did your state buy 1990 dre with HAVA money? Time to ask for a refund.

PF

Sounds like some of these DREs may not be Kosher, Pig Farmer!

But this is subtle and requires more research on my part before I fully understand it. Thanks to Foger for bringing it up though.

We should find as many ways to use HAVA for the good as we can.

How do the Op Scans fit in? Are they talking about voting "machines" or voting "systems" in these laws? "Machines" may not include paper ballots/optical scan, but "systems" would!

answer them-- re- affirmimng what many felt for long time.

HAVA is not voluntary ---HAVA is federal and trumps state law. Un;less state law is stricter.

at least not in terms of accuracy.

I'll have to read the PDF, but if this is the basis for disqualifying the machines you mention, it may not fly.

What do you think?

in the 2002 standards

Test protocols used by Wylie labs are as such:
1990- 1 error in about 700k ballot positions.
2002- 1 error in 3.1 million ballot positions.

Since HAVA mandates FEC 3.2.1 accuracy-- this is huge-- in NJ we are looking getting a hold of the ITA report-- on the Advantage- if the Advantage does not meet the Accuracy requirements BAM ! !
Mercer county in NJ bought Advantages last year with HAVA money-- they will most likely go to Federal court. Essex may also do this to seek injunctive relief.
US Attorney General for the NJ district could be looking at filing fraud charges against SEquoia since they represented their equipment as HAVA compliant--- Can you cay chapter 11 ?

ANd the NJ AG would be looking at Criminal negligence----
Can you say impeachment?

NJ election law (title 19) does not provide for decertification of voting equipment -- except for going to NJ Superior Court. SO you better have some big guns and we may -- based on this 301 thing.

Most older DREs that use pushbuttons not touchscreens most likely cannot meet these accuracy requirements.

I have 3 lawyers on this, and they consider Superior court and Federal court familiar ground-- LOL, they have no problem suing the sate attorney General and the GOvernor.

Boy, this is exciting!

I may take off work and try to make the Wednesday demo. At this point, apart from the above, could Carmen Casciano still choose the Advantage, just because he wanted to? Even though a paper trail is required and they don't have one yet?

Just curious.

EM

that the advantage is not HAVA compliant-- section 301 advisory
http://www.eac.gov/
And that its not eigible for HAVA money and cannot be used in a federal election. AS we told the AG staffers on tuesday--

NJ has over 6000 Advantages that need to be replaced before that 2006 election @ 8k per unit--- hahahahahahahaha

The AG staff is sooooo screwed up they didnt realize this-- it hasnt hit them yet-- if the press decided to run with this story everyone connected with the AG might go down-- hard--

5 PHDs its solid as far as the difference between the 1990 & 2002 standards, And quite frankly what Pig Farmer said seems to be spot on-- but There is no-one in the AGs office that has the acumen to pick up on that --- They are still grasping the idea that they have screwed up--- the 6 machines certified for use in NJ none of them are Federally (2002) complaint---
Lets see about 7000 voting machines that cant be used in the 2006 FEDERAL election @ 8k a per----- Is that Like 56 million buck-oroos?

http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20(%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf