e-voting w/o papertrail is in violation of HAVA???

[Wordie]

It looks like it is to me, but I'm no attorney, and so may not be understanding what I found correctly. Please help with this. Attorneys especially please help! Thanks.

This is from this site, which summarizes the new HAVA requirements: http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/hava/NASS-Summary-Recommendations.html#3

It's the 5th item on this list, but there are other items as well that should be looked at:
<snip>
TITLE III – FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Voting System Standards – Requirements - Section 301 referenced

* The voting system shall permit the voter to verify whom they voted for and make any changes to their vote – in a private and independent manner – before the ballot is cast and counted.

* If a voter overvotes, the system will notify them that they have overvoted, what happens to their vote if the overvote and provide the voter with an opportunity to correct or change ballot before cast and counted.

* A state or jurisdiction that uses paper ballots, punch cards, central count (including mail in ballots) may meet this requirement by establishing a voter education program specific to their voting system that tells the voter the effect of overvoting and tells the voter either how to correct the ballot, including how to get a replacement ballot.

* The voting system shall ensure that any notification required preserves the privacy of the voter and the secrecy of the ballot.

THIS IS THE ITEM THAT I THINK HAS BEEN VIOLATED:
* The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity. The system shall provide the voter with the opportunity to change the ballot before the permanent paper record is produced. This paper record must be available as the official record for a recount.

* The system must be accessible for the disabled in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation as for other voters (including privacy and independence). This requirement can be met through the use of at least 1 DRE or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place.) All equipment purchased with funds made available under the “requirements payment” purchased after January 1, 2007 must meet the standards for disability access.

* The system shall provide alternative language accessibility pursuant to sec. 203 of Voting Rights Act.

* The error rate for the voting equipment – attributable only to equipment error, not voters – must comply with the error rates established in the voluntary voting systems guidelines in effect at the FEC at date of enactment.

* The state must define uniform and non-discriminatory standards for what constitutes a vote for each category of voting equipment used in the state.

* All states and jurisdictions must meet these voting system standard requirements by January 1, 2006.

* To help states comply with legislation, the Election Assistance Commission will issue voluntary guidance consistent with the requirements of this section by January 1, 2004.

Can this be right? What happens if it is?????

[Verve]

1. Do you know if this is in effect or is going into effect at some

later date? I think I remember hearing that most states' election standards are at least 10+ years old.

My depressing hunch is that these requirements were not in effect for 2004. I hope someone can prove me wrong.

[AmyCrat]

2. There were supposed to be in effect

from what I know... they were supposed to be in effect by the 2004 election, but a lot of states applied for an extension giving them until 2006.

Not sure if that applies to this or not.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. It's right in the text towards the bottom.....

* All states and jurisdictions must meet these voting system standard requirements by January 1, 2006.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. One more thing though, I asked this question on another thread.

If there is no paper trail, and someone wants a hand recount which I presume is allowable under law in all states, and no paper trail is available, shouldn't the election be thrown out?

[Wordie]

12. Thats what I keep asking also. It really seems to me that somebody ought

to try that. How could they do it? There are no votes to count. I think in FL they re-wrote the election law definitions to try to cover up the problems with this issue, but I really think one could make a reasonable case about it. There are some interesting things on the FL state election site, including a letter written to a county election official, warning him not to do a recount of touchscreen votes. If only someone would try.

[Wordie]

8. Jeez, you're right. I missed that. It seems the different sections all

have different deadlines. I think I just wanted to nail them so much on the no papertrail thing that I just acted too quickly here in posting this. My apologies.

[Wordie]

6. This is the new Help America Vote Act. It isn't completely clear, but it

does say this in that section: <snip> * To help states comply with legislation, the Election Assistance Commission will issue voluntary guidance consistent with the requirements of this section by January 1, 2004.
<unsnip>

[NVMojo]

4. all I know is I brought this up before and no one got it...

these bastards have been working on stealing this election for years and they did it while we all walked up to the polls like trusting American voters actually thinking it would all work out...

when you have the kind of power these people have had on our country for the past four years ...you understand there was never any way they would let it go ...

I hear politicians on a local level say ...it will take two terms, 8 years, to change the direction things are going ....this is not an original idea.

[4democracy]

7. Wow, wouldn't it be great if all the machines without a paper trail

could be removed from the election totals? Then we could have a fair and transparent recount of all the paper ballots and change alot of races across the country! However in a Republican run world, this is probably not gonna happen.
If this wording in the HAVA could be used against them, they will just change it, sort of like what they did about Tom Delay not being required to step down even if indicted.
Maybe the lawyers can see a way to use this, it is great info. I won't give up hope.
:wow:

[kalidas]

9. Boycott Florida Citrus until they have clean elections

Let's boycott Florida Citrus. They need to pay the price for stealing the election. It's time to show Jeb Bush who's boss.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

11. Painful as it will be, I might boycott Forida PERIOD -nt

[Wordie]

10. It might be intersting for someone to look up the discussion on the floor

of congress about this. If there was any, I mean, about the papertrail issue, and why it was postponed to 2006. What they said about no papertrail voting might be a worthwhile thing to know about. I think there must be some site somewhere that has a record.

[read the law first]

13. They do provide a paper record for audits

Each Diebold machine does have a printer on which the "zero tape" is printed at the opening of the polls and on which a results tape is generated at the closing of the polls. If there is no accumulator DRE, each individual machine prints its results out. If there is an accumulator DRE, then the accumulator DRE's printer is used to print out the results. Most people don't know that these printers are there as they fold back into the machine.

If you're ever in a tabulation center or a recount, you will see these printers on the machines used to upload the memory cards because the hard plastic cover is taken off or if you watch a poll being opened, you will see these printers being used to print out the zero tapes.

So paper record for audits is there, it's just not a paper record for each voter. That would be something that would be a very good idea and is sorely needed.

Hope that helps.

[Wordie]

14. Paper record verified by the voter is what HAVA requires, just not til '06

The part I didn't catch was the bit about it not going into effect until '06. I thought it just was too good to be true, and it was. I couldn't believe someone had missed it.

[read the law first]

15. The machines also currently allow the voter to change ...

...the ballot before the permanent record is created.

You can go back and change how you voted if for whatever reason (calibration, programming, whatever) gives you the wrong candidate.

Once the "cast ballot" button is pressed, that's it, there's no (lawful) way to go back and change it.

I still haven't figured out how they would have programmed each machine to steal votes by using the same hacked program without coming up with a detectible similarity in the results. Would they have to have done that randomly so that it wouldn't be detected? If all the machines or precincts or states were programmed alike, then all the results would show a correlation because the program would steal them all in the same proportion. There would have to be something written into the program that would take the votes away by some random number. But then how would they control the outcome if it was random? I still haven't figured that part out yet but that doesn't mean I've given up.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Have you seen Votergate?

The numbers are switched at the central tabulating computer, which is an ordinary PC. There is an added program called Gems, which if you know the password, you can actually go into an election and change the numbers.

[read the law first]

18. I know about GEMS

But each precinct using DRE's prints out a tape that is usually posted on the door of the precinct at closing time. We have the poll watchers collect these at the precinct and call them in. If the tallies change between the precinct and the GEMS server, we know about it right away.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. According to that, hand recounts cannot be done.

[read the law first]

19. That's what's messed up about recounts

You've nailed it! What's the value of simply uploading the same corrupted data a second time? You have absolutely nailed the problem.

Recounts involving DREs are always fought over the provisionals and the absentees unless there's obvious errors (like the 4,000 more votes than voters).

[Wordie]

20. Yes, you are right on that. And even though the part of HAVA that requires

the papertrail doesn't apparently go into effect until '06, there may be some little glitches in state laws someplace that require hand recounts, is what I'm thinking. Or, hastily written laws that have holes in them, maybe. I really hope someone who has some legal background is going over all this with a fine toothed comb.

AND as I think about all this, I am even MORE angry than I was before. Because CLEARLY the congress recognized there was a problem with voting without a papertrail, but because the regs don't go into effect until '06, they left us unprotected. Why didn't they make it effective immediately??? AND, it does sort of confirm that all of us who worry about this kind of thing are far from "conspiracy theorists" because why would they put that in the law at all if it wasn't a serious concern?

[read the law first]

21. Exactly

Note that a close reading of the snippet that you posted does not require a paper trail for the individual voter (unless in my fatigue I've just missed it). It says that there has to be a paper record for an audit (i.e. a canvass or recanvass) and that the system has to provide for a way for the voter to change their vote prior to the paper record being created (i.e. before 'cast ballot') but it doesn't put the two together. If it's there and I just missed it, I apologize.

You correctly point out that the lack of a paper receipt is what people have been screaming about for a long time.

[Wordie]

22. Well, not exactly...I think.

When HAVA says this,

"The system shall provide the voter with the opportunity to change the ballot before the permanent paper record is produced."

I have a feeling that they *meant* for it to say "The system shall provide the voter with the opportunity to change the ballot before the paper record OF THE VOTER'S BALLOT is produced." Somehow, when you read that entire section, it just seems that was what they probably intended. BUT, I agree it isn't clear that that's what they wrote there. It is a little vague, imho.

[read the law first]

23. Agreed

[Wordie]

24. Don't know if you will see this, as it is belated, but Welcome to DU! eom

My apologies for not welcoming you, read the law first, during our earlier discussion.