|
I wasn't clear on the exact problems with the loophole in HB 1005, Integrity of Election Results Amendments (Rep. Dougall, J.) , so I contacted Verified Voting who sent out an alert about the problems with this bill, and Pamela Smith of Verified Voting was kind enough to respond in detail about the problems - and believe me - it's a major problem! Please read her response:
Hi Clarity - Thanks for the message and the comment from Tom you forwarded below. I appreciate you having sent out the alert to your contacts. Tom's right, the bill DOES look pretty good, because it almost duplicates the bill that was signed by the Governor recently (Substitute HB211). The key word is "almost." We've heard from the sponsor that this bill was submitted because due to a technicality, the bill the Governor signed may not have had all the right wording... and therefore it is possible that it isn't really law. This new "version" therefore (nearly) duplicates the old one, and just makes some "clarifications" according to the bill sponsor (Dougall, in both cases). The big concern: By comparison to the previous bill (Substitute HB211, introduced by Dougall and signed by the Governor), this new bill adds a clause which didn't exist before: "for systems certified after January 2005" --essentially grandfathering in any systems certified in the state before that date -- in Section 205A-302, see line 75. Then, it adds another new phrase: "(II) shall permit the voter to inspect the record of the voter's selections independently 82 only if reasonably practicable commercial methods permitting independent inspection are 83 available at the time of certification of the voting equipment by the lieutenant governor; " This changes the intent of the earlier law by allowing discretion as to whether "reasonably practicable commercial methods" exist at the time of certification, rather than REQUIRING these factors FOR certification. Then, it inserts a date where none existed previously (line 103-104): (2) Before selecting or purchasing a new voting equipment system after January 1, 2007, the lieutenant governor shall: The combination of these new factors leaves a window currently open to permit the purchase of machines certified before Jan 1 2005 without convening any new voting equipment selection committee before Jan 2007. While that may not seem like a problem at first, since the state doesn't want to "undo" the work of the previous selection committee, it turns out it creates a dangerous loophole. So, the request for proposal (RFP) that was already issued would not be re-issued to incorporate the state's newly approved requirement for VVPAT, and the vendors who supplied bids on that original RFP do not have to provide VVPAT equipment if their equipment was certified in the state before January 1, 2005. And we are NOW in the time frame when most of Utah's new equipment will be purchased. States have to spend their Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds in order to have new equipment in place in time for the first federal election after January 1, 2006. When the original bill was passed, there was speculation about what might happen with the RFP, if I recall correctly. Would it be allowed to stand? Would it be reissued? In any case, the intent of the voters and the new law passed in March was clear: require VVPAT. It would be unfair to the voters of Utah to allow non-VVPAT equipment to squeak through because of this apparent loophole. Let me know if you have additional questions... Pam Pamela Smith Nationwide Coordinator VerifiedVoting.org pam@verifiedvoting.org
|