Reply #9: HAVA Requirements for 2002 Certification [View All]

HAVA rule that says, yep, your systems have to meet 2002 standards by 2006. I think states are being forced to acquire machines that cannot meet those standards and will have to be upgraded at public expense. At this point, if absolutlely necessary, states should only purchase systems that meet those standards or, get the government to cease and desist with the silly time lines in this act.


(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR INITIAL SET OF GUIDELINES.—Notwithstanding
any other provision of this part, the most recent set
of voting system standards adopted by the Federal Election Commission
prior to the date of the enactment of this Act shall be deemed
to have been adopted by the Commission as of the date of the
enactment of this Act as the first set of voluntary voting system
guidelines adopted under this part.

(current Voting System Standards are what is adopted. The 2002 standards were out a few months PRIOR to HAVA.)


(3) DEADLINE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), a State receiving a payment under the program under
this section shall ensure that all of the punch card voting
systems or lever voting systems in the qualifying precincts
within that State have been replaced in time for the regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office to be
held in November 2004.

(B) WAIVER.—If a State certifies to the Administrator
not later than January 1, 2004, that the State will not
meet the deadline described in subparagraph (A) for good
cause and includes in the certification the reasons for the
failure to meet such deadline, the State shall ensure that
all of the punch card voting systems or lever voting systems
in the qualifying precincts within that State will be
replaced in time for the first election for Federal office
held after January 1, 2006.


Above is the 2006 deadline for replacing punch cards.


(I don't believe state HAVE to replace punch cards, either. Here are the relevant paragraphs from Title III-)


(B) A State or jurisdiction that uses a paper
ballot voting system, a punch card voting system, or
a central count voting system (including mail-in
absentee ballots and mail-in ballots), may meet the
requirements of
subparagraph (A)(iii) by--

<[Page 116 STAT. 1705>]

(i) establishing a voter education program
specific to that voting system that notifies
each voter of the effect of casting multiple
votes for an office; and
(ii) providing the voter with instructions
on how to correct the ballot before it is cast
and counted (including instructions on how to
correct the error through the issuance of a
replacement ballot if the voter was otherwise
unable to change the ballot or correct any
error).


(I think states and counties should question if they really have to replace punch cards, or just educate and make sure machines that count them work properly- just like ANY voting machine.

Next, I wonder if states that have already purchased systems, that can only be 1990 certified, are really eligable to receive HAVA "refunds" for those machines? It would seem to me, no. Is Georgia attempting a refund? Doesn't seem to me they qualify. What about the Diebold machines Maryland already had, and recently purchased?