Reply #11: it does both (but what it mandates is indeed debatable) [View All]

Section 301 begins: "Each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet the following requirements:"

Section 301 nowhere bans lever machines. It does require a "manual audit capability" -- frankly, I think the language of that bit is so muddy that you should expect reasonable people to disagree over whether lever machines can meet it. 301(a)(2):

And it requires that disabled accessibility be provided "through the use of at least one direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place." Whatever that means.

Interestingly, Pellegrini's memo of decision states, "It is undisputed that the current method of voting in Westmoreland County does not comply with HAVA." We can infer that Pellegrini concluded that paper ballots could qualify, but lever machines -- or lever machines alone -- could not.

Text of HAVA at http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt
Text of Pellegrini at http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/unpublished/18MD06_2-13-06.pdf

Note, again, that adopting paper ballots to comply with HAVA hasn't been approved by the voters of Westmoreland County either.

(EDIT) I had to post and reboot because my keyboard locked! Anyway, I don't think the courts have sorted out yet just what HAVA 'really says' about lever machines. As a New Yorker I am very interested in how that turns out.