|
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
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
