HAVA of 2002 Paper Audit Requirement

[BeFree]

So, I just finished reading the HAVA act found at:
http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

Folks, HAVA says any HAVA financed system has to have a paper record usable for recounts and auditing. Following is a cut and paste of pertinent sections of the bill.

_______________________________

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1666>]

Public Law 107-252
107th Congress

An Act



To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card
voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to
assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise
provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election
laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration
standards for States and units of local government with responsibility
for the administration of Federal elections, and for other
purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 29, 2002 - >>



Subtitle A--Requirements

SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15481.>> VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.

(a) Requirements.--Each voting system used in an election for
Federal office shall meet the following requirements:
(1) In general.--

(2) Audit capacity.--
(A) In general.--The voting system shall produce a
record with an audit capacity for such system.
(B) Manual audit capacity.--
(i) The voting system shall produce a
permanent paper record with a manual audit
capacity for such system.
(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter
with an opportunity to change the ballot or
correct any error before the permanent paper
record is produced.
(iii) The paper record produced under
subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official
record for any recount conducted with respect to
any election in which the system is used.

Notice the last paragraph? "The paper record produced under... (A)"


Then we have some enforcement codes


TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15511.>> ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or
jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such
declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining
order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be
necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election
technology and administration requirements under sections 301, 302, and
303.

Note that the paper record is required in the above section 301 and the AG can order the machines to have a paper record or shut the damn things off! Go get 'em Alberto! (yeah, right)


(It seems there is a grievance door for citizens to enter to get HAVA financed states to put up a paper record


SEC. 402. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15512.>> ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE-BASED
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES TO REMEDY GRIEVANCES.

(a) Establishment of State-Based Administrative Complaint Procedures
To Remedy Grievances.--
(1) Establishment of procedures as condition of receiving
funds.--If a State receives any payment under a program under
this Act, the State shall be required to establish and maintain
State-based administrative complaint procedures which meet the
requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Requirements for procedures.--The requirements of this
paragraph are as follows:
(A) The procedures shall be uniform and
nondiscriminatory.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1716>]

(B) Under the procedures, any person who believes
that there is a violation of any provision of title III
(including a violation which has occurred, is occurring,
or is about to occur) may file a complaint.
(C) Any complaint filed under the procedures shall
be in writing and notarized, and signed and sworn by the
person filing the complaint.
(D) The State may consolidate complaints filed under
subparagraph (B).
(E) At the request of the complainant, there shall
be a hearing on the record.
(F) If, under the procedures, the State determines
that there is a violation of any provision of title III,
the State shall provide the appropriate remedy.
(G) If, under the procedures, the State determines
that there is no violation, the State shall dismiss the
complaint and publish the results of the procedures.
(H) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> The State shall make a
final determination with respect to a complaint prior to
the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the
date the complaint is filed, unless the complainant
consents to a longer period for making such a
determination.
(I) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> If the State fails to meet
the deadline applicable under subparagraph (H), the
complaint shall be resolved within 60 days under
alternative dispute resolution procedures established
for purposes of this section. <<NOTE: Records.>> The
record and other materials from any proceedings
conducted under the complaint procedures established
under this section shall be made available for use under
the alternative dispute resolution procedures.


Yeah, I know this section is about financial audits, but thought I'd include it just to get an idea of what a HAVA audit might include.


SEC. 902. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15542.>> AUDITS AND REPAYMENT OF FUNDS.

(a) Record keeping Requirement.--Each recipient of a grant or other
payment made under this Act shall keep such records with respect to the
payment as are consistent with sound accounting principles, including
records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such
recipient of funds, the total cost of the project or undertaking for
which such funds are used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of
the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other
records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(b) Audits and Examinations.--
(1) Audits and examinations.--Except as provided in
paragraph (5), each office making a grant or other payment under
this Act, or any duly authorized representative of such office,
may audit or examine any recipient of the grant or payment and
shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to
any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipient which
in the opinion of the entity may be related or pertinent to the
grant or payment.


Just have to google this, to see what * had to say about HAVA, see ya later.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 29, Presidential remarks and statement.

[Wilms]

1. The paper record required includes Non-Voter Verified Toilet Paper Rolls.

It also includes, it can and will be argued, to include a tally of a lever machine written into a log.

[paineinthearse]

2. Like this?

[BeFree]

3. You think so, eh?

Since they argue your statement, we should just give up?

Whatever, the law requires, from every HAVA financed system, a paper record that can be used to audit and recount.

Are we gonna let them continue to ignore the law?

I know its being ignored... lets stop that ignorance, now.

Also, at the least it strengthens the case for 550... there is political capitol that Holt could use - much in this way:

Holt could say: Either you guys get behind 550 or we spill the beans on the existing HAVA and screw up the whole shebang.

To me, it also looks like grounds for a ton of lawsuits, I don't care what the naysayers say.

[Land Shark]

4. Holt's Q&A says that this requirement has been interpreted to

mean that the results tape printed out at the end of the day is a "paper record". So Holt's bill is supposed to make that paper record requirement more meaningful. Just context here.

[BeFree]

5. Well then, Holt's

.... not too smart.

Read the law. Only a dumbass would say that one could audit the results tape. The law requires an auditable paper record.

I say let a judge decide.

[Wilms]

6. I gotta a feeling you're not understanding HAVA or what I wrote.

Sounds like you want a VOTER VERIFIED paper trail. Fine.

HAVA doesn't require it. Period.

Got it?

If you do, we can converse, and I might even tell you, again, what can and will be argued. Or you could re-read what I wrote.

[BeFree]

7. Ummm

Read the law:
(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter
with an opportunity to change the ballot or
correct any error before the permanent paper
record is produced.

You may interpert that part as nothing, even ignore it as others have. But my reading of it says the ballot is to be voter verified. HAVA requires a VVPB. How can a voter "change the ballot or correct any error" if one doesn't verify it?

Then there is the case of using the paper record for an audit, but can you mention one case of an audit? So the law has been ignored. Lets not let them ignore it any longer, is all I am saying.

I don't know what your problem is Wilms. The law says one thing, you say another. You are not the judge of the law, and neither am I. I think a real judge needs to look at the law and compare it with what has transpired. That's all.

[Wilms]

8. I don't have a problem. I have two.

You've been roughing me up and accusing me for merely answering your question with what is generally understood about this matter.

Your "reading of it says the ballot is to be voter verified". Not seeing the term "voter verified" leads me, not to conclude, but in part, to understand why the understanding of HAVA includes that it doesn't require voter verification.

Another hint is what Land Shark wrote. And another is the fact that more than half the states enacted voter verified paper laws od some sort. They did this why. Because HAVA does not require it.

See if you can bring a case in one of the remaining states without voter verified paper law (other than the law you think HAVA includes).

Search the archives and get more opinions on this.

[BeFree]

9. That's the idea

Bring a case.

I know what the argument will be and has been, and it is terribly frustrating to read the excuses FOR keeping HAVA in place and unchallenged.

Especially now, having finally read the law, I see where something appears to have fallen through a crack.

The intent of the law, ie. having a paper trail that the voter can make changes to, and the trail being available for auditing are two things that appear to have fallen through the crack.

It seems the law established an opportunity for the voters' rights to be protected but no one has used the law to keep those rights.

If you know of a particular case that was tried and thrown out, that would be new information. Opinions supporting the corruption are not welcomed, although, of course you have the right to express such opinions.

If, as Holt seems to think, the law doesn't go quite far enough, that is his opinion, but I somewhat disagree. I think it does offer an element of protection but that element has been ignored.

I think a case can and will be made, eventually, supporting my assertion that the law was willfully ignored.

Considering that the paper log that comes from a DRE is in no way auditable, but the law requires an auditable paper trail, the law has been violated.

----------------------------

Sorry to have roughed you up.

[jkd]

10. HAVA has problems

HAVA requires that there be capability to audit one’s choices on the electronic ballot before submitting the ballot. The paper record is created internally after final selection is made. It does not require a VVPB. That why HR 550 is so important; it requires an editable paper ballot to be produced for the approval of the voter before the vote is cast.

[PeterPan]

13. The vague language about "manual audit capacity"

has been vexing since HAVA was passed. Every concerned activist, when they eventually getting around to reading HAVA, reads the sections you have snipped and says, wait a minte - HAVA requires a voter verified paper audit trail!

However, the fact is that the "permanent paper record… with a manual audit capacity" has been interpreted to include the end-of-day printout froma DRE, as Wllms noted. Feel free to get your funding and legal team together and sue. But unfortunately while HAVA does require that the voter be able to review their ballot before it is cast, it does not require that a DRE produce a simultaneous independent record that the voter verifies and that is preserved and used in audits. Sorry.

The reason that Sen. Ensign introduced the original voter verified paper record bill shortly after HAVA passed was precisely because of the fact that HAVA does not require a "Voter verified" paper audit trail as he maintains it did before it went into conference committee. Subsequent bills by Holt, Clinton, Boxer, and King all address this issue as well. They are not "dumbasses" and they do understand legislation and the way the language has been consistently interpreted for the past four years.

Believe me, I wish the language said what you want it to say but it doesn't. Do you really think that no one else has thought of this before you finally got around to reading HAVA four years after it was passed and signed?

[BeFree]

14. Thanks for the lecture

But my experience has shown that just because someone else failed to get it done, doesn't mean that I can't.

IMO the law clearly states that a paper record be produced that can be audited and used for recounts.

This is a point we can raise a ruckus about. I am not the first, lets hope I won't be the last. Surely you are not telling me to quit, are you?

You aren't satisfied, I'm not satisfied. Democracy happens when people are not satisfied. Lets change the damn law so that we are satisfied!

[PeterPan]

15. Right On!

You don't know me but if you did you would know that I would be that last person to suggest that you quit!
The fact that HAVA allows the end-of-day printout to serve for audits and recounts was not accidental and it is outrageous.
That is exactly why legislation like HR 550 has been introduced and why 27 states now require a voter verified paper record of every vote. This is of course only the first step, but it is an essential first step.

Stay Free!

[Boredtodeath]

16. From the Georgia Secretary of State-note the date

From: "Sinkule, Kara" ([e-mail])
Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 3:14:57 PM US/Eastern
To: (redacted)
Subject: Urgent questions re: electronic voting

2. Hardcopy "print-outs" of each ballot cast on our system CAN be produced (they would print out similar to an opti-scan layout) in the event of a hand recount --- which meets HAVA requirements

http://www.countthevote.org/karaemail.htm

[BeFree]

11. 3.8 billion dollars spent

And what did it buy the U.S.?

Public confidence in the fairness of elections has hit an all time low.

3.8 billion down the rat hole.

A total waste, maybe the worst law ever enacted. The Patriot Act hasn't caused one tenth the damage HAVA has caused to the U.S.

We trusted the congress to adopt a law that would keep elections honest, but what did they do? They've made election corruption a household word and destroyed what little confidence was left.

[BeFree]

12. EAC advisory

According to the EAC, lever machines are not allowed because they don't have a "chain of evidence connecting....summary results to original transactions".
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-005.pdf

Well, neither do paperless DREs. DREs only print out the results with no trace of the original transactions. DREs are no better than lever machines.