This letter maybe a blueprint for defending against a DoJ HAVA lawsuit

[Wilms]

The snips do it no justice. Read the entire letter for lots of treats. :)



Letter to New York State Board of Elections

The following Letter from Larry Rockefeller was delivered to the New York state board of Elections on January 23, 2006. (Exhibits are not included) In addition to providing scrupulous documentation of the functional and legal inadvisability of haphazardly implementing inadequate standards for the certification of voting equipment in New York, Mr. Rockefeller's letter provides a wealth of assistance for advocates and attorneys in the many other states now struggling in their efforts to implement HAVA requirements.


Larry Rockefeller

cc: Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer

January 28, 2006

To the New York State Board of Elections:

Please accept the following comments on the voting systems standards (“the regulations”) that the New York State Board of Elections has proposed to, among other things, comply with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15481 et seq. (“HAVA"), and the related enabling legislation enacted by New York, the Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005. 1

I. Introduction

I am a New York State voter with a long-standing interest in voting rights. I submit these comments because the regulations, if adopted, will unconstitutionally and illegally impair New Yorkers’ fundamental right to vote.

First, the regulations place our State at substantial risk of electoral fraud. That is because the regulations implement new electronic voting systems for use in New York without adequate safeguards. These new technologies are rife with vulnerabilities and have presented serious security problems in past elections, as documented below. If these technologies are not properly regulated, a single ill-intentioned insider has the power to change the outcome of an election without being detected. These profound security problems have been recognized by respected authorities, including in reports by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Exhibit A); by the bi-partisan Carter-Baker Commission (Exhibit B); and by the nation’s leading computer security experts who, funded by the National Science Foundation, formed ACCURATE (Exhibit E). 2

The proposed regulations overlook these security problems, and so expose New York elections to great danger of insider fraud. As noted in the enclosed affidavit of Dr. Douglas Jones, a leading expert on voting technology, the portion of the regulations “which provides for security requirements and provisions of the software, is vastly inadequate.” Ex. W at ¶ 52 (emphasis added). His affidavit identifies more than 50 serious security flaws and other errors and omissions in the proposed standards that “put the voting rights of the citizens of New York at significant risk.” Id. at ¶ 69, Because the regulations leave future New York elections open to manipulation and fraud, they must be withdrawn and revised extensively along the lines set forth in Dr. Jones’s affidavit and below.

Second, the rush to implement the regulations guarantees chaos in the upcoming 2006 elections. Even if the regulations were ready to take effect, the Board’s proposed course of action would still be fatally flawed. There simply is not enough time to implement new voting technology for elections later this year. In just the next few months, competing manufacturers’ voting equipment must be certified, each of New York’s 62 counties must select and purchase voting equipment, technical manuals must be written and distributed, election personnel be trained, and voting machines delivered, installed and tested. As explained below, when Florida attempted a similar task on a compressed timetable in 2002, complete electoral chaos resulted. County election officials in New York are “terrified” that the same thing will happen here, 3 and rightly so.

The solution is simple: maintain the status quo by keeping our existing lever machines in place while the security and other issues set forth herein are resolved expeditiously but carefully. To that end, the proposed regulations should be revised and the State should seek a waiver from the Department of Justice, like that sought by Connecticut, which will allow existing voting systems to remain in place for the 2006 elections. Doing so will allow New York adequate time to revise the regulations and then implement a rigorous certification, procurement and poll worker training process. The alternative of an unseemly rush to implement inadequate standards will infringe New Yorkers’ right to vote. That intrusion on a fundamental constitutional right cannot be countenanced and could well result in voters taking expedited legal action to protect the right to vote. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Powers, 917 F. Supp. 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d 78 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (overturning state election practice as contrary to right to vote).

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=850&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

1. .

[Bill Bored]

2. I like footnote 21:

It is likely that the Board has or will discuss a memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Justice, given DOJ threat of litigation for New York’s failure to comply with HAVA. Any MOU that does not account for the issues set forth herein — for example, one which allowed the defective regulations to take effect or the process to be rushed — would be subject to legal challenge for all of the reasons set forth in this letter.

This is SO COOL! And it's from a Republican!
(Imagine what the NY Dems have been saying about HAVA.)

[Wilms]

3. This is entertaining. I'm disappointed no one has brought popcorn, yet.

He's saying if NY State cuts a deal with DoJ to avoid getting sued by them, they may get sued anyway!
(Perhaps, by Larry himself :evilgrin: )

And I think he's also telling DoJ to back off.

What I'm not sure about is what "section" of the DoJ is threatening the lawsuit.

Was it the Civil Rights Div. (which he cc'd the letter to)?? :shrug:

[diva77]

4. What is MOU ?

[Wilms]

5. MOU = "memorandum of understanding" n/t