Election Integrity Advocates Expose Misconception of HAVA Funding

[GuvWurld]

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/10/election-integrity-advocates-expose.html

Friday, October 20, 2006
Election Integrity Advocates Expose Misconception of HAVA Funding

Guest Blogged By Jane Allen
We Do Not Consent EXCLUSIVE Report

San Francisco Elections Commission Meeting October 18, 2006

With the pressure off, one might imagine that the commissioners and Director of Elections John Arntz would breathe a sigh of relief and take time to reassess their rush to sign a contract with either ES&S or Sequoia before January 1, 2007.

One would be wrong.

The backstory: These folks hopped on a train a while back and still haven't jumped off. They (and the California Secretary of State) were operating under the mistaken belief that a decision about HAVA-compliant voting machines had to be made by the end of 2006 because Federal monies could be used only for accessible equipment after that date. Thus, Mr. Arntz and the Elections Commission have been racing to finalize a contract before end of year. At the commission meeting of October 4, Roger Donaldson (a voting activist) questioned that interpretation and then pursued the issue with the SoS and the Elections Assistance Commission. He was able to resolve the matter in seven working days.

Chris Reynolds, the California Secretary of State HAVA coordinator, said in an email dated October 13, 2006:

"HAVA funds that are now available via the Section 301 Voting Systems upgrade contract expended after January 1, 2007 are NOT restricted to purchases of voting systems or voting units that are fully accessible to voters with disabilities. Of course, all other Section 301 voting system standards - including 301(a)(3), which requires at least one fully compliant voting unit be available at each polling place - is STILL required. What this means, however, is that funds not committed or expended by the counties before January 1, 2007 CAN be used to purchase any type of voting equipment needed - again, as long as the voting system as a whole meets all requirements, including the requirements of Section 301(a)(3)." (emphasis in original)

Read the rest...

[NVMojo]

1. why do people trust Sequoia? They've been helping to steal elections

for years!

[Bill Bored]

2. Question: Does this refer to Title I or Title II funds? nt

[GuvWurld]

3. Not sure, but I'm having Jane look into it. (eom)

[GuvWurld]

4. Title II - full e-mail below

From: Reynolds, Chris
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:22 PM
To: elec_net
Cc: ann.o'[e-mail]
Subject: Use of HAVA funds post-1/1/07
Importance: High

All - The Secretary of State's Office has just received guidance from the Election Assistance Commission on important funding provisions in HAVA (see e-mail below), which is different from earlier guidance provided by me in December 2005 and subsequently.

Specifically, according to this guidance, HAVA funds that are now available via the Section 301 Voting Systems upgrade contract expended after January 1, 2007 are NOT restricted to purchases of voting systems or voting units that are fully accessible to voters with disabilities. Of course, all other Section 301 voting system standards - including 301(a)(3), which requires at least one fully compliant voting unit be available at each polling place - is STILL required. What this means, however, is that funds not committed or expended by the counties before January 1, 2007 CAN be used to purchase any type of voting equipment needed - again, as long as the voting system as a whole meets all requirements, including the requirements of Section 301(a)(3).

This guidance from the EAC clarifies the provisions of 301(a)(3)(C) - which refers to voting systems purchased with funds "made available under Title II on or after January 1, 2007…" The EAC has informed me that they interpreted this provision to apply to funds made available by the federal government after that date, not by a state (as California has done via the Section 301 contract). According to EAC representatives this information will be posted to its website via a "Frequently Asked Question" early next week, but we have been assured that this interpretation is official. When that posting occurs next week, I will provide elections officials with this information again via a CCROV. Because this is a question that may be pertinent now for planning purposes in some counties, we wanted to let you know as soon as we were informed of this official interpretation.

The pertinent portion of the EAC e-mail message confirming this interpretation is attached below:

"The HAVA (section 101, 102, and 251) funds you currently have were all provided prior to January 1, 2007. If your local jurisdictions already provide one accessible voting machine per polling place, they would not be required to procure additional voting equipment that is accessible to persons with disabilities with the funds made available prior to January 1, 2007. Nevertheless, the equipment procured with those funds must meet all other HAVA section 301 requirements.

Hopefully this helps. Let me know if you need more info or have any additional questions. Thanks."

Edgardo Cortés
Election Research Specialist
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 1100
Washington, DC 20005

Chris Reynolds
California Secretary of State
HAVA coordinator
916-651-7837

[Bill Bored]

5. OK, got it.

Any money doled out before 1/1/07 does NOT have to be used for Accessible stuff if the one-per-polling place requirement has been met. But I think it includes Title 1 and Title II funds.

Since there will be no more Title I funds, next year states can only receive Title II and THOSE must be used for Accessible systems only.

[EFerrari]

6. Guv, we should shoot for having you down here that week

What do you think? That would give us plenty of time to put it together.

[GuvWurld]

7. Which week?

Doing what? I love making plans in public.

[Bill Bored]

8. Is it.....THE TITANIUM STANDARD? (Whatever the heck THAT is!) nt

[EFerrari]

9. Sorry, I'll PM you. n/t