EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | Christopher J. Dodd
Organization : | U.S. Senate
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
Section Comments
Section : | 2.2.7.2.2.6
Page no. : | 2-22
Line no.: |
Comment : | although HAVA does not require any specific audit trail mechanism, such as a voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT), to the extent that a jurisdiction includes such as part of it normal voting procedure, that audit trail mechanism shall meet the accessibility requirements of section 30 1 (a).Consequently, the proposed guidelines that recommend that an accessible voting system which includes a VVPAT "shouH" provide features that allow the blind to perform verification is incons istent with the statutory requirements of HAV A. Such guideline must require that the system "shall" provide a disabled voter the opportunity to perform this verification. The use of the term "should" in the guidelines where the term "shall" is used in the statute is problematic. The primary way that HAVA conveys voting rights in the Title ILI requirements is by using the term "shall." For example, section 301(a)(3 j, states "ACCESSIBILTIY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.-The voting system shall--(A) be accessible for individuals with disabilities.. ." This construction was intended to convey voting rights to individuals with disabilities and did so. In developing the WSG to hrther flesh out requirements and standards, the EAC has a duty to implement a primary goal of the statute. The EAC's obligation is to implement the law and its requirements as enacted, not what "should" have been enacted. In this light, the Commission should conduct a comprehensive review of the proposed WSG to identify all instances in which the WSG uses the term "should" and HAVA uses the term "shall" and consider conforming the language of the WSG to the statutory requirements of HAVA. In the event that the Commission determines that the use of the word "should" is not inconsistent with the statutory requirements of HAVA, it should so note its rationale.