| Senate Bill Comparison |
S.1980
(Graham) |
S.2313
(Graham-Clinton-Boxer) |
S.2437
(Ensign) |
| Requires a voter-verified paper record |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(B)(i) |
YES, but allows states --claiming it is technologically impossible to comply with either a VVPB or an interim alternate paper ballot system-- to apply to the EAC for a waiver of the requirement.
Sect. 2(a) AND Sect. 4(b) |
YES
Sect. 2(a) |
| Voter-verified paper record shall be equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot system |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(A) |
YES
Sect. 2(a)(2)(B)(iii) |
YES
Sect. 2(a)(3)(2)(b)(ii) |
| Requires manual mandatory surprise recounts of the voter-verified records |
YES: in 0.5% of jurisdictions. Includes provision for citizen appeal
Sect. 7 |
YES: in 2.0% of jurisdictions with no provision for citizen appeal
Sect. 7 |
NO |
| Requires the voter-verified record to be the official record used for any recount |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(B)(iii) |
YES
Sect. 2(a)(2)(B)(iii) |
YES: clearest language of the three bills
Sect. 2(a)(2)(B)(iii) |
| Requires public disclosure of voting system software |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(C)(i) |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(9) |
NO |
| Change in audit trail compliance deadline from November 2006 to November 2004 |
YES
Sect. 5(a) |
YES
Sect. 3 |
NO |
| Requirement to deploy an interim paper system for November 2004 if HAVA waiver was requested |
YES
Sect. 2(d) |
YES
Sect. 4 |
NO |
| Requires use of interim paper ballot voting system for 2004, at EAC expense, if VVPR printers not available in time |
YES - Jurisdictions shall receive a paper voting system at EAC expense
Sect. 5(b) |
YES - EAC shall reimburse the jurisdictions for any costs incurred in using interim paper ballot voting system
Sect. 4(b) |
NO |
| The mechanism to provide voter-verification of results for disabled voters must not require the use of paper |
YES
Sect. 4(b)(2) |
YES
Sect. 2(b)(3)(A)(ii) |
N/A |
| If an interim paper ballot voting system is used, then disabled voters shall have the option of: 1. using that paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing or 2. using the accessible voting system otherwise put in place (under HAVA) for use by disabled voters |
YES
Sect. 4(b)(3) |
YES: 1. using that paper system with the assistance of an aide of their choosing or 2. using the voting system otherwise put in place (under HAVA) for use by any voters (i.e., not specifically an accessible voting system), or 3. Any other accessible voting system in prior use
|
N/A |
| Requires EAC to study, test, and develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification methods for disabled voters |
YES
Sect. 4(c) |
YES
Sect. 8 |
NO |
| Requires federal certification of technological security of voter registration lists |
YES
Sect. 6 |
YES
Sect. 5 |
NO |
| Bans wireless communication in voting systems |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(C)(ii) |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(10) |
NO |
| All voting machine hardware and software to be certified by EAC-accredited labs |
YES
Sect. 4(a)(2)(C)(iii) |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(11) |
NO |
| Repeals exemption of EAC from certain government contracting requirements |
YES
Sect. 3 |
YES
Sect. 6 |
NO |
| Extends time provided for states to request payments under HAVA Title 1 |
YES: Extends deadlines for HAVA Sect. 101(a) and 102(b)(1) to November 2003
Sect. 2(a) and (b) |
YES: Extends deadline for Section 102(a)(3)(B) from January 2004 to August 1, 2004
Sect. 4(a) |
NO |
| Extends period of appropriations under HAVA Sect. 104(a) |
YES: Extends to FY 2003 and 2004
Sect. 2(c)(1) |
YES: Extends for voter verification and audit capacity funding, and additional EAC funding.
Sect. 9(298) |
NO |
| Extends time for transfer to EAC of unobligated funds under HAVA Sect. 104(c)(2)(B) |
YES: Changes date from Sept. 1, 2003 to January 1, 2004
Sect. 2(c)(2) |
NO |
NO |
| Move the deadline in HAVA Sect. 301(a)(3)(C) from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2006 |
YES
Sect. 4(b)(3) |
YES
Sect. 2(b)(3)(A)(iii) |
NO |
| Voter-verification and audit capacity funding |
NO |
YES: EAC shall assist each State in paying the costs of implementing a voter-verified audit capacity, such payments not to exceed the average cost of adding a printer with accessibility features to each voting system
Sect. 9 |
NO |
| Background checks for programmers and developers of voting system software |
NO |
NO (was in the original Boxer bill; removed in this compromise bill) |
NO |
| Documented chain of custody for all voting system software |
NO |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(12)(B)(i) |
NO |
| Forbids transfer of voting system software over the Internet |
NO |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(12)(B)(ii) |
NO |
| Voting system software must be recertified if altered |
NO |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(12)(B)(iii) |
NO |
| Vendor shall implement internal security procedures as required by the Director of NIST |
NO |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(12)(B)(iv) |
NO |
| Vendor shall meet any other requirements established by the Director of NIST |
NO |
YES
Sect. 2(c)(12)(B)(v) |
NO |
| Voting system shall adhere to security requirements for Federal computer systems or more stringent requirements adopted by the EAC |
NO |
NO |
NO |
| The EAC & NIST shall report to Congress within 6 months of passage regarding a proposed security review and certification process for all voting systems |
NO |
YES
Sect. 10(2)(248)(a) |
NO |
| Within 3 months of passage, the EAC shall issue a report on systems to safeguard the security of voting systems and an implementation schedule |
NO |
YES
Sect. 10(2)(248)(b) |
NO |
| NIST shall provide security consultation services to jurisdictions and $2,000,000 is authorized for this purpose for each fiscal year 2004 through 2006 |
NO |
YES
Sect. 10(2)(248)(c) |
NO |
