This web page summarizes litigation on the verified voting issue,
including requirements for a voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
The Verified Voting Foundation brings you this information in partnership
with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation,
which is coordinating verified voting litigation nationwide.
If you have updates or corrections on verified voting litigation,
please
let us know.
Thank you!
State case for declaratory judgment against Secretary of State Debra Bowen by the County of San Diego, alleging that Bowen does not have the authority to impose additional audit requirements without legislation, as well as whether the new audit requirements were "arbitrary and capricious," and whether the rules were a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Declaratory judgment was declined on all counts, stating that the case must be decided by summary judgment or a full trial. You can read the full decision here.
American Association of People with Disabilities v. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley
Federal case under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as state
law requiring accessible voting machines to the maximum extent feasible
in the November, 2004 elections, Declaring invalid both the California
Elections Code provision that requires accessible voting only after
funds to pay for it have been received by counties and the Secretary of
State's Shelley's November 21, 2003 directive requiring voter verified
paper ballots by 2006.
Peter Benavidez (Riverside County) et al. v. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley
Riverside County's Board of Supervisors voted on May 4, 2004,
to sue the state's top election official to regain the right to use electronic
voting machines in November.
Supervisors in Kern and Plumas counties voted on May 11, 2004, to join the lawsuit
against Shelley, followed by San Bernardino County on May 25, 2004.
The suit, filed by the counties and some disabled rights advocates in federal court,
alleges that Shelley's order requiring certain conditions for use of
electronic voting machines violates state and federal law and disenfranchises
disabled voters. After a preliminary ruling against the plaintiffs, the counties
have settled the lawsuit.
Legal documents:http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/california/benavidez
Claim filed by voters in California state court against Diebold,
the Secretary of State and local election officials based upon
California state election law for an injunction preventing Diebold from
installing uncertified voting systems and requiring security safeguards
as set forth in the RABA report
(Adobe PDF format) as well as long-term additional security measures.
The Judge denied a temporary restraining order request prior to the
March, 2004 primary election but the case is ongoing.
A former California political candidate who lost the March 2004
race for Riverside County Board of Supervisors by only 45 votes joined
with VerifiedVoting.org and a bipartisan pair of voters to
file a lawsuit on July 16, 2004, against the county and Registrar Mischelle Townsend
after she was denied access to the memory and audit logs of the
electronic voting systems used during the election.
NFB Motion for Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting Volusia From Holding Out for Ballot-Marking Devices ,Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 5, 2005, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/complaint.pdf
The ACLU of Florida and other groups filed a lawsuit July 7, 2004, to overturn a
Florida Department of State rule prohibiting manual recounts
of elections conducted using touchscreen voting machines.
Filed by voters and candidates in state court based upon the Florida Constitution
and state election law, dismissed for lack of standing,
and now on expedited appeal in the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal.
Federal case filed by voters and candidates in federal court arising under
both federal and state law to resolve unequal treatment of voters in
15 Florida DRE counties with with no recount capability vis-a-vis 2000
U.S. Supreme Court Bush v. Gore doctrine, dismissed in favor of state court
proceedings on May 24, 2004.
Linda Schade et al v. Maryland State Board of Elections and Linda Lamone
Maryland voters filed this case in state court on Wednesday, April
21, 2004, to decertify Diebold touch-screen voting machines and require
that the machines not be used until they comply with the RABA report
and other security measures.
Joyce McCloy v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections and The North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services
December 08, 2005
North Carolina Sued for Illegally Certifying Voting Equipment
EFF Asks Court to Void Approval of Diebold and Others Without Source
Code Review
Raleigh, North Carolina - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on
Thursday filed a complaint against the North Carolina Board of Elections
and the North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services on
behalf of voting integrity advocate Joyce McCloy, asking that the
Superior Court void the recent illegal certification of three electronic
voting systems.
North Carolina law requires the Board of Elections to rigorously review
all voting system code "prior to certification." Ignoring this
requirement, the Board of Elections on December 1st certified voting
systems offered by Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, and
Election Systems and Software without having first obtained – let alone
reviewed – the system code.
"This is about the rule of law," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman.
"The Board of Elections has simply ignored its mandatory obligations
under North Carolina election law. This statute was enacted to require
election officials to investigate the quality and security of voting
systems before approval, and only approve those that are safe and
secure. By certifying without a full review of all relevant code, the
Board of Elections has now opened the door for North Carolina counties
to purchase untested and potentially insecure voting equipment."
North Carolina experienced one of the most serious malfunctions of
e-voting systems in the 2004 presidential election when over 4,500
ballots were lost in a voting system provided by e-voting vendor UniLect
Corp. Electronic voting systems across the country have come under fire
during the past several years as unexplained malfunctions combined with
efforts by vendors to protect their proprietary systems from meaningful
review have left voters with serious questions about the integrity of
the voting process.
"North Carolina voters deserve to have their election laws enforced,"
said co-counsel Don Beskind of the Raleigh law firm of Twiggs, Beskind,
Strickland & Rabenau, P.A. "Election transparency is a requirement, not
an option. The General Assembly passed this law unanimously, and it is
now time for the Board of Elections to meet their obligations."
On behalf of McCloy, EFF and Beskind intervened in – and convinced a
judge to dismiss – a separate lawsuit filed last month by Diebold, which
sought to be exempted from the state's transparency laws. Diebold
represented to the court that it would be "unable" to comply with the
code escrow requirement of the statute. Inexplicably, the Board of
Elections certified Diebold despite it's admitted inability to comply
with the law.
A hearing in McCloy's case against the Board of Elections is set for
Wednesday, December 14. EFF and Beskind have asked the Court for a
temporary restraining order preventing North Carolina's 100 counties
from purchasing any of the recently certified systems unless and until
the Board of Elections complies with its statutory obligations.
The Ohio legislature passed a law that requires that ALL DREs in
Ohio have a voter-verified paper audit trail (V-VPAT) by January 2006. Citizens' Alliance for Secure Elections is planning to file a lawsuit to stop the purchase of any DREs in 2004 that do not have a V-VPAT.
Litigation fund:
Hosted by the the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), you can donate to support the litigation online at: https://secure.eff.org/step2.asp?action=Donate&otherAmount=
and make sure to specify "Ohio E-Voting Litigation" in the "why you are
joining EFF" comment box (or by sending a check to EFF, Check Memo:
Ohio E-Voting Litigation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA,
94110, USA).
Pennsylvania
Landes v. Tartaglione et al.
Journalist Lynn Landes announced a lawsuit July 2, 2004, challenging
the use of voting machines and absentee voting in elections for
political office.
This web page summarizes litigation on the verified voting issue,
including requirements for a voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
The Verified Voting Foundation brings you this information in partnership
with the
California
Florida
Maryland
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania