Go back to Voting Machine Webpage
VOTING MACHINES, ABSENTEE & MAIL-IN BALLOTS, & NO POLL WATCHERS:
Constitutional Issues, Federal & Case Law
The main constitutional issue comes under the 15th Amendment and Sec. 8 of the
1965 Voting Rights Act:
Qualified voters have the right to vote and have their vote counted properly.
Voting machines, absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, and the 'absence' of
certified poll watchers and or Federal Observers - taken together or separately
constitute a violation due to one or more of the following criteria for a legal
voting process: the voter's lack of direct access to a ballot, the voter's
inability to directly mark and cast their ballot, and the lack of transparency
as to the storage and counting of the ballots, which includes the ballots'
chain-of-custody.
LYNN
LANDES'S LAWSUITS:
From
July 2, 2004 to April 4, 2006,
Lynn Landes challenged the use of voting machines and absentee ballots, citing
the lack of direct public participation and direct oversight.
The defendants were the following: Margaret Tartaglione
(Democrat), Chair of the City Commissioners of the City and County of
Philadelphia, Pedro A. Cortes (Democrat), Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and John Ashcroft (Republican), the
Attorney General of the United States.
Against voting machines:
Against absentee voting:
Oct. 24, 20004:
Landes submits
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to United States Supreme Court -
Folks: This was a long shot, but I felt I had to do something. Lynn
What constitutes a legal
voting process under the U.S. Constitution and federal law?
Even though I no
longer believe in the "secret ballot", I believe under current law, the
process should proceed in the following manner: On election day, in the polling booth only paper ballots filled out
by hand, using nothing more sophisticated than a pen or pencil, then hand counted
the same day at the local polling precinct in full view of poll watchers, constitutes a legal voting process.
This process is called the Australian Secret Ballot and was introduced into this
country in 1888, around the same time the first lever voting machine was used in
American elections. There are two legal arguments
against the use of voting machines: 1) By using a machine to vote, we are not
really literally voting. Inputs into a machine, that may or may not mark
the ballot as the voter intended, do not constitute the voter actually
voting. A voting machine is an obstruction to a citizen's right to vote for
themselves, and 2) Voting
machines (including the Internet and optical scanners) introduces concealment and secrecy to
those parts of the voting process (casting and counting the ballots) that depends on
public oversight to ensure a fair and honest election. (See
more discussion and specifics below)
Related Landes articles:
Comment: Why is the ACLU of
Southern California litigating in favor of DREs with no printer attachment http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/recall,
when it is the technology with one of the worst track records? See
CalTech/MIT report
EXISTING
CONSTITUTIONAL, FEDERAL, AND CASE LAW
ELECTION DAY:
Elections Undecided by Midnight are Void &
Preempted by Federal Law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision)
https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11/18/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void-9-0-decision
“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’… they plainly
refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final
selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on
which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of
the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the
final say.” Foster
v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 71-72 (1997)
What is a legal vote? And the right to contest an election through a
recount:
-
GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL.
Does an electronic vote constitute a legal vote? Or
is it just circumstantial evidence of a vote produced by a
machine that may or may not have been cast by a voter. In
Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that, A "legal vote," as
determined by the Supreme Court, is "one in which there is a 'clear
indication of the intent of the voter.'" How can voting
machines, either mechanical or electronic, produce tangible evidence of the
intent of the voter? Voting machines reflect the action of the
machine first, and the intent of the voter ...maybe. The Court goes on
to ask "whether the use of standard less manual recounts violates the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." They answer,
"With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause." How would the Court view voting
machines where there are no mandatory federal standards exist to
guarantee that the intent of the voter is reflected in the result produced
by voting machines?
The right to have your vote
CAST and COUNTED properly:
-
Allen v. Board of Elections
(1969)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=393&invol=544
"The
Act further provides that the term "voting" "shall
include all action necessary to make a vote
effective in any primary, special, or general election, including,
but not limited to, registration, listing . . . or other action
required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and
having such ballot counted
properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast
with respect to candidates for public [393
U.S. 544, 564] or party office and
propositions for which votes are received in an election." 14
(c) (1), 79 Stat. 445, 42 U.S.C. 1973l (c) (1) (1964 ed., Supp.
I)."
- Reynolds
v Sims (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533
"Undeniably the Constitution of
the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to
vote, in state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line of
decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or
restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has
been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a
constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110
U.S. 651 , and to have their votes
counted,
United States v. Mosley, 238
U.S. 383 . In Mosley the Court stated that it is "as
equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted
is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a
box." 238 U.S., [377
U.S. 533, 555] at 386. The right to vote can
neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States, 238
U.S. 347 , Lane v. Wilson, 307
U.S. 268 , nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United
States v. Classic, 313
U.S. 299, 315 , nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing, Ex parte
Siebold, 100
U.S. 371 , United States v. Saylor, 322
U.S. 385 . As the Court stated in Classic, "Obviously
included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is
the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their
ballots and have them counted
. . . ." 313
U.S., at 315."
- Wesberry
v. Sanders (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=1
"It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art.
I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison
and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be
chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be
"apportioned among the several States . . . according to their
respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has
held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a
constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted."
The right to a recount:
-
ROUDEBUSH v. HARTKE, 405 U.S. 15 (1972) This
case is about the right to contest an election. This is not directly related
to voting machines vs paper ballots, however, it does establish the right to
a recount of ballots. No voting machines allows for that. The
paper trails produced, even by the old fashioned lever machines, were a
record of what the machine did, not the voter. Any machine can be rigged to
accept one input, record another, and produce a third and different output.
The electronic information voting machines produce does not constitute a
genuine audit trail. (Dr. Mercuri is considered the nation's foremost expert in voting machine
security - http://www.notablesoftware.com/Papers/VoterVerify.html)
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION &
FEDERAL LAW
Enforcement of the Voting
Rights
Act under the Fourteen and Fifteenth Amendment
may be at the heart of the constitutional
issue involving the use of voting machines. Regarding the 14th Amendment, voting machines
appear to constitute a secret or 'concealed' registration and tabulation of the vote which cannot
be observed by Federal Examiners (as authorized under federal law), which makes
the examiner's role in that regard - moot, and federal law - unenforceable.
Therefore, all voting machines may be a violation of U.S. Code: Title 42 - The
Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 20 - Elective Franchise, Subchapter I-A
Enforcement of Voting Rights, Sec. 1973.
The use of mechanical,
electric, and/or computer devices that by their very design and structure
"conceal" vote casting and/or counting and therefore cannot be
observed to ensure accuracy, is an apparent violation of the
following:
- Constitution:
- Article I Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives. Section 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
chosen
every second year by the people of the several states... http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1
- Article II Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America. Amendment... Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person
holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be
appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective
states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of
whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
themselves; http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html
- 14th Amendment (1868): http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Section. 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
- 15th Amendment (1870): http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxv.html Section
1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section
2.
The Congress shall have power
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(Comment: The role of Federal Observers originates with the 15th
Amendment and the Voting Rights Act)
- Act of 1871.pdf
--
Comment: This Act issued
detailed standards in order to provide security to the voting process via
paper ballots. It was repealed later in 1870's. Some of the standards, such as
a qualified citizen's right to vote and to have votes counted properly, were
re-introduced in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
-
Act of 1899,
Chapter 154 --
Comment: This is the Act that first allowed the use of
voting machines in elections.
-
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
Sec. 8. Whenever
an examiner is serving under this Act in any political subdivision, the Civil
Service Commission may assign, at the request of the Attorney General, one or
more persons, who may be officers of the United States, (1) to enter and
attend at any place for holding an election in such subdivision for the
purpose [p*346] of observing whether
persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote, and (2) to enter
and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election held in
such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether votes cast by persons
entitled to vote are being properly tabulated. Such persons so assigned
shall report to an examiner appointed for such political subdivision, to the
Attorney General, and if the appointment of examiners has been authorized
pursuant to section 3(a), to the court.
-
U.S. Code:
- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch20.html
CHAPTER 20 - ELECTIVE FRANCHISE
- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973f.html
Sec. 1973f. - "Observers
at elections; assignment; duties; reports: Whenever an
examiner is serving under subchapters I-A to I-C of this title in any
political subdivision, the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may assign, at the request of the Attorney General, one or
more persons, who may be officers of the United States, (1)
to enter and attend at any place for holding an election in such
subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons who are
entitled to vote are being permitted
to vote, and (2)
to enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at
any election held in such subdivision for the purpose of observing
whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly
tabulated. Such persons so assigned shall report to an
examiner appointed for such political subdivision, to the Attorney
General, and if the appointment of examiners has been authorized
pursuant to section 1973a(a)
of this title, to the court." Comment:
Federal observers have several obstacles in the course of enforcing
voting rights protections in regards to voting machines including, but
not limited to the following: 1) the physical inability to observe what
goes on inside of a voting machine, 2) the voting machine companies have declared
"proprietary" or "trade secret" rights as legal grounds
for not allowing inspections of machines, 2) inspections that have been
allowed on voting machines discovered a source codes that were indecipherable,
3) voting machines that use modems can manipulate voting results
during an election from remote locations, even from satellites. Other
mechanisms exist to electronically manipulate voting machines before or
after an election.
- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973i.html
Sec. 1973i. Prohibited acts: (a) Failure
or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote (d) Falsification or concealment
of material facts or giving of false statements in matters
within jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers; penalties.
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing
officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals
a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Comment:
There is no method to know whether voting machines are tabulating votes
at all, or tabulating votes correcting. Voting machines conceal
what they do and how they do it."
- CFR Title 28 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_28/28cfrv2_00.html#1100
- Department of Justice webpage on federal
examiners: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/examine/activ_exam.htm
"The federal courts and the Attorney General may certify counties or
other political subdivisions of a State for federal examiners and federal
observers may be assigned to those political subdivisions pursuant to
Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Voting Rights Act." (much more info
on this webpage)
- Scroll down to Voting - http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usamndx/vndx.htm
- Enforcement of Civil Rights Civil
Statutes http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/2mcvr.htm
- 8-2.279
Federal Observer Assignment (Section 8) "Observers are
authorized to watch all polling place activities, including
assistance to voters and the counting
of ballots..."
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/2mcvr.htm#8-2.279
Comment: The U.S. Code http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973f.html
(which
prevails) is even more specific than the statute. It requires that
Federal Observers observe whether votes are being
"properly
tabulated."
See
above under U.S. Code, Title 42, Ch.20, Sec. 1973 f
- 8-2.281
Application of Preclearance, Examiner, and Observer Provisions to
Other Jurisdictions (Section 3) In voting rights litigation (both
Departmental and private), Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1973a, authorizes courts to impose the preclearance and
federal examiner provisions on jurisdictions not otherwise subject
to them, and if a court has ordered the federal examiner remedy for
a jurisdiction, the Attorney General is authorized to request the
use of federal observers in that jurisdiction.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/2mcvr.htm#8-2.281
- http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/2mcvr.htm#8-2.270
INTERLOCKING ISSUES: The right to contest an
election / The right to a recount / The right to paper ballots.
The
question is: Do voting machines deny candidates the right to a legitimate
recount? The paper trails produced, even by the old fashioned lever machines,
were a record of what the machine did, not the voter. Any machine can be rigged
to accept one input, record another, and produce a third and different output. The electronic information voting machines produce does not constitute a
genuine audit trail.
_____________________________
U.S. Code, Title 1 Chapter 1 Sec. 5.
Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/5.html
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted
prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final
determination of any controversy
or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of
such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination
shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of
the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said
day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors,
shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as
provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned
_____________________________
U.S. Code, Title 1 Chapter 1 Sec. 6. -
Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to
Congress; public inspection http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/6.html
It shall be the duty of the executive of each
State, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the appointment of the
electors in such State by the final ascertainment, under and in pursuance of the
laws of such State providing for such ascertainment, to communicate by
registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United
States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting
forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under
the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for
whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast; and it shall also
thereupon be the duty of the executive of each State to deliver to the electors
of such State, on or before the day on which they are required by section 7
of this title to meet, six duplicate-originals of the same certificate under the
seal of the State; and if there
shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by
law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the
electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the executive of such State, as
soon as practicable after such determination, to communicate under the seal of
the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such
determination in form and manner as the same shall have been made; and
the certificate or certificates so received by the Archivist of the United
States shall be preserved by him for one year and shall be a part of the public
records of his office and shall be open to public inspection; and
the Archivist of the United States at the first meeting of Congress thereafter
shall transmit to the two Houses of Congress copies in full of each and every
such certificate so received at the National Archives and Records Administration
The right to contest an election through a
recount?
- Art. I, 4, empowers the States to
regulate the conduct of senatorial elections. 21
This Court has recognized the breadth of those powers: "It cannot
be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a
complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places,
but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection
of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes,
duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous
requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are
necessary in order to enforce the [405
U.S. 15, 25] fundamental
right involved." Smiley v. Holm, 285
U.S. 355, 366 .
- "A recount
is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is within the ambit
of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, 4.
- "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
- Nevertheless,
the recount
supersedes the initial count even though a certificate of election may have
been issued. 29-5415.
Federal law
allows for the use of voting machines, but it appears to be in conflict with the laws
above.
Comment:
This section should not trump a voter's right to have their vote cast and
counted properly. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/9.html
Title 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 9. - Voting for Representatives - All votes for
Representatives in Congress must be by written or printed ballot, or
voting
machine the use of which has been duly authorized by the State law;
and all votes received or recorded contrary to this section shall be of
no effect.
- History - Records of the Committee on the
Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress
(1893-1946) Jurisdiction and History 12.13 The
standing Committee on the Election of the President, Vice President,
and Representatives in Congress
was established in 1893 with jurisdiction over legislation
concerning the election of the officials enumerated in its title,
including proposed changes to the Constitution that affected the
terms of office of the named officials, the succession to the
offices of the President and Vice President, the direct election of
Senators, and the meeting times of Congress.
The committee considered national election laws and their
enforcement, including such topics as the disqualification of
polygamists from election to Congress,
the use of electric voting
machines
in congressional elections...." http://www.archives.gov/
CURRENT LAWSUITS
The following lawsuits constitute a very limited challenge to
certain types and functions of voting machine technology, but
NOT the Constitutionality of using voting machines in general. Nor do they
address the issue of the role of the Federal Observers and enforcement of the
Voting Rights Act. Some experts believe that as long as a voter verified paper
ballot gets hand counted, voting machines could be used to product the paper
ballot. That may be the second best option. Once a machine is in the polling
booth, the situation becomes obscured/concealed once again.
- Libertarian Susan Marie Weber's case http://www.electionguardians.org Comment:
Weber does not challenge the constititutionality of voting machines
being used in the polling booth, but
does ask for paper ballots to be "the primary record of the vote
cast." As far as I can tell (maybe
I'm wrong), she is not asking for paper ballots
that must be voter-verified and hand-counted. The problem with her case
may be that she could win the right to a paper record, but ballots
may not be verifiable or hand-counted. The concern is that a
computerized scanner could then be used to count the paper ballots,
putting the voter back to square one - trusting a machine to count the
vote. (8/27/03)
"PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
PLAINTIFF respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in her favor:
(1) Declaring that Defendant's failure to set adequate standards for voting
equipment, and in particular the continuing approval of Sequoia Pacific
touch-screen voting systems for use in Riverside County California, denies and
abridges Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) Declaring that the failure to establish adequate standards and procedures to
govern manual recounts, including the circumstances under which recounts are
required, denies and abridges Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment;
(3) Enjoining the continuing application of the standards, specifications, and
regulations that Defendants have set for voting machines in the State of
California
to the extent that they permit the use of paperless DRE voting system machines;
(4) Ordering Defendants to withdraw approval of current DRE voting system
machines and to promulgate specifications, regulations, standards, guidelines,
and procedures that will protect the voting rights of all Californians;
(5) Requiring Defendants to ensure that DRE voting system machines are replaced
or supplemented at the earliest possible moment with more reliable systems that
have an original hard copy paper ballot as the primary record of the vote cast;
(6) Awarding Plaintiffs their expenses, costs, fees, and other disbursements
associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including reasonable
attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
(7) Awarding such other equitable and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper."
Oct 28, 03: Ninth Circuit Rules Against Weber
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256726p.pdf
- Weber says she will appeal.
Other
cases:
- Brief
summary
of legal cases by Dan
Gutenkauf: http://www.votefraud.org/Readers
- Voting Rights Groups Lawsuits
On Wrong Track Comment: The central issue in
these cases is VOTER
"error notification and correction", but not MACHINE error or
constitutionality. These lawsuits do NOT appear to ask for the courts
to require paper ballots in order to conduct a hand-count, an audit, or
a re-count. In fact, the parties below have engaged in a de facto
endorsement of certain types of voting machines, despite the
constitutional issue of a "secret tabulation" of the vote
and/or the machines' vulnerability to malfeasance or malfunction.
- Voting Rights groups signatories to letter
endorsing election reform
- http://www.citizen.org/documents/CFR%20Letter.pdf) /
However, the new election reform law is
fatally flawed - "Voting Systems
Standard" HR 3295 - 6th version http://thomas.loc.gov/
Comment: The new law as it pertains to voting machine
standards is VOLUNTARY. And, it contradicts itself. It
suggests that the voters be able to verify their candidate selection (which is good),
but allows voting machines to produce an
electronic ballot for voters to "verify" without providing a paper ballot.
However, the new law does allow a paper tape produced by the voting machine (but not
verified by the voter) to act as the
audit trail. Meanwhile, the issue of voting machine company's proprietary rights or trade secrets
(which makes any real audit or inspection impossible) was
not addressed by the new law.
- WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT:
Insider Sues Voting Machine Company
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=9
Why any legal challenge to
voting machines should be constitutional, not criminal -
Source: Pandora's
Black Box by Philip M. O’Halloran (Nov 1996)
"Many court
cases involving allegations of fraud were brought against vendors of electronic
systems. There were no convictions. Was there ever any proof of tampering
presented? No. Part of the reason for this may be that during the litigation the
plaintiffs were never given access to the vote tabulating program, and hence
there was no opportunity for anyone to establish evidence to either prove or
disprove the allegations. [Emphasis added]" "We should
point out that even if the court allowed the plaintiff’s experts to inspect
the source-code, there would be no proof that the code provided to the court
was, in fact, the selfsame code used in the particular election in question.
Federal election officials say that a few states are mandating that the
source-code be placed in escrow so that it could be examined in the event of a
particularly "fishy" election result."
- FEDERAL OBSERVER REPORT (See:
FederalObserverReport.pdf)
(Again, this report is a study in how NOT to effectively observe the election
process.)
