Nassau Election Commisssion Lawsuit Sent back to State Court

We’re pleased with U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bianco’s ruling last week sending Nassau County’s case back to state court where it belongs.

The case, filed in March, seeks to have NY’s Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) declared unconstitutional for many of the same reasons ETC’s upcoming litigation does: chiefly, the disaster that would be caused for our democracy should the electronic vote-counting systems ordered by ERMA be deployed throughout New York. Defendants had the case moved to federal court, claiming that federal issues were involved.

But Judge Bianco disagreed, saying “Plaintiffs’ claims (1) do not assert a federal cause of action, (2) necessarily raise a substantial question of federal law, or (3) come within the “artful pleading doctrine.” As such, there is no federal jurisdiction over this case, and remand is required.”

The State has repeatedly claimed that federal law, the Orwellian-named Help America Vote Act, forbids continued use of lever voting machines. However, in his ruling, Judge Bianco affirmed what Nassau (and ETC) have been saying: that HAVA does not rule out the use of lever voting machines.

Bianco’s ruling also states, “In short, there is no indication Congress sought to transform all state law claims dealing with the administration of elections or voting systems into federal claims. In fact, the opposite appears to be true given that Congress gave the states a significant amount of discretion as to how to implement HAVA.”

Judge Bianco’s ruling thus correlates with what ETC has said all along: that HAVA does not require that NY abandon its lever voting systems. NY came into compliance with HAVA when ballot marking devices were installed at every polling place to provide increased access for voters with special needs. The full ruling can be viewed here.

Nassau County Files Suit Against NYS Over ERMA

The Election Transparency Coalition applauds Nassau County for filing suit against the State of New York over its unconstitutional election law, the Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA).

ETC has long held that ERMA is unconstitutional because its mandate that counties switch over from the time-tested, trustworthy and transparent lever voting systems to electronic vote-counting systems will end meaningful public oversight of the public’s elections. That mandate must not be allowed to stand.

Since New York State has already complied with the federal requirement of at least one accessible voting device for voters with special needs at each poll site, we urge the Court to act quickly and decisively to halt the implementation of the state’s legislation before more taxpayer dollars are spent on equipment that must not be used to count votes in New York.

County Government Committee of Columbia County Supports Joining Litigation

After a January 26th report on the state's required switch to optical scanners, presented by Columbia County Election Commissioners Virginia Martin and Jason Nastke, Supervisors on the Columbia County Government Committee agreed that the county should support litigation to have ERMA declared unconstitutional.

As reported by Francesca Olsen of the Register-Star:

• Democratic Commissioner of Elections Virginia Martin and Republican Commissioner Jason Nastke presented documentation on the State’s required impending switch to optical scanners and ballot marking devices at the January County Government Committee meeting Jan. 26.
  
  Martin said that several counties, including Nassau County in Long Island, are interested in joining proposed litigation to declare the state Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA) unconstitutional. Supervisors on the committee were in general agreement that Columbia County’s involvement in the litigation was the right move.
  
  All counties in New York are expected to use optical scanners for the 2010 primary and general elections. Nastke told the committee that just to print the paper ballots from BMDs — ballot marking devices — and optical scanners, it would cost the county $100,000 per year. “The county could put that towards a bridge!” he said. “There’s nothing for us to lose by joining in this lawsuit.”
  
  “Election administration gets a lot more complicated, and there are a lot more opportunities for errors,” Martin told the committee about the switch from lever machines to BMDs and optical scanners. For example, the paper ballots the new machines use (and the machines themselves) can take up a lot of space, and must be stored securely year-round with “fort-knox style security, bipartisan locks, environmental controls,” according to materials handed out by Martin at the committee meeting.
  
  It was suggested that if the lawsuit just delays the implementation of ERMA, it would save taxpayers the cost of new machine implementation for a little longer. “I’m not too thrilled with these scanning systems,” Nastke said, “but I’m required by law to implement them.”
  
  Optical scanners were certified by the State Board of Elections in December, and ERMA would require the discontinuing of lever machines. “There’s a difference with what the federal government asked, and what the state wants us to do,” said Supervisor Leo Pulcher, R-Stockport.
  
  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 does not require states to replace their lever voting machines.

Pro-Lever Citizens Testify Before NY Senate Committee

The New York Senate Standing Committee on Elections is holding a series of hearings across the state to receive public comment on proposed election related legislation. Pro-lever activist from New York City, the Hudson Valley and the Capital area took advantage of a meeting on May 11th in Albany to present their views on retaining our lever voting machines before Senators Joseph Addabbo, Jr., committee chair and Senator Joseph Griffo.

Representatives of New York Citizens for Clean Elections , the Kingston Branch of the American Association of University Women, ARISE, and Election Transparency Coalition joined other citizen activists in speaking out against software based voting systems and in favour of levers. Although the meeting was not specifically convened to address voting system legislation, pro-lever speakers made up half of the speakers presenting public testimony, pointing out the constitutional abuses posed by electronic voting, the unsustainable costs, and urging the Senate to consider rescinding or amending the State Election Reform and Modernizations Act (ERMA) to allow for the continued use of lever voting machines.

Here are links for the testimony of Ruth Wahtera of AAUW Kingston who maintains a blog on lever voting machines and Joanne Lukacher of ETC.

Essex County Rejects State-Mandated Electronic Voting System

Elizabethtown, NY --

Essex County wants to keep using its dependable lever voting machines, according to today's vote by the Board of Supervisors. Citing the "insurmountable" costs of the optical-scan systems mandated by the Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA), the Board passed a resolution "supporting the continuation of our lever voting machines together with Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) and rejecting the use of a computerized voting system[.]" The resolution requests that the State Legislature and Board of Elections enact the necessary laws to allow counties to keep their current election systems.

Today's action by Essex County follows similar resolutions passed by Dutchess, Columbia, Ulster, Schuyler, and Greene Counties and the Association of Towns. Other counties are considering similar action.

"I'm really gratified that Essex County showed such leadership and am hoping it will encourage other counties to join, and ultimately to join in litigation with citizens to challenge the constitutionality of ERMA," said Andrea Novick, legal counsel for the Election Transparency Coalition. The Coalition has prepared litigation challenging ERMA on constitutional grounds, as the State Constitution prohibits concealed vote counting. Software-based systems tabulate votes in a way that cannot be observed by election staff, official observers, or anyone else.

New York is the only state in the U.S. that counts all its votes in a manner that is verifiable and avoids the risk of incorrect election results resulting from computer malfunction or manipulation. In response to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) nearly the entire nation adopted software-based voting systems, despite the federal government's failure to provide the funding for this changeover.

New York achieved HAVA compliance by outfitting every polling place in the state with a ballot marking device to assist voters with disabilities. The BMD provides a computer interface that creates a paper ballot; these ballots are counted by hand on election night at the polling place.

It is not HAVA but New York's response to HAVA, the Election Reform and Modernization Act, ERMA, which is the legislative mandate to replace the levers. Unless amended, repealed, or declared unconstitutional, ERMA would require electronic tabulators to be used in all NY counties. Electronic voting systems have proven to be problematic throughout the nation, breaking down, losing votes, and leading the public to question announced election results.

New York VOTERS v. NY State and the State Board of Elections

Below is a synopsis of the litigation being prepared by New York VOTERS (Voters for Open, Transparent, Electoral Reliability and Security) challenging the constitutionality of provisions of New York's Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA) :

- Joanne Lukacher

Synopsis

This litigation challenges the constitutionality of changes to New York’s Election Law, enacted by the Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA), by which the State proposes to replace the lever voting system with computerized voting systems (DREs or Optical Scanners). Because software-generated results are unknowable, the State has proposed compensating for the loss of a reliable count on election night by providing for a post-election verification of the election night tally.

The electoral scheme that has existed in New York for more than two centuries has required an open, conclusive count of the ballots on election night, when the watchfulness of what is now election officials, authorized watchers, party representatives and the press could best deter fraud. To further preserve the integrity of the election, since 1896, the Election Law has required contemporaneously created, reliable physical evidence of the count or of fraud. A verified, completed count, publicly recorded and announced at each poll site on election night, before the aggregate of the total votes is known, continues to be mandated. For 231 years New York’s electoral system has protected the safeguarded election night-count from corruption by forbidding post-election recounts, it being historically understood that once the ongoing public scrutiny of the poll site ended and the results of the election night count were known, the count was at greater risk of subsequent tampering.

The newly enacted legislative scheme represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional reversal of existing and long-standing presumptions and requirements, permitting vote counting for the first time to be performed by concealed, undetectably mutable software, only to be verified after election night in a historically recognized unreliable way. Repeated scientific studies have shown software-driven voting machines to be vulnerable to unseen tampering and incapable of providing trustworthy election results. New York’s Legislature recognizes that the software-generated election-night count is not reliable and proposes to first attempt to verify and complete the count after the election with a partial hand count. Not only does the State unconstitutionally bifurcate the canvass, but its choice of software-driven systems further undermines constitutional safeguards by eliminating contemporaneously created evidence (or any evidence) of the count or of fraud. Indeed, because software cannot be secured, both the ballots and the evidence of how they were counted can be manipulated - leaving no trace of the count or the crime.

Pursuant to ERMA, the State will no longer strive to count every vote: in fact none of the votes will be securely counted. Instead, it will use computers to produce an uncertain count of all the ballots and once the election is over and the results announced, will then check the questionable tally by performing a manual count of a small portion of ballots that may or may not have been tampered, without determining whether those ballots represent the actual ballots cast on election night. The offenses to New York’s Constitution’s express right to vote and the right not to be disenfranchised (Article I, § 1, Article II, § 1) have been further exacerbated by the State’s failure to even consider constitutional due process procedures to determine chain of custody of the post-election ballots. This is particularly abhorrent in light of New York’s historic presumption that the risk of breach to the chain of custody is so high that post-election ballots have never been permitted to be used as a means to verify the secured election-night count.

The State has, until now, understood its responsibility to provide open, secure procedures in order to both safeguard the election and to demonstrate to the public that every vote is being counted as cast; to prove to the people that the election results are worthy of public confidence. Anything less has been recognized and condemned in the case law as unconstitutional disenfranchisement. First Amendment principles, also guaranteed by New York’s Constitution Article I, § 8, protect the public’s right to an open electoral process, essential for people to be able to evaluate the performance of their government in conducting public elections. There is no way for the electorate to know their votes have been reliably counted by software that has been shown to be vulnerable to exploitation outside the public’s view.

The proposed electoral system renders election officials’ historic oversight duties impossible to perform, creating a system in which undetected errors or willful frauds are not adequately restrained and the evidence of fraud is either exceedingly difficult to obtain or non-existent. There is precedence finding the constitutional inadequacy of such a system. At the turn of the last century, similar concerns in a less vulnerable electoral system - wherein a limited number of people had unobserved control over the count, had the ability to destroy evidence of fraud, and were not required to preserve evidence of the count - required the enactment of numerous safeguards to correct the deficiencies that had rendered “[V]oting … a useless formality as it depends upon the will of the inspectors of election…and not upon the vote of the people.” The safeguards instituted in 1896, still protecting the franchise to date, were designed to prevent the dangers wrought by precisely the type of electoral system ERMA invites, wherein the will of the people can be thwarted by the unobservable control held by a few private vendors and government insiders. These safeguards are fatally destroyed and effectively nullified by EMRA.

The public's right to the creation and preservation of responsible information to prove the election results as well as all of the fraud-deterring safeguards that have accumulated over the past two centuries will be sacrificed to secret, proprietary processes controlled by private vendors insisting that the public be prohibited from observing the very information required of an open, democratic society. Legislatively mandated procedures, which have demonstrated the reliability of the mechanical lever and hand-count voting systems, are abrogated by software-driven systems. Public scrutiny, fundamental to oversight and accountability, are eradicated by the new statutory scheme, depriving citizens of their constitutional right to an open, observable, reliable, completed count on election night.

The proposed computerized electoral system has been demonstrated to be far less secure and far more vulnerable to fraud than New York’s existing lever voting system or hand-count voting system, and further exposes the count to massive unprotectable risks exclusively made possible by the use of software. The case law has consistently found the removal of those safeguards which have protected the count from dilution by fraud to be unconstitutional. The legislature has the affirmative duty to protect the right of suffrage from any and all opportunities for fraud. The 2005 Legislature abdicated its responsibility in enacting legislation permitting the use of un-securable theft-enabling software driven voting systems.

The complaint also seeks a ruling that in light of the State’s providing Ballot Marking Devices in every poll site, the lever voting system is HAVA-compliant.

- Andi Novick