Litigation and Legal Issues

Articles and documents concerning legal challenges to the institution of computerized voting are being assembled under this topic section of the EDA website. (Scroll down to view links to articles).

There are many more legal-related news stories on the EDA site than presently appear in the link list below. We are reorganizing site content to display more links on this page, pointing to legal-issues articles already published elsewhere on this site.

However, there are also many election integrity lawsuits around the U.S. that we have yet to document here on the EDA site.

We invite readers to send in recommended articles on election integrity legal issues and lawsuits, or better yet, post the articles to this website yourselves.

Posting content to the EDA website requires an active EDA Web Account.

If you do not yet have an EDA web account, you can establish one by clicking on the JOIN link [1] in the main menu bar on any page.

=========================

To post an article, start here: http://electiondefensealliance.org/node/add/story [2]

Our content creation editor works much like any word processor or blog program. It has a rich-text, visual interface with a toolbar palette. The content editor is defaulted to the Rich Text mode. Remain in the Rich Text (default) mode.
(Exception: Inserting video embed codes. See under VIDEO below.)

Three Main Content Types:

TEXT: Render your text content in plain text format before copying and pasting into the content editor.
Then use the editor tool palette to add formatting details (headlines, bold, etc.)

IMAGES: Use the "File attachments" link below the editing box to upload image files from your computer. The images will be assigned an URL on the EDA site. Copy that URL and use the Image tool in the editing palette to insert the images
into the article.

VIDEO: To insert a video embed code into your article:
1. Click the Source tool button in the tool palette to temporarily switch to plain text editing mode.
2. Paste your embed code in the desired location.
3. Click the Source button again to return to rich text editing mode.

Pre-publication Review:

Postings will go into a review queue. Prior to publishing, an EDA web administrator will review the content, correct any formatting problems, and assign an URL and menu location, then publish your article live to the website.

Have posting questions? Need assistance? E-mail Admin[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org

Election Integrity Lawsuits

VV_Election_LawsuitsSource: VerifiedVoting.org [3]

Here are some of the landmark lawsuits of the past few years concerning electronic voting machines and transparency in elections.
Thanks to Verified Voting.org for this compilation. There have been many more cases in recent months to be added to this list.
If you are interested in contributing to this listing or maintaining collections of legal information for the EDA website,
please join the Litigation Working Group and send an e-mail to Dan@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org [4].

Verified Voting Litigation

gavel
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 [5],
which is coordinating verified voting litigation nationwide.
If you have updates or corrections on verified voting litigation,
please let us know [6].
Thank you!

Shortcut to litigation in state of:

California [7]
Florida [8]
Maryland [9]
North Carolina [10]
Ohio [11]
Pennsylvania [12]

California flag California

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 [13]

Media coverage:

Costly Lack of Leadership, Shawn Casey Oâ€™Brien, July 15, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2599 [14]
2 Counties, State Reach a Deal on E-Vote Machines, Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2601 [15]
County bows out of e-vote battle, Inland Valley News Bulletin, July 13, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2615 [16]
U.S. district judge refuses to lift state ban on electronic voting, Associated Press via Monterey Herald, July 1, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2449 [17]
County to join lawsuit in defense of electronic voting, County of San Bernardino, May 25, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2600 [18]
Board sticks with e-votes, Press-Enterprise, May 12, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2077 [19]
S.B. County to Defy Vote System Ban, Los Angeles Times, May 12, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2076 [20]
Missing Article Title, Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2004, http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me-machines5may05,1,1569551.story?coll=la-headlines-technology [21]

March v. Diebold

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 [22]
(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.

Media coverage:

Critics Sue Electronic Voting Company, Associated Press via Yahoo! News, July 11, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2512 [23]

Soubirous v. County of Riverside

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.

Legal documents:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/california/soubirous-v-countyofriverside/ [24]

Media coverage:

California Recount Case to Consider E-Voting Audit Trail, Government Technology, July 21, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2610 [25]
Riverside County Sued Over E-Voting, Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2604 [26]
E-voting faces suit by failed candidate, The Press-Enterprise, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2605 [27]
Primary candidate sues county over recount, North County Times, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2603 [28]
California Recount Case to Consider E-Voting Audit Trail, IPR via Magic City, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2587 [29]
E-Voting Suit Highlights Legal Lag, InternetNews.com, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2594 [30]
E-voting debate heats up in California, ComputerWorld, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2586 [31]
California Recount Case to Consider E-Voting Audit Trail, VerifiedVoting.org, July 16, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/media/releases/article.php?id=2514 [32]
Down for the Count, Los Angeles City Beat, June 24, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2593 [33]

Florida flag
Florida

National Federation of the Blind v. Volusia County

Legal documents:

NFB
Notice of Appeal of Denial of Preliminary Injunction, United States
District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 21,
2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6164 [34]
Court Denies NFB Motion to Prevent Use
of Ballot-Marking Devices in Volusia, United States District Court
Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 21, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6163 [35]
NFB Emergency Appeal to 11th Circuit Court, Law Offices of Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP,
Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, United States
District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July, 21, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/Order20Denying20Preliminary20Injunction20--20July2021,2020051.pdf [36]
Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, United States
District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 13, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/NFB20LAWSUIT20COUNTY20MEMORANDUM.pdf [37]
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 [38]
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, United States
District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 5, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/NFBOriginalComplaint20July205202005.pdf [39]
HAVOC Amicus Brief Opposing NFB Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, July 5, 2005, http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/nfb_volusia_amicus.pdf [40] [mirror [41]]

Reports:

Volusia County Update on NFB Lawsuit, Florida Fair Elections Coalition [42], July 15, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6134 [43]
The Case Against Diebold and Floridaâ€™s Division of Elections, Florida Fair Elections Coalition [42], July 9, 2005, http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/TheCaseAgainstDieboldandFlorida'sDivsionofElections21.pdf [44]

Media Coverage:

Florida Court Rejects Demand for Paperless E-Voting, Kansas City infoZine, July 22, 2005, http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/9144/ [45]
EFF Supports Disabled Voters in Fight Against Paperless E-Voting, July 15, 2005,http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/9025/ [45]
Hearing Set in Touch Screen Suit, July 14, 2005, http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/03AreaWEST05POLE071405.htm [46]
Letters to the Editor for Wednesday, July 13, 2005, http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/LettersToTheEditor/03LetterLET071305.htm [47]
Florida County in Legal Fight Over E-Voting Machines, July 8, 2005, http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2005/0,4814,103023,00.html [48]
Volusia Hires Attorney in Voting Suit, July 8, 2005, http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/Headlines/03PoliticsPOLL01070805.htm [49]

ACLU Florida v. Florida Department of State

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.

Legal documents:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/florida/aclufl-v-floridados/ [50]

Media coverage:

Suit targets Florida's ballot-recount rules, Reuters via CNETNews.com, July 7, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2595 [51]
Election 2004: Officials concerned about a shortage of paper votes, Naples Daily News, July 7, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2459 [52]

Wexler v. Lepore (state)

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.

Legal documents:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/florida/wexler-v-lepore/ [53]

Media coverage:

Touch-Screen Voting Lawsuit Argued in Court, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 11, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2596 [54]

Wexler v. Lepore (federal)

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.

Legal documents:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/florida/wexler-v-lepore/ [53]

Media coverage:

On paper, Wexler's going to win, Palm Beach Post, May 26, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2220 [55]
Voting Printer Lawsuit Rejected, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 25, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2597 [56]
2nd Wexler voting challenge thrown out, Palm Beach Post, May 25, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2181 [57]
Judge rejects suit requiring paper receipts, Miami Herald, May 25, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2182 [58]
Voting-receipt suit dismissed, Tallahassee Democrat, May 25, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2185 [59]
Article Title Unknown, Reuters, May 24, 2004, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5241008 [60]
Federal judge rejects Rep. Wexler's touch-screen printer lawsuit, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 24, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2180 [61]
Congressman's suit seeking touchscreen voting printouts dismissed, Associated Press via The Ledger, May 24, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2177 [62]
Touch-Screen Voting Lawsuit Argued in Court, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, May 11, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2596 [54]
The vexations of voting machines, CNN, April 26, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2602 [63]

American Association of People With Disability v. Hood

Disability-related case in Duval County with $2 million awarded in attorneys fees.

Legal citation: 310 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (M.D. Fla 2004)

Media coverage:

Howreyâ€™s Pro Bono Program: A Commitment to Disability Rights, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, May 27, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2617 [64]
Duval County ordered to make voting accessible to all voters, Associated Press via Miami Herald, March 29, 2004, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2618 [65]
People with Disabilities Are Suing States on Voting, National Law Journal, April 18, 2003, http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=2616 [66] (from mirror on AAPD website)

Maryland flag
Maryland

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.

Legal documents:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/downloads/legal/maryland/schade-v-maryland-state-board-of-elections/ [67]

Media coverage:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/26/votingmachines.tm/ [68]
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-vote0421,0,488636.story?coll=bal-home-headlines [69]

North Carolina flag

North Carolina

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 â€“ let alone
reviewed â€“ 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 â€“ and convinced a
judge to dismiss â€“ 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.

Legal documents:
The full complaint [70]

Ohio flag
Ohio

Name Unknown

Disability-related case in which
National Federation for the Blind filed for dismissal on June 11, 2004.

Media coverage:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/8903381.htm?1c [71]
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/news/stories/20040615/localnews/647659.html [72]

Name Unknown

ACLU planning to file case based on argument that punch cards do not serve communities of various races equally.

Media coverage:

[73]

Name Unknown

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 [74] 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= [75]
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 flag 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.

Media coverage:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040701/phth015_1.html [76]

Litigation Updates

If you have updates or corrections on verified voting litgation,
please
let us know [77].

Voting Machines Unconstitutional

Voting Machines Violate Constitution [78]

Why German High Court Ruled E-Voting Unconstitutional

Originally published at OpEdNews [79]
October 15, 2009

E-Voting Ruled Unconstitutional in Germany: An Interview with Dr. Ulrich Wiesner

Dr. Wiesner Filed a Lawsuit in Germany Claiming E-Voting Unconstitutional, and Won

By Kathleen Wynne

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society;
and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies,
to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.
-- John F. Kennedy

Wiesner interview video below [80]

No words were ever more relevant than these are when it comes to our elections and the counting of our votes. When did secrecy take precedence over transparency in the counting of our votes in America through the use of electronic voting systems and, more importantly, why? What the majority of Americans have NOT heard about, but most election reform advocates are already aware of, is the German Constitutional Court's recent decision to ban electronic voting in Germany by ruling it “unconstitutional.”

Let's think about this for a minute. By using a Constitution, similar to our own, and which had to be approved of by the U.S. after World War II, Germany has, through its High Court, determined that computerized, secret vote counting does not subscribe to the democratic standards of their country! Yet, still here in America, 95% of us are using some sort of computerized voting system to cast and/or count our ballots---completely government sanctioned, corporate controlled, using software protected from public scrutiny by trade secret laws. NO ONE can guarantee even a single voter that their vote is being counted as cast. What's wrong with this picture?

It is, indeed, encouraging that support is growing for a return to public hand-counts here in the U.S. and, as a result, we may someday soon reach a “critical mass” of support largeenough to put pressure on our courts to also recognize this fundamental right and “persuade” them to rule in a similar fashion as the German Court. When that day comes, we will be forever indebted to our German counterparts.

Obviously, the significance of the German Court's ruling is not only a sea change in how elections will be administered in Germany , which are now to be done by properly administered public hand-counts, but I see it as a powerful new tool that can be used by election reform advocates in achieving similar reform in the U.S.

Bev Harris, Founder of Black Box Voting.org, and Paul Lehto, an attorney from Washington State and election reform advocate, have both written excellent articles analyzing the Court's decision to ban electronic voting and are must reads.

Harris' article, Let's Get Off The Hampster Wheel [81], was featured in Democracy For New Hampshire (as well as on other websites). Lehto's article, Germany Bans Computerized Voting, Will Hand Count in 2009 [82], was featured in OpEdNews (as well as on other websites).

[On a personal note, I am extremely gratified to have discovered that the arguments made by the Court in banning electronic voting were almost the exact same arguments made to election officials and Congress by those of us in the election reform community who chose to be totally committed to a return to public hand-counts for the past 3+ years. I, along with a small group of public hand count advocates, in particular, Dr. Sheila Parks, founder of the Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots [83], and Vickie Karp and Karen Renick, co-directors of VoteRescue.org [84], decided early on to oppose compromise of any kind that would require the use of voting machines, audits, exit polls, or mail-in ballots, i.e., anything other than public hand counts, as an acceptable way ofcounting the votes. In fact, the Court's ruling actually supported our unequivocal position that “the only experts in our elections should be the citizens themselves." When average citizens with no legal expertise are vindicated by such a venerable body of legal experts, it is for me, testament to the absolute need to recognize and honor the “principles of transparency” in elections, which can only be achieved through public hand-counts.]

After reading Harris's and Lehto's analyses, as well as reading the Court's decision in its entirety, I immediately recognized the importance of locating the father (Joachim Wiesner) and son (Ulrich Wiesner), who had filed the lawsuit and then persuade them to tell their story to the American people.

Dr. Ulrich Wiesner holds a Ph.D. in Physics and works as a consultant for a U.S.-American Software Company. His father, Joachim, is a retired political scientist. Together, they filed the lawsuit with Germany 's Federal Constitutional Court after the German parliament had rejected a petition drive promoted by the Wiesners, which had been signed by over 45,000 people to try to ban electronic voting back in 2005.

Even "cell phones are better protected against manipulation," said Ulrich Wiesner in an interview with Spiegel Online. The Wiesners were making the case that the security concerns surrounding electronic voting machines are so great that they run afoul of the German constitution, which mandates that elections be open and transparent.

Nonetheless, German politicians were still skeptical that the court would rule against the machines. In an interview with German radio, Max Stadler, a member of parliament with the German liberal Free Demoocrat Party (FDP), said “It was very unlikely the court would rule in the Wiesners' favor, a move which might force the court to invalidate parts of the 2005 election." Stadler said he personally favors paper ballots because they inspire confidence in the electorate and possess a "certain charm." Ultimately, though, he argued that the issue was a policy question, not a constitutional one. To our good fortune, the Court did not agree with Stadler's position.

So, after jumping through various hoops and several e-mails later, Dr. Wiesner finally received my request for him to please contact me and he did. In our first conversation, we talked about the security issues surrounding electronic voting, which continues to be the core issue election reform advocates have been tangling with in the U.S., and he told me, “We should not waste our time arguing about machine security because citizens would never win that argument with the experts.” “Besides”, he said, “the Court's decision was not based on voting machine security anyway.”

Dr. Wiesner kindly agreed to be interviewed on Deadline Live, a nationally-syndicated radio show in Austin, Texas, hosted by Jack Blood, who generously agreed to play the interview live in a “Special Edition” 2-hour show, which aired on October 7, 2009. I then promptly invited Bev to join us to offer her comments and questions in this much-anticipated conversation. Following is the YouTube link to that entire interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx1RGmYZyIc&feature=player_embedded [85]

[Note: The two-hour interview is broken down into 12 parts. The first half hour is with Jack Blood, Bev and I setting the stage for the interview with Dr. Wiesner, followed by the hour-long interview with Dr. Wiesner. The final half-hour is a recap and commentary of the interview by Jack, Bev, and me]:

Wiesner Interview Video

I hope that after listening to the interview, you will ask yourselves how is the German Court's ruling of the unconstitutionality of electronic voting under the Germany Constitution any different from it also being considered unconstitutional by an American court under our own constitution?

As Paul Lehto noted in his article, German Court Honors U.S. Democratic Principles [86]:
"The March 3, 2009 ruling interprets the German Constitution, which became effective right after the December 10, 1948 passage date of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. Soon thereafter, Germany's new Constitution came into effect May 23, 1949, with the signature of the Allies, specifically including the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz [87] [paragraph one])."

Approval of the German Constitution by the United States and occupying powers was conditional on two non-negotiable terms: (1) Complete rejection of master race theory and with it the treatment of other groups with barbarism or worse; and (2) an unequivocal commitment to the inviolability and inalienability of human rights.

The last time I looked, both Germany and the U.S. are still considered to be democratic republics, with similar constitutions, when it comes to protecting a citizen's human rights, governed by the rule of law, with a representative government duly elected by the people. In light of the German Court 's ground-breaking decision, it is very disturbing that our mainstream media has been virtually silent in reporting this very important decision, particularly in how it correlates to the elections process in the U.S. Why?

More importantly, neither the U.S. courts nor our legislative branch of government have acknowledged that, with this decision, the German Court put forth the human rights argument that meant protecting a German citizen's right to see their votes counted, without specialized technical knowledge being required as a priority over everything else; a decision, I believe, that should also be applied by our courts on behalf of American citizens.

Of course, we can expect to hear from voting machine vendors, members of Congress and many election officials their usual response to a request by citizens for any kind of change from the status quo -- “We've already spent billions of taxpayer dollars implementing these voting systems throughout the country and it would simply be too costly and impractical to get rid of them.” I say, preserving and protecting a citizen's human rights in the elections process --PRICELESS.

Kathleen Wynne is the founder HCPBnow.org and former associate director of Black Box Voting.org