1
1
1
The Court also held that a regulation made by the ministry in charge of administering the election was unconstitutionally vague. (Para 145 et seq) While the Court offered some suggestions as to how the inadequate language could be tightened up, the errors in the regulation were not so bad that the election should be invalidated because of them.
Conclusion
After its lengthy and minutely detailed discussion, Germany's Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this election. The inadequacy of the agency regulation, and the shortcomings of the machines, were harmless errors.
This opinion, upholding paperless electronic voting in Germany, has far-reaching implications. The arguments and conclusions made in that opinion can also be applied to the use of Internet voting -- another form of paperless electronic voting. Thus, this ruling paves the way for Internet voting in Germany.
While German law, of course, has no precedent value in the US, it can have considerable persuasive value. That is, the legal reasoning and conclusions of the German Supreme Court can be a model for US courts and law-makers to emulate.
In short, this opinion may one day prove to be a milestone in the history of Internet voting in the US.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
1 | 2
