Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, et al. v. Kevin Shelley, California Secretary of State (Case No. 03-56498)

Amicus Curiae

I believe that I am bringing “to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court.” Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.

I am a freelance journalist who has been covering the issue of voting technology and democracy for the past year. I believe that I am the foremost expert in this field. I wish it were someone with more credentials than a BA in political science from Temple University (1976). My articles and reporter's notes can be found at http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm

Lynn Landes
217 S. Jessup Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 629-3553    

The court has been presented with a false set of choices by plaintiffs - that other voting technologies are more secure than the punchcard system. That does not appear to be the case. The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project (Attachment 1), the most comprehensive and independent analysis of voting systems to date, indicates that touchscreen machines (DRE) are more likely to loose votes than the punchcard voting system, which appellants have disparaged in their declarations. Plaintiffs have made it clear in their public statements that they want the election delayed until March so that counties may purchase and install touchscreen machines. Henry E. Brady, who provided expert testimony in this case, issued a study in September 2001 that was funded by Sequoia Voting Systems, considered to be the third largest voting systems company in the United States. At the time of Dr. Brady’s separate study for this lawsuit, only one county (Riverside) in California was using Touchscreens. Yet, in Dr. Brady’s  “declaration” Figure 1, Residual Vote Rate in 2000 in California by Type of Voting System, he puts all types of systems at the same percentage of residual (lost) votes except punchcards.  The rates may or may not be correct, but the small sampling provided by Riverside, does not reflect an accurate picture of the problems experienced nationwide with touchscreen machines, particularly in the 2002 elections. (Attachment 2)

The court has also been presented a false choice by defendants, that the election should be held on October 7, 2003 because time is more important than how the election is run. Democracy is not on a stopwatch, where time is more important than how the race is won. And how the race is won, is at issue.

To my knowledge, no study addresses the statistical probability of vote tampering or manipulation (i.e., vote fraud) compared to the degree of sophistication of each type of voting technology. Although, common knowledge and logic, may indicate that the more sophisticated the technology, the greater ability, if not likelihood, of vote tampering or technical failure.

There are three steps to the voting process: the voter's selection of a candidate (example: a checkmark next to a candidate's name), casting the vote (example: putting the ballot into the ballot box), and counting the vote. The first step should be concealed, but the second two steps must be open to public observance and inspection. Sophisticated technology makes it impossible for the public, poll watchers, or Federal Observers to observe whether the casting and counting of the vote is done properly. To my knowledge, it also makes impossible, or at least discourages, a voter's right or ability to write-in a candidate's name on a ballot.

REQUEST:

I request that, whenever the election does take place, the court prohibit the use of any voting technology that is more sophisticated than a pencil and paper, because the use of sophisticated voting technology violates a citizen's right to vote and to have that vote counted properly under the U.S. Constitution, The Voting Rights Act, and federal law. The use of sophisticated voting technology introduces concealment and secrecy to that part of the voting process that depends on public oversight and inspection in order to ensure an honest election.

(for the complete submission http://www.ecotalk.org/ACLUlawsuit.htm)

Lynn Landes is the publisher of EcoTalk.org and a news reporter for DUTV in Philadelphia, PA. Formerly Lynn was a radio show host for WDVR in New Jersey and a regular commentator for a BBC radio program. She can be reached at (215) 629-3553 / lynnlandes@earthlink.net This article is copyright by Lynn Landes, and  originally published by opednews.com, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media if this entire credit paragraph is attached.