Creative Loafing Atlanta

Fresh Loaf

« New Georgia IDs, driver's licenses… | Hiram man divests self of "all worl… »

        
Tweet

Share

Thursday, July 9, 2009

News Electronic voting-machine case to be heard by Georgia Supreme Court

Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:54 PM

On Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether touch-screen voting — those controversial courtesy of Diebold that were ushered in after the 2000 presidential election clusterfuck — should be used in the state.

The case stems from a 2006 challenge brought by Garland Favorito, who says the machines don't produce a recorded ballot — you know, with results — and are open to tampering. (You can read about the plaintiffs' concerns at Voter GA.)

After the jump, the case summary from the state Supreme Court communications office:

FAVORITO ET AL. V. HANDEL ET AL. (S09A1367)

In this Fulton County case, a group of citizens is challenging Georgia’s use of electronic

touch-screen voting.

FACTS: Georgia adopted the electronic machines following the Florida debacle during the 2000 presidential race, when the deciphering of the “hanging chads” of voter punch-cards

required the U.S. Supreme Court to decide who won the election. In response, Congress passed a law to provide federal funds to states to replace their outmoded voting systems. After soliciting bids, Georgia awarded a $54 million contract to Diebold Election Systems, Inc., becoming in 2002 the first in the country to have a uniform system of touch screen voting across the state. In 2006, Garland Favorito and seven others sued the governor, the Secretary of State and the Georgia State Election Board, arguing that the machines do not produce tangible records that can be audited and do not protect against fraudulent manipulation of reported results. The trial court ruled in favor of the state officials, granting them summary judgment – determining a trial was not needed because, based on undisputed facts, the law entitled them to prevail. The court dismissed all the citizens’ complaints, and they now appeal to the state Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS: Favorito and the others argue that the trial court made a number of

errors, including that it violated their due process by denying them the right to a trial and issuing an order that contains numerous errors of fact. The trial court also applied the wrong legal standards in reaching its decision, they contend. The essence of their argument is that state officials are currently conducting elections with no way to assure the public that electronic “ballots” cast on election day are recorded and tabulated correctly. The state’s use of voting equipment that does not provide an independent audit trail of the votes cast is deficient. The Georgia Constitution requires that elections be conducted by ballot, and electronic voting

machines do not contain such a “ballot.” Georgia’s system of administering elections “threatens

the foundations of our democracy,” they argue in briefs, and deprives citizens of “openly

conducted, transparent elections.”

The State argues the trial court ruled correctly and that the citizens provide no proof that

anyone was deprived of their fundamental right to vote. Georgia’s electronic voting system has

proven to be far less vulnerable to fraud and error than the paper ballot system. Prior to purchase, all touch-screen voting systems met federal and state certification requirements. Georgia’s voting machines are also never connected to the Internet, the State points out. The machines do create a paper trail and the results can in fact be physically audited, the State contends. Any voter can still choose to vote with a mail-in absentee ballot, which is a paper ballot.

Attorney for Appellants (Favorito): Walker Chandler

Attorneys for Appellees (Handel): Thurbert Baker, Attorney General, Dennis Dunn, Dep. A.G., Stefan Ritter, Sr. Asst. A.G.