are very relevant to the court's consideration one is stuart the blackwell and we would ask this court to reverse the district court under the deep and knowing that all allegations of the complaint have to be accepted as true improperly this count if we do with the fact that it looks like there might be some new voting machines being purchased to implicate things one way or the other well when this starts good news sure but when the better than all machines when the stewart ruled and i think the court has a responsibility to rule where there is deficient technology in front of at and just based upon the fact that it's been six years that the local actually could administer it or has said we need it machines and we still don't also dealt had optical scan machines it was more than just punch card machines but they did have expert testimony at one based just on the error rate but also expert testimony is expert testimony that means it was not a case that was  a malfunction and circumstantial evidence of tampering and we also know that the see there's been a sea change since the mueller report the two thousand and sixteen russian interference the elections are department homeland security secretary said by two thousand and twenty all infiltration or hacking with respect to shelby county have you it's the only allegations are with respect to the we have experts in georgia and then sort of some other county in tennessee where there was an attempt but there's no allegations that shelby county happening every efforts are happening everywhere does that affect the inquiry does it does that suggest everybody has standing in every state to challenge their system against hacking on we're not making an argument for every state we're just here on our machines which are thirteen years old which have not been upgraded microsoft no longer provide support for that and we've had back a minute over and over and over again instances about that function if you if you look at the  the university of california report that shows that the voting machines can be programmed to call hackers for from its modem and allow remote walk into jumps each of these voting machines has so we would submit that we had the sea change with the s department of homeland security rulings we have the experts in georgia who convinced the courts there are these machines are highly vulnerable to attack and with our own experts report and we have not been allowed to look at the machines danger and so that would be our support for that that's happened more than once we documented in all seven there's no rational basis ask a question that but that's that's unrelated to the voting machines right that was just was i just negligence on the part of that the county will hand out the wrong ballots to individuals well that's going to the league of women voters versus bruno which is the other landmark decision i feel that is very relevant to and in that case they found a myriad of problems problems and they were standing in that case up to the individual the election worker who's sitting there to figure out which ballot that person is supposed to get and hand that card to whoever goes to the machine to the person as they go to the machines right there the any allegation that that has in fact happened the allegation is it could happen and the things that you are alleging have happened don't really have anything to do with the machines i bruner all the procedures all the process is all or data exposed on e bay no the voters were never notified of that there's never been anything told to the voters about why that happened or what's been done to address it there seems to be some bad or i'm not sure it's deep but there seems to be some discrepancy about what actually was was disclosed you say in your brain absolutely that the social security number was disclosed but that is not what the allegation in the complaint is and there seems to be something i can't remember can't remember where this comes from but something that indicates that the social security number was not disclosed and all the rest of the information that was disclosed is public information is that right iraq i'm going or we allege that personal voter data was disclosed we believe it social security they say it's not but that is a fact your get make the allegation that social security numbers were included were making that allegation based on their state walk your honor at the state law says that those that document that information should be retrieved acted before anything is given to the public how you how are computer guy over into a national conference where are those voted that it is one that is outrageous and voters still have not had any information about what happened why it happened and how it's been good morning honors i'm gina klinefelter with the tennessee attorney general's office and i'm here on behalf of secretary harkat state election courtenay her glance i am going to be speaking for twelve minutes and counsel for the county defendants has three minutes and there is one issue and one issue only before this court and that is whether or not the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating that they have or will suffer a concrete and particularized injury from the continued use of the current voting system in shelby county the district court found that they had not and were asking this court to affirm that decision and your honor at you know which one of you is best suited for this but are there new voting machines and what's the status and so there they are in the process of getting new voting machines under site has been going on for a while well under state law it is the county government that has to actually purchase the machines and  that means the county government has to appropriate the funds for the purchase of those machines politics comes into play in terms of getting that funding finding however was approved this year for the funding for the purchase of those machines they are in the process but again the machines have to go through the county procurement process they are in the process of doing that those machines probably will not be in place for the march presidential preference primary simply because there's not enough time when you take into account early voting that election takes place on the st tuesday in march but early voting begins two weeks prior to that the time that it takes to actually prepare the machines prepare the ballots prepare everyone train everyone and for one hundred and sixty by the august primary that is a state primary election in august and also the federal primary election and they will certainly be in place by the time of the november general election and and  those machines are on our we'll have the paper audit trail the voter file the voter verified paper audit trail that is the big complaint that plaintiffs have with the current voting system in shelby harms going back to two thousand and twelve or even prior to that time period the only case plain decided to is the curling decision out of georgia the big distinction in that case your honor is that in georgia it was demonstrated that not winds but twice that system had been hacked into and they were actually able to manipulate votes in that system through the hacking as judge murphy recognized there are no allegations that that has ever occurred in shelby county despite the fact that these machines have been in place for a significantly long time and your honor given the fact that we have six municipalities that use these machines for municipal elections as well as the county using it for county elections state elections and federal actions these machines are used on a year round basis every year but when you look at the allegations that have come out and in the number of lawsuits that do not exist the number of election contests that do not exist because of people alleging that the machines malfunctioned or they were hacked or they were manipulated they don't exist your honor in fact the only case reported decision out there and it's actually it's actually been reported decision of the court of appeals in which these allegations were raised the court of appeals failed that there was no proof in the record the plaintiffs could not put on any proof of all of these malfunctions in that makes arguments tied to both imminence and generalized grievance and i'm curious are you arguing both it's not certainly impending and that the vote dilution if it was certainly impending does not qualify as a sufficient article three injury because it's a generalized grievance yes and that is in fact what the district court found to go with that that's somewhat in conflict with cases like gill that suggested that the right to vote is a personalized right and what if the hypothetical was changed to the money damages suit because of a mass hacking of lots of individuals and shelby county in a prior election not been allowed to vote because of some type of hacking that had gone on would you think that somebody who was not allowed to vote because of that hacking would not have suffered in article three injury because it was generalized a grievance  except that as your honor recognized what is the evidence that is there a past time with this is occurred in the past harm has not been a result of the machines malfunctioning the past times that are alleged to have been the result of human error and that is always going to happen there is always going to be the risk of human error in elections because humans are not perfect and there is no perfect election out there so for example the primary election that pla fs continue to go back to the two thousand and twelve election in which voters were given the wrong ballot that was a result of redistricting in fact the shelby county commission did not timely do the redistricting and as a result errors were made and people were redistricted were placed in the wrong district or were given the wrong ballot had nothing to do with the malfunctioning of the machines the vast majority of the errors or harms that plaintiffs have alleged have been the result of human error there's been a few instances they've identified where people were given a wrong ballot again as judge gibbons recognized that was a situation either way or human error or somebody put in the wrong card are they were in the wrong district they've never identified a situation where the machines themselves help math function and these plaintiffs have certainly not identified a situation where they have been harmed for example plaintiff tailwinds yes he's a state legislator he was elected in one thousand nine hundred and four he has been reelected using these same machines in primary and general elections for the past well and four these all these machines went into place in two thousand and six so for thirteen elections he was reelected and not once has he said that those machines do not accurately reflect the will of the people because they're so antiquated they malfunction and they're subject to vulnerabilities plaintiff scott your honor there are absolutely no allegations in the complaint with respect to plaintiff sky that she has suffered any individualized harm other than the fact that these machines are vulnerable plaintiff stuart the allegation is that she was a candidate she intends to be a candidate in future elections and therefore she is going to have to expand and she's going to have to expand far and in future elections on cyber security expert paul rodgers and then there is this very generalized statement contained in the complaint that she had to make those expenditures in pas elections she made expenditures in past elections and there are no other allegations in the complaint there no allegations that plaintiff orton was not allowed to vote that she was not allowed that were not counted for her that is the extent finally with respect to plaintiffs say on the diversion of resources argument there they have acknowledged that the only diversion of resources here has been for the purposes of bringing this litigation  and now they have tried to argue look this voting on thin ice report that we issued in august of two thousand and seventeen should constitute investigative cost and that should be sufficient under this court's decision in the fair housing council versus the village of old st andrews and the problem with that your honor is that that is that report is the whole purpose of say when you look at the complaint and you look at what the allegations are with respect to say it's purpose they specifically state their purposes for research advocacy and education that purpose includes submitting open records requests to governmental bodies to report to the public and governmental bodies  or abilities related to public elections to monitor nationwide development developments in election law and technology to provide speakers for programs to inform educate the public on and on and that is exactly what they're voting on thin ice report was not to mention the fact your honor that that report was issued more than a year prior to the filing of this lawsuit which is completely different from the facts in the fair housing case i have run out of my time so good morning your honour's monday ms pablo i represent the shelby county election commission linda phillips the administrator of elections and the individually named commissioners of the election commission who were named in their official capacities and it is a pleasure to be before your honor's and i'm financial piece in the procurement office won't proceed forward that didn't happen until this year and we had to go through a process with the with the kill it say i have an employee that this worked for me and and they keep making mistakes it's like it's almost like by the calendar once a month another mistake and finally i just say enough is enough the person comes to me and says gosh i realize i deserve this i've earned it but can you just give me a year longer so it will help me out didn't interrupt the mistakes have been alleged don't have anything to do with the machines or malfunctioning of machines were hacked ability of the machines or that they actually didn't have the mistakes that have been alleged have to do with human error and in fact appropriate remedies in the past have have taken place at the election commission in fact we have a new minister of election only been there for about three years because of some of these areas that have been in the past former administrative lurches have been held responsible for making sure that that didn't happen and they were replaced as far as these machines go the allegations again are are in and you believe it was hit on earlier they're not related to vulnerabilities of the machines they're related to human error believe human error would could be people employed by the election commission but it they could also be people who are not dependents in this case who are for one reason or another election workers who are not employed by the election commission is that our regular basing all all all employ all workers whether they're permanent or temporary would be employed by the election commission for each election that they occasion list so why are the voters in shelby county voting on machines that are not on the research vacation list that treats them differently than voters in other counties in the state and gives a standing represent joe towns yet he wants them elections he lost a compromised they were compromised and that there's a cloak of darkness going on about what's going on with all this there should have been a report you know hey we looked at this we found this we fix this there's nothing we ask you open records for your back and they send this report compromising the system according to our expert who's declarations are attached to the complaint i databases were sent to canada insecurely and talking about long ballots it one just in twenty two and two thousand and fifteen in the city council