FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 20 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16280

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -802 16 -C V -J IC R O B E R T W E X L E R ,C o n g r e s s m a n , A D D I E G R E E N E , C o m m is s io n e r , B U R T A A R O N , C o m m is s io n e r , T O N Y F R A N S E T T A , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s A R T H U R A N D E R S O N , S u p e r v is o ro f

E le c tio n s f

o rP a lm B e a c h C o u n ty , K A Y C L E M , S u p e r v is o ro f

E le c tio n s f

o rI n d ia n R iv e rC o u n ty , F l ori da and P re si dentof the F l ori da A ss oci at i on of S u p e r v is o r s o f

E le c tio n , F L O R I D A S E C R E T A R Y O F S T A T E , G le n d a E . H o o d , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Honora ble Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judg e for the District of Nebraska , * sitti ngby designation. Prior to oral argument, the par ties submitt ed supplementa ry briefs on theissue of 1 whether the pre sent appe al was rendered moot by either: (1) the passag e of theHelp America Vote Ac t (“HAVA”) or (2) the expiration of the emerg ency rule that for

med the basis of the district court’s de cision. We conclude that beca use the pa rties’ diff eringinterpre tations of HAVA’ s requirements to a certain extent restate thepresent controver sy and bec ause thelapsed emerg ency

rule ha s been replac ed by a substantively

identical per

manent rule , the instant appeal is n ot m oo t. 2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 20, 2006) B ef ore D U B IN A and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S T R O M , D i stri ctJudg e. * K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he i s s ue pr e s e nt e d i n thi s appe a l i s w he the rF l or i da ’ s m a nua l r e c ount procedures i n t ho se coun t i es em pl oyi ng paperl es s t ou chsc re en vo t i ng m ac hi nes v i o l at e th e ri g h t s o f v o t ers i n th o se co u n t i es t o eq u al p ro t ect i o n an d d u e p ro cess unde rthe F i f

th a nd F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt s t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on. F or th e r e a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e h o ld th a t th e y d o n o t. 1

I . F a c ts F l ori da’ s V ot i ng S ys t em F l or i da ’ s E l e c tr oni c V ot i ng S y s t e m s A c tm a ke s F l or i da ’ s D e pa r tm e ntof3

S t a t e r e s pons i bl e f

orde ve l opi ng a nd a dopt i ng s t a nda r ds f ore l e c tr oni c vot i ng a nd f orc e r t i f y i ng e l e c tr oni c vot i ng s y s t e m s f orus e i n the s t a t e . S e e F l a . S t a t . §§ 101. 5601- 101. 5614. E a c h c ounty m a y the n c hoos e i t s ow n vot i ng e qui pm e ntf r om a m ong thos e s y s t e m s c e r t i f i e d by the D e pa r tm e ntof S t a t e . F l a . S t a t . § 101. 5604; se e a l so F l a. S t at . § 1 01 . 29 4. In fi ft ee n o f F l ori da’ s s i xty- se ven cou nt i es , vo t er s ca stthei r vot es usi ng paperl es s t ou chsc re en vo t i ng m ac hi nes, w hi ch re qu i re that vot e r s m a ke the i rs e l e c t i ons di r e c t l y on c om put e rs c r e e ns by l i t e r a l l y t ouc hi ng the sc re en as i nd i ca t ed. In the re m ai ni ng fi fty- tw o cou nt i es , vo t er s c as top t i ca l sc an b a llo ts . T o v o te u s in g a n o p tic a l s c a n b a llo t, a v o te ru s e s a p e n c il to f ill in a b u b b le ora r r ow by the na m e of the c a ndi da t e he w i s he s t o vot e f or ; the ba l l oti s the n run throu gh an aut om at i c t abul at i on m ac hi ne. V ot er s c as t i ng abse nt ee or prov i si on al b al l o t s i n t o u ch screen co u n t i es al so su b m i to p t i cal scan b al l o t s. M anual R ec ou ntP roce du re s F l o ri d a l aw p ro v i d es fo r a tw o -st ag e reco u n tp ro ced u re i n cert ai n cl o se e l e c t i ons . F i r s t , i f

the m a r gi n of

vi c t or y i s one - ha l f

of a pe r c e ntorl e s s , e l e c t i on o f f ic ia ls c o n d u c t a “m a c h in e r e c o u n t,” w h ic h e n ta ils r e - ta b u la tin g b a llo ts in prec i nct s usi ng op t i ca l sc an bal l ot s, F l a. S t at . § 1 02 . 14 1(6)(a ), and, i n t ou chsc re en vo t i ng prec i nct s, exam i ni ng “ the coun t er s on the preci nctt abul at ors t o ensure that th e to ta l o f

th e r e tu r n s o n th e p r e c in c t tab u la to r s e q u a ls th e o v e r a ll e le c tio n r e tu r n .”4

F l a. S t at . § 1 02 . 14 1(6)(a ). S ec on d, i f the re sul t s of the m ac hi ne re coun ti nd i ca t e a m ar gi n o f vi ct ory of one-quart erof a per ce ntor l es s, offi ci al s c on du cta m anual re coun tof al l “ ov ervo t es ” a nd “ un dervot es ” ( col l ec t i vel y, “ re si du al vo t es ”) . F l a. S t at . § 1 02 . 16 6. A n o vervot e r es ul t s w hen “ the el ec t or m arks or desi gn at es m ore na m e s tha n the r e a r e pe r s ons t o be e l e c t e d t o a n of f i c e orde s i gna t e s m or e tha n one a ns w e rt o a ba l l otque s t i on, a nd the t a bul a t orr e c or ds no vot e f orthe of f i c e or qu es t i on . ” F l a. S t at . § 9 7. 02 1(23 ). A n u nd ervo t e r es ul t s w hen “ the el ec t or do es notpr ope r l y de s i gna t e a ny c hoi c e f ora n of f i c e orba l l otque s t i on, a nd the t a bul a t or r e c o r d s n o v o te f

o rth e o f f ic e o rq u e s tio n .” F la . S ta t. § 9 7 .0 2 1 ( 3 7 ) . D u r in g th e m a n u a l r e c o u n t p h a s e , a u d ito r s r e v ie w r e s id u a l v o te s to det erm i ne i f there i s a“ cl ea r i nd i ca t i on on the bal l otthatthe vo t erhas m ade a d e f in ite c h o ic e .” F la . S ta t. § 1 0 2 .1 6 6 ( 5 ) ( a ) . T o th a t e n d , th e D e p a r tm e n t o f S ta te is char ged w i th: (1) a do pt i ng “ spec i fi c rul es for e ac h cer t i fi ed vo t i ng sy st em pres cr i bi ng w hatconst i tut es a ‘ cl ea r i nd i ca t i on on the bal l otthatthe vo t erhas m ade adefi ni t e c ho i ce , ’ ” i d. at§ 1 02 . 16 6(5)(b), and (2) i ss ui ng “ det ai l ed rul es pres cr i bi ng addi t i on al re coun tprocedures f or ea ch ce rt i fi ed vo t i ng sy st em w hi ch s h a ll b e u n if

o r m to th e e x te n t p r a c tic a b le .” I d . a t § 1 0 2 .1 6 6 ( 6 ) ( d ) . T he m anual re coun ti s afa i rl y s tra i gh t forw ar d p roce ss i n o pt i ca l sc an coun t i es ; audi t ors l oo k for stra y m arks thatm ay have m i sl ed the m ac hi nes or otherRul e1S- 2. 03 1, wh ic h s e ts f or th t heproc e dure s f

or c on du c tin gmanu a l re c ounts , 2 orig inally state d, in p e rtinent p art : When a manual recount is ordered a nd touchscre en ballots areused, no manual rec ount of undervote s and over votes ca st on a touchscreen system shall be conduc ted since thesemachines do not allow a voter to c ast an overvote a nd since a review of undervote s cannot re sult in a determination of voter intent as required by

Section 102.166(5), F .S. In this case, the results of the mac hine re count conduc ted pursuant to p aragra ph(5 )( c ) s hall b etheof

fi c ial to tals f

or thetouc hs c re e n mac hin e s. Fla. A dmin. Code Rule 1S-2.031(7). 5 i nd i ci a thata vot erhas m ade adefi ni t e c ho i ce . F or exam pl e, a vot erm i gh tci rc l e a ca nd i dat e’ s nam e r ather than m aki ng the pres cr i bed m ark t o i nd i ca t e hi s c ho i ce . In to u c h s c r e e n c o u n tie s , h o w e v e r , th is p r o c e s s h a s p r o v e d m o r e d if f ic u lt. I t is i m po ss i bl e t o o vervot e i n a t ou chsc re en coun ty; the t ou chsc re en vo t i ng m ac hi nes w i l l nota l l ow i t . I ti s pos s i bl e t o unde r vot e w he n us i ng t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng m ach i n es, h o w ev er, al th o u g h th e m ach i n es p ro m p ta v o t er w h en h e u n d erv o t es, p r o v id in g h im w ith a n o p p o r tu n ity to c h o o s e a c a n d id a te f o rth a t r a c e . E m e r g e n c y R u le B e c a u s e a to u c h s c r e e n v o te rn e v e rr e c o r d s h is v o te o n to p ap e r , a n d th e r e is n o p ro v i si o n i n th ese co u n t i es fo r co n t em p o ran eo u s p ri n t -o u t s o f i n d i v i d u al b al l o t s, a “ m a nua l r e c ount ” i n t ouc hs c r e e n c ount i e s doe s nota l l ow f orthe s a m e ty pe of re vi ew of bal l ot s f

or vo t eror m ac hi ne error provi ded i n o pt i ca l sc an coun t i es . In l i ghtof the s e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng s y s t e m s , the F l or i da D e pa r tm e nt o f S t a t e o r i g i n a l l y d i d n o tr e q u i r e m a n u a l r e c o u n t s i n t o u c h s c r e e n c o u n t i e s . An 2 adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge struck do w n the ori gi nal rul e thatfa i l ed t o requi re m anualHereinaf ter, weref

er to provisions of the a

mended permanent rule g overningmanual 3 rec ounts rather

than to the emerg ency

rule. A “ballot im ag e” is a

n elec tronic re cord of

the content of

a ballot ca st by

a voter and 4 rec orded by

a votingdevice , Rule 1S-2.031(1)(g)1, and a “ballot imag e report” is a printout of ballot image s for e ach machine or prec inct. Rule 1S-2.031(1)(g)2.

6 r e c o u n ts , h o w e v e r , a n d th e S e c r e ta r y o f S ta te p r o m u lg a te d E m e r g e n c y R u le 1 S E R 0 4 - 1 in its p la c e . T h e s u b s ta n c e o f th e e m e r g e n c y ru le w a s in c o rp o r a te d in to the pe r m a ne ntrul e gove r ni ng m a nua l r e c ount s on N ove m be r3, 2005. S e e F l or i da 3 D epar tm entof S t at e, D i vi si on of E l ec t i on s R ul e 1S -2. 03 1 (“ R ul e 1S -2. 03 1”) . R ul e 1S - 2. 031 pr ovi de s tha ti f a m a nua l r e c ountbe c om e s ne c e s s a r y , the c a nva s s i ng boa r d s ha l l or de rthe pr i nt i ng of one of f i c i a l c opy of

the ba l l oti m a ge r e por t f r om e a c h t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng m a c hi ne tha tha s r e c or de d unde r vot e s f orthe 4 a f f e c t e d r a c e . R ul e 1S - 2. 031( 4) ( b) 1. I f the c e r t i f

i e d vot i ng s y s t e m i s c apa bl e of e le c tr o n ic a lly s o r tin g a n d id e n tif y in g u n d e r v o te s , th e n th e c a n v a s s in g b o a r d s h a ll order the pri nt i ng of a r eporti nd i ca t i ng the un dervot es . Id. T he bal l oti m age r eport s ha l l the n be e xa m i ne d by the c ount i ng t e a m s t o i de nt i f y a nd hi ghl i ghtba l l ot i m ages cont ai ni ng un dervot es for the af fe ct ed ra ce t o d et erm i ne i f there i s acl ea r i nd i ca t i on on the bal l oti m age thatthe vo t erm ade adefi ni t e c ho i ce t o u nd ervo t e. R ul e 1S - 2. 031( 4) ( b) 2. F orthos e m a c hi ne s c apa bl e of e l e c tr oni c a l l y s or t i ng, the u n d e r v o te s s h a ll b e id e n tif ie d b y th e m a c h in e . I d . A f t e ri de nt i f

y i ng the unde r vot e s , the c ount i ng t e a m s s ha l l m a i nt a i n a runni ng7

t al l y of the nu m ber of und ervo t es t ot al ed per t ou chsc re en vo t i ng m ac hi ne i n eac h prec i nctand t hen t abul at e the t ot al nu m ber of und ervo t es fr om al l m ac hi nes i n t hat prec i nct . T he coun t i ng t ea m s s hal l then com pare the t ot al nu m ber of und ervo t es m a nua l l y r e c ount e d f

ore a c h pr e c i nc tt o the t ot a l num be rof unde r vot e s r e por t e d by the vot i ng s y s t e m i n the c om pl e t e c a nva s s r e por t . R ul e 1S - 2. 031( 4) ( b) 5. I f the com pari son o f the un dervot es for e ac h p re ci nctm at ches the t ot al nu m ber r eport ed f ors uc h pr e c i nc t , the n the c ount i ng t e a m s ha l l c e r t i f y the r e s ul t s of

the m a c hi ne reco u n tt o th e can v assi n g b o ard . R u l e 1 S -2 . 0 3 1 (4 )(b )6 . If a d i screp an cy ex i st s, ho w ever , the coun t i ng t ea m s a re t o re- t abul at e the nu m ber of und ervo t es for s uch p reci n ctatl easttw o ad d i t i o n al t i m es an d , i f n ecessary, th e can v assi n g b o ard m u st i nve s t i ga t e a nd r e s ol ve the di s c r e pa nc y . I d. T he em er gency rul e i nstruct s that“ [t ] he cl ear i nd i ca t i on thatthe vo t erhas m a de a de f

i ni t e c hoi c e t o unde r vot e s ha l l be de t e r m i ne d by the pr e s e nc e of the m arki ng , or the abse nce of any marki ng , thatthe m anufacturerof the ce rt i fi ed v o tin g s y s te m in d ic a te s s h a ll b e p r e s e n t o ra b s e n t to s ig n if y a n u n d e r v o te .” R u le 1S - 2. 031( 4) ( a ) 2. T he rul e goe s on t o s pe c i f y how a n unde r vot e i s de s i gna t e d f or e a c h o f th e th r e e ty p e s o f

to u c h s c r e e n v o tin g m a c h in e s c u r r e n tly c e r tif ie d f o ru s e in F l ori da. S ee 1S -2. 03 1(4)(a )2a- c. S ta te L a w s u itAr thu r And e rs on

ha s replac e d There sa

L e Porea s Su

perv iso r o f E le c tio ns fo r P a lm 5 B e a c hC o unty. 8 O n J a nua r y 16, 2004, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ongr e s s m a n R obe r tW e xl e rf i l e d a com pl ai nti n st at e c i rc ui tcourtagai nstT here saL eP ore, w ho atthatt i m e w as Su p e r v i s o ro f

El e c t i o n s f

o rPa l m B e a c h Co u n ty , Se c r e t a r y o f St a t e Gl e n d a E. 5 H oo d and the P al m B ea ch C ou nt y B oard of C ou nty C om m i ss i on er s. W exl er s o u g h t d e c la r a to r y a n d in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

o n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts , in appr ovi ng t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng m a c hi ne s f orus e i n P a l m B e a c h C ounty , vi ol a t e d the r i ghtt o vot e of

P a l m B e a c h C ounty c i t i z e ns gua r a nt e e d by the F l or i da C ons t i tut i on. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the s t a t e c om pl a i nta s s e r t e d tha tF l or i da s houl d not ha ve appr ove d a nd c e r t i f i e d the S e quoi a A V C E dge V ot i ng S y s t e m R e l e a s e 3. 1 f or us e i n P a l m B e a c h C ounty be c a us e , a s a pape r l e s s vot i ng s y s t e m , i tdoe s nota l l ow f orthe m a nua l r e c ount s pr ovi de d f orby §§ 102. 141 a nd 102. 166 of the F l or i da st atu t es. T he st at e c i rc ui tcourtdi sm i ss ed the ac t i on on the grou nd s thatW exl er la c k e d s ta n d in g to p u r s u e th e c la im s . T h e c o u r t f u r th e rf o u n d th a t W e x le rf

a ile d to s t a t e a c a u s e o f

a c t i o n f o ri n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

b e c a u s e “ th e Fl o r i d a s t a tu t o r y s c h e me d o e s n o t c le a r ly r e q u ir e a v o te rv e r if ie d p ap e rb a llo t.” W e x le rap p e a le d th e c ir c u it c o u r t’s o r d e rto th e F o u r th D is tr ic t C o u r t o f A p p e a l, w h ic h a f

f ir m e d th e d is m is s a l. T he F ou rth D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l foun d thatthe S ec re t ary of S t at e had adop t ed9

reg u l at i o n s reg ard i n g m eth o d s fo r reco u n t i n g v o t es p u rsu an tt o th e st atu t es, r e n d e r in g W e x le r ’s r e q u e s t f o rd e c la r a to r y r e lie f

m o o t, a s h e w o u ld f

ir s t h a v e to c ha l l e nge the a dopt e d rul e s i n a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e tt i ng. F e d e r a l L a w s u it O n M a r c h 8 , 2 0 0 4 , W e x le r , P a lm B e a c h C o u n ty C o m m is s io n e r s A d d ie G r e e ne a nd B ur tA a r ons on, a nd r e gi s t e r e d F l or i da vot e rT ony F r a ns e tt a br ought th e p re se n t actio n ag ain st S ec re tary o f S tate H o o d , L eP o re (A rth u r A n d er so n ’s p r e d e c e s s o ra s th e Su p e r v i s o ro f El e c t i o n s f

o rPa l m Be a c h Co u n ty ) a n d K a y Cl e m, the S up ervi sor of E l ec t i on s f or Indi an R i ver C ou nty. Ini t i al l y, the di stri ctcourt di sm i ss ed thei r c om pl ai ntun der the Y ou ng erabst ent i on do ctri ne. T hi s c ou rt va c a t e d tha tor de r , how e ve r , a nd r e m a nde d f orc ons i de r a t i on of

w he the rthe us e of t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng s y s t e m s tha tdo notpr oduc e a pape rr e c or d of vot e s a nd al l egedl y l ac k a m anual re coun tprocedure vi ol at es the du e proces s a nd equal prot ec t i on cl ause s of the F i fth and F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s t o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . S ee W exl erv. L epore, 38 5 F . 3d 13 36 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( per c uri am ). F ol l ow i ng a bench tri al , the di stri ctcourtrul ed for defe nd ant s, ho l di ng that E m e r ge nc y R ul e 1S E R 04- 1 e s t a bl i s he d a m a nua l r e c ountpr oc e dur e f or t o u ch screen v o t i n g syst em s th atb o th co m p l i es w i th F l o ri d a l aw an d est ab l i sh es a uni f or m , nondi f

f e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d f

orc onduc t i ng m a nua l r e c ount s , s a t i s f y i ng the10

r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

e q u a l p r o te c tio n a n d d u e p r o c e s s . P la in tif f s n o w ap p e a l. II . S t andard of R evi ew F ol l ow i ng a be nc h tr i a l , w e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i ons of l a w de n o v o an d i t s fi n d i n g s o f factfo r cl ear erro r. A . I. G . U ru . C o m p an i a d e S eg u ro s, S . A . v. A A A C oo per T ra nsp. , 33 4 F . 3d 99 7, 10 03 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). I I I . D i s c us s i on T he ba s i c the or y of

P l a i nt i f f s ’ c a s e i s tha tby c e r t i f

y i ng t ouc hs c r e e n vot i ng s y s te m s th a t a r e in c ap ab le o f p r o v id in g f

o rth e ty p e o f

m a n u a l r e c o u n ts c ont e m pl a t e d by F l or i da l a w , the de f e nda nt s ha ve vi ol a t e d the e qua l pr ot e c t i on a nd due pr oc e s s r i ght s of

vot e r s i n t ouc hs c r e e n c ount i e s . A l though w e a gr e e w i th the di stri ctcourtthatF l ori da’ s m anual re coun tprocedures f or t ou chsc re en coun t i es c o m p ly w ith F lo r id a la w , th e c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n s d o n o t tu r n o n th a t in q u iry . I ns t e a d, w e c ons i de rw he the rF l or i da ’ s m a nua l r e c ountpr oc e dur e s , w hi c h va r y by c o u n ty a c c o r d in g to v o tin g s y s te m , a c c o r d a rb itr a r y a n d d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t to F l o ri d a v o t ers, th ereb y d ep ri v i n g v o t ers o f th ei r co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s t o d u e p ro cess and equ al prot ec t i on . S ee B ush v . G ore, 53 1 U . S . 98 , 10 4-05 (200 0) (percuri am ). E qua l P r ot e c t i on P l ai nt i ff s a rgue thatthe m anual re coun tprocedure for t ou chsc re en coun t i es f a i l s t o pr ovi de f

orm e a ni ngf

ul r e vi e w of

unde r vot e s . T he y c ont e nd tha tthe ba l l otPlaintif fs a lso sug g e st that on eprob le m w ith pa perl e ss v otingsystems i s th epo ssibil ity 6 of mac hine malfunc tion that cannot there after be revealed through a manual rec ount. Plainti ffs arguethat but f

or thepo tenti a l f

or malf un c tio n, manu a l re c ounts wo uld no t bene c e ssa

ry . This is incorre ct. Florida’s manual rec ount proce dures a re de signe d to uncover

a variety of both human and mac hine er

rors. More over, be causeFlorida ’s proc edure s dictate that only residual votes be considere d in a manual recount, many ty pes of machine malfunc tion discussed by witnesses at trial would not be discovered even in a manual recount of the sort Plaintiffs envision. Finally , we agreewith the district court that issues of security , configuration, and system malfunction are dealt with by

the State duringthe certification proc ess and a re not re levant to the question bef ore thi s c ourt e xcept to th ee xtent th e y

makeit l e ss l ike ly

that vo ters us ingtho sesystems w illc a st e ff e c tiv evo te s. Th equ e sti on

of wh at magnit

ud eof dif ferenc ebe tw e e n v otingsystems’ a c c ura c y rate s is 7 ne c e ssa ry to raisec on sti tution a l c on c e rn s is no t be fo rethi s c ourt . 11 im a g e s u m m a r ie s g e n e r a te d d u r in g r e c o u n ts “d o n o t p e r m it th e c a n v a s s in g b o a r d to de t e r m i ne w he the rthe vot e rm a de a n i nt e nt i ona l c hoi c e t o unde r vot e ortha tthe m ac hi ne fa i l ed t o rec ord t he vo t e due t o v ot erm i st ake, hu m an error, or sy st em e r r or . ” P l a i nt i f

f s thus a r gue tha tF l or i da vot e r s a r e nota c c or de d e qua l tr e a tm e nt be c a us e thos e r e s i di ng i n opt i c a l s c a n c ount i e s w i l l ha ve a n oppor tuni ty t o ha ve the i rr e s i dua l vot e s r e vi e w e d i n a m e a ni ngf ul w a y i n c e r t a i n ve r y c l os e e l e c t i ons w h e r e a s th o s e r e s id in g in to u c h s c r e e n c o u n tie s w ill n o t. 6 P l a i nt i f f s ’ f unda m e nt a l e r r ori s one of pe r s pe c t i ve . B y a dopt i ng the pe r s pe c t i ve of

the r e s i dua l vot e r , the y ha ve a voi de d the que s t i on tha ti s of const i tut i on al di m ensi on : A re vo t er s i n t ou chsc re en coun t i es l es s l i kel y t o cas tan e f f e c t i ve vot e tha n vot e r s i n opt i c a l s c a n c ount i e s ? I ti s thi s que s t i on, a nd notthe 7 q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e ru n if

o r m p r o c e d u r e s h a v e b e e n f o llo w e d a c r o s s a s ta te r e g a r d le s s o f

d if f e r e n c e s in v o tin g te c h n o lo g y , th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n s is te n tlyTh eprob le m w ithPlaintif fs ’ a rgument i s c le ar when o nec on side rs that, ac c ordingto 8 Plaintiffs’ theory, a hy

pothetical touchsc reen voting system that is so nearly accuratethat residual vote rates a

pproac h zero would nevertheless beconstitutionally suspect if it was not su sc eptibleto a

su bs tanti a lly

sim ila r m anu a l re c ount p ro c e dureto t hat a pp lie d in c ounti e s w ith fa r l e ss ac c uratevo tin gsystems. 12 ha s e m pha s i z e d i n i t s vot i ng j ur i s prude nc e . S e e , e . g. , B us h, 531 U . S . a t104- 05 8 (“ H avi ng on ce grant ed the ri gh tt o v ot e on equ al t erm s, the st at e m ay no t , by l at er a rbi tr a r y tr e a tm e nt , va l ue one pe r s on’ s vot e ove rtha tof a nothe r . ” ) ; D unn v. B l um st ei n, 40 5 U . S . 33 0, 33 6 (19 72 ) ( “ [A ] ci t i ze n h as a c on st i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed r i ghtt o pa r t i c i pa t e i n e l e c t i ons on a n e qua l ba s i s w i th othe rc i t i z e ns i n the j uri sdi ct i on . ”) ; R ey no l ds v. S i m s, 37 7 U . S . 53 3, 56 3 (19 64 ) ( “ W ei gh t i ng the vo t es of ci t i ze ns di ff

er ent l y, by any m etho d o r m ea ns, m er el y bec ause of w here they happ en t o res i de, hardl y s ee m s j ust i fi abl e. ”) ; W es berry v. S anders , 37 6 U . S . 1, 7-8 ( 1964) ( “ [ A ] s ne a r l y a s i s pr a c t i c a bl e [ , ] one m a n’ s vot e i n a c ongr e s s i ona l e l e c t i on i s t o b e w orth as m uch as a no ther’ s. ”) . T h e r ig h t to v o te is f

u n d a m e n ta l, f

o r m in g th e b e d r o c k o f

o u rd e m o c r a c y . S e e I l l . B d. of

E l e c t i ons v. S oc i a l i s tW or ke r s P a r ty , 440 U . S . 173, 184 ( 1979) (“ [V ] ot i ng i s of the m ostfund am ent al si gn i fi ca nce und erou r c on st i tut i on al structure. ”) ; W es berry, 37 6 U . S . at17 (“ O ther r i gh t s, even the m ostbasi c, ar e illu s o r y if

th e r ig h t to v o te is u n d e r m in e d .” ) . N e v e r th e le s s , s ta te s a r e e n title d to bu rden thatri gh tt o ensure thatel ec t i on s a re fa i r, ho nestand eff i ci ent . S ee B urdi ck13

v. T a kus hi , 504 U . S . 428, 433 ( 1992) ; A nde r s on v. C e l e br e z z e , 460 U . S . 780, 788 ( 1983) ; S t or e rv. B r ow n, 415 U . S . 724, 730 ( 1974) . R e c ogni z i ng tha t“ [ e ] l e c t i on l a w s w i l l i n v a r i a b l y i mp o s e s o me b u r d e n u p o n i n d i v i d u a l v o t e r s , ” th e Su p r e me C our tha s e xpl a i ne d tha tthe l e ve l of s c rut i ny c our t s appl y t o s t a t e vot i ng r e g u la tio n s s h o u ld v a r y w ith th e d e g r e e to w h ic h a r e g u la tio n b u r d e n s th e r ig h t to vot e . B ur di c k, 504 U . S . a t433- 34; s e e a l s o S i e ge l v. L e P or e , 234 F . 3d 1163, 11 80 -81 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc) (app l yi ng B urdi ck bal anci ng t o an equ al p ro t ect i o n cl ai m i n a v o t i n g case th atw as u n rel at ed t o b al l o taccess). S p eci fi cal l y, the C ou rthas i nstruct ed that [ a ] c our tc ons i de r i ng a c ha l l e nge t o a s t a t e e l e c t i on l a w m us tw e i gh “th e c h a r a c te ra n d m a g n itu d e o f th e a s s e r te d in

ju r y to th e r ig h ts prot ec t ed by the F i rs tand F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s thatthe pl ai nt i ff s e e ks t o vi ndi c a t e ” a ga i ns t“ the pr e c i s e i nt e r e s t s putf or w a r d by the S ta te a s ju s tif

ic a tio n s f o rth e b u r d e n im p o s e d b y its ru le ,” ta k in g in to consi dera t i on “ the ext entt o w hi ch tho se i nt er es t s m ake i tnece ss ary to b u r d e n th e p la in tif

f’s r ig h ts .” B urdi ck, 50 4 U . S . at43 4 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W hen a st at e e l ec t i on l aw i m po se s o n ly “rea so n ab le, n o n d iscr im in ato ry re strictio n s” u p o n v o ters ’ rig h ts, th e “S tate’s im p o r ta n t r e g u la to r y in te r e s ts a r e g e n e r a lly s u f f ic ie n t” to s u s ta in th e r e g u la tio n . I d . T he pl a i nt i f

f s a r gue tha tbe c a us e vot e r s i n t ouc hs c r e e n c ount i e s ha ve no op po rtun i ty t o h ave thei r r es i du al vo t es coun t ed m anual l y w here as vo t er s i n o pt i ca l scan co u n t i es h av e su ch an o p p o rtu n i ty, F l o ri d a’ s d i sp arat e treatm en to f th eseThe district cour t acc ording ly

made no f

indings of f

act with re spect to the accuracy of 9 the competingvoting systems. At trial, experts ga ve conf licting testimony

reg ardingaccurac y rate s, and a lth ough th epa

rtie s introd

uc e d s omea c a demicre se arch o n th equ e sti on a longwi th data on re sid ual vo terate s in

F lorida c ounti e s, thee vide nc ein t here c ord is sp ars eon

thi s question. In Stewart v. B lackwe ll, plaintiffs challeng ed Ohio’s c ontinued use of punc h card

10 voting systems in certain counties under theVoting Rights Act and the Equal Protection and Due Proc e ss c la

us e s o f t heF ourt e e nth

Am e ndment. 44 4 F .3 d 8 43 . Theplaintif fs argue d th at th e ir right to have their vote s counted on e qual terms with other c itiz ens had be en denie d, rely ing on evidenc e showinghigher re sidual vote rate s amongvoters usingpunch ca rd equipment than amongthose using other ty pes of e quipment, including touchsc reen voting machines. I d.

14 grou ps w arra nt s s tri ctsc rut i ny. T he pl ai nt i ff s, ho w ever , di d n otpl ea d thatvo t er s i n t ou chsc re en coun t i es ar e l es s l i kel y t o cas tef fe ct i ve vo t es du e t o the al l eged l ac k o f a m e a n in g f

u l m a n u a l r e c o u n t p r o c e d u r e in th o s e c o u n tie s . T h u s , if v o te r s in 9 t ou chsc re en coun t i es ar e burdened atal l , thatbu rden i s the m er e possi bi l i ty that s houl d the y c a s tr e s i dua l ba l l ot s , thos e ba l l ot s w i l l r e c e i ve a di f f e r e nt , a nd a l l e ge dl y i nf

e r i or , ty pe of

r e vi e w i n the e ve ntof

a m a nua l r e c ount . S uc h a bur de n, bo rne of are as on abl e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r egul at i on , i s notso subst ant i al thatstri ct sc rut i ny i s app ropri at e. S ee i d. at43 4 (ho l di ng thata r egul at i on i m po si ng “ se vere ” r e s tr i c t i ons m us tbe “ na r r ow l y dr a w n t o a dva nc e a s t a t e i nt e r e s tof c om pe l l i ng i m por t a nc e ” ) ; W e be rv. S he l l e y , 347 F . 3d 1101, 1106 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( “ W e c a nnot s a y th a t u s e o f

p ap e r le s s , to u c h s c r e e n v o tin g s y s te m s s e v e r e ly r e s tr ic ts th e r ig h t to vot e . ” ) ; c f

. S t e w a r tv. B l a c kw e l l , 444 F . 3d 843, 868- 72 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ( appl y i ng s tr ic t s c ru tin y w h e r e p la in tif f s “a lle g e d v o te d ilu tio n d u e to d is p a r a te u s e o f c e r ta in v o tin g te c h n o lo g ie s ” ) . T h u s , w e r e v ie w F lo r id a ’s m a n u a l r e c o u n t p r o c e d u r e s to 1015

det erm i ne i f they a re j ust i fi ed by the S t at e’ s “ i m po rt antre gu l at ory i nt er es t s. ” S ee B ur di c k, 504 U . S . a t434. H e r e , F l or i da ha s i m por t a ntr e a s ons f ore m pl oy i ng di f

f e r e ntm a nua l r e c ount procedures a cc ordi ng t o t he type of vot i ng sy st em a c ou nty use s. T he di ff er ence s betw ee n these procedures a re nece ss ary gi ven t he di ff er ence s i n the t ec hn ol og i es th em sel v es an d th e typ es o f erro rs v o t ers are li k el y t o m ak e i n u t i l i zi n g th o se t ec hn ol og i es . V ot er s c as t i ng op t i ca l sc an bal l ot s c an m ake avari ety of m i st akes thatw i l l cause thei r bal l ot s nott o b e c ou nt ed. F or exam pl e, a vot erca st i ng an o p t i c a l s c a n b a l l o tmi g h tl e a v e a s tr a y p e n c i l ma r k o rc i r c l e a c a n d i d a t e ’ s n a me ra ther than fi l l i ng i n t he approp ri at e bub bl e. T hu s, al tho ug h an o pt i ca l sc an t abul at i on m ac hi ne m ay re gi st eran un dervot e f or a par t i cul arra ce on a par t i cul ar bal l ot , there m ay be suff i ci enti nd i ci a on t he bal l otthatthe vo t erac tual l y c ho se a ca nd i dat e i n t hatra ce such thatthe vo t e w ou l d b e c ou nt ed i n a m anual re coun t . In cont ra st , a vot eri n a t ou chsc re en coun ty e i ther c ho oses a c andi dat e f or a par t i cul ar r a c e ordoe s not ; the t ouc hs c r e e n m a c hi ne s do notr e c or d a m bi guous i ndi c i a of v o te rin te n t th a t c a n la te rb e r e v ie w e d d u r in g a m a n u a l r e c o u n t. P l ai n t i ffs d o n o tco n t en d th ateq u al p ro t ect i o n req u i res a st at e t o em p l o y a s i ngl e ki nd of

vot i ng s y s t e m thr oughoutthe s t a t e . I nde e d, “ l oc a l va r i e ty [ i n vot i ng s y s t e m s ] c a n be j us t i f

i e d by c onc e r ns a boutc os t , the pot e nt i a l va l ue of i nnova t i on,16

an d so o n . ” B u sh , 5 3 1 U . S . at1 3 4 (S o u t er, J. , d i ssen t i n g ). A m o n g o th er th i n g s, w i tne s s e s f

orthe S t a t e t e s t i f

i e d tha tt ouc hs c r e e n m a c hi ne s ha ve c e r t a i n be ne f i t s f or di s a bl e d vot e r s a nd the y pr e ve nts om e of the vot e re r r or s tha ta r e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c of opt i c a l s c a n vot i ng s y s t e m s . A c c or di ngl y , w e hol d tha tF l or i da ’ s m a nua l r e c ount procedures a re j ust i fi ed by the S t at e’ s i m po rt antre gu l at ory i nt er es t s a nd , there fore , the y do notvi ol a t e e qua l pr ot e c t i on. S e e B ur di c k, 504 U . S . a t434. D u e P ro cess P l a i nt i f f s a r gue tha tF l or i da ’ s m a nua l r e c ountpr oc e dur e s a r e de voi d of

“ f unda m e nt a l f

a i r ne s s , ” the r e by de pr i vi ng vot e r s of due pr oc e s s . S e e J oi nt A nt i -F as ci stR ef

ug ee C om m . v. M cG ra th, 34 1 U . S . 12 3, 16 1 (19 51 ) ( F ra nk furt er , J., co n cu rr in g ). H o w ev er , as w e n o ted ab o v e, w h atev erb u rd en , i f a n y, F lo rid a’s m a nua l r e c ountpr oc e dur e s pl a c e on vot e r s , tha tbur de n i s j us t i f i e d by the im p o rtan t reg u lato ry in tere sts o u tl in ed ab o v e. T h er ef o re , w e h o ld th at F lo rid a’s m an u al reco u n tp ro ced u res d o n o td ep ri v e v o t ers o f d u e p ro cess. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.