Source: http://www.thelandesreport.com/VotingMachines-ConstitutionalIssues&FederalLaw.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:25:24+00:00

Document:
From July 2, 2004 to April 4, 2006, Lynn Landes challenged the use of voting machines and absentee ballots, citing the lack of public participation and oversight. The defendants were the following: Margaret Tartaglione (Democrat), Chair of the City Commissioners of the City and County of Philadelphia, Pedro A. Cortes (Democrat), Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and John Ashcroft (Republican), the Attorney General of the United States.
Mar 27: U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear Lynn's case.
Landes Appeal to Third Circuit (Nov. 23, 2004) of District Court's ruling to dismiss pdf filed March 29, 2005!
Oct 2, 03: Lynn submits comments to U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit for Susan Marie Weber case. Oct 28, 03: Ninth Circuit Rules Against Weber - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256726p.pdf - Weber says she will appeal.
Apr 14, 03: Voting Machines Violate Constitution - Who Will Launch Legal Challenge?
GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL. Does an electronic vote constitute a legal vote? Or is it just circumstantial evidence of a vote produced by a machine that may or may not have been cast by a voter. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that, A "legal vote," as determined by the Supreme Court, is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.'" How can voting machines, either mechanical or electronic, produce tangible evidence of the intent of the voter? Voting machines reflect the action of the machine first, and the intent of the voter ...maybe. The Court goes on to ask "whether the use of standard less manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses." They answer, "With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." How would the Court view voting machines where there are no mandatory federal standards exist to guarantee that the intent of the voter is reflected in the result produced by voting machines?
Allen v. Board of Elections (1969) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=393&invol=544 "The Act further provides that the term "voting" "shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing . . . or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public [393 U.S. 544, 564] or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election." 14 (c) (1), 79 Stat. 445, 42 U.S.C. 1973l (c) (1) (1964 ed., Supp. I)."
Reynolds v Sims (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=377&invol=533 "Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , and to have their votes counted, United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 . In Mosley the Court stated that it is "as equally unquestionable that the right to have one's vote counted is as open to protection . . . as the right to put a ballot in a box." 238 U.S., [377 U.S. 533, 555] at 386. The right to vote can neither be denied outright, Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 , Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 , nor destroyed by alteration of ballots, see United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 , nor diluted by ballot-box stuffing, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 , United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 . As the Court stated in Classic, "Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted . . . ." 313 U.S., at 315."
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&invol=1 "It is in the light of such history that we must construe Art. I, 2, of the Constitution, which, carrying out the ideas of Madison and those of like views, provides that Representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers." It is not surprising that our Court has held that this Article gives persons qualified to vote a constitutional right to vote and to have their votes counted."
Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act under the Fourteen and Fifteenth Amendment may be at the heart of the constitutional issue involving the use of voting machines. Regarding the 14th Amendment, voting machines appear to constitute a secret or 'concealed' registration and tabulation of the vote which cannot be observed by Federal Examiners (as authorized under federal law), which makes the examiner's role in that regard - moot, and federal law - unenforceable. Therefore, all voting machines may be a violation of U.S. Code: Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 20 - Elective Franchise, Subchapter I-A Enforcement of Voting Rights, Sec. 1973.
14th Amendment (1868): http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Act of 1871.pdf -- Comment: This Act issued detailed standards in order to provide security to the voting process via paper ballots. It was repealed later in 1870's. Some of the standards, such as a qualified citizen's right to vote and to have votes counted properly, were re-introduced in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Act of 1899, Chapter 154 -- Comment: This is the Act that first allowed the use of voting machines in elections.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973f.html Sec. 1973f. - "Observers at elections; assignment; duties; reports: Whenever an examiner is serving under subchapters I-A to I-C of this title in any political subdivision, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management may assign, at the request of the Attorney General, one or more persons, who may be officers of the United States, (1) to enter and attend at any place for holding an election in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote, and (2) to enter and attend at any place for tabulating the votes cast at any election held in such subdivision for the purpose of observing whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated. Such persons so assigned shall report to an examiner appointed for such political subdivision, to the Attorney General, and if the appointment of examiners has been authorized pursuant to section 1973a(a) of this title, to the court." Comment: Federal observers have several obstacles in the course of enforcing voting rights protections in regards to voting machines including, but not limited to the following: 1) the physical inability to observe what goes on inside of a voting machine, 2) the voting machine companies have declared "proprietary" or "trade secret" rights as legal grounds for not allowing inspections of machines, 2) inspections that have been allowed on voting machines discovered a source codes that were indecipherable, 3) voting machines that use modems can manipulate voting results during an election from remote locations, even from satellites. Other mechanisms exist to electronically manipulate voting machines before or after an election.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1973i.html Sec. 1973i. Prohibited acts: (a) Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote (d) Falsification or concealment of material facts or giving of false statements in matters within jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers; penalties. Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Comment: There is no method to know whether voting machines are tabulating votes at all, or tabulating votes correcting. Voting machines conceal what they do and how they do it."
INTERLOCKING ISSUES: The right to contest an election / The right to a recount / The right to paper ballots.
The question is: Do voting machines deny candidates the right to a legitimate recount? The paper trails produced, even by the old fashioned lever machines, were a record of what the machine did, not the voter. Any machine can be rigged to accept one input, record another, and produce a third and different output. The electronic information voting machines produce does not constitute a genuine audit trail.
The right to contest an election through a recount?
Art. I, 4, empowers the States to regulate the conduct of senatorial elections. 21 This Court has recognized the breadth of those powers: "It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the [405 U.S. 15, 25] fundamental right involved." Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 .
"A recount is an integral part of the Indiana electoral process and is within the ambit of the broad powers delegated to the States by Art. I, 4. - "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."
Nevertheless, the recount supersedes the initial count even though a certificate of election may have been issued. 29-5415.
Federal law allows for the use of voting machines, but it appears to be in conflict with the laws above. Comment: This section should not trump a voter's right to have their vote cast and counted properly. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/9.html Title 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 9. - Voting for Representatives - All votes for Representatives in Congress must be by written or printed ballot, or voting machine the use of which has been duly authorized by the State law; and all votes received or recorded contrary to this section shall be of no effect.
The following lawsuits constitute a very limited challenge to certain types and functions of voting machine technology, but NOT the Constitutionality of using voting machines in general. Nor do they address the issue of the role of the Federal Observers and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Some experts believe that as long as a voter verified paper ballot gets hand counted, voting machines could be used to product the paper ballot. That may be the second best option. Once a machine is in the polling booth, the situation becomes obscured/concealed once again.
"PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in her favor: (1) Declaring that Defendant's failure to set adequate standards for voting equipment, and in particular the continuing approval of Sequoia Pacific touch-screen voting systems for use in Riverside County California, denies and abridges Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) Declaring that the failure to establish adequate standards and procedures to govern manual recounts, including the circumstances under which recounts are required, denies and abridges Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Enjoining the continuing application of the standards, specifications, and regulations that Defendants have set for voting machines in the State of California to the extent that they permit the use of paperless DRE voting system machines; (4) Ordering Defendants to withdraw approval of current DRE voting system machines and to promulgate specifications, regulations, standards, guidelines, and procedures that will protect the voting rights of all Californians; (5) Requiring Defendants to ensure that DRE voting system machines are replaced or supplemented at the earliest possible moment with more reliable systems that have an original hard copy paper ballot as the primary record of the vote cast; (6) Awarding Plaintiffs their expenses, costs, fees, and other disbursements associated with the filing and maintenance of this action, including reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; (7) Awarding such other equitable and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."
Oct 28, 03: Ninth Circuit Rules Against Weber - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256726p.pdf - Weber says she will appeal.
Voting Rights Groups Lawsuits On Wrong Track Comment: The central issue in these cases is VOTER "error notification and correction", but not MACHINE error or constitutionality. These lawsuits do NOT appear to ask for the courts to require paper ballots in order to conduct a hand-count, an audit, or a re-count. In fact, the parties below have engaged in a de facto endorsement of certain types of voting machines, despite the constitutional issue of a "secret tabulation" of the vote and/or the machines' vulnerability to malfeasance or malfunction.
Voting Rights groups signatories to letter endorsing election reform - http://www.citizen.org/documents/CFR%20Letter.pdf) / However, the new election reform law is fatally flawed - "Voting Systems Standard" HR 3295 - 6th version http://thomas.loc.gov/ Comment: The new law as it pertains to voting machine standards is VOLUNTARY. And, it contradicts itself. It suggests that the voters be able to verify their candidate selection (which is good), but allows voting machines to produce an electronic ballot for voters to "verify" without providing a paper ballot. However, the new law does allow a paper tape produced by the voting machine (but not verified by the voter) to act as the audit trail. Meanwhile, the issue of voting machine company's proprietary rights or trade secrets (which makes any real audit or inspection impossible) was not addressed by the new law.
Public Citizen - http://www.citizen.org/congress/govt_reform/index.cfm PC supported S 565 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:2:./temp/~c107rcDpWw:e40684: (4) The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for each ballot cast. Comment: This bill did not appear to mandate a paper ballot.
"Many court cases involving allegations of fraud were brought against vendors of electronic systems. There were no convictions. Was there ever any proof of tampering presented? No. Part of the reason for this may be that during the litigation the plaintiffs were never given access to the vote tabulating program, and hence there was no opportunity for anyone to establish evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations. [Emphasis added]" "We should point out that even if the court allowed the plaintiff’s experts to inspect the source-code, there would be no proof that the code provided to the court was, in fact, the selfsame code used in the particular election in question. Federal election officials say that a few states are mandating that the source-code be placed in escrow so that it could be examined in the event of a particularly "fishy" election result."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1988