Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/275176/00573-diebold-opposition
Timestamp: 2018-07-16 01:55:41
Document Index: 656598457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§163', '§ 1']

00573-diebold opposition | Intervention (Law) | Injunction
00573-diebold opposition
05 CVS 15474 DMSION
OF JUSllCE
DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS,INC. Plaintiff,
PLAINnFF'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITIONTO MOTION
(N.C. Gen. Stat. § lA-I,
TO INTERVENE Rule 24)
TECHNOWGY
North Carolina activist and coordinator of the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting. Behind the attempted intervention, however, is a San Francisco-based activist group, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation("EFF').
supporting memorandumof points and authorities,on its website, in an article subtitled "BFF
Goes to Court to Force E-voting Company to Comply With Strict New North Carolina
evadingNorth Carolina law[,]" And Authorities In SupportOf
EFFector, Vol. 18, No. 40, Nov. 18, 2005, available at bup://www.eff.org/effector/18/40.pbpj see also
bup://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20051117 _Diebold-v_NC_MotioD.pdf. Because the ~rary restraining order issuedby JudgeManning is now expired by operationof law, EFF's attempt,via JoyceMcCloy, to modify or vacate that temporaryrestrainingorder is QX)Ol See,e.g., Taylor v. CenturaBank, 124 N.C. App. 661,478 S.E.2d 226 (1996) (holding temporary restraining order expires after ten days by operation of law and action taken
("DESr') action for declaratory judgment seeking clarification of escrow
requirements for voting system vendors. "[T]he interest of a third party seeking to intervene as a
matterof right must be of such direct and immediatecharacterthat he will either gain or lose by the direct operationand effect of the judgment." Virmani v. PresbyterianHealth Servs.Corp., S.E.2d 675, 682-83 (1999) (quotations and citations omitted)
and certainly EFF, has no direct and immediate interest relating to DESI's action for
of escrow requirements for voting system vendors.
Only election system vendors motion to intervene would
and the state agencies administering elections and election equipment procurement have a direct
and immediateinterest
result in an impainnent of the protection of a (here nonexistent)direct and immediate interest,
and the North Carolina State Board of Elections will more than adequately represent the indirect interest of North Carolina voters, including Ms. McCloy.
McCloy should be grantedpennissive intervention becausethey lack a clain1or defensewith
questions of fact or law common to DESI's action for declaratory judgment as to escrow
requirements for voting system vendors, and their presencein this action will only delay adjudicationof this action andprejudicethe partiesto the action. Id
For these and other reasons detailed below, the motion to intervene should be denied.
thereafteris without authority). Moreover, even if the temporaryrestrainingorder were still in effect, onejudge of
this Court is not allowed to ovemlle or modify the ruling of another. "'The power of one judge of the superior is equal to and coordinate with dJat of another.' Michigan Nat'lBank v. Hanner, 268 N.C. 668, 670,151 S.E.2d court
580 (1966). Accordingly, it is well established in our jurisprudence that . . . ordinarily onejudgemaynot modify, overrule, change judgment another or the of Superior Courtjudgepreviously madein the ~ action. Statev. ,.
S.E.2d 191, 194 (2003).
Woolridge, 357 N.C. 544, 549, 592
2005-323,attached to DESI's
N.C. Elections Act (the "Act
called the Public Confidencein
under the Act states that voting
system vendors shall place in escrow the following infoOIl'ation:
[A]ll softwarethat is relevantto functionality, setup,configuration,
and operation of the voting system, including, but not limited to,
§163-165.9A(a)(
complete copy of the source and executablecode, build scripts, object libraries, application program interfaces, and complete documentationof all aspectsof the system including, but not limited to, compiling instructions,designdocumentation, technical documentation, user documentation, hardware and software specifications, drawings,records,and data. . .. The documentation shall include a list of programmersresponsiblefor creating the software and a sworn affidavit that the source code includes all relevantprogramstatements low-level andhigh-level languages. in
N.C. Gen.Stat.§163-165.9A(b)
On September 26, 2005, the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections issued a
memorandum, attached to DESI's complaint as Exhibit B, stating it was "developing a Request
for Proposal (RFP) for the certification of voting equipment that will be purchasedby the
counties," and inviting "all interested parties to submit written comments and/or suggestions for
any additional requirements or features not already covered by the aforementioned, to be
considered by the State Board." Cmplt. Ex. B
, September26, 2005 memorandum,DESI
In response to State Board of submitted written questions to the State Elections Board of Elections regarding the RFP and the
October25,2005, a copy of which is attached D~l's to
Addendum Number 2 was submitted by DESI and states as
relevant to functionality, setup, configuration and operation of the
voting system" to be placed in escrow in source and object
In the Diebold
("DESr')
system,the operatingsystem,varioussoftwaredrivers for ancillary components such as displays and card readersand other computer programs are the property of third parties and not available to vendors. Nonetheless,failure to supply the software for those
components is a felony and the SBE may impose a penalty $100,000 for a failure to comply. How should a vendor address of
software for ancillary components developed by third parties?
Cmplt. Ex. D p. S. The State Board of Elections responded to Question 19 as follows:
format, all available "software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration and operation of the voting system" and
indicate in the RFP response all that is not available and why it
The responseby the State Board of Elections to Question 19 is inconsistent with RFP
Requirement #6 and N.C.G.S. §163-165.9A, and yet noncompliance with the RFP and N.C.G.S
§163-165.9A carry the risk of not only substantialcivil, but also criminal, liability.
On November 4, 2005, DESI filed this action §163-165.9A; Cmplt. Ex. D p. 5
RFP, as well as a temporaryrestrainingorder and preliminary injunction. Seegenerally Cmplt.
The Honorable Howard E. Manning, Jr. issued a temporary restraining order on November 4.
2005 and extended that temporary restraining order on November 17, 2005, attached hereto as
Exhibits 3 and 4. On November 10, EFF, through North Carolina voter and activist Joyce McCloy, filed a motion and supporting memorandumof points and authorities seeking to
intervene in this declaratory judgment action. EFF and McCloy also filed a by now moot Motion
)r Vacate
~emporary Restraining Order
A. Neither Ms. McCloy, Nor EFF Through Ms. McCloy, May Intervene As A
24(a)(2)
P.24(a)(2).3
right as follows'
When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or
his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented existingparties. by N.C. Gen. Stat
Rule 24(a)(2).
[W]here no other statuteconfers an unconditional right to intervene,
the interest of a third party seeking to intervene as a matter of under N.C.G.S. § lA-I, Rule 24(a) "must be of such direct right
immediate characterthat he will either gain or lose by the direct operation and effect of the judgment. . . . One whose interest in the matter in litigation is not a direct or substantial interest, but is an indirect, inconsequential, a contingentone cannotclaim the right to or
160 S.E.2d 313,
225 N.C. 53, 56, 33 defend." Strickland v. Hughes, 273 N.C. 481, 316 (1968) (quoting Mu/len v. Town of Louis
S.E.2d484, 486 (1945» (emphasis added) (applying former N.C.G.S.
§ 1-73), quoted in River Birch Assocs. v. City of Raleigh, 326 100, 128, 388 S.E.2d 538, 554 (1990) (applying Rule 24(a)(2». N.C. The
prospective intervenor seeking such intervention as a matter of right
under Rule 24(a)(2) must show that (I) it has a direct and
interestrelating to the property or transaction,(2) denyingintervention would result in a practical impairmentof the protectionof that interest, and (3) there is inadequaterepresentation that interestby existing of
parties. Alfordv. Davis, 131 N.C. App. 214,218,505 S.E.2d
81,83,247
Virmani. at 350 459.515 N.C.
2 See supra, note 1.
3Ms. McCloy and EF do not contend that any statute provides a conditional or unconditional right to intervene
682-83
and immediate interest relating: to the issue oresented by this
action. narnel~ escrow reQuirements for voting svstem vendors.
"[W]here no other statute confers an unconditional right to intervene, the interest of a
third party seeking to intervene as a matter of right under N.C.G.S. § lA-I, Rule 24(a) must be of
such direct and immediatecharacterthat he will either gain or lose by the direct operationand effect of the judgment
S.E.2dat 682-83 (quotationsand
Virmani,
citations omitted). "[I)ndirect" or "contingent" interests "common to all persons" do not entitle a S.E.2d at 683
McCloy. has any direct, immediate interest in party to intervene as a matter of right. [d. at 459,515
DESl's declaratory judgment action. This action seeks clarification of escrow requirements for
voting system vendors under a statute titled "Voting systems: requirements for voting systems
vendors; penalties,
t, Presently, it is unclear
163-16S.9A, and under the RFP for voting machines.
executables relevant to the functionality, set-up, configuration and operation of DESI election
systems, and identify third-party programmers who worked on such software, or whether vendors
all available such source code, executablesand programmer identifications and
makeexplicit and explain any unavailableinfonnation. This ambiguity directly and immediately affects and interests only:
(a) voting system vendors, which are subject to the escrow
for noncompliance,
duty and the right to administerNorth Carolina's elections,and (c) the Office of Information
Technology Services, which bears responsibility for procurement of information technology
products,including election machines.
North Carolina voter who would, in future elections, make use of voting systems made by
vendors subject to the escrow requirements at issue here. However, her indirect interest in this
action is no more direct or immediatethan the interest oft for examplet a North Carolina bank account holder's interest in a declaratoryjudgment action about the interpretation of North
Carolina laws regulating fmancial institutions, or, as in Virmani, a newspaper's interest in seeing matters related to civil actions made public.
Because Ms. McCloy
and EFF have no direct or
immediateinterestin DESI's declaratoryjudgment action, they are not entitled to interveneas a
matter of right pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 24(a)(2).
throu2h
immediate interest relating:to the issue oresentedby this action. denYing intervention cannot result in the imoainnent of a direct or immediate interest.
A person "seeking such intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) must show
that (1) it has a direct and immediateinterest.
[and] (2) denying intervention would result in a
Virmani, 350 N.C. at 459, 515
practical impairment of the protection of that interest
S.E.2d at 682-83 (quotations and citations omitted). Logically, where there is no direct and immediateinterest,there can be no impairmentof a (nonexistent)direct and immediateinterest.
e.g,, Virmani, id. (holding that where one lacks a direct interestand has only an "indirect or
contingentinterest-- an interestcommonto all persons,"that personis "not entitled to intervene
as a matter of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. § lA-I, Rule 24(a).").
Here, because neither Ms. McCloy nor EFF has a direct and immediate interest relating
to the issue presented by this actiont namely escrow requirements
for voting system vendorst
denying their attemptedinterventioncannotresult in the impairment of a (nonexistent)direct or immediateinterest.
(iii). North Carolina's State Board of Elections will more than adeguatelx
represent the indirect Voters.
interests of Ms. McCloy
and all North
(2) denying intervention would result in a practical impainnent of the protection of that interest, and (3) there is inad~uate representation of that interest by existing Rarties.
Virmani, 350 N.C. a direct will more interest of Elections
at 459, 515 S.E.2dat 682-83 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Logically, where there is no direct and immediate interest, there can be no inadequaterepresentationof that (nonexistent) interestby existing parties. See,e.g., Virmani, id. (holding that
where one lacks
and hasonly an "indirect or contingentinterest--an interestconunonto all persons,"that person
is "not entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. § lA-I, Rule 24(a).")
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the State Board than
adequately represent the indirect interest of North Carolina voters, including Ms. McCloy, in this action. The North Carolina State Board of Elections is "an independent regulatory and quasi-
judicial agency,'
163-28,
administrationof the electionsprocessand campaignfinance disclosurein North .Carolina. See
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/. The State Board of Elections is comprised of five registered voters
appointed by the Governor, not more than three of whom may be from the same political party,
chaiimen
163-19.
of the State Board of Elections are:
Genevieve C. Sims, and Robert Cordle. See
The State Board of Elections members, upon being appointed, took an oath of office in
they solemnly sworeto "support the Constitutionof the United States[,]" "be faithful and
bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina," "support, maintain and defend the
Constitution" of North Carolina, and "well and truly execute the duties" of their office to the best
of their knowledge and ability. Id.
http://www.sboe.state.nc.usI.
the State Board has the right and the duty to interpret and enforce election laws and regulations,
and to do so well, truly, and to the best of its members' knowledge and ability. Nothing supports EFF's and Ms. McCloy's bald assertion that North Carolina's State Board of Elections
Winfree,
"select,"
confonnity
To Interveneat p. 5
In sum, neither Ms. McCloy, nor through her EFF, has a direct and immediate interest
to DESI's
Denying intervention would thus not result in an impainnent of the protection of a (here direct and immediate interest. Moreover, the North Carolina State Board of will more than adequately represent the indirect interest of North Carolina voters.
Ms. McCloy, in this action seeking clarification
of escrow requirements
systemvendors. The
Intervention B.
Denied Permissive
to N. C. R.
P. 24(b)(2).
24(b
question of law or fact in common.
Further, the court shall consider whether intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudicationof the rights of the original parties, and the grant or denial of pennissive intervention "rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Virmani, 350 N.C. at 460, 515 S.E.2d at 683 (citing Bureau, 300 N.C. 460, 468, 269 S.E.2d
538, 543 (1980); State ex rei. Comm'r. of Ins. v. N.C.
296, 299 (1992)). Moreover, while it has been statedthat "[a]n intervenor by pennission need
not show a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the subject of the litigation(,]" In re Baby Boy
Scearce,81 N.C. App. 531,541,345 S.E.2d 404,410 (1986) (citation omitted), it is nevertheless
noteworthy that, in reviewing the trial court's denial of pennissive intervention in Virmani. our
Supreme Court noted the
newspaper's "only indirect or contingent" interest, as well as
intervention's likely "undu[e] delay [of] the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." S.E.2dat 683.
above, neither McCloy, nor through her EFF, has any direct, immediate Virmani, 350 N.C. at 460,515
interest in DESI's declaratory judgment action.
requirements for voting system vendors under a statute titled "Voting
systems: requirements for
penalties,"
163-16S.9A,
code and executables relevantto the functionality, set-up,configuration and operationof DES!
election systems, and identify third-party programmers who worked on such software, or whether
and make explicit and explain any unavailable infonnation immediately affects and interestsonly:
escrow requirements and penalties for
(a) voting system vendors,
This ambiguity directly and
which are subject to the
(b) the State Board of Elections,
Carolina's elections, and (c) the Office of
Infonnation Technology Services,which bears responsibility for procurement of infonnation
technology products, including election machines. Moreover, because Ms. McCloy and EFF are activists and, in the case of Ms. McCloy, a North Carolina voter and not (1) a voting vendor or (2) a state agency administering elections processes or election
procurement, neither has any claims or defensescommon in law or fact to any claims or defenses
ofD~I
or the State Board of Elections and the Office of Information Technology Services. Further, allowing McCloy,
and through her EFF, to intervene will
the action's original parties. A section of Ms.
sales pitch."
infoIDl
"Diebold
Systems doesn't want you to mow[.]"
See http://www.ncvoter.netldiebold.html
and, through her EFF's, attempt to intervene in this action has also already been widely publicized in an unbalanced prejudicial manner. For example,on the websiteof activist and and
filmmaker Michael Moore, EFF staff attorney Matt Zimmerman is quoted as stating about this
litigation: "Diebold
that it simply couldn't comply with the law.
Diebold should spendits efforts developinga systemthat voters can trust, not asking a court to let it bypass legal
ensunng voting
That quote comes
integrity.t'
from an Electronic
http://www.michaelmoore.com/wordslindex.php?id=4931
this action, a speedy clarification
Ms. McCloy,
of the escrow requirements for voting system vendors.
and through her EFF, seekto further their own agendas, tactic that would likely a
of this action, as well as prejudice DESI through purposefully damaging
discovery, and other such tactics.
viewpoints regarding the issuespresented this action through an amicus curaie brief to this by
They should, however, not be allowed to delay adjudication and prejudice the parties to
an action in which they have no direct or immediate interest and no common defense or claim
but ratheran agendato further.
As has been demonstrated above, neither Ms. McCloy nor EFF has a direct and
immediate interest relating to DESI's action for clarification
of escrow requirements for voting
In turn, denying intervention would not result in an impainnent of the
protection of a (here nonexistent)direct and immediate interest, and the North Carolina State
Board of Elections will more than adequately represent the indirect interest of North Carolina
voters, including
Ms. McCloy.
or law common
Further, Ms.
requirementsfor voting systemvendors,and their presence this action will delay adjudication in of this action and prejudice the parties. The Court should, therefore, summarily deny the motion to intervene.
Thisthe6y
of November, 2005.
CARLYLE SANDRIDGE RICE &
~~~~~~~~Bii'
Sarah L. Buthe, NCSB
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: 919-755-2100 Attorneysfor Plaintiff
RALEIGHSl8812v4
Documents Similar To 00573-diebold opposition
10. Perez v. CA
Bella P. v. Dcs, Ariz. Ct. App. (2016)
006 Puyat v. De Guzman.docx
Atty. Virgilio r. Garcia vs Eastern Telecommunications Philippines
ch 9 exercise 2
api-294781680
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc. (Naacp) and New Haven Branch, Naacp v. Town of East Haven and East Haven Board of Education, 70 F.3d 219, 2d Cir. (1995)
Richland, WA Public Facility District (RPFD) Call for Expression of Interest (EOI) -- Sept.-14-2012
United States v. Dashiel, 71 U.S. 182 (1866)
United States v. Gerald Miller, and William Graham, 14 F.3d 761, 2d Cir. (1994)
INTER TRAVEL & SERVICES INC et al v. COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT et al Response to Stay
Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC