The iVotronics hacking part is very public. The legal aspect may not be as well-known.

The iVotronics vulnerabilities were documented in a lawsuit joined by the Commonwealth's own Deputy Commissioner of Elections. See Banfield v. Cortes [0]

The Election Code specifies that the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall certify electionic voting systems, and issue directives and instructions upon which such approval is conditioned, with which counties are required to comply.

§ 3031.5. Examination and approval of electronic voting systems by the Secretary of the Commonwealth

(a) The Secretary of the Commonwealth may issue directives or instructions for implementation of electronic voting procedures and for the operation of electronic voting systems....

The county board shall comply with the requirements for the use of the electronic voting system as set forth in the report by the Secretary of the Commonwealth...

(c) No electronic voting system not so approved shall be used at any election... [1]

The Secretary alone determines the method of certification.

While the Legislature mandated that an electronic voting system must comply with specific federal testing and performance standards and the requirements set forth in the Election Code, it does not prescribe a particular testing procedure to govern the manner in which the Secretary is to perform the examination, but ultimately left this discretion to the expertise of the Secretary, who is tasked with implementing the Election Code. [0]

However, counties must still comply with the implementation "directives and instructions" issued by the Secretary.

Section 1105-A of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3031.5 requires that the Secretary of the Commonwealth examine all electronic voting system used in any election in Pennsylvania and that the Secretary make and file a report stating whether, in her opinion, the electronic voting system can safely be used by voters and meets all of the applicable requirements of the Election Code...

The Secretary of the Commonwealth certifies the iVotronic Voting System in accordance with the conditions detailed in the reports... and the following conditions. [2]

The certification of the iVotronics system implemenation directives and instructions include a the specific provision that counties "must install the locking mechanism over the serial port and compact flash memory in a manner to prevent access to the compact flash card."

3. Pennsylvania counties using the iVotronic Voting System must install the locking mechanism over the serial port and compact flash memory in a manner to prevent access to the compact flash card. [ibid.]

As the construction of the locking mechanism itself renders the compact flash accessible regardless of the physical lock used, as determined by multiple audits in academia as well as other states, the iVotronics system in question was not certified in accordance with the requirements of the statute.

The Secretary put a caveat on the certification of the iVotronics with which the counties did not comply. This is physically analogous to requiring that a tenant "must install a lock on this door which prevents access to the inside of this room," but the door cannot latch no matter which lock is used. If instead of repairing the latching mechanism, the tenant merely replaces the lock, he would not be in compliance with the directive.

Rather than work with the manufacturers to create a locking mechanism that complied with the Secretary's directive (changing the latch), the counties merely changed the locks used. These locks do not prevent access to the compact flash card, and thus Secretary's implementation requirements were not met by the counties which used them. The counties failure to meet these directives was not due to lack of ability, as the requirements of the iVotronics maintenance contracts include modifications necessary to comply with state law, or lack of knowledge, as they were disclosed during Banfield, cited by the certification report itself.

The counties simply failed to ensure that the locking mechanisms were updated subsequent to the Secretary's report. Each county board is required to submit their vote totals to the Commonwealth in accordance with the Election Code. As the Election Code requires counties to comply with the Election Code, a county's failure to meet the Secretary's certification requirements disqualifies its reported vote totals.

It's pretty telling about the seriousness of the recount effort that nobody has even bothered to sue a county that used these machines. The Commonwealth's Election Code is not a mere recommendation to the county. Its provisions regarding DREs are specifically intended to punish counties that do not comply with the Secretary's requirements for certification, which many did not.

But please don't cross post me. You won't accomplish anything, except maybe landing me in DHS lockup for ten days for no reason.

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1692529.html

[1] https://govt.westlaw.com/pac/Document/NE9287BF0343011DA8A989...

[2] http://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/Documents/Voting%20Sys...