Reply #18: Oh come on! You can do better than that, can't ya? This is not similar to the Nassau case at all.

[Bill Bored]

First of all, the lead plaintiff is PFAW -- a known supporter of DRE voting machines.

Secondly, the Nassau complaint is from bipartisan Election Officials concerned about computerized vote-counting in general (as required by the NY election law they seek to overturn which allows both scanners AND DREs) and possible tampering with paper ballots. The PA complaint is from PFAW and some voters concerned about, among other things, accessibility, the lack of certification of the machines, etc. None of this gets to the heart of the issue of concealed vote counting.

This complaint seems to imply that if only the software were properly tested and not deployed at the 11th Hour, and the machines were more accessible, or made by a different vendor, there would be no worries. These are all false assurances and are NOT part of the Nassau complaint, which clearly states that complex software such as that used in computerized voting systems cannot be reliability certified, based on the scientific evidence.

There are other differences too numerous to mention between the two complaints, and I don't have time to find them all. NY has satisfied HAVA's accessibility requirement, and the Nassau suit is not being brought by DRE advocates. PA had not provided accessibility at the time this suit was filed. It's one of the major issues for the plaintiffs.

And the PA suit doesn't even seem to recognize the difference between a voting machine and a voting system as defined in HAVA.

If you can't do better than this, either the Nassau case hasn't been made before, or you're not trying hard enough.

As far as audits, I'm all for improving them in any state that's saddled with computerized vote counting. In the case of New York, AS I SAID, the powers that be are the ones who have displayed a complete lack of concern about the issue of election verification. Explain to me why you believe otherwise.