Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Electronic Voting

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 06:36 PM
Original message
NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Electronic Voting

NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Electronic Voting Machines

February 09, 2006

Newark, NJ, February 9, 2006 � The New Jersey Appellate Division announced today its agreement with concerns raised by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark that all electronic voting machines used in New Jersey may violate New Jersey�s Constitution and election laws.

In its decision, the Appellate Division reinstated a lawsuit filed by the clinic in 2004 that challenges the ability of New Jersey's electronic voting machines to count votes accurately, in compliance with voting rights laws. The Court reinstated the lawsuit even though, as a result of judicial and legislative efforts led by the clinic, all voting machines in the state must be equipped with a voter verified paper ballot component by 2008. The Court was concerned with protecting the hundreds of millions of votes that would be cast on voting machines between now and 2008. The Court also expressed its concern that the Attorney General's office would use a loophole in the statute and issue waivers to the 2008 voter verified paper ballot requirement further jeopardizing the franchise.

The lawsuit is the first in the nation to successfully challenge electronic voting machines. Professor Penny Venetis, associate director of the clinic and lead counsel on the case, commented, This shows that our courts take very seriously their role in protecting our most fundamental of all rights - the right to vote. Despite clear evidence that New Jersey's voting machines are insecure, the other branches of government failed to take appropriate action. That is why the Court stepped in, Venetis added.

The same voting machines used by almost all of New Jersey's five million registered voters have been found too insecure to use and have been de-commissioned by California, Ohio, Nevada, and New York City. New Jersey does not check the software of electronic voting machines to determine whether they have been tampered with or whether they are faulty.

The Rutgers clinic filed the suit on behalf of the Coalition for Peace Action, a citizens group based in Princeton that has been in the forefront of advocating for safe, transparent and auditable elections, as well as voter Stephanie Harris, a farmer whose vote was lost by a malfunctioning Mercer County electronic voting machine. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, an early proponent of the voter verified paper ballot.

snip

http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/news/index.php?sId=viewAr...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great post
Kicked and recommended for the Greatest Page!

Really the only hope we have left is the legal system. 1 day they throw out Delay, the
next day they promote Delay. Little progress being made on corruption and cronyism,
lets go after the election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Not a victory yet-- its moving thru the appeals process
another break in the NJ courts for the good guys:

FWD:
IN CASE ANYONE MISSED PENNY'S ASTONISHINGLY UNDERSTATED REPORT -- SHE PREVAILED AT THE APPELLATE DIVISION IN THE RUTGERS SUIT!

The lower court is to conduct an expedited fact finding by April 21, and the parties are to be before the Appellate Division again on May 24.


WHAT LAWSUIT, you ask?
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/gusciora_appellate...
Gusciora vs McGreevey/Codey & Harvey

<fwd>
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/governmen...
Last October, New Jersey State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Trenton) filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging the delay. Gusciora was a leader in the fight to approve the measure in the New Jersey legislature.
Penny Venetis, an attorney and professor of law at Rutgers Law School, said the problem is that there will be several key elections in the state before 2008. Venetis helped filed Gusciora's lawsuit last year through the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic.
"The 2008 date is problematic because there are no protections for voters between now and 2008," Venetis said. "State law says every vote should be counted. It doesn't say they should be counted in three years."
Spokesmen for Codey and Gusciora could not be reached for comment today.
Gusciora's lawsuit stalled in January when a New Jersey judge dismissed the case, Venetis said. The case is now on appeal before the New Jersey Court of Appeals, but no date has yet been set for oral arguments.
Gusciora filed the lawsuit a month before last November's elections, but a judge ruled that it was too late at that point to challenge the use of the e-voting machines in the election, Zimmerman said.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Go Rutgers! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. So how does this fit with your other post about NJ trying to outlaw
paper ballots?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
One group trying to outlaw voting machines and one paper ballots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think you meant to reply to Foger.
Good point, Amaryllis.

If both are successful... :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sorry, I did mean Foger. Is NJ gonna vote on stone tablets? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
12.  the bill mandating DRE s will not pass-- cross fingers
Pennys suit needs help-- she failed to prove irreparable harm previously. A good audit of the 2004 ele3ction-- broken down by machine type, will prove past harm. This audit will give Panny the big gun her suit lacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmileMaker Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. So proud of the Coalition for Peace Action and the Rutgers Law Center
I actually learned the good news first hand tonight when I saw the person who had her vote vaporized. I was so excited and distracted by everything else going on in the room, I had to come to DU to see what the story is once I got home.

I went looking for hope tonight at a showing and discussion with Danny Schechter and his film Weapons of Mass Deception at the Princeton Public Library (packed house). It was an excellent film, but so sad to think that this media is so corrupted that, once again, dumbed down Americans are getting conned into another war while Bush continues to be supported for getting away with murder and breaking other laws.

We must fix the electoral system AND the media!!

Dan suggested we organize Tupperware-type parties with progressive films. I asked if he could help organize some people to do what Bob Parry (Consortium News) keeps suggesting that the Dems should do if they ever want to win another election.

In other news.... Before you Enlist beforeyouenlist.org will be out in not too long. One of the filmmakers was there and he said they only have three more shootings before it's done.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Stephanie Harris-- eh-- tell her Roger says HI-
I'm the NJ co-ordinator for 51capitalmarch.com --- Dec 12th, 2004 Trenton Stolen Vote protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dalloway Donating Member (744 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-09-06 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. What does this mean for Essex County's recent authorization
to buy evoting machines? Lots of money potentially down the tubes? Are they already purchased? Any hope of preventing them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Stopping delivery --probably not-- about 50 have been delivered
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
9. not clear about Op-scans.
anyone know how this suit relates to opscans?

it talks about electronic vote COUNTING, which seems like it would cover opscan machines, which are basically electronic vote counting machines. I HOPE it is not only a challenge to DREs. When we go from DREs to opscans, especially without audits, we take a step forward but the system is still wide open to fraud and rigging. I hope this suit is really about electonic vote COUNTING and pertains to opscans too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. The suit's fighting VVPAT-Less DRE's. It's the pdf in Foger's reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. There should be cases in every state challenging DREs.
But the judges will be swayed, even tho they theoretically shdn't be, by the amount of hype and energy surrounding the cases. We have to keep raising cain and making a hubbub.

We shouldn't focus on the Repubs. Let them do their thing. They'll always be around and always be wrong on the basic issues. We have to get our house in order and keep it in order by focusing on what is obviously right.

And we should also remember: THIS IS A NON-PARTISAN ISSUE. THERE IS NO MORE NON-PARTISAN ISSUE THAN GETTING VOTES COUNTED FAIRLY IN A TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING PROCESS.

Everywhere this has been voted on (with the press reporting it) a VVPBT has won overwhelming support.

But we have to emphasize that it all means nothing UNLESS THERE'S A REQUIRED FAIR AUDIT FOR ALL ELECTIONS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
15. Three Woots and a Meow!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. WOOT WOOT WOOOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-10-06 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I thought that would get your attention ... you old foger!
(No insult intended.... I am a grey lady myself and relate age to wisdom)
( I also note many exceptions to the above rule
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-13-06 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. See this unpublished opinion from an appellate court in New Jersey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 20th 2018, 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC