California Court Says Elections Officials Must Produce Electronic Vote-Counting Machine Data for Recounts

On April 12, a California Superior Court in Alameda County ruled that when voters exercise their statutory right to a recount, elections officials must produce information from “inside” electronic vote-counting machines. The case was filed in November 2004, after Alameda County was asked to recount the vote on a ballot measure, Berkeley’s Measure R. Alameda County used Diebold electronic touchscreen machines for voters at the polls (voters who voted by mail used paper ballots). Supporters of Measure R, which had narrowly been defeated, asked to see back-up data that is stored inside the machines. They also asked to see the audit logs generated by the vote-counting system that show whether the system functioned properly. Finally, they asked to examine the results of “Logic & Accuracy” testing that had been performed on the machines before and after the election. The county had denied all three requests.

The judge said that the plain meaning of the word “recount” required the county to produce all the requested records. The court also cited the California Constitution (Article II, sec. 2.5), which protects the right to have a valid vote counted. Finally, the court cited Bush v Gore, and said that since the absentee mail votes could be recounted, that the voters who voted at the polls were treated differently, and the differential violates equal protection. Since the machines no longer contain the requested data, another hearing will be held on May 4 to determine whether the county should be sanctioned for not preserving the records. The case is Americans for Safe Access v County of Alameda, RG04-192053. It took this long to get a decision because initially the Superior Court had denied relief, but the State Court of Appeals last year had remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to hear it over again.


Comments

California Court Says Elections Officials Must Produce Electronic Vote-Counting Machine Data for Recounts — No Comments

  1. A true case of “justice delayed is justice denied”. This is EXACTLY why we have to have enforcement of state election laws at the time they are violated.

    Secrecy in the vote counting process means ability to manipulate results without penalty. We must ALWAYS be able to see what the man behind the curtain is doing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.