[EL] Here are links to Georgia pleading and order re: paper ballots

[bev at blackboxvoting.org]

Wups, when I attached the files to the list it got sidetracked for 
moderation. Here are links to the Georgia pleading and order in place of 
the attachments:
https://www.scribd.com/document/349458025/2017-05-25-Curling-v-Kemp
https://voterga.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/2017cv290630-6th-district-order.pdf

I am working through the ruling now; I believe that in the past, Georgia 
courts have taken the position that a voter does not have standing to 
challenge government behavior that violates its own laws, so am 
interested to see how they addressed this and other issues.

Marilyn Marks, involved in the Georgia suit, is the plaintiff that got 
Colorado Supreme Court to rule that ballots are indeed a public record. 
The Colorado ruling is a critically important ruling. Ballots as public 
records (and ballot images as public records) are currently either 
prohibited or explicitly authorized depending on which state you are in. 
Since all new voting machines produce electronic ballot images (which 
are anonymous and do not violate voter privacy, but do contain unique 
serial numbers necessary for auditing) -- the issue as to whether 
ballots and ballot images are public records is important.

One kind of valuable improvement to election transparency will be to 
release all ballot images -- which are electronic files -- to the public 
upon request. See blackboxvoting.org article "The Brakey Method" which 
describes how this is done. It should be said, however, that some of the 
voting machines which produce ballot images also contain what they call 
an "adjudication" program which allows the ballot image votes to be 
altered if the operator chooses. (?!? Yes, really, like a kind of a 
drone that can target votes for alteration based on its instructions). 
In California, I have heard that there is statutory language that only 
"adjudicated ballot images" can be used in a recount for systems that 
have them. Another rabbit hole, eh?

There is precedent for ballots as public record, and the sky has not 
fallen in -- Florida has released them, so has Ohio (Mahoning County), 
and Wisconsin's Dane County (Madison) will be posting them on the Web, 
as has Humboldt County California in the past. But Washington state 
courts have removed ballots from the public record, as has New 
Hampshire; yet Vermont courts affirmed that they ARE public record, as 
has Michigan. Arizona courts issued a restraining order to block 
counties from destroying the ballot images prior to the 2016 election, 
but hasn't decided whether they are a public record. At the core of this 
is whether the public has a right to authenticate the truth of reported 
election results, or whether the government can be put in position to 
choose itself.

Also, stay tuned for a very interesting case in Texas: Pressley v. 
Casar, which the TX Supreme Court has just requested that the defendant 
produce arguments for. I will be writing about this shortly at 
blackboxvoting.org, and will include link to the pleading. It addresses 
three issues: 1) Can the Texas Secretary of State void Texas Election 
Statutes enacted through a vote of the legislative branch? 2) Must a 
candidate accept ballots that violate state election laws and 
constitutional requirements for a recount? and 3) Can a candidate be 
sanctioned for asking the courts to clarify inconsistencies between 
election practice and state constitution/election statutes?

The issue pertaining to what constitutes a legal ballot in Texas has far 
reaching implications, because one of the major voting machine vendors 
in Texas, Hart Intercivic, appears to have gotten its system certified 
as meeting all Texas requirements, yet now claims it does not and never 
has met a requirement to retain each ballot image or ballot as a unique 
record (ie, uniquely identified by serial number, as required by Texas 
statutes and the Texas Constitution. Note that this requirement does not 
violate voter privacy if implemented correctly.)

The Texas case is also important because one of the critical safeguards 
for electronic voting is printing voting machine results tape, which 
provides a crucial cross-check against the aggregated results from the 
central tabulator. Texas sec. state office attempted to order election 
officials to ignore that requirement, and Travis County Clerk Dana 
DeBeauvoir issued a written directive to poll workers not to print poll 
tapes (an infraction of the election code which carries criminal 
penalties.)

Very interesting -- and if the Sec. State can override or void 
legislatively enacted election statutes, which ones? Is that an entirely 
discretionary choice? Can it vary by election? Does it include the right 
to override election statutes which carry a criminal penalty when 
violated?

Best,

Bev Harris
BlackBoxVoting.org