|
The state is not even specified here and most election laws are state laws. Federal laws like HAVA are only able to directly control federal elections, but as a practical matter either the condition of receiving federal money for compliance with federal law or the practical difficulty and expense of holding separate state and federal elections means that federal law can dictate state law.
OK, that being said, in most states election contest laws have among the shortest statutes of limitation known, but this is supposed to be in the interest of finality of election results, so if one wishes to contest election results, it is too late (depending on the election in question).
However, there are other legal things that are impacted by such a system that is internet connected. (more below)
Note: Clint Curtis's congressional testimony was quite clear in that no internet connection was needed for his code to both alter the tabulator and go back to the original machines and make the math come out and match -- just a connection of some sort. (another tangent here, but a lot of state codes are starting to expressly authorize internal networks so long as not connected to the internet, when the threat is not ONLY from the internet, but from any rogue code placed on a single machine, or on all machines...)
There is no cause of action under HAVA per se, but a violation of several major parts of HAVA can be actionable under 42 USC sec. 1983. States may have parallel methods of vindicating election related rights, as well as substantive laws or regulations prohibiting internet connection (WA state prohibits internet but purports to allow internal networking in very recent post-election regulations adopted on an emergency basis). The most difficult question in any kind of public law or public rights case is that of "standing", and whether voters per se, taxpayers per se, or somebody specifically hurt or alleged to be hurt now or in danger of imminent future harm will be held to have the legal standing to argue a claim. Assuming standing exists a declaratory judgment action could be brought that the elections officials violated the law seeking attorney fees as allowable by law and perhaps actual or nominal damages, or an action for an injunction, enjoining the government from any such future connections to the internet.
Although I would consider the above a reliable but very general guide, only a visit with an attorney admitted to the jurisdiction in question AND who has some familiarity with actions against the government and election laws would give more definitive answers for the state in question.
I'd call connecting to the internet gross negligence or recklessness, so that raises both legal issues and also common sense public issues about the accountability of government officials. While the amount of firewall protection and so forth will somewhat reduce the recklessness, it won't eliminate it, and anybody who WANTS to affect the election will certainly have the capability to breach whatever defenses are there, leaving little or no evidence of the intrusion. It also creates deniability if someone on the inside wanted to do something.
Connecting live election results to the internet is like the lights going off at a casino --- any number of people could be trying to do anything --- so casinos usually have procedures to quickly lock up all the chips.....
But here's what is certainly true beyond a doubt:
Under conditions of
(1) data secrecy (ballots are never disclosed)
(2) methods of analysis secrecy (the software is all trade secret and not disclosed), combined with
(3) unsecure connection to the internet, then
There is NO BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE in election results. None. ZIP. It is neither scientifically acceptable to publish conclusions without data and analysis nor is it legally acceptable for expert witnesses (for example) to testify to conclusions or results without disclosure and cross examination of their data and analysis.
Just based on conditions (1) and (2) without the internet wild card there is no basis other than faith to accept the election results (the conclusions based on the above "data" and "methods of analysis").
Based on the above lack of any rational basis for confidence in the election results, which any number of scientists and legal experts could testify to, there could certainly be legal action to enjoin election officials from operating in such a way as to create absolutely unverifiable results, or from purporting to "certify" any such results in the future.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
