Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DRE Lawyer Drops Major DRE suit; calls VVPAT "Fool's Gold"; Tells Cong take Powder on Legislation

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
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 09:59 AM
Original message
DRE Lawyer Drops Major DRE suit; calls VVPAT "Fool's Gold"; Tells Cong take Powder on Legislation
Edited on Mon Dec-04-06 10:04 AM by Land Shark
Prof Dan Tokaji Drops Pro-DRE litigation as Moot, Calls VVPAT Paper Trails "Fool's Gold" & says Congress should "Take a Breath" on Further Legislation

Prof./Lawyer Dan Tokaji is lead counsel in the most potentially damaging elections case in America (Stewart v Blackwell,6th Cir.) and he is also arguably the chief legal conjurer for a world of DRE technology, having sued on behalf of the ACLU in this case to require DREs and have them held constitutional while having paper-based punchcards and central count optical scans held unconstitutional on account of their relative residual vote rates (defined as overvotes plus undervotes).

A normal 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit had previously upheld DREs and struck down the paper based technologies that were otherwise grandfathered under HAVA for this general reason of "residual votes". I've written before that the residual vote test is tilted heavily to favor DREs, which don't allow overvotes (and so will typically win the residual vote test) but more importantly, as a different technology, DREs tend to express their problems in ways other than residual votes (though they can have occasionally high undervotes, as seen in Sarasota, Florida)

Tokaji and the ACLU decided to drop their case as moot last week, agreeing to Blackwell's long-standing earlier argument that the case was moot because all Ohio Jurisdictions had adopted "notice" voting technology, i.e. technology that pipes up and warns the voter if there's an overvote or an undervote. Various factors from the increasingly publicized undervote rates in Sarasota Florida to the recent NIST STS report probably factored into the last minute decision for Tokaji and the ACLU to agree with Blackwell that the case was moot, since Blackwell's position had been along these lines for some time now. Because the panel decision was vacated in order to gain en banc review, the moot status, if agreed to by the court, would keep the 6th Circuit opinion as vacated and dismiss the trial court action. The expected appeal to the US SUpreme Court on Bush v Gore grounds would be avoided, for now.

Tokaji also commented on the NIST STS report, and called VVPAT "fool's gold."

"The most important thing for Congress is to take a deep breath," says Dan Tokaji, an election-law expert at Ohio State University. He worries that momentum is building for something that could prove to be a mistake. "Passing paper trails at this stage, based on what we know right now is really fools gold. It may provide an initial sense of confidence. But that confidence won't be long-lasting unless we resolve some deeper issues."

I've emailed with Tokaji in the past, and he is well aware of the legal challenges that can be brought, including but not limited to Bush v. Gore challenges (he's written a book chapter on such things). He successfully brought such a Bush v. Gore equal protection challenge in the 6th Circuit until the opinion was vacated pursuant to the normal procedures for en banc review, and the ruling was to uphold DREs and strike down paper based technologies at issue in that case.

Brad Blog chimes in (via guest blogger John Gideon of VotersUnite):

"Tokaji is absolutely correct. He just didn't go far enough and say that with no confidence in the paper trail there should also be no confidence in Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines. They are both, together or singly, "fools gold"."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3871

As Tokaji notes somewhat ominously at the end of his blog, "The doctrinal legacy of Bush v Gore remains up for grabs." http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006_12_01_equalvote_archive.html

Thus, by no means does the "dicta" reference in Bush v. Gore to the general effect that Bush v. Gore is a unique case mean that it does not provide rules of decision for future cases, as the panel in the 6th Circuit originally held after a detailed explanation. Already five or so cases have been brought under Bush v. Gore and it is still up in the air, i.e. seeminly primed for further US Supreme Court review of our elections systems.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes! Glad to see Tokaji is finally getting it! Paper Ballots, No Trail!
Edited on Mon Dec-04-06 10:08 AM by IndyOp
On edit: We cannot let Congress take a breather, however. We need paper ballots for 2008 -- ballots that can be both machine counted and hand counted. We need laws that allow for meaningful citizen oversight of elections.

NO REST!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah, I don't think Tokaji favors paper ballots, however...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I've never been able to grasp which side(s) Tokaji's on
what's up with this guy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. he's on the side of DREs, pure and simple
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-05-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. and he's a disability law lawyer/litigant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-07-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. representing, inter alia, the ACLU in Stewart v Blackwell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Quite right, no VVPAT!
No DREs either! PAPER BALLOTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-04-06 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Simple, sweet, to the point. Thanks!
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:05 PM
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