Letter from Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Chairwoman, House Administration Committee, to the Florida First District Court of Appeal:
-snip-
In contested House elections, the House customarily relies on state legal processes to provide a full and fair airing of contested election issues raised by the parties. This allows states the opportunity to fully discharge their Constitutional responsibility to conduct Federal elections. These state proceedings ordinarily enhance the ability of the House to evaluate the merits of any pending election contest. See
Roudebush v Hartke, 405 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 804 (1972).
It is therefore of concern that the parties have been unable to agree upon, and that, on December 29
th, the lower court declined to order, the requested access to the hardware and software (including the source code) needed to test the contestant's central claim: voting machine malfunction. Now on appeal to your Court is the question of access to this evidence, which bears decisively on the prospect of conclusively establishing who was duly elected on November 7
th from this Congressional district.
My purpose here is not to express a position about the technical merits of the competing arguments in this evidentiary dispute. My purpose is to point out that, in evaluating an election contest in the House, the House is well served in its own deliberations by having before it a complete record. Consequently, Florida law will facilitate the evaluation of the election contest pending before the House to the extent that it provides access to relevant and critical evidence. I am confident that this can be done in a way that accommodates the valid interests of the parties, and resolution of these issues may obviate the need for the House to address them.
-snip-
Full PDF of the letter:
http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/florida/houseadminletter.pdfAlso see:
BradBlog articleElectronic Frontier Foundation article