CA Court: SOS Electronic Voting Conditions Subject to APA

[Wilms]

San Diego County Registrar of Voters Deborah Seiler, and interveners Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties sued SoS Debra Bowen arguing that her enhanced audit requirements are illegal and that even if the weren't she hadn't followed procedures (the state's Administrative Procedures Act) in calling for them. The judge did not agree with the former but agreed with the latter.

Perhaps then she can reintroduce the auditing measure in compliance with the APA as the judge has ruled she's entitled to call for an audit.

Court: SOS Electronic Voting Conditions Subject to APA

by Randy Riddle

August 29, 2008

Here is the summary of the holding from the Court of Appeal's decision:

"As part of a program intended to ensure the integrity of California elections, Debra Bowen, in her official capacity as the California Secretary of State (the Secretary), decertified and then immediately recertified a number of voting systems in use throughout the state. As a condition of recertification, the Secretary imposed a comprehensive system of postelection manual ballot tallying on local elections officials.

In this appeal, we consider a challenge raised by plaintiffs County of San Diego and Deborah Seiler, in her official capacity as Registrar of Voters for the County of San Diego, and interveners the counties of Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino (collectively, the Counties) to these requirements. The Counties contend that the Secretary does not ave the authority to impose the tallying requirements and that even if the Secretary does possess such authority, she was required, but failed, to act pursuant to the mandates of the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA)."

As we explain below, we disagree with the Counties on the question of the Secretary's authority to issue the ballot tallying requirements. We agree, however that the Secretary's issuance of the requirements was subject to the APA. Consequently, regardless of the wisdom of, or necessity for, the postelection manual ballot tallying requirements, they are void under California law due to the Secretary's failure to adhere to the procedures set forth in the APA."

http://www.calelectionlaw.com/archives/2008/08/court_sos_elect.php


Rumpel had posted about this earlier this year.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=494801


And here's Deborah Seiler's business card from a former employer.

[Peace Patriot]

1. O-O-O-OH FUCK! Diebold strikes again-- just in time for the November (s)election!

This is so fucked I can't believe it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. its just a coinkie dink that Seiler worked for Diebold

and then filed this suit to fight audits that might make Diebold look bad.

[Wilms]

10. She's incorrigible.

Here's here point of view on the touch screens mothballed as a result of Bowen's recertification requirements.

A few more are holding out hope that the machines, some of which were purchased for as much as $5,000, could one day be resurrected.

"We store them very, very carefully in the hopes that someone, someday may decide that we can use them again," said San Diego County Registrar Deborah Seiler, whose jurisdiction spent $25 million on the devices.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jej6XIWrQn6-gw5O5bJa1ELx78DgD92LLDO00

[lynnertic]

3. "Perhaps then she can reintroduce the auditing measure in compliance with the APA

...as the judge has ruled she's entitled to call for an audit."

A terrible thing didn't just happen, it's just more paperwork IMO.

Editing to add: that I'm glad loopholes are being closed NOW rather than allowing these people to fight these requirements when there's no time for a countermove.

[lynnertic]

4. oops

replied to wrong person...

[Wilms]

7. I don't know how long it will take for the enhanced audits to be run through the APA process.

And I don't know that it would be guaranteed to pass. Still, she's got a leg to stand on in making the case.

[lynnertic]

5. how did you get that card... was it posted to the article?

thx.

[Wilms]

8. :evilgrin:

A fellow activist got the business card years ago from a then Diebold employed Seiler.

:evilgrin:

I wouldn't mind here having formerly worked for a vendor if she didn't act as though she still does. :shrug:

[garybeck]

6. HOW is this not a conflict of interest?

How can the Registrar of Voters for a county work for Diebold?

:shrug:

[Wilms]

9. She used to work for them.

Aw heck. Maybe she still does. Hard to tell some days.

:grr:

[diva77]

11. Here's link to decision & to the 4th District Court of Appeal - anyone know

anything about the judges besides the bios on the site? http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/4thDistrict/justices.htm#div1

These judges don't get it!! The opinion is outrageous!! :hurts:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D052744.PDF

judges named in decision are (if I'm reading the document correctly) :

IRION, J.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.