Colorado Voters File Lawsuit to Halt DRE Purchase
http://www.voteraction.org/
Colorado Voters File Lawsuit to Halt State’s Purchase or Use of DRE Computerized Voting Systems
Group Cites
Deficiencies in Security, Reliability, and
Verifiability
in Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and Hart
Computerized Voting Systems
For Immediate Release: Denver, Colorado, June 1, 2006 – A non-partisan and diverse group of Colorado voters who seek to protect the integrity and purity of elections as required by the Colorado Constitution, filed a lawsuit today challenging the Secretary of State’s certification of certain computerized Direct Recording Electronic (“DRE”) computerized voting systems and asking the Court to prevent the use of these computerized voting systems in Colorado elections. The DREs manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, ES & S, and Hart InterCivic have a well-documented history of problems with security, reliability, verifiability, and disability access. Named defendants are Secretary of State Gigi Dennis and the boards of county commissioners of Adams, Araphahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Eagle, Jefferson, La Plata, and Larimer Counties which are representative of the counties around the state planning to use the DREs.
The law firms Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP in Denver, and the Law Offices of Lowell Finley, representing the Colorado voters, filed the complaint in Denver District Court.
A copy of the complaint is available on www.voteraction.org.
“The
Secretary of State is not upholding her duty to Colorado’s
citizens to ensure reliable, secure, and verifiable voting
as required by our State Constitution and election laws,”
said Myriah Conroy, a plaintiff in the Colorado voters’
suit. “Colorado voters deserve to know that the state’s
voting systems preserve the fundamental right to have their
votes recorded and counted as intended. DRE computerized
voting systems from these manufacturers are easily hacked
and compromised, and have a history of operational problems
which have disrupted elections across the country. Further,
they are virtually impossible to recount in a contested
election, and fail to accommodate voters with a broad range
of disabilities,” said Conroy.
“The Secretary of
State’s Office has failed to issue rules setting minimum
standards for security of these systems. The election rules
permit the DRE manufacturers to simply tell the State that
their machines are secure,” said Paul Hultin, an attorney
with Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP. “Worse, the Secretary is
not following the law. No certification reports required by
law have been prepared even though these systems have been
certified for months and counties are preparing to use these
dubious systems in the upcoming election,” stated Hultin.
As part of their case, the plaintiffs will present
the testimony of computer security experts, Douglas W.
Jones, PHD, and a Professor at the University of Iowa, Dr.
David Dill of Stanford University and Dr. Aviel D. Rubin of
Johns Hopkins University, concerning the security and other
problems inherent in DRE computerized voting systems. Mr.
Noel Runyan, a disability-access technology expert will also
provide testimony.
“Some of the security risks with
these machines are so high that it is unconscionable that
their manufacturers, who have known of the problems for
years, have not taken the necessary steps to correct them,”
said Dr. Jones.
“The Help America Vote Act is being
turned on its head, weakening the integrity of our elections
in the rush to purchase untrustworthy DRE computerized
voting systems,” said Lowell Finley, Co-counsel for the
Colorado voter plaintiffs, election law expert, and
Co-director of Voter Action. “The sanctity of our elections
is too important to turn over to private corporations which
operate without accountability. There are better and more
secure options available, such as optical scan-paper
balloting.”
“Disabled voters want equal access to
voting, but they also want to know that their vote is
secure, and these rights cannot be mutually exclusive,” said
Michael Neil, a plaintiff who has used a wheelchair since
childhood, and is a PhD student at the University of Denver.
“DREs sacrifice security and reliability in a misguided
effort to accommodate the needs of disabled voters such as
myself. And they do not even adequately meet the needs of
the disabled community in many respects.”
“Optical
scan-paper balloting is more secure, less expensive, and can
be verified, which is why neighboring New Mexico and many of
the counties in California and other states have pledged to
move to these systems,” said Holly Jacobson, Co-director of
Voter Action, which is supporting the Colorado voters’ legal
action. “We believe it is important for Voter Action to
support the most fundamental voting rights for the citizens
of Colorado, as we are doing with similar lawsuits in
California, Arizona, and other states. We have a national
crisis developing due to the inherent security
vulnerabilities and the history of errors and vote losses
with these DRE computerized systems. Democracy is too
important to privatize in this way.”
“All Colorado
voters have a fundamental right to cast a secure ballot and
know that it is going to be counted correctly,” said Andrew
Efaw, Co-counsel to the Colorado voters, and an attorney at
WheelerTrigg Kennedy LLP. “DRE computerized voting systems
contain illegal interpreted code prohibited by Colorado Law.
Interpreted code is vulnerable to hacking which is
impossible to detect. Use of DREs compromises the most
fundamental of building blocks of democracy - the right to
vote.”
The Colorado voters’ suit is being supported
by Voter Action, www.voteraction.org, a not-for-profit
organization providing legal, research, and logistical
support for grassroots efforts to ensure the integrity of
elections in the United States. Voter Action supported
successful litigation in New Mexico to block the purchase
and use of DRE computerized voting systems in that state.
Voter Action is a project of the International
Humanities Center, a 501c3
organization.