PHILADELPHIA (PRNewswire) – A nonpartisan and diverse group of Pennsylvania voters filed a lawsuit in Commonwealth Court to halt the use of electronic voting machines that do not create a permanent physical record of each vote. The lawsuit, the most comprehensive yet filed against electronic voting in Pennsylvania, alleges that the Secretary of State’s certification of such electronic voting machines violates the state’s Election Code and the state’s Constitution.
The plaintiffs in the suit — numbering more than a dozen from around the state — include J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Philadelphia Branch; Susanna Staas, former Chester County Republican Committeewoman; the Rev. James Moore, president of the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity; Rob McCord, chairman of the Eastern Technology Council; and Janis Hobbs- Pellechio, volunteer for the Bucks County group Coalition for Voting Integrity.
If the voter plaintiffs prevail in their request for a preliminary injunction, a total of 57 affected counties could still hold their November elections using paper ballots with optical scan readers. Clearfield County is on that list.
“The very integrity of the election process is at stake here,” said Mary Kohart, lead attorney for the plaintiffs and partner at law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. “In elections using these computerized voting systems, the machines can be subject to tampering and malfunctions where there is no independent record allowing either voters to verify their own votes or election officials to recount all votes if necessary.”
The complaint details numerous breakdowns and loss of votes by machines that have been certified for use in Pennsylvania by the Secretary of State. Incidents include the loss of votes in four precincts in Berks County last year, the 10,000 votes in three Pennsylvania counties that were not counted in the 2004 Presidential election, and the 200 machines in Philadelphia that experienced problems in the May 2006 primary. The complaint also details examples of lost votes in elections around the country from electronic voting machines.
“The General Assembly has specified that electronic voting machines must be absolutely accurate, they must be reliable and they must have a ‘permanent physical record’ before they can be used in Pennsylvania,” said Michael Churchill, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and attorney with the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. “With the all-electronic voting systems certified by the Secretary of State, it’s impossible to ensure all votes are recorded and counted as intended by the voters.”
Marian K. Schneider, also co-counsel for the voter plaintiffs, noted that this issue has broad implications. “The integrity of the voting process is an issue that concerns us all, regardless of ideology or political party affiliation,” Schneider said. “The changeover to paperless machines, however originally well-intended, threatens to undermine our democracy. Now is the time to ensure that every vote counts and every vote is counted.”
Some Pennsylvania counties already have had problems with electronic voting systems. Voter plaintiff Mary Vollero documented several problems with machines in Centre County. “Our first experience with these paperless machines showed that they do not function properly,” Vollero said. “We need to be able to double-check the machine results with a voter-verified record of the voter’s choice.”
“Pennsylvania voters should not have to take it on faith that these new machines work,” said voter plaintiff Regina Schlitz of Bucks County. “We need to be able to verify that our votes are recorded and counted with absolute accuracy.”
“Unless the court acts quickly to prevent it, many Pennsylvania counties are headed for serious problems in the November election,” said Lowell Finley, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and co-director of the nonprofit group Voter Action.
Holly Jacobson, Finley’s co-director at Voter Action, noted that good alternatives exist to the unreliable electronic voting machines: “Paper balloting, with ballot marking devices for the disabled, is a less expensive, more secure and accountable option, which is why states like Michigan and New Mexico and hundreds of counties around the country have switched or are making the switch in time for the November elections,” she said.
COUNTIES WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES AFFECTED BY LAWSUIT
Allegheny County Cumberland County Montgomery County
Armstrong County Dauphin County Northampton County
Beaver County Delaware County Northumberland County
Bedford County Elk County Perry County
Berks County Erie County Philadelphia County
Blair County Fayette County Pike County
Bradford County Forest County Potter County
Bucks County Greene County Schuylkill County
Butler County Jefferson County Somerset County
Cambria County Lackawanna County Sullivan County
Cameron County Lancaster County Tioga County
Carbon County Lawrence County Union County
Centre County Lebanon County Venango County
Chester County Lehigh County Warren County
Clarion County Luzerne County Washington County
Clearfield County Lycoming County Wayne County
Clinton County McKean County Westmoreland County
Columbia County Mercer County Wyoming County
Crawford County Monroe County York County
COUNTIES UNAFFECTED
Adams County
Franklin County
Fulton County
Huntingdon County
Indiana County
Juniata County
Mifflin County
Montour County
Snyder County
Susquehanna County