BBV and the California recall decision

[Skidmore]

I don't understand how this is good decision since I understand it to be based on the arguement that punch card voting machines are not reliable, have been decertified, and are have not yet been scrapped in six counties. It sound like the new machines are ATM type machines. Has this decision "institutionalized" BBV? I've seen the decision hailed as a "great victory" for liberals and progressives. Why is this so? Why is this a victory for anyone in the US.

[dofus]

1. My personal experience with punch card ballots

has made me highly suspicious of them. In Phoenix, Arizona, in one election only (I forget exactly which one, but we lived there 1983-1987 and there was more than one in that time) my first reaction when I started punching the ballot was that this system was designed to invalidate as many ballots as possible.

[DEMActivist]

2. California appeal being heard on October 8

US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Hears Challenge to Paperless Touchscreen Voting Systems on Oct. 8

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced it will hear oral argument next month in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of paperless “touchscreen” voting machines which do not permit voter-verified ballots and a true external recount in the event of a contested election.

The lawsuit was originally brought by Susan Marie Weber, a Palm Desert resident, against Bill Jones in his capacity as California's Secretary of State, and Riverside County Registrar of Voters Mischelle Townsend in August, 2001. (Photo: http://www.electionguardians.org/actions.htm )

The Appeals Court had originally scheduled the case to be decided based solely on written documents submitted by the parties, but recent developments apparently prompted the court to request a personal appearance by the two sides to present oral argument and answer questions from the bench.
See information on the Pasadena 9th Circuit Court

In the District Court, Weber had argued that voters could never know for sure whether or not their vote had been recorded as they intended or whether the computer created the vote, or that their votes, once recorded, would not be manipulated, either fraudulently or by a "glitch," and that in the event of a contested election, the absence of an independently auditable "paper trail" rendered a meaningful recount impossible and absurd.

Weber submitted declarations by three well-known experts in computer voting, including Kim Alexander, a member of the Internet Voting Task Force assembled by Defendant Bill Jones, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, a computer expert who was recently invited to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives' hearing on Voting Technology, and Dr. Peter Neumann, Principal Scientist at SRI. All three experts agreed that the Secretary of State cannot fulfill his statutory obligation to ensure that the “touchscreen” voting machines are "safe from fraud or manipulation" (California Elections Code §19205) without an independently auditable "paper trail."

District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson agreed with election officials Jones and Townsend that the machines met the State of California’s certification process for voting machines, even though Judge Wilson had ruled in another case just weeks before that punch card voting systems -- which were certified by these same standards -- were unconstitutional.

Election officials also argued that the machines meet the applicable legal standard of "reasonable," but in her final brief before the Ninth Circuit Court, Weber countered with an Internet petition started by Stanford Univ. Prof. David Dill, in which nearly 1,000 academic and professional computer science experts declared that the paperless systems are not reasonable.
www.verifiedvoting.org/resolution.asp

In her appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Weber argued that the Secretary of State’s position is Un-American, for it violates our nation’s core belief about human nature and the need for “checks and balances” to guard against the temptation and corrupting influence of power. When politicians routinely raise war chests of tens of millions of dollars, we must consider the ease with which these paperless voting systems can be manipulated, and the difficulty to detect the manipulation. We need the “check” of voter verified ballots and the “balance” of an external audit of those ballots.

[Skidmore]

4. How is the system made fairer if the replacement technology

is equally capable of being manipulated? I'm having trouble squaring the decision with the ill-reputed technology. If BBV becomes institutionalized through a court decision decision in which it is seen as the "reliable" technology, does this shoot down the movement to stop the adopting a technology with its own set of problems? Will we be saddled with BBV because it has been made the conventional equipment? Maybe I'm overthinking this one. I certainly don't want six counties in CA not to be able to have their votes counted. I guess, given all that I've read on this board regarding BBV, I wish that these folks had used a different argument. I'm certainly not an expert in the law or in voting technology, but I know I am uneasy about the argument used.

[peabody71]

3. It is victory as an opportunitty to move reform issues forward.

This is our chance to broaden the debate on all voting systems.
Especially the Diebold insecure systems etc.