Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California County Sues State Over E-Vote Ban

Posted by timothy on from the when-mandates-attack dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Riverside County teamed up this week with groups representing the disabled to sue California's secretary of state, who banned voting machines that, the plaintiffs argue, help the disabled exercise their right to vote anonymously. Here's the story. I guess Diebold does have some fans afterall."

4 of 33 comments (clear)

  1. More like knowledge disabled by dacarr · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's already established that the machines are "not secure". Because of requirements in the voting system, you must have as much security as you can garner.

    So what is with these ignoramuses figuring that, back in the days of the punch cards, WE (the people who sat there all day so you can get off your sorry butts and vote) WOULDN'T ACTUALLY GET OFF OUR BUTTS AND ASSIST THE VOTER WITH THEIR BALLOT! Yes, kids, that's right, we go in there and help people vote if they need help! Blind? Ask them who to vote for and get a witness! Wheelchair? Have them bring their sample ballot and punch it, let them do a comparison to make sure! No arms? Same thing!

    So disabled, QED, is no excuse for this, as there are bits in the California election code that provide for assistance. The point here is that we were instructed to do whatever it took to help them vote, with the understanding that their vote does not leave our brains or the collection box, so if you are a disabled voter in some way, we helped. Besides, the feds would shoot down California on ADA violations if we didn't.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  2. Re:As a disabled person myself by dacarr · · Score: 3, Informative

    See my rant below. In short, you are, and if you don't have one, one of the people working the precinct are obligated to get up and assist you.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  3. Legal fees... 42 U.S.C. 1983 by pdcryan · · Score: 2, Informative

    When somebody claims that somebody "under color of law" has infringed a federally protected right (either constitutional or statutory), usually they sue under Section 1983.

    It's an important avenue to be sure, giving a right of action to folks who've had their rights squandered by public officials. It is however REALLY easy for a plaintiff to get their legal fees from the defendant (CA, in this case) in a 1983 action. Basically if they win on any of their claims (even say, one of a dozen claims) they'll get their legal fees paid for.

    IANAL - but the lawyers love this one. Even if it's not a great case (like, I don't know... this one) it's worth a shot, because the lawyers get paid.

    --
    Ryan Kennedy opposes comm
  4. Err... Was it ever that bad? by WhiteBandit · · Score: 2, Informative

    While there is quite a lot of hoopla surrounding Diebold, Riverside County's electronic voting systems were manufactured by Sequoia Voting Systems.

    I lived right across the "tracks" so to speak, in San Bernardino County, but attended Riverside Community College and had many friends who lived in Riverside. We've talked at legth about electronic voting issues and I've never heard any concerns about Riverside's electronic voting system. In fact, they were one of the first county's in California to turn to completely electronic voting, starting with the 2000 presidential elections.

    Googling for some random info, I see that there are a few complaints about how data is handeled (and namely the neccesity of a paper ballot). I think a lot of people replying are just using knee-jerk reactions. Riverside's systems have been running for four years now nearly without a hitch.

    I will note that they can always be improved though. But the main reason Riverside is suing is because they *got rid* of their regular voting gear 4 years ago and upgraded to complete electronic voting. It will be quite expensive for them to go back, and with less than 6 months notice as well.