Freelance journalist Lynn Landes filed a suit in June 2004, challenging the constitutionality of voting machines and absentee ballots. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her last November. Now, her
case is on the
docket (No. 05-930) of the Supreme Court. The defendants (Margaret Tartaglione, Chair of City Commissioners in Philadelphia; Pedro Cortes, PA Sec. of State; and Abu Gonzalez, Att. Gen.) have until Feb. 24th to complete their response to Landes' suit.
Amicus curiae briefs are needed before the 24th as well.
It's a longshot, but the details are inside.
From the suit:
Appellant challenges the constitutionality of federal and state laws and policies that allow voting by machine or absentee in elections for public office.
Appellant asserts that the use of voting machines and absentee voting is a violation of her constitutional right to vote, to have votes counted properly, and to have those rights fully enforced under Article I § 2 of the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and other federal laws.
The PA District Court originally deferred to the legislature on the matter, dismissing the case:
"Such concern involve questions of wide public significance that are most appropriately addressed by the legislative branch."
The Appeals Court found that Landes did not have proper standing and suffered no resulting injury.
But Landes claims that, while she suffered no injury, her civil rights have been violated:
The use of voting machines and absentee voting denies the appellant as a voter and journalist the right to meaningful participation in the voting process, effective public oversight of that process, and full enforcement of those rights, constituting a "Deprivation of Civil Rights" under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
So, does she have a valid case? I'm not sure.
Listed in the previous case law is...
In 1905 the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that a vote cast by use of a voting machine, where it was secret, a free choice of candidates given, and a correct record of the vote made, was a vote given by ballot. (Detroit v. Board of Inspectors, 139 Mich. 548; 102 N.W. 1029; (1905)). The same conclusion was reached in 1914, Empire Voting Machine Company v. Carroll., 78 Wash. 83; 138 P. 306; (1914)), "We do not deem it necessary to rehearse these discussions or to treat the question other than as a proposition settled by the great weight of authority; that is, that a vote registered by a machine is a vote by ballot."
However, in 1936's
Davidowitz v. Philadelphia, the Court wrote that:
"They (voting machines) have been installed in the various counties at great expense and by vote of a majority of the electors thereof. A court, therefore, should not restrain their use unless a legislative or constitutional provision is clearly violated."
Landes has stated that she has yet to receive support from voting rights organizations or civil rights organizations. Her lack of specific instances of violations will severely hurt her case, however necessary and warranted.
Indeed, the Third Court of Appeals ruled that:
To establish standing, the party must set forth, inter alia, specific facts indicating an injury in fact that is "concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
The problem is hardly an unfixable one, since there have been numerous recent reports of specific instances of lost, uncounted and/or switched votes. However, I don't see any in the arguments directly referenced. Any thoughts? I am missing anything?