A motion was filed on September 24, 2009, in Babson v. Cronin to block Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer from proceeding with a Request for Proposals for voting equipment for the 2010 election.
If granted by Maui Judge Joseph E. Cardoza, procurement of voting equipment would have to stop until administrative rules have been put in place for electronic voting. Plaintiffs also ask for a finding of contempt of the court’s oral and written rulings.
Combined with the reported 94% cut to the Office of Elections budget, this places preparation for the 2010 elections in Hawaii in more danger.
Lest there be misunderstandings, there's nothing in this case that I can see to indicate that the plaintiffs hate voting machines. They are, however, concerned about the integrity of the vote, and the possibility of "man in the middle" attacks, according to the original lawsuit. They are trying to enforce the earlier ruling by the same judge (see:Hawaii judge issues written order prohibiting use of electronic voting machines). That order notes that the Office of Elections in effect tried to create rules for voting equipment requirements by writing them into the RFP for new equipment, instead of by creating new administrative rules as required by state law. The administrative rules, if done properly, can regulate the electronic transmission of votes in an election.
Well, the RFP is still out there (a copy is attached to the motion linked above). I'll snip some parts of it here.
...In the alternative, all voting equipment shall be
certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to meet the 2002 federal voting system standards, or any subsequent iteration of the federal voting system standards, referred to as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) (e.g. 2005 VVSG).
That's in the motion, quoted from the RFP. But here's a quote, also from the motion, from Judge Cardoza's order:
A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their agents and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from any conduct in conformance with the EAC Guidelines or transmitting ballot counts and election results by telephone line or the internet until rules have been promulgated pursuant to HRS Chapter 91 shall issue in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. This permanent injunction shall have no effect on any rules promulgated pursuant to HRS Chapter 91.
As a lay person, I'm not an attorney, it seems to me that the judge didn't want those EAC guidelines (whatever they are...) to be used until administrative rules have been established. But there they are again, and still no administrative rules.
Of course, we need to see what the judge will say. Or what the state will say when they go into court. They can't say the EAC reference isn't there, it plainly is. They can't say (well, they could...) that there isn't enough time to do administrative rules first. The judge's ruling first came orally on May 20. The rules conceivably could have been in place by now, or almost done, had the Office of Elections started then.
I suppose it can be a kind of economic stimulus if Hawaii has to pay hundreds of people to count paper ballots the old-fashioned way. Will it come to that?