Secretary of State Says Return to Paper Ballots by Fall Could Cause Chaos
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp pushed back Tuesday against a pending motion in federal court in Atlanta to junk the state's computerized voting.
August 15, 2018 at 12:23 PM
5 minute read
Junking Georgia's antiquated electronic voting machines in favor of an immediate return to paper ballots “would compromise Georgia's 2018 election,” an attorney for Secretary of State Brian Kemp contended Tuesday.
In a sharply worded response to a motion filed by a Colorado-based coalition and Georgia voters asking a federal judge to order the state to convert to paper ballots before early voting begins in October, Kemp attorney John Salter challenged contentions that it can be accomplished easily, if at all. The requested conversion to paper ballots would require new equipment, software, significant poll worker training and additional funding, he argued.
Salter, of The Barnes Law Group in Marietta, also referenced Georgia's infamous experience with paper ballots in the state's 1946 election, where the dead of Telfair County voted in alphabetical order on forged paper ballots, precipitating a state constitutional crisis that led to three candidates all claiming to be the rightfully elected governor.
“At this late date, converting to an exclusively paper ballot election cannot be done without compromising the public interest,” Salter said. “Plaintiffs are naive to think paper ballots do not have trade-offs and problems, just of different types, gravities and levels of risk. … No election system is flawless.”
Kemp has appointed a bipartisan commission to make recommendations next year to the Georgia General Assembly to modernize the current election infrastructure, Salter added. “The issue is not whether Georgia should soon update a voting system first implemented in 2002, but whether the elections system we need for November 2018 will be plunged into chaos,” he said.
Citing alarms raised by federal security officials that states, including Georgia, have already been targeted by Russian hackers, the Colorado-based Coalition for Good Governance warned in papers filed in federal court in Atlanta that Georgia's voting infrastructure has already been compromised and that, absent a return to paper ballots, the legitimacy of the November election results “will be cast into doubt.”
Atlanta attorney Bruce Brown represents the coalition along with Cary Ichter of Atlanta's Ichter Davis; William Ney of Atlanta's Ney Hoffecker Peacock & Hayle; and Seattle attorney Robert A. McGuire. David Cross of Morrison & Foerster in Washington, D.C., represents several individual Georgia voters who are also plaintiffs.
In asking Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for an injunction mandating an immediate return to paper ballots, Brown argued that Georgia's computerized voting infrastructure is nearly two decades old and has no paper audit trail to verify the accuracy of the ballots cast. Microsoft terminated technical support and security patches in 2013 for the software the state currently relies on to tally votes, he said.
Brown said at least two cybersecurity analysts accessed confidential voter and election data housed under contract with Kennesaw State University's Center for Election Systems three months before the 2016 presidential election. Although the analysts alerted KSU, the names, addresses, driver's license numbers and partial Social Security numbers of an estimated seven million voters remained exposed for another seven months, Brown said.
A spokesman for Kemp, who Georgia's Republican nominee for governor, insisted the analysts accessed “a misconfigured server” that contained public voter lists, training materials and historical voting data.
In arguing to maintain the continued use of the state's touch screen voting machines, Salter said going from an election where less than 10 percent of the ballots cast would be paper to 100 percent would involve “significant logistical challenges, procurement of new equipment and hardware, new administrative regulations, new polling place design” that would “cost money that has not been budgeted for this year's elections.”
Although the plaintiffs suggested that optical scanners could be used to count potentially millions of paper ballots in the fall, Georgia has only 891 of the devices designed for low volume work that would likely break in a high volume environment, Salter contended.
Salter also argued, “There is not sufficient time” to make the conversion. Election officials in Georgia's 159 counties “have already made decisions and expended resources planning for the general election based on the existing early voting schedule and the established elections apparatus and procedures,” he said.
Gwinnett County voting officials estimated in an affidavit filed with the response that converting to paper ballots would cost them an additional $550,000 to $825,000.
Attorneys for the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, also a defendant in the suit, said in a separate response that the county does not have enough optical scanners to count all the ballots expected in November. The cost of procuring and deploying an adequate number “would carry excessive and unbudgeted cost,” the county contended. “It is even questionable whether enough compatible [optical scanners] are available as they are no longer manufactured.”
Salter also shot down a separate suggestion by the noncoalition member plaintiffs that the state could mass mail absentee paper ballots to all registered voters with prepaid postage to encourage paper ballot use, arguing it would cost about $13.4 million to send absentee paper ballots to Georgia's 6.7 million registered voters. Nor is there any guarantee that printing vendors could fulfill such a large request.
“There is no Paper-Ballot Fairy who, with magic wand at ready, can save plaintiffs' half-baked 'plans' from devolving into fiasco,” he concluded.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readTrump's Lawyers Speak Out: 'The President Had the Confidence to Retain Me'
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250