On April 12, a California Superior Court in Alameda County ruled that when voters exercise their statutory right to a recount, elections officials must produce information from “inside” electronic vote-counting machines. The case was filed in November 2004, after Alameda County was asked to recount the vote on a ballot measure, Berkeley’s Measure R. Alameda County used Diebold electronic touchscreen machines for voters at the polls (voters who voted by mail used paper ballots). Supporters of Measure R, which had narrowly been defeated, asked to see back-up data that is stored inside the machines. They also asked to see the audit logs generated by the vote-counting system that show whether the system functioned properly. Finally, they asked to examine the results of “Logic & Accuracy” testing that had been performed on the machines before and after the election. The county had denied all three requests.

The judge said that the plain meaning of the word “recount” required the county to produce all the requested records. The court also cited the California Constitution (Article II, sec. 2.5), which protects the right to have a valid vote counted. Finally, the court cited Bush v Gore, and said that since the absentee mail votes could be recounted, that the voters who voted at the polls were treated differently, and the differential violates equal protection. Since the machines no longer contain the requested data, another hearing will be held on May 4 to determine whether the county should be sanctioned for not preserving the records. The case is Americans for Safe Access v County of Alameda, RG04-192053. It took this long to get a decision because initially the Superior Court had denied relief, but the State Court of Appeals last year had remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to hear it over again.

On April 13, a U.S. District Court in Missouri ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice made a legal error when it sued Missouri’s Secretary of State, under the “Motor Voter” Law of 1993. The United States sued Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan because the 1993 federal law requires states to maintain accurate voter registration records. However, the judge said that the federal government should have sued the County Clerks of the counties with problems. The decision makes it plain that Missouri voter registration records in many counties have serious problems; but it said there was no evidence that these record-keeping problems have caused any voter fraud. The decision is United States v Carnahan, 05-4391, w.d.

For those interested in electoral politics and campaign finance law, consider reading the U.S. Supreme Court briefs in Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right to Life. There are 19 briefs so far, because there are so many amicus curiae briefs. They can all be read by going the www.jamesmadisoncenter.org, and, on the left side, clicking the link “Wisconsin Right to Life McCain-Feingold Challenge.”

Still unavailable are the reply briefs of the Federal Election Commission and U.S. Senator John McCain. They are due on April 18. The U.S. Supreme Court oral argument is April 25.

One might think, with so many briefs, they would mostly duplicate each other. But this is not true; they are very varied. Each one of them begins by framing the issues in the case. If you feel intimidated that you don’t know enough about the case to enjoy reading the briefs, the introductions will guide you.

However, reading all the briefs is time-consuming. The briefs already filed include 560 pages, not including various appendices and the Roman numeral pages.