Curling v. Raffensperger
- Georgia Court Grants EPIC's Motion to File Amicus on Ballot Secrecy: A Georgia federal court has granted EPIC's request to file an amicus brief urging the court to protect the secret ballot. Plaintiffs presented the court with evidence that Georgia’s ballot-marking devices, which rely on large display screens, make voter choices easily viewable by others in the polling place. EPIC wrote in the amicus that "the right to cast a secret ballot in a public election is a core value in the United States." This is the second amicus brief EPIC has submitted in the case, Curling v. Raffensperger. In the earlier amicus brief, EPIC urged the court to stop Georgia's use of Direct Recording Electronic voting machines, which EPIC explained were unreliable and easily hacked. The court ruled that Georgia must replace the machines before the 2020 election. (Mar. 31, 2020)
- EPIC Urges Georgia Court to Ensure Ballot Secrecy in Primary: In an amicus brief, EPIC has asked a Georgia federal court to protect the secret ballot. Plaintiffs presented the court with evidence that Georgia's ballot-marking devices, which rely on large display screens, make voter choices easily viewable by others in the polling place. EPIC wrote in the amicus that "the right to cast a secret ballot in a public election is a core value in the United States." This is the second amicus brief EPIC has submitted in the case, Curling v. Raffensperger. In the earlier amicus brief, EPIC urged the court to stop Georgia's use of Direct Recording Electronic voting machine, which EPIC explained were unreliable and easily hacked. The court ruled that Georgia must replace those voting machines before the 2020 election. (Mar. 19, 2020) More top news »
Summary
Individual Georgia voters, along with a voting rights organization, brought separate § 1983 actions, later consolidated, against Georgia state officials alleging that the state’s reliance on direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems burdened their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. DRE voting machines do not produce a paper trail or any other way to independently verify each individual's vote. DRE machines also have known cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, a declaration that the use of DREs is unconstitutional, and an injunction preventing Georgia from requiring voters to use DREs and requiring Georgia to use a system that produces a paper audit trail. Defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Plaintiffs did not have standing and that Defendants were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court denied this motion. Defendants appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. In May 2019, the district court addressed the defendants’ other claims, and found that res judicata or collateral estoppel from Curling I did not apply and the defendants named were the correct defendants. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for a writ of mandamus, but denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claims. The Court ordered discovery to begin immediately.
Background
Factual Background
Georgia uses Diebold AccuVote DRE voting machines in all of their elections. DRE voting machines are touchscreen computers that record votes on a removable memory card. DREs generally do not produce a paper ballot that can be used to verify an individual's vote or audit the computer record. Instead, DREs internally tally the vote totals, and then print the totals to paper.
Cybersecurity experts have long warned about the privacy and security concerns with DRE systems. In 1993, computer scientist Peter G. Neumann set out criteria that electronic voting systems should meet and pointed out that "the absence of a physical record of each vote is a serious vulnerability in direct-recording election (DRE) systems." Cryptographer Ron Rivest has emphasized the importance of verifiable voting, which includes the verifiability that a vote has been "cast as intended," "collected as cast," and "counted as collected." In their book, Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count?, computer scientists Barbara Simons and Douglas W. Jones devote an entire chapter to the problems with Diebold DREs, calling the company "the poster child of much that is wrong with DREs."
Cybersecurity experts have shown that DRE machines are vulnerable to manipulation. For example, Dr. Alex Halderman, a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering and Director of the Center for Computer Security and Society at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, has demonstrated that a DRE's vote totals can be manipulated by introducing malware via the memory card slot. The attack will go undetected because the malware will modify all relevant data, including audit logs.
There are also privacy concerns with the way DREs record individual ballots. AccuVote DREs record individual ballot data in the order in which they are cast, and they assign a unique serial number and timestamp to each ballot. This makes it possible to match votes to the voters who cast them.
Several authorities have raised the alarm about paperless electronic voting and the use of DRE machines. In March 2018, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the lack of audit capability is a "national security concern." In August 2018, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine released a report urging that electronic voting machines produce "human-readable paper ballots" and that machines that do not provide a voter verifiable paper audit trail "be removed from service as soon as possible."
Georgia law requires that “in jurisdictions in which direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems are used at the polling places on election day, such direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems shall be used for casting absentee ballots in person at a registrar's or absentee ballot clerk's office or in accordance with Code Section 21-2-382, providing for additional sites.” O.C.G.A. § 21-2-383(b). In 2002, the Georgia State Election Board passed a rule mandating the use of DRE machines in all elections. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 183-1-12-.01.
Procedural Background
Two sets of plaintiffs filed § 1983 actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in August 2017, claiming that Georgia's use of DREs violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Both sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The cases were subsequently consolidated. Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune to this suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that Plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue this action. Plaintiffs filed for a preliminary injunction in August 2018 for immediate relief for the 2018 election.
On September 17, 2018, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction as well as Defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that Defendants were not immune to suit and that Plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims. The court denied the preliminary injunction because "there were substantial fiscal, organizational, and practical impediments and burdens to complying with such an injunction in time for the upcoming November 2018 election." Defendants appealed the court's decisions on immunity and standing to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling. In May 2019, the district court addressed the defendants’ other claims, and found that res judicata or collateral estoppel from Curling I did not apply and the defendants named were the correct defendants. The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for a writ of mandamus, but denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process and equal protection claims. The Court ordered discovery to begin immediately.
Several other active cases also challenge Georgia's voting practices, procedures, and use of DREs. These include Common Cause Georgia v. Kemp (alleging Secretary of State Brian Kemp knowingly maintained an unsecure voter registration database), Martin v. Kemp (challenging the disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible mail ballot voters because information requested from voters was immaterial to deciding their eligibility to vote), and Coalition for Good Governance v. Crittenden (challenging the results of the lieutenant governor's race due to inexplicable undervotes caused by Georgia's DRE machines).
EPIC's Interest
EPIC has a long history of working on voter privacy and election integrity issues. These issues are directly implicated in Georgia's use of DRE systems that do not produce a verifiable paper trail.
EPIC has submitted amicus briefs in several voter privacy and election integrity cases, including the Fifth Circuit case Veasey v. Abbott and the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County.
In July 2017, EPIC successfully sued Trump's Presidential Election Commission to block the Commission's unlawful collection and retainment of millions of state voter records. After EPIC brought suit, the Commission temporarily suspended its data collection, discontinued the use of an unsafe computer server, deleted voter information that was illegally obtained, and ultimately disbanded. EPIC later obtained documents through a FOIA request showing that DHS was concerned that the voter data grab would "disrupt critical efforts DHS is leading to work with state and local officials" on election cybersecurity. Documents obtained from another FOIA request showed that officials from four different federal agencies discussed joint plans to "clean" state voter rolls in 2017.
In early 2017, EPIC launched the Project on Democracy and Cybersecurity. EPIC has pursued, and continues to pursue, several FOIA cases concerning Russian interference with the 2016 election, including EPIC v. FBI (cyberattack victim notification), EPIC v. ODNI (Russian hacking), EPIC v. IRS (release of Trump's tax returns), and EPIC v. DHS (election cybersecurity).
In 2016, EPIC, Verified Voting, and Common Cause released a report, "The Secret Ballot At Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy," that explained that the secret ballot — the inability to link particular voters to particular votes — is a cornerstone of modern democracies. The secret ballot also reduces the threat of coercion, vote buying and selling, and tampering.
In April 2015, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, EPIC obtained a September 2011 report about online voting from the Department of Defense. The report, produced in response to EPIC's July 2014 FOIA request, summarized a pilot test of an e-voting system. The report recommended several changes, including accessibility and user interface, but did little to address privacy and security concerns except for recommending "visible security features" to "give users greater confidence in the privacy and security of their ballots."
In 2010, EPIC released an update to its "E-Deceptive Campaign Practices: Technology and Democracy 2.0" report, first published in 2008. The report reviewed the potential for abuse of Internet-based technology in the election context, and made recommendations on steps that should be taken by Election Administrators, voters, and those involved in Election Protection efforts. E-Deceptive campaigns are internet-based attempts to misdirect targeted voters regarding the voting process, and include false statements about poll place hours, election dates, voter identification rules, or voter eligibility requirements.
In 2009, EPIC recommended greater transparency on the standards development process to the Election Assistance Commission ("EAC"). The agency sought public comments on a draft of the agency's Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. In its comments, EPIC requested that the EAC follow President Obama's directive to all federal government agencies that they take affirmative steps to make their activities regarding standards development more transparent to the public, make ballot secrecy a critical component of federal voting technology standards, and maintain software independence in the next iteration of voting technology standards.
In 2008, EPIC submitted comments to the Election Assistance Commission on the proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines. EPIC proposed new guidance on privacy protection in the casting of ballots. EPIC also recommended more transparency for the privacy protections provided by federally certified voting systems.
Additionally, EPIC testified before the Election Assistance Commission on the 2007 Voting System Guidelines. EPIC urged the Commission to "offer clear and effective guidance to states on issues of functional capability, hardware, software, telecommunication, security, quality assurance, and configuration of voting systems."
Legal Documents
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (No. 18-13951)
- Opinion Denying Appeal (Feb. 7, 2019)
- Opening Brief of Georgia State Defendants (Nov. 2, 2018)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 5:17-CV-01361)
August 2018 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Proceedings
- Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Aug. 7, 2018)
- Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Sep. 17, 2018)
- Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (June 13, 2018)
- Order in Response to Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Sept. 17, 2018)
- Order (May 21, 2019)
- Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (June 4, 2019)
- Order on briefing schedule (June 5, 2019)
- EPIC's amicus brief (June 28, 2019)
- Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (Aug. 15, 2019)
October 2019 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Proceedings
- Coalition Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 23, 2019)
- Government Defendants' Brief in Response (Nov. 13, 2019)
- Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Supplemental Material (Mar. 5, 2020)
- EPIC's amicus brief (Mar. 13, 2020)
Resources
- EPIC v. Commission
- EPIC Comments on Proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 Principles and Guidelines, Election Assistance Commission (2019)
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy (2018)
- Report of EPIC, Verified Voting, and Common Cause, "The Secret Ballot At Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy" (2016)
- Bruce Schneier, By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines, Washington Post (July 27, 2016)
- Ron Rivest, Auditability and Verifiability of Elections (March 2016)
- U.S. Vote Foundation, The Future of Voting: End-to-End Verifiable Internet Voting - Specification and Feasibility Study (2015)
- TED Talk: Barbara Simons: Why can't we vote online? (February 2013)
- Douglas W. Jones and Barbara Simons, Broken Ballots: Will Your Vote Count (2012)
- Bruce Schneier, The Problem with Electronic Voting Machines (2004)
- David Chaum, Secret-Ballot Receipts: True Voter-Verifiable Elections (January 2004)
- Peter G. Neumann, Security Criteria for Electronic Voting (1993)
- Project on Democracy and Cybersecurity
- VerifiedVoting.Org
News
- Mark Niesse, Judge allows lawsuit seeking paper ballots in Georgia to advance, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 21, 2019)
- Allison Grande, Judge Cites Growing Cyberthreats In Preserving Voting Suit, Law360 (May 21, 2019)
- Kayla Goggin, Georgia Officials Not Immune From Suit Over Risky Voting Machines, Courthouse News Service (Feb. 8, 2019)
- Ellen Nakashima, Federal judge denies motion to force Georgia to adopt paper ballots in midterm election, The Washington Post (September 18, 2018)
- Pema Levy, Judge Says Georgia’s “Vulnerable” Voting System May Be Unconstitutional But Can Stay Through Midterms, Mother Jones (Sept. 18. 2019)
- Johnny Kauffman, Federal Court Asked To Scrap Georgia's 27,000 Electronic Voting Machines, NPR (Sept. 12, 2018)
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.