Sequoia v. Ed Felten

Posted Mar 18, 2008 16:24 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
Parent article: Sequoia v. Ed Felten

I can't imagine Sequoia's cease-and-desist order has any legal weight. Voters would certainly appreciate a measure of accountability in the whole voting process, and Sequoia's tactics of hiding its software/hardware functionality behind the veil of license restrictions and legal threats wouldn't go over well with the very voters forced to use these machines.

I'm curious, in the U.S. (or any other territory, for that matter), can a voter, exercising his/her right to cast a vote, refuse to do so using a computer?

Hobson's choice

Posted Mar 18, 2008 16:34 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]

Yes, but it's frequently no choice at all.  What I understand is that the jurisdictions are
supposed to retain the ability to process paper (non-machine) ballots, but I've seen this
relegated to a not-well-prepared "back-up plan" in case of power failure or some-such.  The
option is certainly not well publicized in many jurisdictions, and may have something to do
with their vendor contracts.

Sequoia v. Ed Felten

Posted Mar 19, 2008 2:28 UTC (Wed) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]

I can't imagine Sequoia's cease-and-desist order has any legal weight.

I can see it having weight. I can also see a counter-request that all Sequoia votes be deemed invalid until the suit and counter suits are all settled. (And I can see some judges going forward on that basis.)