Earlier this year, two towns in Wisconsin, Thornapple and Lawrence, did away with electronic voting machines and hand-counted their paper ballots in spring primary elections. In response, the United States Department of Justice filed suit against both municipalities alleging the towns violated Section 301 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
The government’s position is that HAVA requires that “each voting system used in an election for federal office be accessible for voters with disabilities in a manner that provides the same opportunity for access and participation, including privacy and independence, as for other voters.” The government argued that, to satisfy this requirement, “voting systems used in federal elections must include at least one voting system equipped for individuals with disabilities at each polling place.” In short, the DOJ’s argument is that HAVA requires every voting location to use at least some electronic machines. A pure hand-counted jurisdiction is not permitted.
Lawrence, Wisconsin, caved immediately, agreeing to a consent decree in which it pledged to always utilize at least one voting machine. But Thornapple had more grit. The town resisted and filed a motion to dismiss.
Thornapple’s motion argued that “voting system” in HAVA is carefully defined as a system that utilizes some combination of “mechanical, electromechanical, or electronic equipment.” Because the town did not use a “voting system,” as defined by HAVA, at all—the town hand-counted paper ballots—the provision of HAVA that the DOJ has alleged the town violated cannot even apply.
Thornapple further noted that “Wisconsin statutes set[] out detailed requirements to ensure the needs of disabled voters are met, and the Town’s process is entirely consistent with these provisions.” Thornapple’s brief makes clear that it complied with Wisconsin disability statutes:
These [Wisconsin state] statutes:
- Allow disabled voters to request assistance in marking ballots (Wis. Stat. § 6.82(2)(a));
- Specify who may and may not serve as an assistant to a voter (Id.);
- Mandate that the ballot must be notated as having been completed with assistance (Id.);
- Set out the specific language the assistant must use when asking how he or she wishes to cast ballot (Wis. Stat. § 6.82(2)(b)); and,
- Require election officials to note that the voter cast a ballot using an assistant (Wis. Stat. § 6.82(2)(d).
Wisconsin obviously contemplated in its statutes that some jurisdictions would not use electronic machines, which makes sense. Electronic machines only became commonplace in the last 15 to 20 years.
It is very clear what is happening here. As is increasingly usual for the DOJ, the Department is twisting and/or enlarging Congress’s statutes to outlaw behavior it sees as a threat—behavior that strengthens the rights of the states and the people against a corrupt and weaponized federal government.
Unfortunately, the district judge in Wisconsin has granted the DOJ’s request for a preliminary injunction pending the final outcome of the suit, which means the judge believes the town will lose on the merits. The case is ongoing.
This lawsuit is important, because electronic voting machines are not secure. That has become very clear. Millions of Americans believe our elections are being stolen by algorithms in these machines, and we can no longer be certain that the outcomes of our elections are fair. This crisis in confidence is, to use a popular phrase, republic ending. We must have confidence in the integrity of our elections or a system of self-governing people crumbles quickly.
The only way to stop the mass fraud is to return to hand-counted paper ballots. That movement is gaining steam in red states, and the DOJ is working to nip the movement in the bud.
Photo cover via Flickr Jake Pfaffenroth
Leave a Reply