Banfield, Aplts. v. Secretary of the Com
110 A.3d 155
| Pa. | 2015Background
- Pennsylvania Election Code creates a certification regime for electronic voting systems (DREs).
- Secretary certified six DRE models for use in PA elections and counties may choose among them.
- Appellants challenged the DRE certification on multiple counts including permanency, security, and testing procedures.
- Commonwealth Court denied partial summary judgment and later granted summary relief to the Secretary (Banfield III).
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s grant of summary relief and upheld the Secretary’s certification decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent physical record requirement for DREs | Banfield contends no permanent record is provided | Cortes argues DREs provide on-demand permanent records | DREs provide permanent records on demand and satisfy §3031.1 |
| Statistical recount possibility with DREs | DREs cannot support a statistical recount | Statistical recounts can be performed using printed or external-data records | Statistical recount requirement satisfied by DREs printing/transferable records |
| Tampering protection adequacy | DREs cannot preclude tampering due to vulnerabilities | DREs meet statutory tamper-prevention and are supported by testing | DREs meet §3031.7 tampering protections; not defeated by hypothetical vulnerabilities |
| Secretary's testing procedures | Secretary's testing is inadequate and ignores ITA studies | Secretary’s testing is discretionary and adequately considers ITA results | Secretary entitled to summary relief; testing discretion acceptable |
| Constitutional challenges to DRE certification | DREs infringe right to vote and equal protection | Regulation of elections permissible; DREs not worse than alternatives | No constitutional violation; certification upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuznik v. Westmoreland Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 902 A.2d 476 (Pa. 2006) (great deference to election officials’ interpretation of the Election Code)
- Weber v. Shelley, 347 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (state election regulation permissible if reasonable and neutral)
- Edwards v. Prutzman, 165 A. 255 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933) (recount aims to determine fraud or error, not voter intent in electronic systems)
- Black v. McGuffage, 209 F. Supp. 2d 889 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (equal protection concerns in voting statistics without error notification features)
- In re Nomination Papers of Rogers, 908 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (courts defer to administrative agency in election regulation)