Banfield v. Aichele
51 A.3d 300
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioners, 24 voters, seek declaratory relief and a reexamination of certified Pennsylvania Direct Recording Electronic voting systems (DREs).
- Petition alleges DREs do not provide a contemporaneous permanent physical record of each vote and lack independent physical audit records.
- Election Code defines electronic voting systems and requires Secretary to reexamine upon proper request; petition cites Sections 1101-A, 1105-A, 1117-A, 1107-A, and related provisions.
- Secretary certified several DRE models; some can print ballot images, and records may be stored electronically and on removable media.
- Petition seeks to decertify DREs, establish uniform testing, and reexamine per requests; Secretary’s preliminary objections were overruled previously.
- Trial court denied petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment; court proceeded to address Counts I, IV, VI, IX, and X, denying the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do DREs provide a permanent physical record of each vote cast? | Banfield contends no permanent physical record exists due to electronic storage and nonautomatic paper records. | Secretary argues DREs provide a permanent physical record via printouts and ballot images on demand. | Denied; DREs provide a permanent physical record under code. |
| Are DREs compliant with Section 1117-A (statistical recount using a different device)? | Recount must use a different device/method than the one used to create data; software dependency precludes this. | Code allows recounts using printed ballot images or manual counts from records produced by the DREs; device differences are not strictly required. | Denied; Section 1117-A permits recounts using alternative methods with existing electronic records. |
| Was the Secretary's failure to reexamine upon request a violation of Section 1105-A? | Secretary's denial of reexaminations violated mandatory statutory duty. | Secretary’s ongoing reexaminations commenced; mandamus is not appropriate if process started. | Denied as moot for mandamus; process initiated; requires status report on completion. |
| Do the challenged certifications implicate constitutional equal protection or uniformity concerns? | Certifications of DREs violate Article I, § 26 (equal protection) and Article VII, § 6 (uniformity). | No evidence that certifications were illegal; constitutional claims fail on summary judgment. | Denied for Counts IX and X. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banfield v. Cortes, 922 A.2d 36 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (en banc; preliminary objections overruled)
- Bobick v. Fitzgerald, 416 Pa. 588 (1965) (mandamus/discretionary relief standard)
- Zaccagnini v. Borough of Vandergrift, 395 Pa. 285 (1959) (mandamus standard; clear legal duty)
- In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (statutory interpretation; deference to agency construction)