"In August 2006, a group of Pennsylvania voters filed a
lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court challenging the use of electronic voting machines on the grounds that it violated the
state election code and the state constitution’s guarantee of the right to vote. The lawsuit, which named the
Pennsylvania Secretary of State as a defendant, sought to halt the continued use of DRE voting systems in the state." Continued>>
John Bonifaz, legal director of VoterAction.org, December 21, 2009: "The voters (petitioners)
challenging the continued use of electronic voting systems in Pennsylvania won a significant court victory last week in their
ongoing litigation, Banfield v. Cortés. A Pennsylvania state court ordered the major voting systems companies in the
state (Election Systems & Software-Diebold, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, Danaher) to produce the source codes and electronic
voting machines for an independent expert examination by the petitioners. The companies, as well as the Pennsylvania
Secretary of the Commonwealth, had fought to stop the petitioners from gaining access to these source materials, even under
a protective order preserving any alleged trade secrets. The court's order can be found here:
http://www.voteraction.org/files/Banfield%20Order%20121509.pdf
Other filings in this case, including briefing in connection with the motion to compel that led to this court order,
can be found here:
http://www.voteraction.org/case/banfieldvcortes"
VoterAction.org press release, December 18, 2008: "Pennsylvania
State Supreme Court allows voting rights case to proceed; state's highest court denies Pennsylvania
Secretary of State permission to appeal lower court ruling in voters' favor; case challenging the use of electronic voting
machines now moves toward trial." Continued>>
