brennan center for justice

187. Id. at 22.188. See Thomas, supra note 183.189. Thomas, supra note 183; Yencer 2, supra note 182.190. Annis, supra note 180.191. New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate, The Purchase of Voting Systems in New Jersey: HowGovernment Can Better Protect Taxpayer Rights and Voting Security 3 (2009), available at http://www.state.nj.us/publicadvocate/public/pdf/The_Purchase_of_Voting_Systems_in_NJ_11-24-09.pdf [hereinafter NewJersey Public Advocate Report].192. Id. at 5; Online Policy Group v. Diebold, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (Cal. Dis. Ct. 2004); Cory Doctorow, SequoiaVoting Systems Threatens Felten’s Princeton Security Research Team, Boinboing, Mar. 17, 2008, http://boingboing.net/2008/03/17/sequoia-voting-syste.html.193. For a detailed discussion of how this kind of system could work, see pages 27 - 38 of this report.194. Editorial, The Voters Will Pay, N.Y. Times, Feb. 25, 2010, at A26 [hereinafter Voters Will Pay].195. Id.196. Kim Zetter, Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly, Wired, Mar. 8, 2010, available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/ess-sued-in-antitrust-cas.197. Press Release, Dominion Voting Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. Acquires Premier Election Solutions Assetsfrom ES&S (May 19, 2010), available at http://www.dominionvoting.com/images/pdfs/DominionAcquiresPremierReleaseFinal4.pdf.198. See Voters Will Pay, supra note 194.199. See Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 15301–15545(2008)).200. ACCURATE, the multi-institution voting research center funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), suggestsa fifth provision that would greatly improve regulation of voting systems. Specifically, that “there should be arich feedback loop – from problems to investigation to testing – that uses actual problems to inform future testingprocedures.” Deirdre Mulligan and Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Preliminary Analysis of E-Voting ProblemsHighlights Need for Heightened Standards and Testing, NRC Whitepaper 23 (2004). They note that currentvoting system guidelines “lack a process to incorporate suspected system failures or to address changing technology.In particular, [they] fail to establish standards that ensure performance data from the used to improve systemsso that the same problems do not contaminate future elections. Problems need to be investigated, understood, andthen fedback into the process of recertifying (at times recalling) existing systems and establishing the next set of[certification criteria].” Erica Brand, Cecilia Walsh, Joseph Lorenzo Hall and Deirdre K. Mulligan, PublicComment on the 2005 Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 30 (2005), available at http://accurate-voting.org/accurate/docs/2005_vvsg_comment.pdf.201. There is precedent for creation of such FOIA exemptions. The Homeland Security Act (6 USC § 133) granted anexemption for voluntarily submitted critical infrastructure information. Federal whistleblower protections similarlywork to keep individuals who report problems from suffering reprisals. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989states that the Special Counsel tasked with investigating allegations made under the act may not disclose the identityof the individual who filed the complaint without that person’s consent except in cases where imminent danger topublic health or safety makes such disclosure necessary. 5 U.S.C. § 1213(h). See generally 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3),which authorizes legislative carve-outs of FOIA, so long as such carve-outs are specific enough and leave no agencydiscretion.Brennan Center for Justice | 107