Bev Harris, Founder of Black Box Voting.org and Paul Lehto, an attorney from Washington State and election reform advocate have both written excellent articles analyzing the Court's decision to ban electronic voting and are must reads.
Harris' article, Let's Get Off The Hampster Wheel, was featured in Democracy For New Hampshire (as well as on other websites): (http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/6517)
Lehto's article, Germany Bans Computerized Voting, Will Hand Count in 2009, was featured in OpEdNews (as well as on other websites): http://www.opednews.com/articles/Germany-bans-computerized-by-Paul-Lehto-090303-583.html
[On a personal note, I am extremely gratified to have discovered that the arguments made by the Court in banning electronic voting were almost the exact same arguments made to election officials and Congress by those of us in the election reform community who chose to be totally committed to a return to public hand-counts for the past 3+ years. I, along with a small group of public hand count advocates, in particular, Dr. Sheila Parks, Founder of the Center for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots http://www.handcountedpaperballots.org/ and Vickie Karp and Karen Renick, Co-Directors of VoteRescue.org, decided early on to oppose compromise of any kind thatwould require the use of voting machines,audits,exit polls,ormail-inballots, i.e.,anything other than public hand counts,asan acceptableway ofcountingthe votes. In fact, the Court's ruling actually supported our unequivocal position that "the only experts in our elections should be the citizens themselves." When average citizens with no legal expertise are vindicated by such a venerable body of legal experts, it is for me, testament to the absolute need to recognize and honor the "principles of transparency in elections, which can ONLY be achieved through public hand-counts.]
After reading Harris's and Lehto's analyses, as well as reading the Court's decision in its entirety, I immediately recognized the importance of locating the father (Joachim Wiesner) and son (Ulrich Wiesner), who had filed the lawsuit and then persuade them to tell their story to the American people.
Dr. Ulrich Wiesner holds a Ph.D. in Physics and works as a consultant for a U.S.-American Software Company. His father, Joachim, is a retired political scientist. Together, they filed the lawsuit with Germany 's Federal Constitutional Court after the German parliament had rejected a petition drive promoted by the Wiesners, which had been signed by over 45,000 people to try to ban electronic voting back in 2005.
Even "cell phones are better protected against manipulation," said Ulrich Wiesner in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. The Wiesners were making the case that the security concerns surrounding electronic voting machines are so great that they run afoul of the German constitution, which mandates that elections be open and transparent.
Nonetheless, German politicians were still skeptical that the court would rule against the machines. In an interview with German radio, Max Stadler, a member of parliament with the German liberal Free Demoocrat Party (FDP), said "it was very unlikely the court would rule in the Wiesners' favor, a move which might force the court to invalidate parts of the 2005 election. Stadler said he personally favors paper ballots because they inspire confidence in the electorate and possess a "certain charm." Ultimately, though, he argued that the issue was a policy question, not a constitutional one. To our good fortune, the Court did not agree with Stadler's position.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
