Ohio Vote Challenged Already

     COLUMBUS, Ohio (CN) – A voter wants Secretary of State Jon Husted enjoined from using Election Systems & Software voting machines today, claiming a “back door” in its hardware will allow tampering with results, in Federal Court.
     Robert Fitrakis says in his complaint: “Husted accepted hardware and software from ES&S which he will use to record and tabulate votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012. ES&S installed a ‘back door’ into such hardware and software that enables persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, to access the recording and tabulation of votes using facilities not under the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections.
     “There is an imminent risk that persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, will use the ES&S ‘back door’ to access the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012 using facilities not under the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections. Once they access the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters
     in the General Election on November 6, 2012, the persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, will cause irreparable harm by using the ES&S ‘back door’ from facilities not under the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections to alter the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012.
     “A vote tabulation system is not much different from a desktop personal computer. It consists of software and hardware. Ohio law requires testing and certification of such a system, which includes both hardware and software. However, defendant Husted has not tested the system that defendant ES&S provided him to record and tabulate the votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012. The defendants may try to argue that this new system does not by itself tabulate votes, and is therefore immune from being tested as provided for by law. They are wrong.
     “It alters the whole system. There is no objective proof that the new software will not adversely affect the existing software in some unforeseen way. Almost every adult in the country has had experience with software packages that adversely interacted on their personal computers in unforeseen ways. There is no evidence that this will not happen here, other than the vendor’s assurances in this case. Looking at the contract, the vendor agrees to test the software itself, at some later point in time. There has been no examination of the software that gives any information as to what it does. The only persons who know exactly what this software does are ES&S’ own programming staff. Just because ES&S claims that this is ‘reporting software’ which does not change the tabulation method does not mean that it its claim is true. The law requiring testing and certification exists exactly because
     we do not make that kind of presumption. The average adult does not install software on his computer without scanning it for viruses and malicious code. Yet defendant Husted has done so in this case simply because ES&S claims that there is no malicious code. ES&S then claims that it does not need to check for malicious code because this installed software is not part of the tabulation system, when clearly it is. …
     There is an imminent risk that Ohio voters will be irreparably harmed by the defendants’ conduct, described above, because votes he casts in the General Election on November 6, 2012 will be accessed and altered by persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, using facilities not under the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections. …
     For the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from using hardware or software that Election Systems & Software, Inc. provided to Jon Husted, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, under the aforesaid contracts in order to record and tabulate votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012.”
     Fitrakis is represented by Clifford Arnebeck Jr.

%d bloggers like this: