India: ‘Electronic Voting Machines used in last polls not free of all doubts’ | The Assam Tribune Online
The controversies surrounding the use of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) refuse to die. A group of seven legal practitioners of the Mangaldai Bar Association have disclosed some sensational information regarding EVMs collected with the help of RTI Act which will make every concerned citizen observe that the EVMs were not free from all doubts.
According to Jayanta Deka, one senior member of the group, the election authority here did not have any certificate from the experts that the EVMs used in the last Assembly election were a tamper proof. This was revealed by the District Election Officer, Darrang following a RTI petition filed by advocate Jayanta Deka and six of hiscolleagues. In the RTI petition to the District Election Officer cum Deputy Commissioner, Darrang it was asked whether the experts from the EVM manufacturing organisations issued any certificate that the EVMs were free of tampering. In the petition the district election authority was also asked to provide a photocopy of such certificate. But the authority failed to provide any such certificate as the EVM manufacturing company had not submitted any such certificate to the election authority. Read More
Colorado: Elections System and Software could face contempt charges | Alamosa Valley Courier
District Judge Martin Gonzales ruled Wednesday that Elections System and Software (ES&S), who failed to appear for their depositions in the Marilyn Marks v. Melinda Myers Colorado Open Records Act suit could be held in contempt of court. Denver attorney Robert McGuire, on behalf of his client, Aspen election integrity advocate Marilyn Marks filed the suit to force Saguache County Clerk Melinda Myers to turn over voting records and related documents Marks requested beginning last November. ES&S provided Saguache County with their M650 voting device and accompanying software used in the contested Nov. 2, 2010 election.
Gonzales ordered that the election firm appear in court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to appear for the scheduled depositions in June after he approved the issuance of a subpoena for the depositions. Marks later filed a motion with the court to hold ES&S in contempt unless they could show sufficient cause for refusing to honor the deposition subpoena. ES&S made no motion to file a protective order, protesting appearance on the grounds that the deposition would violate trade secrets and/or force the production of proprietary information. Nor did their attorneys move to quash the subpoena, court records show. Read More