And this also highlights the extreme resistance by corporately-owned politicians in the U.S. to even acknowledging that the current EVM's are fundamentally screwed up... because once that's officially acknowledged then the next question is "Can they be made workable by the next election?".

And the only answer is, of course, "No. not with current technology."

And then e-voting would be deposited on the ash heap of history.

So they fight with lies, obfuscation and backroom deals a battle they could not possibly win if it were based on facts and logic.

And add in the bothersome problem of some computer scientists who damn well should know better (Shamos and Felten, to name a couple) who have insisted that we can't get rid of the machines... even when each of them has repeatedly proved that the machines are error-prone and hackable... because that would somehow be "turning our back" on some nebulous "future technology."

It's an uphill fight, but perhaps it can be won by calling on its few active enablers to account for their actions.., both the political and scientific enablers.

uber good result

This is actually a good thing for our court system. Court decisions from other countries have no weight or status as precedent in our system but courts in our country can survey decisions from other countries for whatever wisdom they may impart to an issue. As an arguing point these decisions are fair game for citation and rationale arguments. It's a shame that we have to look to others for hope and guidance in matter so basic to a demoracy.

Them Germans are smart, huh? Disclosure I'm part kraut. Actually eating mashed potatos and sauerkraut at the moment!

Keep in mind that the United States as the leader of the "occupying powers" insisted on conditions to the very German Constitution construed here that included:

A. Complete rejection of "master race" ideology including the barbaric unequal treatment is justified toward others, and
B. Absolute inviolability and inalienability of human rights.

The USA SIGNED OFF on the Constitution because these conditions were met and the constitution went into effect May 23, 1949, about six months after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was declared by the United Nations.

One such "human right' in article 21 of said declaration is "free" "genuine" elections with the will of the people the only basis of legitimate political power. "Free" elections are free from fraud, harassment, cheating, etc., so that the true will of the people is measured. WIthout that inviolable, inalienable human right, the voting right "that protects all other rights" makes all other rights and protections meaningless.

Is self-government/voting/elections a human right? YOu can bet your ass it is, Millions of other people have. Millions "paid in full" with their lives.

Rights? Yes. But nobody has the right to take away or compromise the rights of OTHER people even if they're willing to live with or tolerate compromise on their own rights.

Too busy to fight any harder for freedom? Don't make YOUR problem everyone else's problem by advocating the compromise of OTHER'S rights. No such thing as "half-free" or "Half democracy." How about free speech every other day as a compromise? Freedom from torture only on weekends? Is it "unreasonable" to insist on the full measure of one's birthrights? Human rights?

A compromised fundamental right is a VIOLATED fundamental right.

How many co-sponsors are there for Democracy's Bill? When we insist on our rights and everybody else's too it's called "WIN, or MEET THE TYRANT." We either win, or find out precisely who and what it is that we're up against that makes Washington DC so deaf to the call of democracy. It's a call that's politically very popular, so the continued advocacy of de facto nontransparency is something to be sorted out, and that happens when we're clear about insisting on all of our rights, or at least those appropriate for conquered Nazis.

Surely Americans deserve at least that? Rights are valuable things, if we don't insist on them, others will be happy to take them.

The California Constitution requires:
SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.
SEC. 4. The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections....
SEC. 7. Voting shall be secret.

The current generation of electronic voting systems would likewise be deemed illegal under the California Constitution:
1. Cannot confirm that a person's vote was counted.
2. Cannot confirm that their vote was kept secret (especially as it relates to absentee or mail-in ballots, or overseas military ballots via fax, etc.).
3. The legislature has made mandatory requirements for any voting systems that are used. Specifically that they ARE safe from fraud or manipulation. SoS mitigations added to patch voting systems that fail to meet the mandatory requirements are not a integral part of those voting systems as submitted to the SoS for approval. Therefore the very act of requiring mitigations (conditions for use) is an admission that the systems do not meet the requirements of law, which the California Constitution requires that they do.
Yet the citizens of this state are repeatedly forced to accept the results created by illegal voting systems. When will those public officials whose sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution and the law be held accountable? Those officials include the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and local election officials.
The basis for the German Supreme Court declaring the systems illegal is the same here.

Secret vote counting is not only unconstitutional in Germany, it’s unconstitutional here in the good old U.S.A., too!

I cited a couple of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which hold that the right to vote includes the right to make sure that our votes are counted accurately in my article about Virginia Elections. In addition, the state constitutions of Virginia and South Carolina prohibit counting votes in secret which is the only way a computer counts votes, and New Hampshire's constitution requires votes to be counted in public. For more on this, see Project Vote Count’s FAQ and Project Vote Count’s Election News

Interestingly, the head of the Bundestag (a member of Merkel's own CONSERVATIVE CDU party!) was quoted after the decision as follows (roughly translated): the ability to examine each vote MUST outweigh the desire to speed up vote counting.

Hey #1 Zapper, that's shameless round his hometown PA, not shamos!

ZappKitty, one may consider the source...carnegie mellon.

http://www.answers.com/carnegie%20mellon

:-)

Germany's Constitutional Court has published an English press release outlining the main reasons for the decision.

If Obama were elected via a fraudulent system would you care?

Yha, yes.

e-Voting is usefull in high technology country.
Still not suitable in my country