HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjcnrdg0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
No Relief from Digital Electronic
Voting Machines
Shelby Advocatesfor Valid Elections v. Hargett
(Thomas L. Parker, W.D. Tenn. 2:18-cv-2706)
A district judge denied immediate relief from the use of digital elec-
tronic voting machines that did not provide a paper record of votes.
The judge did not find use of such machines fundamentally unfair.
Nearly a year later, the judge dismissed an amended complaint as no
more than a generalized grievance.
Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Voting technology; early
voting.
On Friday, October 12, 2018, five days before early voting was to begin for a
general election, an organization promoting voters' interests and four individ-
uals filed a federal complaint in the Western District of Tennessee.1 The plain-
tiffs alleged that the digital electronic voting machines that would be used by
Shelby County, which includes Memphis,
are insecure, lack a voter-verified paper audit capacity, and fail to meet min-
imum statutory requirements, [so] requiring voters to use those machines
violates the voters' constitutional rights to have their votes recorded in a fair,
precise, verifiable, and anonymous manner, and to have their votes counted
and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal, and transparent process.2
On Monday, the plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining or-
der and a writ of mandamus.3 Judge Thomas L. Parker set the case for a status
conference the following morning4 and a hearing that afternoon.'
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Parker announced that the Court
is not convinced that the plaintiff has established and has overcome its bur-
den.6
In this case, the plaintiffs are asking this federal court to substitute its
judgment for that of the elected officials and the election officials for the state
of Tennessee and Shelby County....
1. Complaint, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D.
Tenn. Oct. 12,2018), D.E. 1; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, 348 F. Supp.
3d 764, 768 (W.D. Tenn. 2018).
2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 2; see Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett, 947
F.3d 977, 979 (6th Cir. 2020); Shelby Cty. Advocatesfor Valid Elections, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 768.
3. Application, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn. Oct.
15, 2018), D.E. 23; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348 F. Supp. 3d at 767-68; see
Shelby Advocatesfor Valid Elections, 947 F.3d at 980.
4. Notice of Setting, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn.
Oct. 16, 2018), D.E. 28.
5. Notice of Setting, id. (Oct. 15, 2018), D.E. 24; Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections,
348 F. Supp. 3d at 767.
6. Transcript at 80, Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections, No. 2:18-cv-2706 (W.D. Tenn.
Oct. 16, 2018, filed Oct. 26, 2018), D.E. 44; see Shelby Cty. Advocates for Valid Elections, 348
F. Supp. 3d at 767.
Federal Judicial Center 1/25/2021
I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjcnrdg0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)