
Judge in long-running lawsuit declines to block the use of Georgia's voting system
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge has declined to block the use of Georgia's electronic voting system in a long-running lawsuit that alleged that the system is vulnerable to attack and has operational issues that could deprive voters of their constitutional rights.
U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg found that the activists and individual voters who challenged the state's voting system did not prove that the problems they identified prevented them from voting, diluted their votes or kept their votes from being counted. She wrote in a ruling Monday that they lack standing to sue and she is unable to consider the merits of their claims.
Georgia election officials have consistently said the system is secure and reliable and that it is up to the state to decide how it conducts elections.
The ruling follows several years of intense focus on Georgia's elections in the aftermath of President Donald Trump's narrow loss in the state to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Trump claimed without evidence that election fraud cost him victory, and his allies spread wild conspiracy theories about the Dominion Voting Systems machines used in Georgia.
But the lawsuit at issue long precedes those claims. It was originally filed in 2017 by several individual voters and the Coalition for Good Governance, which advocates for election integrity, and targeted the outdated, paperless voting system used at the time. After Georgia purchased a new voting system in 2019, the suit was amended to target that system.
The election system used statewide by nearly all in-person voters includes touch screen voting machines that print ballots with a human-readable summary of voters' selections and a QR code that a scanner reads to count the votes. The human-readable summary only lists the voter's choice, not the names of other candidates or the details of a ballot question.
The activists and voters who filed the lawsuit argued that since people can't read a QR code, they are unable to ensure that what the scanners are reading accurately reflects their selections. They also asserted that it is burdensome for voters to have to check their selections twice — once on the voting machine screen and again using the limited information on the printed ballot.
They asked Totenberg to stop the state from using the touch screen voting machine system as the standard method for in-person voting.
'Although Plaintiffs have not ultimately prevailed on their legal claims, their work has identified substantial concerns about the administration, maintenance, and security of Georgia's electronic in-person voting system,' Totenberg wrote. 'These investigative and educational efforts have prompted meaningful legislative action to bolster the transparency and accountability of Georgia's voting systems.'
In addition to other changes, a law passed by Georgia lawmakers last year requires QR codes to be removed from ballots by July 2026, though she noted that funding and government action would be required to implement that change.
The judge outlined the evidence presented at trial in early 2024, including the findings of University of Michigan computer scientist and professor J. Alex Halderman. He testified that an attacker could potentially alter the QR codes to change voter selections, install malware on the voting machines and obtain county-wide passwords, among other issues, she wrote.
A report Halderman wrote in 2021 as part of this lawsuit prompted the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in 2022 to put out advisory recommending steps that should be taken by election officials in places that use the voting machines that Georgia uses. Georgia election officials in 2023 said they planned to wait until after the 2024 election to install a software update to address some of the security flaws, saying they had taken other measures to protect the state's voting system.
Totenberg's ruling puts an end to a long and twisting path. Throughout the process she has repeatedly raised concerns about the state's voting system and practices and, early on, accused state officials of ignoring problems. In an August 2019 ruling, she prohibited the state from using its antiquated paperless voting machines beyond that year. The state had agreed to purchase new voting machines from Dominion a few weeks earlier and scrambled to deploy them ahead of the 2020 election cycle.
Conspiracy theorists and people looking to give credence to Trump's claims of a stolen election have seized on Totenberg's intermediate rulings in the case, as well as on Halderman's findings. But Halderman has always made clear that his mission was to identify vulnerabilities in the system, that he was not tasked with looking for and had not found any evidence that those weaknesses had been exploited.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian greenlights AI moratorium again
A provision that bars states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for a 10-year period can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax package, the Senate parliamentarian determined Friday. The decision, announced by Senate Budget Democrats, once again found the moratorium clears a procedural hurdle known as the Byrd rule. The provision's future in the reconciliation bill appeared in danger Thursday, after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough asked Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the measure. It had initially been cleared by the Senate referee last weekend, after Cruz altered the language to tie the moratorium to federal funding. The most recent language banned states from regulating AI models and systems if they want access to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment funds. However, the parliamentarian voiced concerns about the provision when she met with Cruz and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, on Wednesday night, Cantwell told reporters Thursday. Democrats had argued that the measure would impact $42 billion in broadband funding in violation of the Byrd rule. MacDonough's latest approval notes that the provision 'does not violate the Byrd Rule as long as the conditions only apply to the new $500 million provided by the reconciliation bill,' according to a press release from Senate Budget Democrats. The Byrd rule, which determines what can be voted on as part of the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote, has represented a key hurdle to Republican priorities as they rush to pass Trump's spending bill by his self-imposed deadline of July 4. While the AI moratorium has cleared the Byrd rule, it may still face additional hurdles, with several House and Senate Republicans voicing opposition to the measure. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have all come out against the provision.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers want US Commerce Department to probe Chinese smartphone maker OnePlus
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Two U.S. lawmakers on Friday asked the Commerce Department to investigate whether devices sold by Chinese smartphone maker OnePlus in the United States pose security concerns, according to a letter seen by Reuters. Representative John Moolenaar, a Republican who chairs a House of Representatives committee on China, and the panel's top Democrat, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, noted that major U.S. retailers sell OnePlus devices for use on two U.S. wireless networks. The lawmakers said a recent analysis by a commercial company provided to the committee "indicates that these devices may potentially collect and transmit extensive user data -- including sensitive personal information to "servers under Chinese jurisdiction without explicit user consent." Shenzen-based OnePlus did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


American Military News
31 minutes ago
- American Military News
Supreme Court hands Trump ‘Giant Win' in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a 'GIANT WIN' on Friday by ruling against 'universal injunctions' and limiting court injunctions after a lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the president's executive order blocking birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court wrote, 'Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' In Friday's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett claimed that the 'universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent' for the majority of U.S. history. 'Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority,' Barrett wrote. 'That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible.' Barrett explained that the Supreme Court's ruling does not address whether the president's executive order on birthright citizenship violates the Nationality Act of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, Barrett said the issue presented to the Supreme Court 'is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.' READ MORE: Supreme Court issues major deportation ruling Barrett added, 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.' In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the court's decision will now require district courts throughout the country to 'follow proper legal procedures' with regard to injunctions. 'Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized,' Kavanaugh stated. Following Friday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social, saying, 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.' Vice President J.D. Vance also released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, describing it as a 'huge ruling.' Vance claimed that the ruling will stop the 'ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions' that Democrat judges have used to continually block the president's executive orders. 'Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges!' Vance tweeted.