Curling v. Raffenberger

Donna Curling, et al. v. Brad Raffensperger, et al., No. 1:17-CV-2989-AT

Plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

1. Plaintiffs established that the Dominion ballot-marking device (BMD) system used in Georgia violates their fundamental right to vote and equal protection under the 1st and 14th Amendments.

2. The Dominion BMD system has major security deficiencies that burden plaintiffs' voting rights, including vulnerability to malware, issues with logic and accuracy testing, acceptance of double-counted ballots, selection of incorrect winners, ballot rejection and counting failures, unexplained vote decreases, and wireless access.

3. Georgia's auditing of only one race every two years using the Dominion BMD system is inadequate to ensure accuracy and violates plaintiffs' rights.

4. The lack of election transparency, including discrepancies in ballot images and destruction of electronic records, violates plaintiffs' rights.

5. There are credibility issues with the testimony of multiple defense witnesses.

6. The court should declare the Dominion BMD system constitutionally deficient, enjoin its future use, appoint a special master to oversee the 2024 election, and order the state to establish adequate security and auditing measures or use paper ballots instead.

The findings detail evidence presented at trial regarding alleged security vulnerabilities and operational issues with the Dominion system, inadequacies of the state's auditing and transparency measures, and credibility concerns with state election officials and experts. The plaintiffs argue this evidence establishes constitutional violations necessitating broad injunctive relief.

Defendant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

1. The court's role in election cases is limited, and it cannot interfere with state election procedures absent a constitutional violation. Policy disagreements are not sufficient.

2. Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they have shown no particularized injury from the use of the electronic voting system compared to other voting methods. The organizational plaintiff also lacks standing.

3. On the merits, under the Anderson-Burdick test, the plaintiffs failed to quantify any burden on the right to vote, while the state provided significant interests justifying its voting system choice, including ease of administration and voter intent determination.

4. Plaintiffs provided no evidence that any alternative remedies would redress their alleged injuries. The public interest weighs against an injunction.

5. Ultimately, plaintiffs' claims amount to a policy disagreement insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. The court lacks authority to order the state to adopt plaintiffs' preferred voting method.

Therefore, the defendants argue the court should enter judgment in their favor on all remaining claims and close the case. The findings detail the lengthy procedural history of the case and the evidence presented at trial on standing, merits, and equitable factors.