FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – December 7, 2016

Statement on Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Denial of Forensic Audit for Voting Machines

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas today denied a full forensic analysis of voting machines and their software, as requested by the Stein campaign recount effort. Such an analysis is the only way to guarantee the accuracy of the election results in Philadelphia.

Below are statements from the Stein campaign recount effort on this decision. Available for comment: Ilann Maazel (below) and Prof. Candice Hoke (Co-Director of the Center for Cybersecurity & Privacy Protection, and Professor of Law, Cleveland State University).

Statement from Ilann Maazel, counsel at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and lead counsel for the Jill Stein campaign recount effort in Pennsylvania:

“The court’s decision will deny voters the chance to know the truth about this election. The only way we’ll know if this was a secure and accurate election is if we’re able to do a full forensic analysis of these machines, which experts testify are easily hacked, have been hacked by college students in a lab setting, and are banned in California and other states. The federal courts will now have a chance to do right by the people of Pennsylvania and order such an analysis.”

Statement from Prof. Daniel Lopresti, Chair of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University:

“Because Philadelphia’s voting machines do not keep a voter-verified paper record of each vote cast, we can’t be sure that these machines have accurately tallied the votes. That is why a full forensic analysis of the machines and their software is necessary.”