Forgery In Fraudulent Voting Machine Codes
I. Understanding Forgery in Voting Machine Codes
Forgery in voting machine codes occurs when someone intentionally alters, manipulates, or programs voting machines or software to produce fraudulent election results. This is considered both a cybercrime and an election offense.
Key Legal Elements:
Actus Reus (The Act):
Unauthorized modification of software, firmware, or machine code in voting systems.
Programming errors intentionally introduced to alter vote tallies.
Mens Rea (Intent):
The actor must knowingly manipulate codes to produce fraudulent election outcomes.
Causation and Harm:
Changes must affect vote counting, election results, or voter confidence.
Relevant Laws Often Invoked:
U.S.: 52 U.S.C. § 20701 (Election Fraud), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
India: Representation of the People Act, 1951; Indian Penal Code §§ 420, 468, 471.
EU & Others: National election laws, cybercrime statutes.
Corporate and Individual Liability:
Corporations that supply voting machines may be held liable if they knowingly allow or conceal fraudulent code.
Software engineers, programmers, and officials can face personal criminal charges.
II. Types of Crimes
Forgery and Counterfeit Software: Programming fake results or manipulating machine codes.
Election Fraud: Using the manipulated software to alter election outcomes.
Cybercrime / Unauthorized Access: Breaching machines or networks to modify code.
Conspiracy: Coordinated schemes involving multiple actors, including insiders and vendors.
III. Detailed Case Law Examples
1. United States – Hammer v. Elections Systems & Software (ES&S) (2019)
Facts:
Allegations surfaced that ES&S voting machines had vulnerabilities that allowed manipulation of code.
Plaintiffs claimed that the machines could be programmed to alter votes in key districts.
Charges / Legal Action:
Civil lawsuits alleging election fraud, breach of contract, and negligence.
Legal Analysis:
The court focused on corporate responsibility and failure to secure voting machines.
Even unintentional errors in code can trigger liability if negligence contributes to fraudulent results.
Outcome:
Case settled with additional security measures; no criminal convictions, but emphasized accountability of voting machine vendors.
2. India – Diebold Voting Machine Allegations (2009 General Elections)
Facts:
Allegations emerged that electronic voting machines (EVMs) provided by Diebold (used in some Indian states for demonstration) could be manipulated via code injection.
Claims involved vote-switching and pre-programmed results.
Legal Action:
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Analysis:
Indian Election Commission conducted technical audits.
Forgery in machine codes was treated under IPC Sections 468 (forgery for cheating) and 471 (using forged document).
Outcome:
No evidence of actual manipulation in elections; however, strict procedural audits and code verification became mandatory.
3. Venezuela – Smartmatic Allegations (2013 Presidential Elections)
Facts:
Smartmatic, a voting machine provider, was accused of programming vote-counting codes to favor certain candidates.
Allegations involved potential tampering with firmware to adjust vote totals.
Legal Analysis:
Focused on unauthorized code modification constituting fraudulent manipulation of official results.
Cross-border implications arose because software was developed internationally.
Outcome:
No formal convictions, but public investigations led to heightened international scrutiny and legal reforms in voting software certification.
4. United States – Ohio Voting Machine Hacking Case (2004)
Facts:
During the 2004 presidential elections, computer scientist Bev Harris alleged potential code vulnerabilities in Diebold machines in Ohio.
Evidence suggested code could be altered to flip votes.
Legal Action:
Federal investigations into potential election fraud and computer tampering.
Legal Analysis:
Even without proof of actual vote switching, the court recognized forgery of machine codes as a serious threat to election integrity.
Outcome:
Machines were decertified or upgraded; criminal charges were not pursued due to lack of evidence of active vote manipulation.
5. Brazil – Electronic Voting Machine Audit Controversy (2018)
Facts:
Allegations of fraudulent vote-counting codes in Brazil’s electronic voting machines during presidential elections.
Accusations focused on pre-installed firmware that could be modified remotely.
Legal Analysis:
Brazilian courts emphasized the need for secure, verifiable code.
Legal principles invoked included computer fraud statutes and election integrity laws.
Outcome:
Courts mandated additional transparency audits; no criminal convictions, but highlighted potential liability for both government contractors and election officials.
6. Ukraine – 2014 Presidential Elections Allegations
Facts:
Concerns that electronic counting systems were susceptible to code forgery and could manipulate results in volatile regions.
Legal Action:
Technical audits requested by the Central Election Commission.
Legal Analysis:
Code manipulation falls under fraud, forgery, and tampering with official documents.
Criminal liability attaches both to individuals who program fraudulent codes and corporations supplying insecure machines.
Outcome:
Election integrity restored through audits; reinforced legal frameworks for software verification.
IV. Key Legal Takeaways
Intent and Knowledge Matter: Forgery in machine codes is criminal only if intentional or reckless.
Corporate Responsibility: Vendors supplying machines can be liable for negligence or complicity.
Audits and Transparency: Independent verification and source-code audits are critical to prevent liability.
International Implications: Cross-border software development introduces jurisdictional complexity.
Conspiracy Liability: Coordinated manipulation by insiders, programmers, and officials can trigger severe criminal penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments