Sides differ over replacing voting machines in county

An activist group that wants Allegheny County to replace electronic voting machines it says are vulnerable to hacking squared off in Commonwealth Court on Wednesday with county lawyers who say the group’s proposed ordinance violates the law.

OpenPittsburgh and several other plaintiffs had appealed a ruling by Common Pleas Judge Joseph James, who sided with the county in rejecting the ordinance proposed last year.

The proposal would create a review commission to recommend replacement machines that would leave a paper trail backup in case the system is hacked. The ordinance would require county council to place the issue before the voters for a referendum to pay for new machines.

But the solicitor’s office maintains that the proposed ordinance violates state law, which bars voters from determining which machines to buy. That decision, the solicitor’s office said, is up to the Board of Elections.

Now Commonwealth Court will decide. The full panel heard arguments on the case at the City-County Building, but didn’t rule.

Ron Hicks, a lawyer for OpenPittsburgh, said his review of the law indicates that county council has the ability to place the issue before voters. He said the review commission would make a recommendation to county council, which would then put the issue on the ballot.

“It’s the electorate that decides what voting machines to use,” he said.

George Janocsko, first assistant solicitor, countered that the proposal violates state law and the county’s home rule charter because it mandates the county to place the issue on the ballot.

“This would have to be advisory,” he said of the review commission’s recommendation for machines.

Mr. Hicks asked the court to reverse Judge James and send the proposal to county council to vote on it.

The appellate court will rule at a later date.