Fitrakis v. Husted et al

Filing 2

COMPLAINT against Election Systems & Software, Inc., Jon Husted, filed by Robert J Fitrakis. [ELECTION ISSUE(S) CITED] (jcw1)

the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article
III of the United States Constitution.
4.

Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the

plaintiff’s claims, and the direct and immediate harm threatened to the plaintiff, arises in this judicial
district.

Parties
5.

Plaintiff Robert J. Fitrakis (hereinafter “Fitrakis”) is a taxpayer who resides in the State of Ohio,

and who is registered to vote in the State of Ohio.
6.

Defendant Jon Husted (hereinafter “Husted) is the duly elected and presently serving Ohio

Secretary of State. Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code §3501.04, the defendant is the chief election official of
the State of Ohio, and is responsible for the administration of state laws affecting voting and for assuring
that elections in the state are conducted in accordance with the law.
7.

Defendant Election Systems & Software, Inc. (hereinafter “ES&S”) designs and provides state

and local governments with hardware and software designed to record and tabulate votes cast in general
and primary elections.

Facts
8.

On or after September 18, 2012, defendant Husted entered into one or more contracts with

defendant ES&S, under which ES&S provided Husted with hardware and software designed to record
and tabulate the votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6, 2012. Defendant
ES&S acted as an agent of the State of Ohio under color of State law.

9.

The aforesaid contracts were approved and signed by Husted without opening them to public

bidding, without public review, and without approval of the technology review board that must approve
such contracts, all of which is required by Ohio law. Those contracts obligated defendant Husted to pay
ES&S for such hardware and software using public funds raised from Ohio taxpayers, thereby exposing
Ohio taxpayers to the cost and expense of contracts that defendant Husted entered into unlawfully.
10.

Pursuant to the aforesaid contracts, Husted accepted hardware and software from ES&S which

he will use to record and tabulate votes cast by Ohio voters in the General Election on November 6,
2012. ES&S has installed a “back door” into such hardware and software that enables persons who are
not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and
control of Ohio’s boards of elections, to access the recording and tabulation of votes using facilities not
under the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections.
11.

There is an imminent risk that persons who are not under the supervision and control of

defendant Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, will
use the ES&S “back door” to access the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters in the
General Election on November 6, 2012 using facilities not under the control of defendant Husted or
Ohio’s boards of elections.
12.

Once they access the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters in the General

Election on November 6, 2012, the persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant
Husted, and who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, will cause
irreparable harm by using the ES&S “back door” from facilities not under the control of defendant
Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections to alter the recording and tabulation of votes cast by Ohio voters in
the General Election on November 6, 2012.

First Claim for Relief: Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983
12.

The plaintiff restates each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive,

of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.
13.

The United States Constitution protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote in elections for

federal office. The right to vote, one of the most important rights in our democratic society, is
fundamental. It is protected by Articles I and II of the United States Constitution, the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, and numerous federal statutes.
14.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

guarantees qualified voters a substantive right to participate equally with other qualified voters in the
electoral process. This equal right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise
because equal protection applies to the manner of its exercise as well.
15.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

guarantees qualified voters a substantive right to vote as a protected liberty interest.
16.

There is an imminent risk that the plaintiff will be irreparably harmed by the defendants’

conduct, described above, because votes he casts in the General Election on November 6, 2012 will be
accessed and altered by persons who are not under the supervision and control of defendant Husted, and
who are not under the supervision and control of Ohio’s boards of elections, using facilities not under
the control of defendant Husted or Ohio’s boards of elections.
17.

The plaintiff’s right to vote under the United States Constitution is protected by 42 U.S.C.

§1983.
18.

By their conduct described above, the defendants have acted and will act to deny the plaintiff his

right to vote guaranteed to him under the United States Constitution.

Second Claim for Relief: Ohio Taxpayer’s Action
20.

The plaintiff restates each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive,

of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.
21.

Any person may, in a private capacity as a citizen, elector, freeholder, or taxpayer, volunteer to

enforce a right of action on behalf of and for the benefit of the public.
22.

Where the question is one of public right and its object is to procure the enforcement of public

duty, the public is regarded as the party in interest.
23.

Defendant Husted, as a public official, has a duty to comply with Ohio law and not expend

public funds without authorization.
24.

The plaintiff has a clear legal right, as an Ohio taxpayer, to procure the enforcement of a public

duty that is applicable to defendant Husted.
25.

Defendant Husted has violated his duty not expend public funds without authorization by

contracting with defendant ES&S as described above without opening such contracts to public bidding,
without public review, and without approval of the technology review board that must approve such
contracts, all of which is required by Ohio law.
26.

The plaintiff has a clear legal right to enforce the duty of a public official not to expend public

funds without authorization against defendant Husted.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Robert J. Fitrakis demands judgment against defendant Jon Husted, in
his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, and against defendant Election Systems & Software, Inc.
as follows:
a.

That this Court issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent

injunction prohibiting the defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors,