Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 579 Filed 08/15/19 Page 10 of 153 disruption and financial burdens to implement a hand-marked paper ballot system in a single election cycle in 2019 and such disruption is far outweighed by the important, pragmatic operational challenge of progressive training on and rollout of the new BMD based voting system and pollbooks in the next few months prior to the Presidential Primary. (2) The State contends it has made progress and taken adequate measures to fortify and address the security and vulnerability of the election data system. (3) The State contends that all voting systems have their own risks and that Plaintiffs’ experts’ assessment of the risks (or dangers) of the State’s continued use of the DRE/GEMS system and database in the current security environment is unsubstantiated or overstated. (4) The State contends that all municipalities with scheduled elections in the Fall of 2019 are necessary parties and that the Court cannot proceed to consider the requested relief without these municipalities being joined as partydefendants in these proceedings. The Coalition and Curling Plaintiffs, by contrast, argue that the State’s use of the DRE/GEMS system will likely continue past March 2020, which the State has set as its target for implementing the new BMD/scanner based voting system – whether because this target date is not likely to be met or because of other system deficiencies or defects that will continue onward. They further argue that voters should not be forced anew to run the gauntlet of a voting system in which their ability to cast votes that are properly counted is compromised or thwarted. 10