International Foundation for Electoral Systems requirement of free and fair elections. The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the ‘paper trail.’”67 Following the 2005 parliamentary (Bundestag) elections, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled on two complaints about the use of computer-controlled voting machines. Complainants alleged that two laws that had been drafted, and the specific EVMs used, violated the principle of the public nature of elections, which means that all essential steps of an election “are subject to the possibility of public scrutiny.”68 The complainants moved to invalidate the elections and to repeat them with voting slips and ballot boxes. The principle of equality was also alleged to have been violated by the different treatment of voters who used voting slips and voters who used EVMs. The court ruled that one of the laws in question did permit voting machines without effective monitoring of voting or results and was therefore unconstitutional. It found that the EVMs used were also incompatible with the public principle; votes were recorded only on an electronic storage medium, so voters could not verify their votes, and could only see that the machines had registered a ballot. No procedure should render the voter unable to verify “whether his or her vote is unfalsifiably recorded and included in the ascertainment of the election result, and how the total votes cast assigned and counted.”69 The court did not dissolve the Bundestag, saying that without evidence of manipulation, or evidence that results would have been different without the EVMs, there was no sufficient reason to invalidate the elections. The public interest “in the protection of the status quo of the people’s representation composed in trust in the constitutionality of the Federal Voting Machine Ordinance outweighs the election errors that have been ascertained.”70 EVMs were introduced in Finland through a pilot project in the 2008 municipal elections. E-voting was an option at polling stations in three municipalities, and voters there had a choice between traditional and e-voting. Voters used a voting card to cast their vote, but instructions on the card were incomplete. Accordingly, nearly two percent of e-votes were not recorded. In its decision on a subsequent election petition, the Supreme Administrative Court found that both the instructions on the cards and the EVMs used were inadequate, and annulled the elections.71 Elections were then re-held using only traditional voting. The Council of Europe’s observation report concluded that universal suffrage, especially the right to vote and the right to be elected, had been violated.72 Use of Internet Voting or Electronic Voting (E-Voting) E-voting has featured in several major court decisions, most notably in Estonia and Austria. In 2005, the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu) passed an amendment allowing e-voters to change their vote on the 67 Swamy v. Election Commission of India (Supreme Court of India 2013). Judgment of the Second Senate of March 3, 2009, 2 BvC 3/0 (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany). 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Sections 2.42 and 2.5 of KHO:2209: 39 (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland). 72 Kieth Whitmore, Information Report on the Electronic Voting in the Finnish Municipal Elections, Council of Europe, 2008, 3. 68 16