LESSONS ON THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN ELECTIONS inadequate storage space, and lacked proper planning, testing, and auditing. The OAS’ limited audit was carried out in the days following the results process and required time, ICT expertise, and access to the computer system. However, it is important to note that a limited audit of the technology used in the result process is not the same as a court weighing arguments and evidence and considering the impact of such evidence on the outcome. Although opposition parties brought legal challenges to the results, they were not able to produce evidence (either on paper or digitally) that substantiated their claims regarding the results system, and so their challenges were dismissed by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. 46 This decision suggests that a litigating party would need extensive resources (including a well-organized network of party agents across the country) and a high level of ICT expertise in order to be able to bring a challenge successfully (or to provide sufficient proof to shift the burden to the respondent). It is also clear from the Georgia case that a court would need to rely on expert evidence to examine allegations of failings in an electronic results processing system, as the subject matter is highly specialized. One possible measure that a court could take is to appoint an independent ICT expert to act in an amicus 47 capacity to assist the court. This could help mitigate the lack of equitable access to ICT experts by less well-resourced litigants. However, key expertise may lie exclusively with the system vendor (if outsourced, as in this case) or the EMB's own ICT department (if developed in-house), either or both of whom may be parties to the legal proceedings. Even the OAS ICT expert in the Honduran case lacked sufficient time and access in order to carry out a full forensic analysis. If the elections technology under scrutiny is a "black box" to the public and relevant stakeholders, it has been poorly designed from the outset. Issue 5: Politicization of ‘Expert’ Evidence In hotly contested elections that are litigated in court, some expert evidence presented by parties may lack genuine expertise and/or may be partisan. A striking example of this appears in a United States case in the State of Michigan Court of Appeal regarding a challenge to the 2020 election results in Antrim County, Bailey v. Antrim County and Benson (2021). The plaintiff challenged the use of electronic voting machines, alleging that they were programmed to be susceptible to fraud. The plaintiff alleged that there were questions “whether the audit logs were altered or edited by any person operating the system, (9) whether Dominion pre-loaded any algorithms and configurations on the machines that alter the results, and if so, what algorithms and configurations were pre-loaded, and (10) whether the ‘purge option’ that is built into Dominion utilized to cancel, switch, or manipulate votes…” 48 The plaintiff applied to the court to carry out a forensic analysis, which the court authorized. The plaintiff then submitted a report by a selfdescribed cybersecurity expert (entitled the ASOG report), the central conclusion of which was that the electronic voting machines provided by Dominion Voting Systems were “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.” 49 The expert did not claim to have any expertise in election technology. The ASOG report was widely cited by President Trump and his supporters as evidence of fraud in the 2020 elections, and the Congressional select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021 at the Capitol The European Union Election Observation Mission, Honduras 2017, describes the unsuccessful challenges to the results, p. 20-26. An amicus curiae is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. 48 State of Michigan, Court of Appeal, Antrim County, Bailey v. Antrim County and Benson (2021), at 29. 49 Antrim Michigan Forensics Report by Allied Security Operations Group, December 2020. 46 47 20