[00:02.200 --> 00:09.280] Greetings. It's great to be here, even though I'm not there and we're not in Vegas. Well, [00:09.280 --> 00:15.800] maybe you are, but I'm not. And after years of pilgrimage to Vegas and DEF CON and other [00:15.800 --> 00:24.320] security conferences, primarily to speak about, well, privacy and security and inevitably [00:25.840 --> 00:34.780] Bitcoin, I never imagined that I would be doing this virtually, especially not for the voting [00:34.780 --> 00:41.520] villages or voting village rather than the crypto and privacy villages where I normally hang out. [00:42.020 --> 00:47.820] But with that said, I have spent significant time in the voting village and I've even included a [00:47.820 --> 00:54.300] couple of photos in this presentation to help bring us back to our in-person DEF CON days. [00:54.320 --> 01:03.220] Which we will surely return to. But for now, our virtual CON is our reality. So I hope this [01:03.220 --> 01:11.940] presentation helps to educate you and brighten your summer in safe mode. Please find me on Twitter [01:11.940 --> 01:19.540] if you have any questions. I'm at Cordero underscore ESQ. And with all that out of the way, [01:19.540 --> 01:31.610] let's get into it. A lawyer's reflections on elections. Let's get into it. So who is Cordero? [01:32.030 --> 01:38.690] That's me, the lawyer speaking now, providing reflections to those that will listen. [01:39.270 --> 01:44.890] And without reiterating my entire biography, I want to quickly go through a couple of these points. [01:44.890 --> 01:49.990] I'm a partner at Sublime Law, which focuses on business and intellectual property. [01:50.500 --> 01:58.830] I lead our emerging technologies practice group. And before joining Sublime Law, I worked at a [01:58.830 --> 02:05.630] forensics and cybersecurity professional services firm in Silicon Valley, as well as a large U.S. [02:05.630 --> 02:13.670] law firm, where I focused on privacy. I graduated ASU Law with honors, focusing on law, science, [02:13.670 --> 02:23.230] and technology. And I worked at ASU's innovation advancement program. But most relevant for today, [02:23.850 --> 02:30.510] I'm a former political candidate that has a story to tell that is part of a larger and [02:30.510 --> 02:41.670] more important narrative than any single election race or election case. So what will we not be [02:41.670 --> 02:48.010] going over today? What's not on the agenda? I will not be making a political statement [02:48.010 --> 02:55.670] in support of any party. I won't be litigating any lawsuit or critiquing any judicial officer. [02:56.550 --> 03:01.850] So with that out of the way, let's get into the agenda of reflections. [03:04.590 --> 03:09.590] First, I'm going to explain the structure of the American government, [03:09.590 --> 03:16.410] including state and federal similarities. Second, I'm going to introduce how my lawsuit came to be, [03:16.410 --> 03:20.870] the origins of the campaign, and the lawsuit that followed. [03:21.070 --> 03:28.570] Three, I'm going to highlight issues and share the oddities of election law that I learned along [03:28.570 --> 03:36.050] the way. And fourth, I'm going to share some information and some resources for your reference. [03:36.050 --> 03:42.470] And finally, as you can see on the bottom, the overall objective here is to educate [03:42.470 --> 03:48.310] and broaden the community of people that can become experts in how the system works [03:48.310 --> 03:56.880] so they can help improve it over time. Getting into it, democracy now. [03:57.540 --> 04:02.770] You may already know that the U.S. federal system has three branches of government. [04:03.450 --> 04:09.750] And to keep things simple and to appeal to DEFCON's global audience, this slide represents [04:09.750 --> 04:16.350] how the U.S. Constitution, through its different articles, structures the federal government. [04:16.990 --> 04:23.190] This system of co-equal branches of government is meant to accomplish an appropriate balance of [04:23.190 --> 04:30.050] powers, thereby achieving a level of accountability and independence that is good for governance. [04:30.930 --> 04:39.450] You can think of these branches of government as the rule makers, rule enforcers, [04:39.450 --> 04:47.270] and rule interpreters. But there's more to the U.S. than the federal national government. [04:47.330 --> 04:54.470] There are state and local governments. The states follow a similar structure of government, [04:54.470 --> 04:59.310] using a state constitution and establishing co-equal branches of government. [05:00.050 --> 05:07.590] But what is more important to understand is that these local state governments are [05:07.590 --> 05:13.630] typically much more impactful than the federal government in terms of your everyday life. [05:13.630 --> 05:22.330] So how do the national and state local governments share power? Let's take a look. [05:23.690 --> 05:32.810] Wow, this one might make your eyes glaze over, but stay with me. We know from before that it is [05:32.810 --> 05:38.690] the constitutions that inform us as to the sharing of powers between the federal and state [05:38.690 --> 05:45.830] local government. For instance, as you can see on the bottom of this slide, the 10th Amendment of [05:45.830 --> 05:51.930] the U.S. Constitution declares, as we'll discuss more later, the, and I quote, [05:51.930 --> 05:58.450] the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the [05:58.450 --> 06:05.850] states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That's a mouthful and a very [06:05.850 --> 06:14.450] old sentence. We're talking 1776, right? So what does that mean? In other words, [06:14.450 --> 06:20.110] states have all powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution. [06:20.870 --> 06:25.610] So conveniently, this slide gives some examples of the sharing of powers [06:25.610 --> 06:32.510] via exclusive and concurrent powers. And what should really be a Venn diagram, [06:32.510 --> 06:39.550] but let's just focus on this slide from left to right. The exclusive federal powers are things [06:39.550 --> 06:46.690] like coining money and declaring war, conducting foreign affairs. In the middle, we've got [06:46.690 --> 06:53.550] concurrent and shared powers, and those are things like taxation and establishing courts. [06:54.090 --> 06:59.990] And finally, on the right, we have exclusive state powers, like conducting elections. And that's a [06:59.990 --> 07:07.690] little bit of a gray area because the federal government does have some administration [07:07.690 --> 07:14.990] aspects related to elections. And I wouldn't really call it a completely exclusive state power, [07:14.990 --> 07:21.710] but the states do control the elections and how they proceed. There's also providing for public [07:22.270 --> 07:29.050] safety, health, and welfare. But the point of showing this slide is to demonstrate [07:29.510 --> 07:36.330] that state and local governments have much more power to influence communities than is often [07:36.330 --> 07:43.610] expected by its citizens. So let's explore some of those local powers some more. [07:45.490 --> 07:53.590] The impact lies locally. Just take a minute to take in the amount of powers and responsibility [07:53.590 --> 08:01.530] that is delegated to local authorities. We have budgeting, prioritizing, human resource functions, [08:01.530 --> 08:10.830] program management, taxation, ordinances and resolutions, charter and constitutional amendments, [08:10.830 --> 08:16.510] zoning and land use and eminent domain, regulating public health and safety, [08:16.510 --> 08:22.090] as we previously discussed, and liaisoning to other governments. [08:22.810 --> 08:29.850] But for today, we want to focus on elections. So now that we've briefly examined some of the [08:29.850 --> 08:35.890] structural foundations of the American government, we have arrived at our next point on this journey [08:35.890 --> 08:42.730] of learning. And that is the second point in the agenda. Stories from my own campaign [08:43.350 --> 08:51.450] and related lawsuit while seeking a seat on the local city council of the city of Peoria, Arizona, [08:52.050 --> 08:59.210] not Peoria, Illinois, for all the Midwesterners listening. Shout out to Sec KC, by the way. [09:01.830 --> 09:09.810] So why run? Well, I hope that the previous slides have established, [09:09.810 --> 09:16.470] at least in part, that running for local office can provide a great platform to bring positive [09:16.470 --> 09:23.350] influence to your community. And specifically, on this slide is my answer in quotes to this [09:23.350 --> 09:29.470] question of why run that I gave to the local newspaper, Peoria Times. I talked about my [09:29.470 --> 09:34.970] campaign platform, community safety, more engagement, and better protection of people's [09:34.970 --> 09:41.590] opportunities and legal rights. I also talked about my qualifications as a lawyer and my [09:41.590 --> 09:48.750] connection to the community. But what isn't on this slide or in the newspaper is clarification [09:48.750 --> 09:53.870] of what kind of candidate I was and how that impacted my chances of winning. [09:54.610 --> 10:01.170] And I don't mean what kind of candidate I was in terms of person or party affiliation, [10:01.170 --> 10:08.990] but from a procedural perspective. That is to say, I was a write-in candidate. [10:10.630 --> 10:15.890] To understand write-in candidates, think of Kanye West. [10:16.450 --> 10:22.110] He would most likely be considered a write-in candidate for the 2020 presidential election, [10:22.110 --> 10:27.930] but he would not be considered an official write-in candidate because he probably has not [10:27.930 --> 10:34.110] filed the necessary paperwork. Just as individuals often write-in candidates like [10:34.110 --> 10:39.710] Jesus or Mickey Mouse, these candidates are not official. They cannot serve [10:40.610 --> 10:49.010] if they get the requisite number of votes. This is because they haven't complied with the other [10:49.570 --> 10:53.490] rules and regulations or filing of paperwork that might be necessary. [10:53.870 --> 11:01.330] So I was an official write-in, meaning that votes for me would count and meaning that I filled out [11:01.330 --> 11:09.350] the extra necessary paperwork. But why was I a write-in? It's an unusual election that I took [11:09.350 --> 11:17.050] part in and it also coincided with an unusual and unfortunate time in my own life, but I nonetheless [11:17.050 --> 11:29.200] found it important to carry on as you'll see in the next slide. Despite the fact that most [11:29.200 --> 11:36.220] write-in candidates lose their elections, why continue? Well, as was noted by my alma mater [11:36.220 --> 11:42.960] here on the right side of the slide, I felt compelled. But more importantly, why I felt [11:42.960 --> 11:50.100] compelled was because of my care for the community and to carry on what others before me had started. [11:50.740 --> 11:57.940] For instance, Carlo Rocky Leon, who became a sort of mentor to myself and my sibling, [11:57.940 --> 12:02.720] had received honors from the National League of Cities and earned the respect of his constituents [12:03.420 --> 12:10.440] in my city for over 20 years. I wanted to carry that legacy forward and I would get that opportunity [12:10.440 --> 12:19.140] to try in 2018, or rather 2019. But let's first start with 2018. [12:20.020 --> 12:29.020] Background to the 2018 race, which I did not take part in. As I mentioned, [12:29.020 --> 12:36.240] someone I looked up to, Rocky, who was the Pine District Councilman for so long, [12:36.680 --> 12:45.100] he actually won the 2018 race, which I did not partake in. But unfortunately, a few months into [12:45.100 --> 12:51.820] it, Rocky's term was cut short and due to health reasons, he was forced to resign. [12:52.820 --> 12:58.780] So this brings us to the background to the 2019 special election race. [13:01.420 --> 13:04.660] You can see there are two ballot candidates, Danette on the left [13:04.660 --> 13:10.780] and Randall on the right. And there's me, the write-in candidate, in the middle. This story [13:10.780 --> 13:23.680] gets a bit more complex. During the election, Reigns drops out for health reasons and it is [13:23.680 --> 13:29.040] reported that he has said about his medically forced withdrawal that having a very qualified [13:29.040 --> 13:34.340] write-in candidate makes his decision a little easier. This will allow the voters to have a [13:34.340 --> 13:43.010] choice in this election. Hopeful for voter choice? You can see Reigns' quote there, [13:43.010 --> 13:50.030] on the left and on the right. And perhaps Mr. Reigns knew something that I didn't at that time. [13:50.050 --> 13:56.590] In fact, it's interesting to note that Mr. Reigns was passed over by the sitting Peoria Council, [13:56.590 --> 14:03.410] who made Danette Dunn the interim council member and seemingly favored Dunn after publicly backing [14:03.410 --> 14:10.890] her at events in the 2018 race that she lost. Thus, it's very possible that Mr. Reigns may [14:10.890 --> 14:20.390] have already been aware of something afoot. But what was it? And this brings us to the controversy. [14:21.350 --> 14:25.810] Might not have been what Mr. Reigns was thinking about, but he was concerned with the city [14:28.130 --> 14:37.410] providing choice to its constituents. And I'd like to begin talking about this lawsuit by reading [14:37.410 --> 14:43.990] the introductory paragraph of our complaint, because this gives the high-level story of the [14:43.990 --> 14:49.950] lawsuit from my perspective. Though other lawyers may simply call it hyperbole, the ones listening [14:49.950 --> 14:59.050] in on the voting village will probably not. I quote, most election experts across the United [14:59.050 --> 15:05.630] States of America agree that our election processes are vulnerable in a variety of ways. [15:05.670 --> 15:12.870] These are not limited to attacks on elections from outsiders. In fact, this statement of contest [15:12.870 --> 15:19.310] concerns an unscrupulous internal attack and misinformation campaign that led to an election [15:19.310 --> 15:24.870] result that is believed to be illegitimate. Indeed, a democratic state necessitates that [15:24.870 --> 15:30.570] its citizens are adequately informed by the state, or at a minimum, are not misled or misinformed [15:30.570 --> 15:38.330] by the state about election matters. So what really happened? You can see something there [15:38.330 --> 15:46.690] on the right about a postcard. And we'll definitely get to that. But the allegations [15:46.690 --> 15:53.430] against the city are many and should be viewed as cumulative. The allegations range from enforcing [15:53.430 --> 16:01.590] inaccurate and outdated sign regulations against my campaign, withholding voter data, improperly [16:01.590 --> 16:09.110] removing my campaign signs, inciting my campaign volunteers for irrelevant code violations. [16:11.530 --> 16:17.690] However, one of the primary controversies as it relates to this special election in 2019 [16:18.890 --> 16:25.210] is about a postcard. And specifically, the city overstepped its responsibility [16:26.110 --> 16:32.070] and improperly did so, not in accordance with the letter of the law, by sending out a postcard under [16:32.310 --> 16:38.550] a pretext of an update, when that update clearly helped the city's preferred candidate over all [16:38.550 --> 16:44.870] others. Essentially, the city of Peoria, despite having an agreement with the Secretary of State [16:44.870 --> 16:51.570] to handle the election procedures, took it upon themselves to release a postcard not in line with [16:51.570 --> 16:59.510] the letter of law on or around the day that the ballots arrived. As you can see on the right side [16:59.510 --> 17:05.610] of the slide, the postcard, which the court ultimately confirmed was sent to voters not in [17:05.610 --> 17:12.010] accordance with the letter of the law, appeared to many voters to be confusing and as an endorsement [17:12.010 --> 17:19.730] of the other candidate. For the record, this was an all-mail-in election. And what's extra notable [17:20.440 --> 17:27.660] is that in order to win in the primary, you must win by a certain percentage, 50% plus one. [17:27.990 --> 17:33.850] And this is important because if there isn't a conclusive winner, then the general election [17:33.850 --> 17:40.790] would need to happen and all candidates would be on the ballot, including the write-in candidate [17:40.790 --> 17:49.510] myself. So in that context, the content of the postcard becomes very clear in its motives, [17:49.510 --> 17:58.250] especially its timing. The postcard contained a message that wasn't meant to simply inform [17:59.470 --> 18:06.090] of all candidates. In fact, it didn't inform of all candidates. It was meant to partially inform [18:06.090 --> 18:13.630] of candidate updates and ultimately discourage wasted votes on one candidate in exchange [18:14.410 --> 18:17.910] for the other known candidate on the ballot. [18:19.690 --> 18:29.860] Let's take a closer look. As you can see here, on the left is the law. This is a part of our [18:29.860 --> 18:35.580] complaint. And on the right is instructions that the Secretary of State, not the City of Peoria, [18:35.580 --> 18:44.700] the Secretary of State provided. And you can see the law in ARS 16343G, which is excerpt on the [18:44.700 --> 18:53.160] left side of the slide in our complaint, requires that notice of withdrawn candidates shall be made [18:53.160 --> 19:00.060] available by providing with the early ballot instructions, the things on the right, a website [19:00.060 --> 19:07.640] address for information regarding withdrawn and write-in candidates. So on the right side, [19:07.640 --> 19:13.720] look what was provided by the Secretary of State. It's circled right there, a website address for [19:13.720 --> 19:23.400] updates about candidates. This follows the law. But this wasn't all that was done. This is all [19:23.400 --> 19:30.080] that should have been done. But let's look to the next slide to see what the city actually did [19:30.080 --> 19:35.920] in terms of notice to its voters, which we already know was in addition to what the state [19:35.920 --> 19:45.630] election law provides, right here on this slide. So the postcard is on the right. [19:46.370 --> 19:52.670] And the details are clearly more than what is required. It states how Mr. Raines is no longer [19:52.850 --> 20:00.810] a candidate and that votes towards him will not count. Don't waste your vote on him. He's not, [20:00.810 --> 20:06.630] he's out of the race. So the implication here is if you want your vote to count, it's to vote [20:06.630 --> 20:11.830] for a single person on the ballot. Then that's done. Or simply abstain from voting because [20:12.370 --> 20:21.430] a lack of awareness of another candidate. Notably, write-in candidates have the biggest challenge of [20:23.750 --> 20:28.630] really marketing and letting people know that you're out there and you're [20:28.630 --> 20:34.190] in the race and you are wanting to represent their interests. And [20:36.790 --> 20:47.490] to have this postcard come out and simply provide what seems to be a partial update, [20:48.050 --> 20:53.310] not in accordance with the letter of the law. From my vantage point, this is a clear violation [20:53.310 --> 20:59.730] of law. It's not just not the letter, it's a violation. And the court agreed insofar as the [20:59.730 --> 21:06.350] city was not following the letter of the law. But as you'll see, that didn't matter much in the end. [21:06.670 --> 21:23.390] So what did I request as a remedy anyways? I wanted the results set aside. I wanted to [21:23.390 --> 21:27.810] organize a general election as scheduled and required if primaries are inconclusive. [21:28.590 --> 21:34.310] And to get on the ballot of any new election. And crucially, I wanted to stop officials from [21:34.310 --> 21:41.710] exerting improper influence or engaging in misconduct. But what's really important to [21:41.710 --> 21:48.770] understand is that I did not want to file this lawsuit against my hometown. This is [21:50.610 --> 21:57.750] a painful experience, one that was awkward. And ultimately, just as I felt compelled to run as a [21:57.750 --> 22:03.910] writing candidate, I felt compelled to file this lawsuit for my community and the hundreds of [22:03.910 --> 22:11.810] individuals that wrote my name on the ballot. Correctly, I might add, which is a feat. And [22:11.810 --> 22:15.510] because I saw something that I thought was wrong, I thought it was a violation, [22:15.510 --> 22:21.190] I wanted to have a judge take a look at it and make a determination for the betterment of our [22:21.190 --> 22:27.850] election system. But that's not exactly how the press covered the story. And it's not how the [22:27.850 --> 22:37.560] city viewed the lawsuit either. So as you might expect, the city of Peoria maintained that they [22:37.560 --> 22:43.600] did nothing wrong. The city of Peoria and interim council member Dunn sought dismissal of the [22:43.600 --> 22:49.480] action. The city went as far as claiming that the court didn't have jurisdiction over the city [22:49.480 --> 22:57.880] due to perceived lack of service of process. And I'm not going to go into [22:59.880 --> 23:04.520] why I don't agree with those arguments, but I will go into some of the procedure. [23:04.840 --> 23:09.880] And this is for all the legal nerds out there. The case was set for a hearing on a motion to [23:09.880 --> 23:16.460] dismiss, but we ultimately received an expedited hearing on the merits after informing the judge [23:16.460 --> 23:24.260] through another emergency filing that the case was an election contest. And that we were entitled [23:24.260 --> 23:30.680] to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the case within 10 days, according to Arizona law. [23:31.020 --> 23:38.180] The judge agreed and we were eventually offered an evidentiary hearing, but we were ultimately [23:38.180 --> 23:44.220] not successful, despite that we believe there were multiple violations of law and that the city [23:44.220 --> 23:50.800] admitted in court for the application of inaccurate election-related regulations against my campaign. [23:50.800 --> 23:57.360] Moreover, the press was not particularly kind, making the lawsuit appear frivolous and as a [23:57.360 --> 24:04.760] waste of resources, so much so that I was getting additional hate mail. Something you just get used [24:04.760 --> 24:13.220] to as a politician or a would-be politician, I guess. Also, what's critical is that the judge [24:13.220 --> 24:21.320] did not believe the lawsuit was frivolous and did not order me to pay the city or Dunn's attorney's [24:21.320 --> 24:35.140] fee. I guess that's a small win. So, before discussing lessons learned, I want to turn to [24:36.300 --> 24:42.220] Montesquieu on the spirit of laws, because it is relevant to how I feel in this instance as, [24:42.220 --> 24:48.120] well, they follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. But it's also relevant because it [24:48.120 --> 24:54.520] was required reading for our founding father. Montesquieu writes in reference to a brutal state [24:54.520 --> 25:00.300] with not much of a procedural due process in terms of a legal system, [25:00.300 --> 25:08.040] I quote, for one to have the passions of pleaders would be quite dangerous. The passions presuppose [25:08.040 --> 25:16.160] an ardent desire to see justice done, a hatred and active spirit, and a steadfastness in pursuit [25:16.160 --> 25:22.840] of justice. To me, this quote stands out because I believe I was perceived as a threat, a political [25:22.840 --> 25:28.880] one, and upon making my pleadings be known in court, I was considered even more so, despite [25:28.880 --> 25:36.660] that in my heart, spirit, and action, I was simply seeking justice for the people. Maybe that is [25:36.660 --> 25:44.200] exactly why. But just as the local paper's quotes of mine on this slide demonstrate, despite [25:44.200 --> 25:51.720] disagreeing with the decision, I decided to move on and not appeal for practical reasons like money [25:51.720 --> 26:01.300] and time and futileness. Or perhaps, as in the words again of Montesquieu, each man [26:01.300 --> 26:07.940] should know that the magistrate must not hear of him and that he owes his safety only to his [26:07.940 --> 26:18.940] nothingness. So, no appeal. Alas, all said and done, I consider this lawsuit a small victory [26:18.940 --> 26:24.820] towards ensuring election integrity, and I hope the lawsuit encourages others to file similar [26:24.820 --> 26:31.540] legal actions. It should be noted here that if you're a voter, you probably have legal standing [26:31.540 --> 26:38.640] to sue. You don't have to have skin in the game like I did. So, if you see or experience suspicious [26:38.640 --> 26:46.040] activities or misconduct during an election, say something. Now we can get into the bigger picture [26:46.660 --> 27:01.370] and lessons learned. So, this personal experience that I wouldn't really wish on anyone made me dig [27:01.370 --> 27:08.610] deeper into our electoral system. And from my research and experience, it has become increasingly [27:08.610 --> 27:16.770] clear that many human and structural problems exist, including how the branches of government [27:16.770 --> 27:21.470] share power related to elections and the jurisprudence related to how the courts decide [27:21.470 --> 27:29.610] matters of importance concerning election issues. Although I do not bring forward a complete solution, [27:29.610 --> 27:35.410] below are some of the primary issues that I believe we need to address as a society to ensure [27:35.810 --> 27:42.690] a more secure and fair democracy. We need to implement strong federal standards for protecting [27:42.690 --> 27:49.810] voting rights and eliminate pretexts for stacking the deck. The case that really comes to mind is [27:49.810 --> 27:56.690] Roosh versus Common Cause, which is a 2019 Supreme Court case involving North Carolina [27:56.690 --> 28:01.770] and Maryland racial gerrymandering, which is, of course, redrawing of district lines [28:01.770 --> 28:14.210] to have a political guarantee of seats, say. And the court ruled against the plaintiffs, [28:14.750 --> 28:21.830] finding that the partisan advantage is actually permissible in terms of intent [28:22.470 --> 28:29.910] behind districting choices, because this issue is to be left with the legislature [28:30.870 --> 28:38.090] and not to be decided with the courts. And the turning point for the decision was, [28:38.090 --> 28:42.330] there are no legal standards that are discernible. [28:47.050 --> 28:52.290] And they turn to fairness, and they say, fairness, as you can see on the slide, [28:52.290 --> 29:00.270] fairness is not a judicially manageable standard. And I find that [29:01.870 --> 29:10.870] to be untrue, because courts sit in fairness and equity all the time. So a decision like this, [29:10.870 --> 29:15.250] it makes a lot of people cringe. And I believe this was a 5-4 decision, meaning it was really [29:15.250 --> 29:23.250] close. And that means our Supreme Court justices were not in agreement. And so hopefully this case [29:23.250 --> 29:29.690] gets revisited along with some other cases. But I don't have time to go into a whole lot of other [29:29.690 --> 29:35.170] cases. But what I would like to discuss is the pandemic election litigation happening in 2020. [29:35.170 --> 29:41.710] And as of right now, there are dozens and perhaps maybe by now hundreds of cases [29:41.710 --> 29:48.010] that over the past few months, have been just ticking up in terms of numbers. And this really [29:48.010 --> 29:55.210] spells trouble. It could either be a good or a bad thing. It means people are fighting inequities. [29:56.310 --> 30:04.930] Or, and I guess there's each dispute will have a side to it. I just hope that a lot of these [30:04.930 --> 30:12.830] pandemic election litigations get resolved in the proper way. Because these are dealing with [30:12.830 --> 30:23.810] things like, how do high risk individuals in a pandemic, in a hotspot, accomplish voting safely? [30:24.070 --> 30:31.890] This is not something that America should really be struggling with in 2020. It seems [30:32.450 --> 30:42.930] it seems beneath us. And I really implore all those that are still listening to speak up about [30:42.930 --> 30:51.870] these election fairness issues, and voting rights and become more knowledgeable on these topics. [30:51.870 --> 30:58.530] I'm not the top expert in this field. I'm a privacy lawyer, data protection lawyer. [30:59.090 --> 31:04.550] This is something I learned almost on accident. And so for all those that aren't on the front [31:04.550 --> 31:10.650] lines of the litigation, let's go to the bottom of this slide. I would say get involved in the [31:10.650 --> 31:16.210] fight for democracy and more secure elections by getting involved in different organizations, [31:16.210 --> 31:21.950] like support fighting election disinformation, which is what the election and integrity [31:21.950 --> 31:28.670] partnership is doing, EIP. And I love this idea because they are not focused on the candidates, [31:28.670 --> 31:35.210] what the candidates are saying. They're focused on content. So not necessarily political content, [31:35.210 --> 31:42.250] but content intended to suppress voting, reduce participation, focus or confuse voters as to [31:42.250 --> 31:50.690] election processes, or delegitimize election results without evidence. These are certainly [31:51.270 --> 31:58.610] big ticket items and challenges in 2020, especially with November, right around the [31:58.610 --> 32:08.130] corner. And with so much misinformation out there, not simply by, as in this case, [32:08.130 --> 32:13.570] it was alleged that the misinformation was coming from the government. And I think that's happening [32:13.570 --> 32:20.030] probably throughout the government of the United States. But I think as it relates to a lot of [32:20.030 --> 32:28.030] disinformation, we have to be very wary of things we're seeing online. So do your part in [32:28.030 --> 32:34.730] encouraging others to be careful, those that might not be so digitally savvy as those that [32:34.730 --> 32:40.530] might be listening to this presentation. So I really want to close this with some concluding [32:40.530 --> 32:47.670] thoughts and not get too hung up on a lot of the other cautionary tales that are out there. [32:47.670 --> 32:53.630] And clearly, as I mentioned, there's dozens and dozens of them that are playing out in the courts [32:53.630 --> 33:00.490] right now. So be on the lookout for those things. Be aware of these things that are happening [33:00.490 --> 33:11.070] and speak up against them when you can. So to conclude here, this story and experience, [33:11.070 --> 33:16.810] it didn't make me lose faith in democracy. It wasn't a negative experience. There were [33:16.810 --> 33:23.750] negative aspects of it, that's for sure. There were painful moments. But speaking to [33:25.290 --> 33:32.490] constituents that felt like they were misled by the city, and they're asking you to help fix it, [33:32.490 --> 33:40.210] that was something, again, I felt compelled to do. And I did it. And we fought the fought, [33:40.210 --> 33:48.230] but we lost those battles. And I think the war is still raging on. So these are two lost battles, [33:48.370 --> 33:56.190] a lost election and a lost litigation. But I did learn a lot. It was a journey of learning. [33:56.390 --> 34:02.870] And I didn't think I needed it as a lawyer. But I did. And I'm glad I endured this. [34:02.930 --> 34:08.350] And some of the lessons that I learned are listed here. So we can read through the slide together. [34:08.350 --> 34:14.470] Democracy is not perfect, right? It's made up of humans. You get things wrong. And it's not [34:14.470 --> 34:19.230] just institutions, right? It's not just separation of powers. And that's it. Everything's okay. [34:19.570 --> 34:25.310] And hackers know the persistent vulnerabilities of humans in pursuit of securing any information [34:25.310 --> 34:30.810] system. So it should make sense to you all here that humans need monitored closely, [34:30.810 --> 34:37.250] especially when democracy is at stake. Strengthening voting rights and securing [34:37.250 --> 34:42.850] elections will require hard work and advocacy, which usually means money and lawyers and [34:42.850 --> 34:50.310] lots of it and them, for better or worse. And election litigation, as I've come to find out, [34:50.310 --> 34:56.390] is a beast of its own. Remember, I'm a data protection lawyer and not an election lawyer. [34:57.010 --> 35:02.310] This happened by accident. And knowing the importance of these cases, [35:02.870 --> 35:06.450] these election cases and the expedited schedules for resolution, [35:07.030 --> 35:16.490] makes this fight for democracy very difficult without experts. So if you see something, [35:17.010 --> 35:26.290] say something. If you're involved in helping advocate for voter rights and you see something [35:26.290 --> 35:31.190] or you run for local office and you see something that you don't think is right, [35:31.190 --> 35:36.710] reach out. Reach out to me. I may not be the person to help you, but reach out to somebody [35:36.710 --> 35:43.670] that has more knowledge than you do. I perhaps would have done better in the litigation had I [35:43.670 --> 35:50.670] sought out an election law lawyer early in the process, but that wasn't in the cards for me. [35:50.670 --> 35:56.290] I hope it will be for you if you ever find yourself in such a bind. And here's the bonus [35:56.290 --> 36:01.270] lesson. You might already know this one, but for those of you that get into politics, local [36:01.270 --> 36:08.510] or otherwise, or find yourself, for whatever reason, speaking to the press, do not blindly [36:08.510 --> 36:15.470] trust them. Usually they're not interested in telling your story or sometimes not even the [36:15.470 --> 36:20.670] true story. And they are often interested in telling their own version of the story for their [36:20.670 --> 36:27.290] reader base. And I can't hate them for that. They are making a living. That's their job. But do not [36:27.290 --> 36:36.010] trust them blindly. It will do more damage to you than good. I would bet on that. [36:36.010 --> 36:44.770] So thank you so much. And I'm happy that I had this opportunity to do this, [36:44.770 --> 36:50.370] even if it was virtual. I really appreciate all of you that stuck it out and made it this [36:50.370 --> 36:55.510] long. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. If you have questions, please reach out to me. And as you [36:55.510 --> 37:03.250] can see here, my own lawyer on this case, who is also not an election lawyer on the left there, [37:03.250 --> 37:09.310] Brittany, is another sublime law attorney. And she's here with me on the left there [37:10.330 --> 37:17.630] at DEFCON 27 Voting Village. And we will return. So if you see us, make sure to say hello. We will [37:17.630 --> 37:24.830] definitely stop into the Voting Village and try to gain some additional knowledge as the years go [37:24.830 --> 37:31.410] on. So thank you all and have a great and fantastic rest of your summer.