Posted on 06/03/2005 3:42:29 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Judge rules contract is legal
The state Elections Board's controversial contract with Accenture LLP has survived a legal challenge.
Dane County Circuit Judge Bill Foust ruled Thursday that Elections Board Executive Director Kevin Kennedy did not have the authority to sign a $13.9 million contract with Accenture LLP for creation and maintenance of a statewide voter registration list, but the state board - which retroactively affirmed Kennedy's authority - did.
"It's a classic case where subsequent ratification by a board that had the authority to do so has occurred," Foust said in his oral ruling.
In late December, attorney Ed Garvey filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, and others, alleging that Kennedy did not have the authority to sign the contract with Accenture on Nov. 12.
It named Kennedy and Accenture, a subsidiary of a Bermuda-based conglomerate, as defendants.
On Jan. 27, the state Elections Board retroactively affirmed that Kennedy had the authority to sign the contract with Accenture on its behalf.
Garvey argued Thursday that the board's action should not count.
"There can be no rules if there can be a blessing after the fact," he said.
But Foust thought otherwise, and ruled against the plaintiffs.
Kennedy, who is on vacation, issued a written statement praising Foust's decision.
"I am very pleased that the court has agreed that the state Elections Board has been accountable to the people of Wisconsin, the Legislature, and the intent of the Help America Vote Act," he wrote.
"The Elections Board is moving as quickly as possible to design, test and deploy a voter registration system that is secure and convenient for all of Wisconsin's residents," he added.
Attorney James Peterson, who represented Kennedy, said in an interview that Foust rendered a "very careful and thoughtful decision."
After the ruling, Garvey said he would need to talk to his clients to see about any further legal action.
"The focus now shifts to Peg Lautenschlager and whether her office will deal with the issues raised by the plaintiffs," he said of the state attorney general.
The Department of Justice is investigating whether state open records or open meetings laws were violated in the procurement process.
Garvey said Lautenschlager's office was currently negotiating with Accenture over whether the company or the state would ultimately own the voter registration data, which include people's addresses and other confidential information.
But Kyle Richmond, public information officer for the Elections Board, said it has already been determined that the state would own the voter registration data and have access to the software developed by Accenture.
The software, which will be owned by the company, will be held in escrow for the state and be available for any needed fixes to the system, added Richmond, who is also a Dane County Board supervisor.
The 2002 Help America Vote Act requires all states to create a statewide voter database by Jan. 1, 2006. After the law passed, the state issued a request for proposals and awarded the contract to Accenture.
Garvey's lawsuit claimed that the Elections Board never voted on or adopted a preliminary state plan to implement the law. Instead, Kennedy and other employees of the Elections Board began implementing the plan after a public hearing.
Critics have charged that Wisconsin could have used its own employees to create a statewide voter list and saved millions of dollars. Minnesota, for instance, compiled its list for less than $6 million. Accenture is also a controversial choice because critics say it played a role in the creation of Florida's flawed felon voter registration database, which made headlines in 2000.
Whatever was paid was about 98% more than they should have paid. And they will pay more and more.
Is this what is called an ex-post facto law? I believe the Constitution bars them.
"Is this what is called an ex-post facto law? I believe the Constitution bars them."
Wisconsin Democrats in unison: "Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution! (Unless it fits our agenda. Then, OK!)" ;)
Is this what is called an ex-post facto law? I believe the Constitution bars them.
Bill Clinton's retroactive tax increase in 1993.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 1996
Both are RETROACTIVE LAWS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.