 Greetings. It's great to be here, even though I'm not there and we're not in Vegas. Well, maybe you are, but I'm not. And after years of pilgrimage to Vegas and DEF CON and other security conferences, primarily to speak about, well, privacy and security and inevitably Bitcoin, I never imagined that I would be doing this virtually. Especially not for the voting villages or voting village rather than the crypto and privacy villages where I normally hang out. But with that said, I have spent significant time in the voting village and I've even included a couple photos in this presentation to help bring us back to our in-person DEF CON days, which we will surely return to. But for now, our virtual con is our reality. So I hope this presentation helps to educate you and brighten your summer in safe mode. Please find me on Twitter if you have any questions. I'm at Cordero underscore ESQ. And with all that out of the way, let's get into it. A lawyer's reflections on elections. Let's get into it. So who is Cordero? That's me, the lawyer speaking now, providing reflections to those that will listen. And without reiterating my entire biography, I want to quickly go through a couple of these points. I'm a partner at Sublime Law, which focuses on business and intellectual property. I lead our emerging technologies practice group. And before joining Sublime Law, I worked at a forensics and cybersecurity professional services firm in Silicon Valley, as well as a large US law firm where I focused on privacy. I graduated ASU law with honors, focusing on law, science and technology. And I worked at ASU's innovation advancement program. But most relevant for today. I'm a former political candidate that has a story to tell that is part of a larger and more important narrative than any single election race or election case. So what will we not be going over today? What's not on the agenda? I will not be making a political statement in support of any party. I won't be re-litigating any lawsuit or critiquing any judicial officer. So with that out of the way, let's get into the agenda of reflections. First, I'm going to explain the structure of the American government, including state and federal similarities. Second, I'm going to introduce how my lawsuit came to be, the origins of the campaign and the lawsuit that followed. Three, I'm going to highlight issues and share the oddities of election law that I learned along the way. And fourth, I'm going to share some information and some resources for your reference. And finally, as you can see on the bottom, the overall objective here is to educate and broaden the community of people that can become experts in how the system works. So they can help improve it over time. Getting into it, democracy now. You may already know that the U.S. federal system has three branches of government. And to keep things simple and to appeal to DEF CON's global audience, this slide represents how the U.S. Constitution, through its different articles, structures the federal government. The system of co-equal branches of government is meant to accomplish an appropriate balance of powers, thereby achieving a level of accountability and independence that is good for governments. You can think of these branches of government as the rule makers, rule enforcers, and rule interpreters. There's more to the U.S. than the federal national government. There are state and local governments. The states follow a similar structure of government, using a state constitution and establishing co-equal branches of government. What is more important to understand is that these local state governments are typically much more impactful than the federal government in terms of your everyday life. So how do the national and state local governments share power? Let's take a look. Wow. This one might make your eyes glaze over, but stay with me. We know from before that it is the constitutions that inform us as to the sharing of powers between the federal and state local government. For instance, as you can see on the bottom of this slide, the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares, as we'll discuss more later, and I quote, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. That's a mouthful and a very old sentence. We're talking 1776, right? So what does that mean? In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution. So conveniently, this slide gives some examples of the sharing of powers via exclusive and concurrent powers, and what should really be a Venn diagram. But let's just focus on this slide from left to right. The exclusive federal powers are things like coining money and declaring war, conducting foreign affairs. In the middle, we've got concurrent and shared powers, and those are things like taxation and establishing courts. And finally on the right, we have exclusive state powers, like conducting elections. And that's a little bit of a gray area because the federal government does have some administration aspects related to elections. And I wouldn't really call it a completely exclusive state power, but the states do control the elections and how they proceed. There's also providing for public safety, health and welfare. But the point of showing this slide is to demonstrate that state and local governments have much more power to influence communities than is often expected by its citizens. So let's explore some of those local powers some more. The impact lies locally. Just take a minute to take in the amount of powers and responsibility that is delegated to local authorities. We have budgeting, prioritizing, human resource functions, program management, taxation, ordinances and resolutions, charter and constitutional amendments, zoning and land use and eminent domain, regulating public health and safety as we previously discussed, and liaisoning to other governments. But for today, we want to focus on elections. So now that we've briefly examined some of the structural foundations of the American government, we have arrived at our next point on this journey of learning. And that is the second point in the agenda. Stories from my own campaign and related lawsuit while seeking a seat on the local city council of the city of Peoria, Arizona. Peoria, Illinois for all the Midwesterners listening. Shout out to sec KC, by the way. So why run? Well, I hope that the previous slides have established. At least in part that running for local office can provide a great platform to bring positive influence to your community. And specifically on this slide is my answer in quotes to this question of why run that I gave to the local newspaper Peoria Times. I talked about my campaign platform, community safety, more engagement and better protection of people's opportunities and legal rights. I also talked about my qualifications as a lawyer and my connection to the community. But what isn't on the slide or in the newspaper is clarification of what kind of candidate I was and how that impacted my chances of winning. And I don't mean what kind of candidate I was in terms of person or party affiliation, but from a procedural perspective. That is to say, I was a right in candidate to understand right in candidates. Think of Kanye West. He would most likely be considered a right in candidate for the 2020 presidential election. But he would not be considered an official right in candidate because he probably is not filed the necessary paperwork. Just as individuals often write in candidates like Jesus or Mickey Mouse, these candidates are not official. They cannot serve if they get to requisite number of votes. This is because they haven't complied with the other rules and regulations or filing of paperwork that might be necessary. So I was an official right in, meaning that votes for me would count and meaning that I filled out the extra necessary paperwork. But why was I right in? It's an unusual election that I took part in. And it also coincided with an unusual and unfortunate time in my own life. But I nonetheless found it important to carry on as you'll see in the next slide. Despite the fact that most right in candidates lose their elections, why continue? Well, as was noted by my alma mater here on the right side of the slide, I felt compelled. But more importantly, why I felt compelled was because of my care for the community and to carry on what others before me had started. For instance, Carlo Rocky Leon, who became a sort of mentor to myself and my sibling, had received honors from the National League of Cities and earned the respect of his constituents in my city for over 20 years. I wanted to carry that legacy forward and I would get that opportunity to try in 2018, or rather 2019. But let's first start with 2018. The background to the 2018 race, which I did not take part in. As I mentioned, someone I looked up to, Rocky, who was the Pine District Councilman for so long, he actually won the 2018 race, which I did not partake in. But unfortunately, a few months into it, Rocky's term was cut short. And due to health reasons, he was forced to resign. So this brings us to the background to the 2019 special election race. You can see there are two ballot candidates, Danette on the left and Randall on the right. And there's me, the right-in candidate in the middle. The story gets a bit more complex. During the election, Reigns drops out for health reasons. And it is reported that he has said about his medically forced withdrawal that having a very qualified right-in candidate makes his decision a little easier. This will allow the voters to have a choice in this election. Hopeful for voter choice. You can see Reigns quote there on the left and on the right. And perhaps Mr. Reigns knew something that I didn't at that time. In fact, it's interesting to note that Mr. Reigns was passed over by the sitting Peoria Council, who made Danette Dunn, the interim council member, and seemingly favored Dunn after publicly backing her at events in the 2018 race that she lost. Thus, it's very possible that Mr. Reigns may have already been aware of something afoot. But what was it? And this brings us to the controversy. Might not have been what Mr. Reigns was thinking about, but he was concerned with the city providing choice to its constituents. And I'd like to begin talking about this lawsuit by reading the introductory paragraph of our complaint, because this gives the high-level story of the lawsuit from my perspective. Though other lawyers may simply call it hyperbole, the ones listening in on the voting village will probably not. I quote, Most election experts across the United States of America agree that our election processes are vulnerable in a variety of ways. These are not limited to attacks on elections from outsiders. In fact, this statement of contest concerns an unscrupulous internal attack and misinformation campaign that led to an election result that is believed to be illegitimate. Indeed, a democratic state necessitates that its citizens are adequately informed by the state or at a minimum are not misled or misinformed by the state about election matters. So what really happened? You can see something there on the right about a postcard and we'll definitely get to that. But the allegations against the city are many and should be viewed as cumulative. The allegations range from enforcing inaccurate and outdated sign regulations against my campaign, withholding voter data, improperly removing my campaign signs, and inciting my campaign volunteers for irrelevant code violations. However, one of the primary controversies as it relates to this special election in 2019 is about a postcard. And specifically, the city overstepped its responsibility and improperly did so, not in accordance with the letter of the law by sending out a postcard under a pretext of an update. That update clearly helped the city's preferred candidate over all others. Essentially, the city of Peoria, despite having an agreement with the Secretary of State to handle the election procedures, took it upon themselves to release a postcard not in line with the letter of law on or around the day that the ballots arrive. As you can see on the right side of the slide, the postcard which the court ultimately confirmed was sent to voters not in accordance with the letter of the law appeared to many voters to be confusing and as an endorsement of the other candidate. For the record, this was an all-male in-election, and what's extra notable is that in order to win in the primary, you must win by a certain percentage, 50% plus one. And this is important because if there isn't a conclusive winner, then the general election would need to happen and all candidates would be on the ballot, including the right-in candidate myself. So, in that context, the content of the postcard becomes very clear in its motives, especially its timing. The postcard contained a message that wasn't meant to simply inform of all candidates, in fact it didn't inform of all candidates. It was meant to partially inform of candidate updates and ultimately discourage wasted votes on one candidate in exchange for the other known candidate on the ballot. Let's take a closer look. As you can see here, on the left is the law. This is a part of our complaint, and on the right is instructions that the Secretary of State, not the city of Peoria, the Secretary of State provided. And you can see the law on ARS 16343G, which is excerpt on the left side of the slide in our complaint, requires that notice of withdrawn candidates shall be made available by providing with the early ballot instructions, those are the things on the right, a website address for information regarding withdrawn and right-in candidates. So, on the right side, look what was provided by the Secretary of State. It's circled right there, a website address for updates about candidates. This follows the law, but this wasn't all that was done. This is all that should have been done, but let's look to the next slide to see what the city actually did in terms of notice to its voters, which we already know was in addition to what the state election law provides right here on this slide. So the postcards on the right and the details are clearly more than what is required. It states how Mr. Reigns is no longer a candidate and that votes towards him will not count. Don't waste your vote on him. He's not, he's out of the race. So the implication here is if you want your vote to count, it's to vote for a single person on the ballot than that done, or simply abstain from voting because a lack of awareness of another candidate. Notably, right-in candidates have the biggest challenge of really marketing and letting people know that you're out there and you're in the race and you are wanting to represent their interests. And to have this postcard come out and simply provide of what seems to be a partial update, not in accordance with the letter of the law. From my vantage point, this is a clear violation of law. It's not just not the letter, it's a violation. And the court agreed in so far as the city was not following the letter of law, but as you'll see that didn't matter much in the end. So what did I request as a remedy anyways? I wanted the results set aside. I wanted to organize a general election as scheduled and required if primaries are inconclusive. And to get on the ballot of any new election. And crucially, I wanted to stop officials from exerting improper influence or engaging in misconduct. But what's really important to understand is that I did not want to file this lawsuit against my hometown. This is a painful experience, one that was awkward. And ultimately, just as I felt compelled to run as a writing candidate, I felt compelled to file this lawsuit for my community. And the hundreds of individuals that wrote my name on the ballot correctly, I might add, which is a feat. And because I saw something that I thought was wrong, I thought it was a violation, I wanted to have a judge take a look at it and make a determination for the betterment of our election system. But that's not exactly how the press covered the story. And it's not how the city view the lawsuit, either. So as you might expect, the city of Peoria maintained that they did nothing wrong. The city of Peoria and interim council member Dunn sought dismissal of the action. The city went as far as claiming that the court didn't have jurisdiction over the city due to perceived lack of service of process. And I'm not going to go into why I don't agree with those arguments, but I will go into some of the procedure. And this is for all the legal nerds out there. The case was set for a hearing on a motion to dismiss. But we ultimately received an expedited hearing on the merits after informing the judge through another emergency filing that the case was an election contest. And that we were entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the case within 10 days, according to Arizona law. The judge agreed and we were eventually offered an evidentiary hearing, but we were ultimately not successful despite that we believe there were multiple violations of law and that the city admitted in court for the application of inaccurate election related regulations against my campaign. Moreover, the press was not particularly kind, making the lawsuit appear frivolous and as a waste of resources, so much so that I was getting additional hate mail. Something you just get used to as a politician or a would be politician, I guess. Also, what's critical is that the judge did not believe the lawsuit was frivolous and did not order me to pay the city or done attorneys. I guess that's a small one. So, before discussing lessons learned, I want to turn to Montesquieu on the spirit of laws because it is relevant to how I feel in this instance as, well, they follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. But it's also relevant because it was required reading for our founding fathers. Montesquieu writes in reference to a brutal state with not much of a procedural due process in terms of a legal system. I quote, for one to have the passions of pleaders would be quite dangerous. The passions presuppose an ardent desire to see justice done, a hatred and active spirit and a steadfastness and pursuit of justice. To me, this quote stands out because I believe I was perceived as a threat, a political one. And upon making my pleadings be known in court, I was considered even more so, despite that in my heart, spirit and actions, I was simply seeking justice for the people. Maybe that is exactly why. But just as the local papers quotes of mine on this slide demonstrate, despite disagreeing with the decision, I decided to move on and not appeal for practical reasons, like money and time and futileness. Or perhaps, as in the words again of Montesquieu, each man should know that the magistrate must not hear of him and that he owes his safety only to his nothingness. So, no appeal. Alas, all said and done, I consider this lawsuit a small victory towards ensuring election integrity. And I hope the lawsuit encourages others to file similar legal actions. It should be noted here that if you're a voter, you probably have legal standing to sue. You don't have to have skin in the game like I did. So, if you see or experience suspicious activities or misconduct during an election, say something. Now we can get into the bigger picture and lessons learned. So this personal experience that I wouldn't really wish on anyone made me dig deeper into our electoral system. And from my research and experience, it has become increasingly clear that many human and structural problems exist, including how the branches of government share power related to elections and the jurisprudence related to how the courts decide matters and importance concerning election issues. Although I do not bring forward a complete solution, below are some of the primary issues that I believe we need to address as a society to ensure a more secure and fair democracy. We need to implement strong federal standards for protecting voting rights and eliminate pretext for stacking the deck. The case that really comes to mind is Rouge versus Common Cause, which is a 2019 Supreme Court case involving North Carolina and Maryland racial gerrymandering, which is, of course, redrawing of district lines to have a political guarantee of seats, say. And the court ruled against the plaintiffs finding that the partisan advantage is actually permissible in terms of intent behind district and choices, because this issue is to be left with the legislature and not to be decided with the courts. And the turning point for the decision was, there are no legal standards that are discernible. And they turn to fairness and they say fairness, as you can see on the slide, fairness is not a judicially manageable standard. And I just, I find that to be untrue because courts sit in fairness and equity all the time. So a decision like this, it makes a lot of people cringe. And I believe this is a 5-4 decision, meaning it was really close. And that means our Supreme Court justices were not in agreement. And so hopefully this case gets revisited along with some other cases. I don't have time to go into a whole lot of other cases, but what I would like to discuss is the pandemic election litigation happening in 2020. And as of right now, there are dozens and perhaps maybe by now hundreds of cases that over the past few months have been just ticking up in terms of numbers. And this really spells trouble. It could either be a good or a bad thing. It means people are fighting inequities or and I guess there's, there's each dispute will have a side to it. I just hope that a lot of these pandemic election litigations get resolved in the proper way because these are dealing with things like how do high risk individuals in a pandemic in a hot spot. Accomplish voting safely. This is not something that America should really be struggling with in 2020. It seems it seems beneath us and I really implore all those that are still listening to speak up about these election fairness issues and voting rights and become more knowledgeable on these topics. I'm not the top expert in this field. I, I'm a privacy lawyer, data protection lawyer. This is something I learned almost on accident. And so for all those that aren't on the front lines of the litigation, let's go to the bottom of this slide. I would say get involved in the fight for democracy and more secure elections by getting involved in different organizations like support fighting election disinformation, which is what the election and integrity partnership is doing EIP. And I love this idea because they are not focused on the candidates, what the candidates are saying. They're focused on content. So not necessarily political content, but content intended to suppress voting, reduce participation, focus or confuse voters as to election processes or delegitimize election results without evidence. These are certainly big ticket items and in challenges in 2020, especially with November, right around the corner, and with so much misinformation out there, not simply by as, as in this case, it was alleged that the misinformation was coming from the government. And I think that's happening probably throughout the government of the United States. But I think as it relates to a lot of disinformation, we have to be very wary of things we're seeing online. So do your part in encouraging others to be careful, those that might not be so digitally savvy as those that might be listening to this presentation. So I really want to close this with some concluding thoughts and not get too hung up on a lot of the other cautionary cautionary tales that are out there. And clearly, as I mentioned, there's dozens and dozens of them that are playing out in the courts right now. So be on the lookout for those things. Be aware of these things that are happening and speak up against them when you can. So to conclude here, this story and experience, it didn't make me lose faith in democracy. It wasn't a negative experience. There were negative aspects of it, that's for sure. There were painful moments, but speaking to constituents that felt like they were misled by the city, and they're asking you to help fix it. That was something, again, I felt compelled to do, and I did it. And we fought the fought, but we lost those battles. And I think the war is still raging on. So these are two lost battles, a lost election and a lost litigation. But I did learn a lot. It was a journey of learning, and I didn't think I needed it as a lawyer. But I did, and I'm glad I endured this. And some of the lessons that I learned are listed here so we can read through the slide together. Democracy is not perfect, right? It's made up of humans. You get things wrong. And it's not just institutions, right? It's not just separation of powers and that's it, everything's okay. And hackers know the persistent vulnerabilities of humans in pursuit of securing any information system, so it should make sense to all hear that humans need monitored closely, especially when democracy is at stake. Strengthening voting rights and securing elections will require hard work and advocacy, which usually means money and lawyers, and lots of it and them for better or worse. And election litigation, as I've come to find out is a beast of its own. Remember, I'm a data protection lawyer and not an election lawyer. This happened by accident. And knowing the importance of these cases, these election cases and the expedited schedules for resolution makes this fight for democracy very difficult without experts. If you see something, say something, if you're involved in helping advocate for voter rights, and you see something or you run for local office and you see something that you don't think is right, reach out. Reach out to me. I may not be the person to help you, but reach out to somebody that has more knowledge than you do. I perhaps would have done better in the litigation had I sought out an election lawyer early in the process, but that wasn't in the cards for me. I hope it will be for you if you ever find yourself in such a bind. And here's a bonus lesson might already know this one, but for those of you that get into politics, local or otherwise or find you or find yourself for whatever reason, speaking to the press, do not blindly trust them. Usually they're not interested in telling your story or sometimes not even the true story. And they are often interested in telling their own version of the story for their narrow reader base. And I can't hate them for that. They are making a living. That's their job. But do not trust them blindly. It will do more damage to you than good. I would bet on that. So, thank you so much. And I'm happy that I had this opportunity to do this, even if it was virtual. I really appreciate all of you that stuck it out and made it this long. Thank you so much. I appreciate you. If you have questions, please reach out to me. And as you can see here, my own lawyer on this case was also not an election lawyer on the left there. Brittany is another sublime law attorney and she's here with me on the left there at DEF CON 27 voting village. And we will return. So if you see us, make sure to say hello. We will definitely stop into the voting village and try to gain some additional knowledge as the years go on. So thank you all and have a great and fantastic rest of your summer.