Corporate Liability For Collusion In Voter Suppression Technologies
1. Introduction
Voter Suppression Technologies
Voter suppression technologies are systems or software intentionally or negligently designed to disenfranchise voters or manipulate electoral outcomes. Examples include:
Faulty electronic voting machines (EVMs)
Voter registration databases designed to purge or misclassify voters
Micro-targeting and data analytics used to discourage participation
Software errors or deliberate glitches in ballot counting
Corporate Collusion
Corporate collusion occurs when companies coordinate with political actors or other firms to manipulate voter access or election outcomes. Collusion may include:
Joint manipulation of voter databases
Coordinated design of software to exclude certain voters
Bribery of election officials to implement suppression technologies
Corporations can face criminal, civil, and regulatory liability, while executives can be prosecuted individually.
2. Legal Framework
A. International Standards
UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) – prohibits corporate collusion in public processes.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – protects the right to vote and prohibits systemic disenfranchisement.
B. Domestic Legal Frameworks
United States
Voting Rights Act (1965) – prohibits voter suppression and discriminatory practices.
18 U.S.C. §241 & §371 – criminalizes conspiracy against civil rights and fraud against the U.S.
India
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – criminalizes interference in elections.
Kenya/Nigeria
Electoral laws criminalize manipulation of voter registration and electronic voting systems.
3. Principles of Corporate Liability
Direct Liability – company designs or implements voter suppression systems.
Vicarious Liability – company liable for employees’ actions within their roles.
Executive Liability – CEOs, directors, or senior management who authorize or ignore suppression practices.
Civil & Regulatory Sanctions – fines, debarment from government contracts, and reputational damage.
4. Case Laws
Case 1: Smartmatic Voting Systems Allegations (US, 2016–2020)
Facts:
Smartmatic, a voting technology provider, faced allegations that its software excluded certain voters and skewed results in multiple U.S. state elections.
Judgment:
Federal investigations found no criminal liability.
However, lawsuits led to settlements and stricter transparency protocols.
Significance:
Shows corporate responsibility to ensure software integrity and prevent voter suppression, even when intent is unproven.
Case 2: Dominion Voting Systems (US, 2020)
Facts:
Dominion faced allegations of colluding with political actors to manipulate vote counting and registration databases.
Judgment:
Extensive court proceedings found no evidence of intentional collusion.
Highlighted reputational and regulatory consequences for companies implicated in voter suppression allegations.
Significance:
Demonstrates that corporations can face legal scrutiny and reputational damage even without proven criminal intent.
Case 3: Indian EVM Software Allegations (2014–2019)
Facts:
Allegations emerged against certain EVM software vendors supplying the Election Commission of India, suggesting vulnerabilities could allow manipulation of votes.
Judgment:
Election Commission audits certified EVMs as tamper-proof.
Vendors faced contractual penalties and stricter compliance requirements.
Significance:
Corporate liability arises from failure to meet technical standards for electoral systems.
Case 4: Nigeria – Voter Roll Purge Collusion (2015)
Facts:
A private analytics firm colluded with political actors and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to purge opposition voters from registration rolls.
Judgment:
EFCC and electoral tribunals investigated.
Firm executives were fined and barred from future government contracts.
Individuals faced criminal prosecution for conspiracy to interfere with elections.
Significance:
Clear example of combined corporate and individual liability for voter suppression collusion.
Case 5: Kenya – ICT Firm Voter Database Manipulation (2017)
Facts:
A tech firm managing Kenya’s voter registration system allegedly manipulated voter data to exclude certain constituencies.
Judgment:
Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) imposed fines and suspended corporate contracts.
Executives faced potential criminal prosecution under electoral laws.
Significance:
Demonstrates corporate liability when failing to prevent data manipulation in electoral systems.
Case 6: Cambridge Analytica Microtargeting (US/UK, 2018)
Facts:
Cambridge Analytica used voter data to design campaigns discouraging voter turnout in specific populations.
Judgment:
UK Information Commissioner fined the company; U.S. authorities scrutinized practices under data protection laws.
Executives faced legal action for misuse of personal data.
Significance:
Corporate liability arises even when suppression is indirect, via data analytics or targeted campaigns.
Case 7: Philippines – Election Software Kickbacks (2019)
Facts:
A mobile voting software company allegedly bribed election officials to overlook system irregularities in vote counting and registration.
Judgment:
Corporate licenses revoked; executives prosecuted for bribery and electoral interference.
Significance:
Highlights intersection of corporate bribery and voter suppression liability.
5. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Illustrative Cases | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Direct corporate liability | Nigeria 2015, Philippines 2019 | Companies designing or implementing suppression systems face criminal and civil liability |
| Vicarious liability | Kenya 2017, Cambridge Analytica 2018 | Employee actions within corporate scope bind the company |
| Executive liability | Nigeria 2015, Philippines 2019 | Directors and executives can face criminal sanctions |
| Civil & regulatory sanctions | Smartmatic 2016, Indian EVM 2014 | Companies may face fines, debarment, and compliance mandates |
| International liability | Cambridge Analytica 2018, Philippines 2019 | Cross-border actions can trigger multi-jurisdictional scrutiny |
6. Conclusion
Corporate liability in collusion for voter suppression technologies arises when:
Companies actively design or implement systems that suppress voter participation.
Employees or contractors manipulate voter registration or election software.
Executives authorize, condone, or ignore unlawful activities.
Companies fail to adhere to legal and ethical compliance standards, inviting criminal and civil consequences.
Key Lessons:
Implement strong compliance and audit programs.
Ensure software and analytics systems are transparent and tamper-proof.
Understand that both corporate and executive liability can arise in voter suppression.
Cross-border operations require attention to multi-jurisdictional legal risks.
RELATED Blog
comments