16. June 2026

Emergency Hearing Scheduled in Massachusetts Voting Machine Case

BOSTON — A Massachusetts judge has granted an emergency hearing today in a lawsuit brought by independent U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who is seeking to force the state to preserve digital ballot images for the upcoming November 2026 election cycle.

Ayyadurai, an engineer who holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is seeking a writ of mandamus and emergency injunctive relief against Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin. The dispute centers on whether digital ballot images generated during the vote-tabulation process must be preserved for 22 months under federal election record-retention laws.

According to court filings submitted by Ayyadurai, Massachusetts election officials have acknowledged that certain voting systems used in the state are capable of generating digital ballot images but are configured so that ballot-image capture is disabled. Ayyadurai argues that the images are nonetheless created in memory as part of the scanning process and are then automatically deleted.

“Scanners can’t count votes without creating those images first,” Ayyadurai said in a statement announcing the hearing. He alleged that state officials misrepresented the underlying technology and that the court should order the preservation of ballot images for the 2026 election cycle.

In a memorandum filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Ayyadurai argued that certified voting equipment used in Massachusetts relies on high-resolution scanning systems that process ballot images before tabulating votes. He contends those images constitute records related to federal elections and therefore fall under the preservation requirements of 52 U.S.C. § 20701.

The legal challenge stems from a broader dispute over the interpretation of federal election law. Ayyadurai maintains that digital ballot images are “records and papers” related to acts requisite to voting and must be retained for 22 months after a federal election.

Galvin’s office disputes that claim.

In court filings opposing the petition, attorneys for the secretary argued that ballot images are not used in Massachusetts elections and therefore do not exist as records subject to preservation requirements. The filing states that while some tabulators have the technical capability to capture ballot images, Massachusetts certification standards require that capability to be disabled before the machines can be used in elections.

The state further argues that paper ballots are the official election records under Massachusetts law and are already retained for the federally required 22-month period.

A sworn affidavit from Michelle Tassinari, the state's first deputy secretary and elections division director, states that voting equipment used in Massachusetts “does not create or store ballot images” and that any ballot-imaging capability will be disabled for the November 2026 U.S. Senate election.

Ayyadurai directly challenges that assertion in a reply filing, arguing that optical-scan systems must first generate an image in memory before software can interpret voter selections. He claims the state is conflating the creation of an image with the subsequent storage of that image and argues that any automatic deletion constitutes destruction of an election record.

The state, however, contends that federal law does not require the creation or retention of ballot images and that courts have already been presented with similar arguments from Ayyadurai following his unsuccessful 2020 Senate campaign. State attorneys argue that because ballot images are not generated as election records under Massachusetts procedures, there is no legal duty to preserve them.

Court records show that Ayyadurai is seeking an order requiring election officials statewide to preserve any digital ballot images generated during the 2026 Senate election and to prohibit their deletion or non-storage.

The case is expected to focus on competing interpretations of how modern optical-scan voting systems operate and whether transient digital data generated during tabulation qualifies as an election record subject to federal preservation requirements. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of Ayyadurai’s claims.