|
North Carolina: Diebold Loses in Court - Withdraws From Bidding Process |
|
|
|
|
By Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA
|
|
November 28, 2005 |
 In
a dramatic development in North Carolina this afternoon, a Wake County
Superior Court judge declined to issue an injunction that would have
protected Diebold Elections Systems from possible prosecution resulting
from the state's new voting equipment standards. Earlier this year the
state legislature passed S223/H238, The Public Confidence in Elections Act (S 223/ H 238)
in response to the numerous voting system malfunctions across the state
in last year’s election. Under the new law, manufacturers must place in
escrow "all software that is relevant to functionality, setup,
configuration, and operation of the voting system," as well as a list
of programmers responsible for creating the software.
In a
last-minute filing, Diebold asked the court to exempt it from the new
requirements, and in an extraordinarily broad order, allowing it to
avoid placing its source code in escrow with the state and identifying
programmers who contributed to the code. Diebold argued that since it
uses Microsoft Windows software it would be impossible to provide the
names of every programmer who worked on Windows. In spite of assurances
from the State Board of Elections that in supplying the source code,
vendors could merely explain why some information is unavailable,
Diebold remained concerned about possible legal exposure. A company
spokesman said that Diebold had no choice but to withdraw their bid.
The case was argued on behalf of election integrity activist Joyce McCloy of North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"The new law was passed for a reason: to ensure that the voters of
North Carolina have confidence in the integrity and accuracy of their
elections," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman in a press release
issued over the weekend. "In stark contrast to every other equipment
vendor that placed a bid with the state, Diebold went to court
complaining that it simply couldn't comply with the law. Diebold should
spend its efforts developing a system that voters can trust, not asking
a court to let it bypass legal requirements aimed at ensuring voting
integrity." AP News Article Arstechnica.com Report
Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
There are no comments currently....
|