The image “http://www.votetrustusa.org/images/votetrust-small2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

   
Vendors

North Carolina: Diebold Loses in Court - Withdraws From Bidding Process PDF Print Email
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....
< Prev   Next >
Vendor Pages
Voting Equipment Vendors
AccuPoll/Unisys
Advanced Voting Solutions
Avante
Diebold
Danaher Corporation (Guardian Voing Systems)
Election Systems and Software (ES&S)
Hart Intercivic
Liberty/NEDAP Powervote
Microvote
Populex
Sequoia/Smartmatic
Unilect
VoteHere (Dategrity)
Vote-PAD
Voter Database Vendors
VoTing Technologies International
Accenture
Covansys/PCC/Aradyme
Maximus
Quest
Saber
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>