This is definitely in my top 10 most ridiculous lawsuits... Diebold is suing the state because they didn't choose them to contract their voting machines.

Why? They think theirs is better, therefore the Secretary of State "failed to choose the best machine".

Quote :

"Firm sues over snub by state By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff | March 26, 2007 Diebold Election Systems Inc. , one of the country's largest manufacturers of voting machines, is scheduled to argue in court today that the Office of the Secretary of State wrongly picked another company to supply thousands of voting machines for the disabled. Diebold says it will ask a judge to overturn the selection of AutoMARK , a Diebold business competitor, because the office of Secretary of State William F. Galvin failed to choose the best machine. The contract is valued at about $9 million. William M. Weisberg , a lawyer representing Diebold, said in an interview yesterday that the company wants a review of the internal records showing how Galvin's office came to select AutoMARK earlier this year. "We compete against AutoMARK around the country all the time," Weisberg said. "Based on the criteria set out by the Commonwealth, we had a fair degree of confidence we'd come out on top, and nothing we heard during the process dissuaded us of that confidence." Weisberg said Diehold was so stunned it did not get the contract that it now believes "it's worth the time and money" of going to court to challenge the contract's award, even though the company at this stage has no hard evidence of unfair treatment. Galvin yesterday called the Diebold suit "frivolous" and unlikely to succeed. "My office made a very reasonable selection after a long, open process of evaluating the voting machines," Galvin said. "We are entirely confident we will prevail," he said. In court filings, Diebold has indicated it will ask a judge today to immediately halt further use or distribution of the AutoMARK machines to municipalities throughout the state. If a judge issues that order, Diehold will then present arguments over the coming weeks on why the process was flawed, Weisberg said. "We want a judge to either order the contract awarded to Diebold, based on his review of the proposals, but if he does not want to go that far, to at least order a reopening of the competition," he said. Weisberg said the company is not alleging any improprieties by the secretary of state's office. Instead, it is saying the office acted in good faith but made a mistake in the selection. The state's purchase of about 3,500 voting machines for use by disabled voters arises out of the Help America Vote Act, passed by Congress in 2002. It mandates that states provide the machines for those disabled by the loss of a limb or the loss of vision, among other disabilities. Galvin said AutoMARK machines have already been shipped to some of the state's 1,700 polling places for use in spring municipal elections. The machines were used in a special election in Worcester last week and are scheduled to be used today for a town vote in Sudbury. "I want to get the machines in use quickly in the municipal elections before larger statewide elections," Galvin said. "I see this suit as interfering in that." The state invited bids from numerous manufacturers before narrowing the field to 14 companies, and then to three, Galvin said. While price was a key consideration, other criteria were considered, such as the quality of machine, security, and service. Galvin said his office surveyed disabled groups and municipal election officials during the evaluation process after letting those groups test the competing machines. He said there was a consensus in favor of the AutoMARK. Galvin cited as an important factor in favor of AutoMARK its machine's use of one kind of paper ballot for disabled voters and others. He said that gave extra privacy to disabled voters. "If you happened to have only one disabled voter in a precinct, that person's ballot is easily identifiable," he said. The challenge will be heard in the business litigation session of Suffolk Superior Court in Boston. "

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/26/voting_device_pact_at_issue/

3/26/2007 12:47:32 PM

interesting

we've used diebold for vaults for banks we've built but thats about my only contact with them

3/26/2007 12:53:35 PM

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070309/180818.shtml

3/26/2007 2:03:06 PM

there was that hbo special about the diebold machines in florida and how they could be hacked

3/26/2007 4:09:07 PM

^^^ I noticed that when I was at the ATM the other day. You'd think that a company that makes ATMs for a living would be able to build a secure voting machine. Banks, unlike the government bureaucracy, tend to have a lower tolerance for screwups when it comes to accuracy and security.

3/26/2007 11:56:46 PM

ability to do so doesnt mean they want to do so.

3/27/2007 12:09:18 AM

^^ You countered your own statement. They don't have any reason to make them as secure as they do ATMs.

3/27/2007 12:18:11 AM

So does this mean if I'm not rewarded a job position in the future I can sue because the company obviously made a mistake? Sweet.

3/27/2007 6:24:05 AM

Diebold is worried that they'll lose their ability to sell elections to the highest bidder.

3/27/2007 2:30:50 PM

I think the thing to walk away with here is that all voting systems are inherently messed up. No software is 100% perfect, Diebold is just so worried someone might be .1% better that they run cry to daddy when they don't get their way.

[Edited on March 28, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : OH NOES NOT COMPETITION]

3/28/2007 9:49:45 AM

actually, software can be made to be 100% correct. just no one cares enough to do it most of the time

3/28/2007 10:13:06 AM