http://www.the-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/APN/512221028&cachetime=5
The Dispatch, Lexington, N.C.
AP State News
12/22/05
By GARY D. ROBERTSON
Associated Press Writer
The effort to upgrade voting equipment in North Carolina by
next spring took a hit when an approved vendor pulled out of the running,
saying it couldn't follow a new law that required it to share its software
coding with the state.
Diebold Election Systems told the State Board of Elections
it would be impossible to meet a Thursday deadline to account for all software
used by the company for machines certified to be sold in all 100 counties.
The decision means that only one vendor currently is cleared
to sell equipment, raising more questions about whether counties will have
enough time to buy machines that meet the state's technical and security
standards.
"We've said that we can't comply with the black letter
of the law," said Chuck Owen, a Diebold attorney in Texas who alerted the
board of its decision late Wednesday. "And we don't believe any vendor can
comply with the black letter of the law."
A spokeswoman for Election Systems & Software, the lone
vendor remaining, said the company will comply with all voting system
requirements. Another firm that was certified, Sequoia Voting Systems, withdraw
earlier this month.
Sequoia and some smaller companies may try to seek approval
in January, but they could be too late for counties that already are trying to
decide which machines to buy. Roughly 90 counties need new or upgraded voting
equipment. Without it, some may have to use paper ballots in the May primary
election.
"We're just going to go forward," state elections
director Gary Bartlett said.
Election Systems & Software said it could provide
equipment to all counties if needed, Bartlett said. "We were trying to get
as many (firms) to qualify as possible. ... For one reason or another that did
not happen."
Diebold is worried it could be charged with a felony if
officials determine the company failed to send a copy of all the software its
machines use to a special holding company assigned by the state. They say they
don't have permission to provide code that is owned by third parties such as
Microsoft Corp.
Although a trial judge agreed Wednesday that the elections
board had followed the law in choosing vendors, Owen said Diebold believed the
law is too broad and the company can't provide regulators all the information
it needs.
In a separate case last month, a Wake County judge declined
to issue an injunction that would have protected Diebold from prosecution if
someone accused it of failing to provide all of its software to the state.
Voting machine critics are skeptical of Diebold's electronic
voting machines, saying they have caused election disruptions in California and
can't meet North Carolina's high standards.
"They've got a bad track record here and
elsewhere," said Joyce McCloy with the North Carolina Coalition for Verified
Voting, who prefers optical scan ballot recording machines.
The General Assembly approved the new machine and computer
code requirements earlier this year after more than 4,400 electronic ballots
were lost in Carteret County for the November 2004 election.
Copyright 2005 The Dispatch
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.