Diebold Dance

Two weeks ago, it turns out, the Oakland Tribune reported that the California Secretary of State has rejected Diebold, Inc.'s "flagship" voting machine for use in that state:

After possibly the most extensive testing ever on a voting system, California has rejected Diebold's flagship electronic voting machine because of printer jams and screen freezes, sending local elections officials scrambling for other means of voting.

Bruce McPherson, the Secretary of State, stated that

"[t]here was a failure rate of about 10 percent, and that's not good enough for the voters of California and not good enough for me."

Having certification rejected by one of the largest states in America is quite an embarrassment for the company. Further, it comes on the heels of other controversy surrounding the company in the 2004 presidential election.

Now, voting machines are not the same thing as a statewide voter registration database. However, given Diebold's track record (plus this new development in California), I wonder what value is in Secretary of State Nancy Worley's (D-Alabama) decision to select Diebold for the voter registration system over the unanimous recommendation of an array of election officials and others. (See my related post.)

Since there has been a delay in Worley's signing a contract with Diebold for the voter registration system (again, see this post), and the 1 January 2006 for implementation date for that system looming, one wonders exactly what issues are holding up the contract. Are they "terms" from Diebold that Worley finds unacceptable? Or vice versa? Or is it just another situation of Worley's incompetence in office affecting her ability to get the job done?