From the archive, originally posted by: [ dot.ike ]
These guys continue to be awesome.
Diebold sues Massachusetts for “Wrongful Purchase” (of competitors systems).
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/26/voting_device_pact_at_issue/
(At least we all know bad news takes stock values up a notch, )
—
Voting device pact at issue
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.
{Sean P. Murphy can be reached at smurphy [at] globe [dot] com [dot]}