Reply #2: Cuyhoga County tried to implement new technology but Blackwell

[KaliTracy]

shot it down...

From a News Release/Blackwell for Governor Site
http://www.kenblackwell.com/news.asp?formmode=release&i...


Cuyahoga County`s Board of Elections was one of those rushing to select a consultant to help deal with potential vendors. But the board`s inept approach - changing one bid upon opening, awarding a contract, then revoking it and ordering up a new round of proposals - has done little to reassure the voting public. The board may yet hire outside help, just as many private companies do when they upgrade technology, but the job description can now be streamlined.


AND.. ironically -- hasn't Blackwell done some of the same things -- made ultimatums for one of two vendors (optiscan) -- then made Diebold toouchscreen only choice.


AND... Sequoia is now suing Blackwell for changing the requirements.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2005/05/voting-ma...

Voting Machine Vendor Sues Ohio Secretary of State
The controversy surrounding Ohio's voting equipment continues. Yesterday, voting system vendor Election System & Software (ES&S) brought suit against Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, asserting that his actions have effectively given a lock on the market to a particular vendor (Diebold). The Cleveland Plain-Dealer has this story and the AP this one.

In January, Blackwell directed counties to select an optical-scan voting system. Blackwell subsequently changed course, issuing this directive on April 14, 2005 that would allow counties to select a Direct Record Electronic system, so long as it was certified and complied with the state law passed last year which requires a "voter verified paper audit trail." Right now, only one company has a federally certified voting system that meets this requirement: Diebold. (See this memo accompanying Blackwell's April 14 directive.)

Counties have until May 24 to choose a voting system and, as of this moment, may select either a precinct-count optical scan system or an electronic voting system. But if they wish to go electronic, their only option would appear to be Diebold, since that will likely be the only company that has the necessary certification for its DRE with VVPAT system.

While I've not yet seen a copy of the complaint, ES&S argues that Blackwell has set arbitrary deadlines that unfairly change the rules of the game. According to a press release issued by the company, Blackwell's actions "have effectively stolen the counties' exclusive authority to choose their own voting systems." The company also notes that, last year, 42 of Ohio's 88 counties had planned to go with ES&S. It now apparently fears that many of those counties will go with Diebold, which appears to have a lock on Ohio's DRE market.

See his interpretation of this at link -- this sentence stands out to me The irony here is that the VVPAT requirement, advocated by the very people who were so concerned that Diebold might manipulate an election, has effectively resulted in Ohio's voting machine business being channelled toward that very company. What's doubly ironic is that Diebold's economic interests, at least in Ohio, are now aligned with the interests of VVPAT supporters.