Firm sues Mass. over contract for voting machines for disabled

Source: Boston Globe

BOSTON --One of the nation's top manufacturers of voting machines is taking the state to court Monday to try to block distribution of machines for the disabled in Massachusetts, saying it was unfairly denied the lucrative contract.

An attorney for Diebold Election Systems Inc. said the company should have been awarded the $9 million contract if Secretary of State William Galvin followed his own criteria when deciding which firm the state should contract with for the new machines.

...

"We've gone through an exhaustive process consulting with the disabled community to find out what's best for them," Galvin told The Associated Press. "We certainly don't feel like we have an obligation to help (Diebold) market their equipment."
...
Galvin chose AutoMARK voting machines, in part because he said the machines produce the same kind of ballot card as other voting machines, so the ballots could be counted together. He said the Diebold machines produced a paper trail that could compromise the secrecy of ballots cast.

...
"The suit is a bit of a surprise," he said. "We consulted with the Diebold people. We felt that we treated everyone fairly."

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/25/firm_sues_mass_over_contract_for_voting_machines_for_disabled/

...more sense for states with optical-scan ballots, because it helps the blind to mark optical-scan ballots, and so the ballots all are put in one place for counting and possible re-counting.

While I agree with the selection of the AutoMARK, I disagree with the use of the term "sour grapes" regarding the Diebold lawsuit.

If Diebold had said, "Ah, we never wanted the contract in the first place" (as the fox in Aesop's fable said about the grapes he couldn't reach) then that would be sour grapes.

when they are referring to the blind.

channeling Slashdot for a moment there, please forgive me.