Utah picks Ohio firm's voting machines

Utah officials have selected an Ohio-based company to supply new electronic voting machines.

Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert announced Tuesday that the state will purchase touch-screen voting machines manufactured by Diebold, a company that originally made its name with ATMs — which the new machines closely resemble. The machines will cost approximately $3,100 each, a price tag increased by a few hundred dollars because of the inclusion of a paper ballot that voters approve as a final step in their ballot casting. It is estimated that the state may purchase 7,500 machines or more.

Diebold and Election Systems & Software were the two companies that submitted bids to provide machines for Utah. Although both companies provided machines that were quite similar in appearance and use, Herbert said that the Voting Equipment Selection Committee overwhelmingly supported Diebold's machine, partially because of the company's technical assistance abilities.

"They came in with a tremendous track record," Herbert said. "They will work with the state to make sure the process is better than it is today."

Diebold has a long history of service and security with its machinery, especially as one of the primary providers of ATM technology to the banking industry. The company already provides statewide voting systems to Maryland, Georgia and Alaska, among others, and was selected last week by Alabama to provide that state's system.

However, Diebold is also a target of complaints from computer scientists, who claim that the Diebold system is especially vulnerable to hacking and the programming code for the machines is easily found, and manipulated, through the Internet. Voting conspiracy theorists also cite the company owner's ties to the Republican party.

The selection of Diebold in Ohio last month has also led to a lawsuit from ES&S and more than 30 counties contending that the process was unfairly skewed in favor of Diebold. However, Ken Fields, ES&S spokesperson, said that the situation in Ohio was "unique" and probably would not lead to lawsuits in the other states, including Utah, where Diebold was selected over ES&S.

While disappointed in the Utah decision, "I'm not aware of any of those issues in Utah," he said. "ES&S offered good technology and equipment that would have met Utah's needs," but the company did not plan to take any legal action.

Diebold president Tom Swidarski said that the selection process — which included multiple public hearings, a well-attended mock election and almost two years of meetings by the selection committee — "put us through the paces." Because of that, Utah is "taking tremendous steps forward in the election process."