State throws out complaint from voting machine maker
Diebold wasn't picked to bid on contract
Thursday, March 03, 2005
By Ed Anderson    New Orleans Times-Picayune 

BATON ROUGE The state has thrown out a protest from a voting machine manufacturer that was barred by Secretary of State Fox McKeithen's office from bidding on a contract to supply $47 million of new equipment.

McKeithen's office certified three companies to bid on the voting machine contract. Diebold Election Systems Inc. was one of five companies not certified but was the only one to protest the decision to State Purchasing Director Denise Lea. 
 Lea, in a letter to John Landis, the New Orleans attorney for Diebold, said the state procurement code lets her office review protests in connection with the "solicitation and award" of contracts for supplies, services or major repairs. She said the protest filed by Diebold was not within her office's jurisdiction.

She said the certification of voting machines "is solely within the authority" of McKeithen's office. "The law does not place this process under the procurement code," she said.

The three certified companies can now bid on the $47 million voting machine contract, but the five that did not win certification cannot.

The three firms approved are: Advanced Voting Solutions of Frisco, Texas; Elections Systems and Software of Omaha, Neb.; and Sequoia Voting System of Oakland, Calif. Besides Diebold, the other firms denied certification were: Liberty Elections Systems of Albany, N.Y.; Populex of West Dundee, Ill; Accupoll of Tustin, Calif.; and Hart Intercivic of Austin, Texas.

In her letter, Lea advised Landis to "take whatever administrative and/or judicial relief that may be available."

Diebold spokesman David Bear said Wednesday that officials of the McKinney, Texas, company were reviewing the ruling and their options to see what their next step might be.

He did not rule out a lawsuit but said, "It is premature to talk about that now." Bear said Diebold is still "having amicable discussions" with McKeithen's office to see if the problems it had in winning certification can be remedied.

In his letter of protest last week, Landis alleged that the ion process used by McKeithen's office was "arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal." The company claims that the decision was based on the company not meeting six of the 116 criteria some of which Diebold had met before with older equipment, when it was certified to bid on voting machine contracts.

McKeithen's office denied any wrongdoing or political maneuverings in ing the three companies.