Legal electronic voting developments this week come from two major purchasers of Diebold equipment, Maryland and California. In Maryland, a challenge to Diebold equipment has failed, and the highest state court has refused to order prints for the fast approaching elections. This outcome is not so surprising, especially so close to the election date. The Maryland Secretary of State finally sounds reasonable, making a valid argument that it is probably too late to make a change of that scale.
California, which decertified the equipment some of Maryland will be using, has more to say. The California Attorney General is now suing Diebold for fraud, alleging it made misleading statements about its machines. California seems to be focused on the testing procedures, presumably because Diebold made changes to software or shipped a newer but unapproved version of software. Over the summer, a disabled voters' group lost a lawsuit challenging California Secretary of State Shelley's decertification of the equipment.
In Florida, officials have forbidden a test for the notorious Miami-Dade County machines developed by its election supervisor.
In other voting news, a conservative election watchdog group has given Georgia's expensive, new, uniform, and paperless Diebold system an F-minus, ranking Florida next worst. The top-ranked state, Nevada, also has electronic voting machines, but votes are printed behind glass and confirmed by voters.