Thread Subject: Re: Voting machine procurement litigation
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 8:20 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Voting machine procurement litigation"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Voting machine procurement litigation"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
It's someone who lost. The lawsuit was filed by DieBold, another
manufacturor of voting equipment. Massachusetts did extensive user and
reliability testing of all the bidders' equipment. Another vendor's
equipment scored higher over all and on accessibility than Diebold.
Diebold is saying that our Secretary of State misapplied best value and
the other system requirements provisions of the bid. The court has not
ruled yet on Diebold's request for an injunction to stop further
purchases under the $9 million contract.
Barbara Lybarger
- Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Voting machine procurement litigation"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Voting machine procurement litigation"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
