Diebold would rather lose all of its voting machine business in North Carolina than open its source code to state election officials as required by law, the Associated Press reports.

Due to irregularities in the 2004 election traced to touch screen terminals, North Carolina has taken the very reasonable precaution of requiring vendors of electronic voting gizmos to place all of the source code in escrow. Diebold has objected to the possibility of criminal sanctions if they fail to comply, and argued for an exemption before Wake County Superior Court Judge Narley Cashwell. The judge declined to issue an exemption, and Diebold has concluded that it has no choice but withdraw from the state.

The company's explanation is that their machines contain Microsoft software, which they have no right to make available to state election officials. This seems disingenuous, as it is hard to imagine Microsoft suing Diebold for complying with the law. It would hardly be Diebold's fault if it released MS code to a lawful authority on demand; that issue would be something for MS and North Carolina to work out.

One far-fetched explanation would be that MS has licensed its software to Diebold with a provision that the company withdraw from jurisdictions where the law requires the release of its source code. It's possible, but there's no reason to believe it.

A considerably more plausible explanation is that Diebold is using this non-problem as an excuse to keep its bugware from the prying eyes of government regulators. And the most likely reason for that is that they've got a lot of blunders to hide. If North Carolina were to reject the machines on the basis of their software, other states would undoubtedly become suspicious, and begin doing their own investigations. So in that case, withdrawing from the market is the smartest move the company can make.

But if the software is as good as the company claims, then North Carolina's future endorsement will make for excellent free advertising. Withdrawing from the market would be a very foolish move in that case, but, again, only if Diebold has nothing to hide. ®

Related stories

Florida chucks touch-screen balloting (2 February 2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/florida_goes_low_tech/
Diebold disclosed e-voting key on website (26 January 2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/26/diebold_e-voting_key_copy_flap/
E-vote systems certifier de-certified (5 January 2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/05/evoting_not_well_understood/
Diebold slams HBO Hacking Democracy documentary (2 November 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/02/diebold_hacking_democracy/
Chaos Computer Club condemns e-voting machine (10 October 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/10/chaos_calls_for_ban/
Hacking probe clouds Swedish election result (18 September 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/swedish_election_hacking_probe/
Diebold voting machine hack exposed (1 August 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/diebold_hack/
Diebold voting systems critically flawed (14 May 2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/14/diebold_e-voting_flaw/
Florida e-vote conspiracy theories grow (12 November 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/12/florida_e-vote_conspiracy_theories_grow/
Did electronic voting pass the test? (5 November 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/05/us_election_electronic_voting/
E-vote kit makers go 'shared source' (28 October 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/28/evote_source_stunt/
California sues Diebold over e-voting snafu (8 September 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/08/calif_sues_diebold/
California green lights e-voting (25 August 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/25/evoting_california/
E-voting terminals: gambling with data? (20 July 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/20/e_voting_terminals/
We want our e-voting paper trail (11 July 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/11/evoting_paper_trail/
E-voting security: getting it right (8 July 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/08/getting_e-voting_security_right/
E-voting security: looking good on paper? (7 July 2004)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/07/e_voting_security/