Election Whistle-Blower Stymied by Vendors

In the wake of that finding, Florida elections officials issued new guidelines this month for handling the memory cards. They require records showing who had custody of the memory cards, and are aimed at the same kind of security attack Sancho had simulated.

"It was total vindication," Sancho said.

Diebold officials maintain that their systems are secure when standard safety procedures are used to protect the memory cards from tampering.

"It didn't vindicate Mr. Sancho," said Diebold spokesman David Bear. "You basically follow these industry standards, and you don't have issues."

Regardless, the announcement out of California echoing the Leon County findings was a sweet moment for Sancho, a public official for whom election validity is a very personal interest. In 1986, Sancho was defeated in a botched county commission election in which thousands of votes were believed to have been lost.

"That was the most searing event of my life," he said. "Having run for office and seeing the whole process come down on my head has made me who I am."

He ran for elections supervisor in 1988 and won.

Now he is required under federal laws instituted after the Florida voting debacle in 2000 to acquire 160 voting machines for disabled people -- and none of the state-approved vendors will provide the machines.

A spokesman said Diebold will not sell to Sancho without assurances that he will not permit more such tests, which the company considers a reckless use of the machines.

"While we welcome authorized testing and examination of our products by qualified professionals," Diebold attorney Michael E. Lindroos wrote Sancho last year, "actions such as yours only serve to undermine the public's confidence in the security and accuracy that good systems can provide when used with the proper procedures and by authorized personnel."

Another company, Sequoia Voting Systems, backed out of discussions with Sancho earlier this year. Spokesman Michelle Shafer said the company lacks the capacity to fill his order.

The third voting machine company, Election Systems & Software Inc., did not respond to three calls for comment directed through their sales representative.

The dispute highlights what many elections experts say is a failure in federal oversight. In Maryland, North Carolina, Texas and elsewhere, elections officials have called into question the security and accuracy of new voting machines. The experts said that a more rigorous federal oversight process, in which machine testers have no financial connections to the voting machine companies, is needed to ensure election security in the United States.

"The federal certification process for voting machines is broken, sadly, when it comes to security," Wagner said. "It was designed for the era of mechanical machines, and it hasn't kept up."