Diebold Elections Systems is changing its name to Premier Election Solutions. The change to Premier signifies a new beginning for the company.”

– Diebold Press Release, Aug. 16, 2007

So the hundreds of votes that were dropped in Ohio’s March primary elections? The ones that Premier Election Solutions, formerly called Diebold Election Systems (DBD), insisted were caused by faulty antivirus software and not a critical source code error?

They were caused by a source code error–one that’s been present in the company’s software for the past decade. Said Premier (Diebold) President Dave Byrd, “We are indeed distressed that our previous analysis of this issue was in error.”

Yeah, I bet you are. But not nearly as distressed as the voters who will use the company’s machines in upcoming elections. Remember, Premier (Diebold) is the company that designed its widely criticized electronic voting systems in such a way that the the locks protecting them from tampering can be picked open with a hotel minibar key. The company posted a detailed photograph of its authorized key, showing size, shape, and cut pattern, on its online store. It’s the company whose e-voting machines once relied on hard-coded security passwords like “1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8″ and “11111.” It’s the company that evaded election transparency laws in North Carolina. It’s the company that can’t seem to safeguard its source code. And it’s the company that modified its machines without notifying election officials. Twice.

So much for that “new beginning.” Once a Diebold, always a Diebold, eh?

“The findings in this study indicate that the computer-based voting systems in use in Ohio do not meet computer industry security standards and are susceptible to breaches of security that may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process,” said Brunner. “To put it in everyday terms, the tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as … using a magnet and a personal digital assistant.”

A Treo and a magnet? That’s all you’d need to compromise Ohio’s electronic voting systems? All of them? Yes. “It was worse than I anticipated,” Brunner told the New York Times. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.”

So what’s the solution? Brunner recommends Ohio’s electronic voting systems be replaced with optical-scan paper ballot machines. But that’s expensive, and, some say, unecessary. “Certainly this report … will just absolutely throw Ohio into a complete tailspin going into the presidential election,” said Hamilton County Board of Elections Director John Williams. “I don’t think there has ever been a documented case of that happening. There certainly has never been a prosecution. … If you gave me the keys to the bank and combination of the safe, do you think I could break in? I could. Those again are not real-world scenarios under which we operate.”