The case goes to trial Wednesday in Denver District Court in front of Judge Lawrence Manzanares.
The four types of computer systems in question are manufactured by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and Hart, and are used in some fashion by every county in the state, affecting hundreds of thousands of voters.
If they are barred just two months before the election, "it would be impossible, frankly, for a number of these counties to conduct an election in a reasonable and fair manner," Knaizer said.
Large counties could not print ballots by the Oct. 6 deadline and could not efficiently hand-count hundreds of thousands of paper ballots, he said.
But Manzanares could simply choose to order Dennis to come up with additional security to prevent tampering, said Andy Efaw, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.
Threat from hackers, viruses
National computing experts have advised against using computers for voting because they cannot ever be secure, Efaw said.
Just this week, Princeton University researchers experimenting with a Diebold model said that malicious software can modify all records. They said the software can be stored on a memory card and installed by someone in a clerk's office or at the manufacturer's in as little as one minute. They also found that viruses could spread the software to all the machines in a system.
Hultin said instructions for tampering with the Diebold machine have been posted on the Internet.
In June, the secretary of state's office warned counties with certain Diebold machines that an earlier experiment installed distorting code in just two minutes. In a letter, the office advised election officials to add three seals to the equipment so any tampering could be detected.
With this in addition to security procedures and post-election audits, "we have minimized this threat," wrote Holly Z. Lowder, director of the elections division.
Gordon and the Democratic Party were alarmed by a deposition in the case released this week, in which the secretary of state's staffer in charge of testing the machines says he did only 15 minutes of security checks.The staffer, John Gardner Jr., also said he had no college training in computer science, causing Gordon and others to question whether he was qualified for the job. Gardner also had been information technology chief for the El Paso County clerk, which runs elections there.
The plaintiff's attorneys say Gardner's security checks on the four systems did not include attempts at hacking. Instead, Gardner merely checked whether the manufacturers included security documentation.
"Of course" Gardner should have tried hacking, Hultin said. "Isn't that the idea of a test?"
Two elections reversed
Meanwhile, there are concerns about another form of voting machine that would be an alternative to the machines under attack in the lawsuit.
The four types of computer systems in question are manufactured by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and Hart, and are used in some fashion by every county in the state, affecting hundreds of thousands of voters.
If they are barred just two months before the election, "it would be impossible, frankly, for a number of these counties to conduct an election in a reasonable and fair manner," Knaizer said.
Large counties could not print ballots by the Oct. 6 deadline and could not efficiently hand-count hundreds of thousands of paper ballots, he said.
Threat from hackers, viruses
National computing experts have advised against using computers for voting because they cannot ever be secure, Efaw said.
Just this week, Princeton University researchers experimenting with a Diebold model said that malicious software can modify all records. They said the software can be stored on a memory card and installed by someone in a clerk's office or at the manufacturer's in as little as one minute. They also found that viruses could spread the software to all the machines in a system.
Hultin said instructions for tampering with the Diebold machine have been posted on the Internet.
In June, the secretary of state's office warned counties with certain Diebold machines that an earlier experiment installed distorting code in just two minutes. In a letter, the office advised election officials to add three seals to the equipment so any tampering could be detected.
With this in addition to security procedures and post-election audits, "we have minimized this threat," wrote Holly Z. Lowder, director of the elections division.
Gordon and the Democratic Party were alarmed by a deposition in the case released this week, in which the secretary of state's staffer in charge of testing the machines says he did only 15 minutes of security checks.The staffer, John Gardner Jr., also said he had no college training in computer science, causing Gordon and others to question whether he was qualified for the job. Gardner also had been information technology chief for the El Paso County clerk, which runs elections there.
The plaintiff's attorneys say Gardner's security checks on the four systems did not include attempts at hacking. Instead, Gardner merely checked whether the manufacturers included security documentation.
"Of course" Gardner should have tried hacking, Hultin said. "Isn't that the idea of a test?"
Two elections reversed
Meanwhile, there are concerns about another form of voting machine that would be an alternative to the machines under attack in the lawsuit.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
