Skip to content

Premier Election Solutions controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile6 entries

  1. 2009

    Antitrust challenge to ES&S acquisition

    The Department of Justice and multiple states investigated ES&S’s purchase of Premier on the grounds that it could reduce competition in the voting-systems market. The resulting action required divestiture of the Premier assets.

  2. 2007

    California decertifies Diebold systems

    Following a statewide review, California decertified Diebold and other electronic voting systems. The action formed part of the regulatory background preceding the Premier rebrand.

  3. 2006

    Touch-screen and optical-scan vulnerabilities

    Researchers reported additional vulnerabilities affecting the TSx touch-screen platform and AccuVote optical-scan equipment, including concerns about unauthorized software changes, removable media, and alteration of election results.

  4. 2004

    Security reviews of Diebold voting systems

    Academic and government-commissioned studies reported serious weaknesses in the security design and operational controls of Diebold voting systems, intensifying scrutiny of the technology later marketed under the Premier name.

  5. 2003

    Political-conflict controversy involving Walden O’Dell

    Diebold chief executive Walden O’Dell’s fundraising for George W. Bush and a statement about helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes prompted criticism that his political role created an appearance of conflict of interest for a company involved in election technology. O’Dell later said the wording was poorly chosen and reduced his political profile.

  6. 2003

    Leak of proprietary materials and internal memoranda

    Proprietary technical materials and internal Diebold memoranda were published online. Diebold attempted to stop dissemination through cease-and-desist and copyright claims, but the dispute ultimately led to litigation over whether those claims were improperly used to suppress publication.