brennan center for justice

elative to voting system vendors. At the time, the New York Times estimated that themerger would “mean that nearly 70 percent of the nation’s precincts would use machinesmade by a single company.” 194 The newspaper noted that this “would make it harder forjurisdictions to bargain effectively on price and quality” for new purchases. 195 More to thepoint, it would make jurisdictions more dependent on a single vendor – for everythingfrom repairs to future service – and thus less likely to speak publicly about voting systemdeficiencies.After the U.S. Department of Justice and nine state attorneys general filed an antitrustsuit over the merger in March of 2010, the Department of Justice announced that ithad secured an agreement from ES&S to divest itself of many of Premier’s voting systemassets (though not necessarily its service contracts). 196 In May, Dominion Voting Systems –another manufacturer with a significant share of the U.S. market – announced that it hadacquired the assets of Premier from ES&S in accordance with the Department of Justice’sproposed settlement. 197The merger highlights two major concerns for election officials in a market that just onevendor could eventually dominate. First, election officials’ already weak leverage withvendors would further diminish, for if there is essentially just one vendor, there is noviable alternative vendor available, regardless of how poor the service or function of themachines.Second, and perhaps more importantly as relates to this report, having the vast majorityof the nation’s voting systems manufactured and/or serviced by a single company couldalso mean much greater vulnerability nationwide to software bugs or other problems,particularly if such problems are not immediately publicly reported and correctedthroughout the country. 19826 | Brennan Center for Justice