The waiting game to see which voting machines Allegheny County will use for the May 16 primary is over.

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the county's newly purchased electronic voting machines -- the ones that were the subject of a three-day court hearing this week -- will be in place at the polls in the election now less than three weeks out.

Officials from the county, which was named as a defendant in the lawsuit challenging the machines, said they will now focus their efforts on voter and poll worker education and ensuring that the election goes off without a hitch.

"This now lifts any impediment put in front of us to conduct the election," said county Solicitor Michael Wojcik.

The lawsuit, filed by a group of seven county residents and the advocacy group People for the American Way, sought to stop the county from using the new machines and instead force them to continue using the old levered equipment.

That, however, would have forced the county to violate the federal Help America Vote Act, which required the use of electronic voting machines by the first federal election this year.

In addition, the county received a nearly $12 million federal grant to buy the new iVotronic touch-screen machines. If they were not in place for the primary, the county would have been forced to return $4 million of that money.

U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster did not think that should happen.

He made his ruling from the bench, reading from a 10-page opinion in which he dismissed the plaintiffs' allegations.

"Their claims are based on a potential series of events that may not happen as plaintiffs predict; indeed, may not happen at all," he said.

The plaintiffs presented testimony and argument that the county would not have enough time to properly train poll workers or voters to use the new machines.

Judge Lancaster dismissed that claim, saying the county has a "proactive and well-organized" education plan. Additionally, he said that an in-court demonstration of the iVotronic convinced him it's not complicated to work.

"In fact, voting on this machine is no more complicated than, and is very similar in operation to, the touch-screen check-in kiosks at the ... Pittsburgh International Airport, or a common ATM machine," the judge said.

He also dismissed another of the plaintiffs' arguments -- that the iVotronic is not accessible for people with certain kinds of disabilities.

Though Judge Lancaster agreed that some people may not be able to vote privately on the electronic machines, that was also the case with the county's old lever machines, he said.

Had he ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, county elections workers testified, there was no way they could have the old equipment in place and working in time for the primary.

Harry Litman, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said even though they lost, they made strides in ensuring a fair election, including that in the future, the county will upgrade disabled access by equipping the machines with "sip and puff" technology for people with restricted mobility.

"I think it's probably time for us to do whatever we can to make the election as orderly as it can be," Mr. Litman said.

In his closing to the judge, he argued that he feared there was not enough time to pull off an election with new equipment. Throughout the case, there was testimony for the plaintiffs that there could be "chaos."

Part of that claim came from the fact there will be two voting forms in precincts for the primary.

Because of the late decision on the iVotronic -- the purchase was only completed on April 12 -- the company that makes the machine is only able to provide 2,628 of the 4,700 ordered by the primary.

To make up for the smaller numbers, and to protect voters from any kind of glitch, there will be optical scan ballots available at every precinct.

In his ruling, Judge Lancaster said there is always a possibility that a machine could break down, whether it's old or new.

"No election system is perfect, and no machine built by man is infallible," he said.

Mr. Wojcik said he believed that the plaintiffs' intentions in bringing the lawsuit were both heartfelt and sincere.

"I applaud them for engaging in the process and wish more people would do that," he said.

But he discounted their claims that the county rushed into the decision to buy the touch-screen machines.

The first system the county wanted, made by Sequoia Voting Systems, did not pass state certification tests. And then there was a delay in getting the iVotronic certified by the state, Mr. Wojcik said.

"It's not like we decided a month ago to look at the iVotronic," he said. "I don't think there's any blame to place on this."