At first blush, the lawsuit filed in Commonwealth Court by a group of Pennsylvania voters last week is a potential wrecking ball. If the suit succeeds in winning a preliminary injunction, the voting machines used in 57 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties -- including Allegheny County and its neighbors -- would be decertified.

After all the time, trouble and expense taken to make voting machines comply with a federal law, this seems to invite chaos before the November election. While we don't want that, there is an important point here that needs to be addressed somehow and sometime.

Supported by the group Voter Action, the plaintiffs want paperless voting machines replaced with ones in which voters mark cards that are counted in optical scanning machines and could be checked if any dispute ensues.

The Post-Gazette has not favored such optical scanner voting machines -- they seem to us a retreat from the potential of the computer age, one that also conjures up memories of Florida and the notorious hanging chads. That said, the lack of verification associated with many touchscreen voting machines is a problem -- and not just in Pennsylvania. Similar suits have been filed across the country to address it.

It was the Florida debacle in the 2000 presidential election that moved Congress to pass the Help America Vote Act in 2002. This held the promise that modern, computerized voting systems would become uniform across the country and prevent future problems.

But the good intentions have exceeded the technology, and the legislation had the perverse effect of making redundant voting machines proved by the test of time -- such as the mechanical ones in Allegheny County. Moreover, computerized machines are potentially targets of software mischief.

Short of having voters mark cards to be scanned, touchscreen machines could be rigged to produce a verifiable paper trail. That would be a good solution, but such machines are not allowed in Pennsylvania because of concerns that the privacy of voters would be compromised, contrary to the Pennsylvania Constitution and state electoral law.

Ironically, the suit filed in Commonwealth Court argues that unreliable machines that have the potential to be rigged also offend the Constitution and electoral law. Most people would agree that such concerns are more fundamental than theoretical fears about a loss of privacy.

Those who think that this is all about paranoia or partisan sour grapes need to consider a recent report by the nonpartisan organization, Common Cause, which found that electronic voting machines had "serious security and reliability concerns." They also should remember the wisdom of Ronald Reagan in his dealing with the Soviets -- trust, but verify, he insisted. That's exactly what we can't do now with electronic voting machines.

It is a tragedy that the very legislation that was supposed to give Americans confidence in the election system has instead made a sizable number fearful about the future of American democracy. They are resorting to the courts because Congress and the state Legislature have failed to fix the problem.