I’m not entirely sure if this comment is legitimate, regardless, it misses the point.
The issue isn’t about the security of mini-bars and office furniture. Quite the contrary. What is appropriate for those products, in terms of the security-convenience trade off is not at all appropriate for a system with much more sensitive security requirements, i.e. the cabinet of an electronic voting system.
Sure, you do not want to inconvenience a hotel guest, so make it easy to keep a supply of replacement keys. The worst case is some shrinkage from those mini-bars, which probably happens anyway. But that same ease of acquisition puts national and regional elections into an unnacceptable risk category.
And Diebold’s response is essentially of the character is, “The requirements stipulated a lock but they didn’t say it had to be a secure lock. We met the requirements.” Totally out of sync with the security aspects of reality here and the severity of the consequences.