Several Commonwealth Court judges on Wednesday questioned whether the state has a fair process for citizens to challenge the use of controversial touch-screen electronic voting machines.

The questions arose during a 40-minute hearing at Temple University on a lawsuit filed by 25 citizens who say the machines are unreliable.

They want the systems decertified in 57 counties, including Lehigh, Northampton and surrounding counties, alleging the state's certification process of the equipment was insufficient. They want the systems modified to produce paper printouts so voters can verify that the equipment accurately records their choices.

The Pennsylvania Department of State argued Wednesday that the lawsuit should be dismissed before trial. It said the lawsuit is based on rehashed allegations that have failed in other courts and on speculation that errors could occur or machines could be hijacked by computer hackers.

The seven-judge panel did not immediately rule whether the case could continue. It will issue a written opinion later.

Mark Aronchick, an attorney for the state, told the judges the lawsuit was not filed soon enough. He said it should have been filed within 30 days of the state certifying the different voting systems used by counties, which occurred last year and earlier this year.

Mary Kohart, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued that residents were not immediately aware when the machines were certified.

Aronchick countered the machines were certified during public, videotaped proceedings, which included a chance for people to testify and provide information about potential faults. The results were posted on the Department of State's Web site.

But after questioning by several judges, Aronchick acknowledged the department had not provided proper public notice about the certifications. The agency had not posted dates of certification tests on its Web site nor in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, a weekly journal of government notices.

Kohart said the only option available to citizens was to ask Commonwealth Secretary Pedro Cortes to reconsider the certifications, which were required before the machines could be used.

Several people, including Northampton County physician Alan Brau and Allentown resident Cathy Reed, did file requests earlier this year asking that certain touch-screen systems be re-examined. But Cortes denied the requests, saying they included no new information to warrant a second look at the reliability of the machines.

Aronchick defended that decision.

"The re-examination is not automatic," he said. "It's not something you have to do immediately upon request."

He said Cortes alone has discretion on such requests and it would be improper for the court to circumvent Cortes' discretion by ordering the machines decertified pending re-examinations.

Several judges questioned how citizens could challenge the certifications if Cortes refused to hold hearings.

Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter said the most difficult concept to understand was how people could voice objections or offer expert testimony to challenge the opinions of state examiners who say the machines are reliable.

"How do they get their process ... what's the remedy?" questioned Judge Dante R. Pellegrini.

Aronchick said anyone could file a lawsuit challenging election results if they believed a voting system malfunctioned and affected the outcome of a race.

"That's after the fact," said Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner.

Kohart said the plaintiffs are not seeking to invalidate any elections, but rather they want to protect voters' rights in future ones. She said it would be up to candidates to sue over election results.

Aronchick said no one ever has challenged the results of an election in Pennsylvania on the grounds that electronic machines did not accurately record votes.

He said last week's general election, the first with widespread use of electronic systems because federal law required it, went well in Pennsylvania and the country.

Kohart disagreed, saying she was aware of at least 150 complaints.

"It is so not true that this election was without flaws," Kohart said.

There were several problems with electronic machines in the Lehigh Valley area, including machines freezing up. In Northampton County, results were delayed from being publicly reported because votes from about 40 of 149 precincts were not tallied correctly, which election officials said resulted from human error, not machine malfunctions.