He's got his work cut out for him.

The North Canton-based company that makes automated teller machines and business security systems faces several problems, most high profile among them frequent and sometimes loud criticism about its smallest business segment - electronic voting. For years, Diebold has been scrutinized because of questions about the security of its e-voting software and whether results could be manipulated in e-voting, considered the country's fastest growing voting method.

But there are wider issues, too.

Profits slumped 47 percent last year and Diebold stock has dropped. In December, Diebold's well-known chairman and CEO, Walden O'Dell, abruptly resigned, thrusting Swidarski to the helm of the company of 14,000 employees and $2.6 billion revenue.

Now Diebold watchers are waiting to see if Swidarski is the right guy to navigate rough waters.

"Maybe he's the one who realizes the problems more than anyone and so understands what it takes to fix it. The negative way to look at it is he is one of these guys who was at the helm of an underperforming business," said Mark Lanyon, an equities analyst who tracks Diebold for Morningstar Inc. in Chicago.

Swidarski is promising to cut costs, mostly through internal strategic changes, by $100 million in three years.

"We're going to decide where our management talent can take the company and get the greatest return for our shareholders," Swidarski said in an interview with The Associated Press.

One example of a possible new direction, he said, is Diebold's recent sale of a factory in Sumter, S.C., to a Diebold supplier that will continue to provide the fabricated metal parts that Diebold used to make.

"The most efficient producers find a way to lower costs," Lanyon said. "I don't think we view Diebold as one of those companies right now. There are a lot of things they can attack to make it a more profitable operation, and not just in the supply chain. They have a relatively high cost manufacturing base."

Swidarski, 47, joined Diebold in 1996 after working in retail banking. Seeing e-voting as an opportunity after the punch-card voting debacle in Florida in 2000, the company formed Diebold Election Systems in 2002 and put Swidarski in charge.

He had no experience with electronic voting machines. He also had to run a business that drew mistrust. O'Dell, Swidarski's boss, took heat in 2003 when he invited people to a fundraiser for President Bush with a letter stating he planned to help "Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

Swidarski donated $2,000 to the Bush re-election campaign in 2003 but says he has no political connections now. Diebold now bars its top executives from making political contributions.

"He made that donation as a personal decision. A lot of other Diebold execs made a similar decision when Wally O'Dell was an active fundraiser," said Mike Jacobsen, Diebold spokesman.

The company's more recent battle is against lawsuits charging that a stock swoon last year was a result of management decisions and lack of clear information about the voting machine business.

Shares of Diebold had plunged 15.5 percent Sept. 21 after Diebold slashed its earnings forecast, blaming Hurricane Katrina, rising fuel costs and a lower outlook for its ATMs business, which makes up more than 68 percent of the company.

Diebold's stock recovery has been slow, hovering around $39 per share, well down from the $57.81 a share high it hit April 7.

The company insists testing and certification of its e-voting machines is rigorous. [Editorial: That's a big fat joke.] The e-voting business had a setback recently, however, when Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. raised concerns to the state's elections board about Diebold's system. Maryland is one of the states Diebold has said proves its machines work well.

California in February certified Diebold voting machines but with conditions, including that Diebold undergo an additional security analysis of the source code, the software that tells the computerized machine what to do.

While voting machines remain firmly in the public eye, Diebold is pegging growth in the U.S. market for ATMs on deposit automation, a new technology for bank customers who want to make deposits faster and increase check processing speed and for banks to lower costs and reduce risk of fraud.

The company also hopes to expand its business in Western and Eastern Europe, India and Brazil. Diebold has recently reached deals to provide ATMs for banks in China and Russia.

Some observers are unsure about Diebold's future, especially its voting business.

"It is a lightning rod," said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services Inc., a Washington-based consulting and research company that tracks the e-voting market. He said some local and state governments have been hesitant to convert to electronic voting and uncertainty of federal government funding has added to slow sales.

Yet a recent Election Data Services study estimated that in the November election 66.6 million voters will use electronic equipment.

One frequent Diebold critic, Bev Harris, has complained that Diebold touch-screen machines can be manipulated and that the company has been less than truthful with election officials.

"We try to show why there needs to be real oversight," said Harris, founder and director of the voting advocacy group BlackBoxVoting.org.

Kartik Mehta, an analyst who covers Diebold for FTN Midwest Research, said he wouldn't be surprised if the company eventually quits the voting machines market.

"I think when things do go a little south, when there is some negative publicity, it forces management to spend too many resources trying to fix the situation for a business that is a small piece of the overall pie," Mehta said.

Swidarski said he understands the passion of the voting machines critics, but said the company is trying to make the segment work.

"All of a sudden you end up in a big gray area. And you also end up in a very emotional area," he said.