Of course. The courts aren't helping much, either, by sending an ambiguous message. Ex -- it's okay to flout election law in New Jersey by getting Lautenberg on the ballot after the official deadlines, or to keep the polls open in St. Louis after the official closing time. It's not legal to post an statement that "Voting for X is really a vote for Y", when X has resigned, because that's somehow electioneering. Theoretically, equal protection should imply such things as states ensuring that their voters have a roughly equal chance of having their votes actually counted, but nobody really freakin' knows whether that effectively means that all polling places (within a state, or within the country?) need to be using the same technology or at least systems with approximately equal error rate.

And then there's the mind-bogglingly odd decisions by some states, ex. Florida law apparently notes that a vote can be inferred from "clear indication of the will of the voter" or something like that... and then allowed counties to choose different interpretations of the state law. They were asking for a court challenge by going that way.

If you then take into account the vagueness of FEC regulations ex. what in-kind contributions are, the grey areas about what distinguishes harping in a particular way on an 'issue advocacy' manner with a deliberate attempt to influence specific elections, ex. when does a church loses its special tax-advantaged status for sermons, then of course they're going to be boatloads of lawsuits. And the states or counties which have chosen to use machines whose security has been severely questioned by people who likely know what they're doing... well, they're asking for lawsuits, too.

It's still better than a system in which the winner is chosen on the basis of connections, cash or Kalashnikovs, however.