Ethan Goffman, Silver Spring Voice

December 2003

Silver Spring resident Shelley Fudge has long been concerned about the issue of voting maching accuracy. Like many people, she claims the 2000 elections as a defining moment; "they led me into an activist stance. I thought finally people would get serious about voting reform."

 Ever since, whether spoken or not, the issue has hung in the air, creating an uneasy backdrop to our democracy, which depends on the trust of all citizens that their votes are being counted.

As new electronic machines have entered service intended to solve the problems of 2000, rumors have begun to spread. The machines, it is claimed, are not reliable: they can be tampered with and their vote totals are unverifiable. Those elections in which the machines have operated have not quelled these fears. For instance, Fudge tells the story of a friend who, during the 2002 primaries, cast a vote in which she had no faith: "She knew that her vote was not counted. She tried to complain and was totally ignored."

Like many people, Fudge had other concerns than voting machines during the long period of the looming Iraq war. Nevertheless, as a member of Montgomery County Against the War, she began to notice that many fellow members shared her concerns. One such member was Linda Schade, a long-time political organizer, who had also noticed a concern with these machines in many quarters.

What followed was a kind of synergy, as individual worries were stoked by skeptical reports from computer experts. Schade’s organization, The Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics, served as a central organizing point for these concerns under the name Campaign for Verifiable Voting in Maryland.

The Maryland campaign is part of a burgeoning nationwide effort. Numerous computer scientists and security experts have expressed doubts about the new machines. Those machines made by Diebold Election Systems, which are being adopted across the state of Maryland, are of special concern. In July, computer scientists at both Johns Hopkins University and Rice University found numerous security flaws in these machines. To compound the problems, hackers have broken into Diebold’s files and distributed source code for the election machines across the internet (although Diebold insists that this is not the code currently used).

Diebold is not the only company for which electronic voting machines generate concerns. For any company, if the machines at a particular site happen not to be working on election day, voters at that site will either have the vote significantly delayed or not be able to vote at all. And there is no way to do a true recount. Although election results can be run through a machine several times, it will simply continue to make the same mistakes.

Supported by the Maryland State Board of Elections, Diebold discounts worries about their machines. They point out that each district controls its own machines, which are not connected to a single source, as had been assumed in the Johns Hopkins study. A recent Maryland Gazette editorial argues that it is a mistake to "take the theoretical conclusions" of the study "and apply them to real-world situations." It is also true that the process of adopting Diebold machines has been forwarded by both major political parties, beginning with the Glendening administration and continuing under Ehrlich’s guidance.

Nevertheless, there have already been claims of violations in several elections, most prominently in Georgia’s 2002 gubernatorial contest. How substantial these allegations prove remains to be seen. Certainly, however, confidence in the vote is crucial to a democracy.

The Campaign for Verifiable Voting in Maryland agrees with most critics that a paper trail is the best way to allow verifiable recounts and certify elections. "Investing in machines that don’t have a recount capacity is investing in electoral chaos for Maryland," explains Schade. "I mean, nobody wants to have another Florida."

In a four-month period, the Campaign for Verifiable Voting has emerged as a strong advocate in voicing concerns that are both statewide and nationwide. They began by creating a website to publicize the issue, and initiated an e-mail campaign to legislators. During the 2003 elections in Takoma Park, the Campaign for Verifiable Voting organized a protest to avoid legitimitizing a process they find questionable. Members then filed a formal complaint challenging the new machines (a process they had to invent, since there was no procedure for doing so). Computer scientist Aviel Rubin, who led the Johns Hopkins team investigating the Diebold machines, cites the Campaign for Veriable Voting’s Kevin Zeese as one of the key players "actively promoting the voter verifiable trail."

Although the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics has roots in Schade’s 2002 Green Party campaign for the state legislature, Schade and Zeese describe the group as non-partisan. Questions about voting machines cross party lines, and have been asked by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and others. The Campaign for Verifiable Voting has also been endorsed by the Baltimore Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, evidence of deep concern about voting among the African-American community. Anne Arundel County’s Women’s Republican club is yet another group working with the Campaign for Verifiable Voting.

In Silver Spring, one Republican activist who supports the Campaign for Verifiable Voting is Jae Collins. Voting, he explains, is "the core of our system. It needs to be protected so that there isn’t a high probability of tampering." Because both Greens and Republicans are marginalized in Montgomery County, he explains of Schade’s 2002 election campaign, "I understood what she was trying to do." Even though Republicans and Greens disagree on 65 percent of issues, he asks "why shouldn’t we work together on the other 35 percent?"

Collins also suggests that, as a Republican, he can act as a conduit to the Ehrlich administration. In an age of partisan division, he believes that "younger activists have a much more open mind, and we’re bridging political parties for open government."

In sharp contrast to Collins–and to Linda Schade–Shelley Fudge is a loyal member of Montgomery County’s dominant political party. "I am a true-blue Democrat," she exclaims. Yet she too emphasizes that the Campaign for Verifiable Voting is "a collection of individuals from very different perspectives."

The concern with accurate, verifiable elections in which people trust the results has obvious cross-party appeal. As time and technology change, and along with the worry that unscrupulous people are finding new ways to cheat, constant monitoring of election systems becomes necessary. Fudge explains that much of the problem lies with the need to make sure that election volunteers, including many senior citizens, are comfortable with the new technology. And Collins believes that our current environment mandates "constant assessment, evaluation, and pursuit of better and better products."

In just a short time, the Campaign for Verifiable Voting has brought together citizens from a great variety of backgrounds and made an impact. To succeed, democracy has long depended on the involvement of citizens’ groups. If, over the past few decades, this involvement has been fading, perhaps the Campaign for Verifiable Voting is one sign of a resurgence. And perhaps it will help ensure that the most obvious sign of a successful democracy, fair and accessible voting, is also apparent in the 2004 elections.

Copyright 2003, Takoma Publishing