Associated Press

February 23, 2004

A public relations blitz involving billboards, radio and television commercials, a Web site and more than 1.5 million pamphlets and brochures is under way to familiarize Maryland voters with the electronic voting machines many will use for the first time this year.

The five-year campaign costs $1 million and is part of the $55 million the state is paying Diebold Election Systems Inc. of North Canton, Ohio, manufacturer of 16,000 touch screen computer terminals.The terminals will be used throughout Maryland beginning with the March 2 primary. Baltimore uses electronic machines made by a different company.

The campaign includes advertisements on buses and billboards. There will be ads on radio and television stations. Voters can log on to www.mdvotes.org and cast a sample ballot to see how the system works.Some critics complain that tax dollars are being used to offset publicity about security flaws in the Diebold system."I think the money would be better spent making the system more secure instead of trying to win voter confidence through public relations and not necessarily through anything substantive," said Avi Rubin, an associate computer science professor at Johns Hopkins University."The idea of a public relations campaign is showing the superficiality of their approach. They're trying to [sway] public opinion the way Coca-Cola convinces people that it's a good soft drink," he said. Linda Schade, a Takoma Park resident who has helped organize a campaign against touch-screen voting machines, said taxpayers "are funding a corporate advertising campaign, and that's an outrage." But state officials say the purpose of the campaign is to explain the new system to voters."We need to let our voters know how to use the system, and it becomes a much smoother system on Election Day if they've seen it," said Nikki Trella, election reform director of the State Board of Elections.The Diebold machines gained national attention after Rubin and associates at Johns Hopkins published a report saying it was rife with security flaws. Two reports commissioned by the state agreed with many of Rubin's findings, but concluded that the problems could be corrected by Diebold and the state.Maryland officials said Rubin's report did not take into account the levels of security imposed on the election system by state and local systems, and insist voters can have confidence in the accuracy of election results.David Bear, a Diebold spokesman, said the company is not using the public relations campaign to answer critics."It's talking about the equipment and the use of the equipment," he said. "You may not change people's opinions about electronic voting, but it familiarizes them [with it]. People question when they're not familiar with things. That's why you need to educate people."

Copyright 2004, Associated Press