Kara Kridler, Daily Record

 With Maryland just months away from installing a voting system that researchers recently found to be potentially flawed, a Montgomery County-based group yesterday launched a campaign intended to protect the integrity of elections in the state.

The group, Campaign for Verifiable Voting in Maryland, said it is “dedicated to ensuring that votes in Maryland are voter verified and accurately counted, and that election results can be credibly audited and recounted.”

Linda Schade, the organization’s director, said, “Our ultimate goal is to have a voting system that inspires voting confidence, that’s really, really solid and provides recount ability.”

Concerns of safeguarding the voting system came about when possible flaws in the Diebold Election Systems’ voting machines were made public three months ago. After completing research, officials at the Johns Hopkins University and Rice University announced that the machines had the potential to be tampered with, allowed errors and failed to accurately tally votes.

“Computers come with benefits and with vulnerabilities,” Schade said. “Paper is better than computers. You have to have a capacity for a recount and an audit trail,” she said, adding that the recount performed by the machines is not sufficient.

The state signed a contract with Diebold “believing that they have chosen a good voting process for Maryland,” Schade said.

The campaign is urging Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and the State Board of Elections to adjust the contract to call for a voter-verified paper trail.

However, the state is moving forward with the $56 million purchase, according to Campaign for Verifiable Voting in Maryland.

“We’re trying to generate as much public awareness” in Maryland as possible, said Schade, who plans on contacting civic, church, political and environmental groups, among others.

Linda Lamone, head of the State Board of Elections, does not believe that the public sees this as an issue, Schade said. Neither Lamone nor a spokesman for the State Board of Elections could be reached for comment.

The same system was used in Georgia in the 2002 general election to good effect, according to Cara Hodgson, public information officer for Georgia’s Secretary of State.

“We are very pleased with the system,” Hodgson said, adding that there have been no challenges to the results tabulated by the machines.

In Maryland, Schade said: “We seek to educate our Board of Election officials about the nuances. We want to register that there is public concern in Maryland,” she said.

The group hopes that the public will take part in its crusade by writing Web-based letters to the State Board of Elections and various other elected officials. Yesterday alone, Schade said, people viewing the site had sent 57 letters. Each letter is sent to nine officials. “That’s more than 500 letters,” she said.

Raj Goyle, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “We think that [the campaign] raises valid concerns.”

Maryland is obligated to provide secure voting facilities, he said. “We will actively monitor their actions to ensure they do so.”