Steven T. Dennis and Thomas Dennison, Maryland Gazette

October 3, 2003

ANNAPOLIS An analysis of the state's new $55.6 million electronic voting system found 66 flaws that could lead to fraud and errors, but many of the weaknesses and how they will be fixed remain a closely guarded state secret.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) called the report on the Diebold voting system "positive," saying the state would fix the vulnerabilities in time for the March presidential primary.

Municipalities with November elections should not be concerned, administration officials said, because the machines were already used securely in last year's elections in Allegany, Dorchester, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

Critics questioned the decision to retain the Diebold system, as well as the withholding of more than 100 pages of the report from the public over concerns that the redacted material could provide a road map for election fraud.

Senate Judicial Proceedings Chairman Brian E. Frosh (D-Dist. 16) of Chevy Chase called for public hearings into the report and ripped the Ehrlich administration for keeping so much of it secret.

"There seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction between their statement that they are fixing the security issues and they can't release the report because of security concerns," he said. "Either it is secure or not."

Frosh said the public needs to have confidence in the voting system.

"You don't inspire confidence by saying, 'We know we have a lousy system but we're going to fix and it, and by the way, we're not going to tell you all the problems we've found and how we are fixing them,'" he said. "It looks terrible. It looks like you are trying to hide something."

Aviel D. Rubin, a professor at Johns Hopkins University whose analysis in July slamming the Diebold system as riddled with security holes sparked Ehrlich to commission the SAIC study, said the documented flaws support his contention that the system should be scrapped.

"It's almost like the people in Maryland making the decisions didn't read the [SAIC] report," he said.

"I'm just shocked. I don't understand why they would commission this study and given the results of the study, then go ahead."

Rubin likened the decision to implement the system despite the risks to parents continuing to use a defective car seat that could kill their children. He said it would be far better to use a well-designed system than to retrofit a litany of security procedures onto what he termed the poorly designed Diebold product.

And he criticized the Ohio-based company's contention that it has already used the voting system in past elections without problems. Rubin said that is like driving a car without a seat belt and saying that it is safe when you have not gotten into an accident.

Diebold and state officials defended the system.

Mark Radke, director of voting industry for Diebold Election Systems, said his company had already fixed the three security weaknesses the study identified with the machines themselves.

The study "verifies the fact that we have a very secure solution," he said.

"We believe we are fully prepared to roll out the [voting] machines for the 2004 presidential primary," said Gilles W. Burger, State Board of Elections chairman.

Burger said the Hopkins study was relevant, but the SAIC report is the "most robust" risk assessment study ever done in the nation for an election organization.

SAIC, which holds a $2.6 million contract to handle security for the computer systems in state offices, conducted the review at no cost to taxpayers.

Burger said Diebold has made changes to the voting machines including better encryption methods and smart card technology. The machines are not connected to a network and so would not be affected by a computer virus or tampering, he said.

Other changes, ranging from an independent security review of Diebold software to hiring a security officer, will be implemented beginning in October and continue through the primary.

Budget Secretary James C. "Chip" DiPaula Jr., who oversaw the investigation by SAIC, said he expects the report and the new security measures, including training for poll workers, to restore public confidence.

"We're confident that this will safeguard the entire election process," DiPaula said.