|
|
|
|
|
Every vote counts - the question is how to count them |
Sunday February 5, 2006
By TAMELA BAKER
tammyb@herald-mail.com
ANNAPOLIS -
It's a fundamental American privilege, but in the politically charged
world of election-year lawmaking, even the simple act of voting has
sparked sharp disagreements between the parties in the General
Assembly.
It started with a number of election law changes approved last year by
the General Assembly, but vetoed by Gov. Robert Ehrlich. The changes
included allowing five days of early voting and letting voters cast
"provisional" ballots in other precincts besides their own, anywhere in
the state. The General Assembly overrode the governor's vetoes early in
this year's session.
While the official arguments for the changes were to provide more
opportunities for citizens to vote, opponents sensed the real reason
had less to do with who was occupying voting booths than with who was
occupying the governor's mansion. They feared the changes would allow
people to vote early and often - and defraud the upcoming election.
One of the biggest backers of the changes was Senate President Thomas
V. "Mike" Miller, a Prince George's County Democrat who has made no
secret of the fact that he wants a Democrat to defeat Ehrlich in the
upcoming gubernatorial election. Miller's push for election law changes
- to be implemented this year - prompted Ehrlich to refer to them on
Friday as the state's "election reform, Mike Miller-style."
A proposal to move the Maryland primary from September to June appeared
to be dead, Miller reluctantly reported as the General Assembly
convened last month. Republican officials, including Ehrlich, were
convinced that changing the primary was a ploy to give Democrats more
time to mount a campaign against the governor after a potentially
divisive primary race between Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and
Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan. So many Democrats in the
General Assembly feared the change would hurt their own campaigns,
however, that it seemed unlikely.
But other changes loom that could affect this year's elections.
Although the state recently spent millions to install touch-screen
voting terminals throughout the state, several bills offered this year
would require "paper trails," allowing voters to review a paper receipt
of their completed ballots.
Proponents argue that paper trails would protect elections from
mistakes and fraud; opponents say Maryland voters aren't particularly
worried about the integrity of the state's elections and that changing
the system now would create more problems than it would solve.
Del. LeRoy Myers, R-Washington/Allegany, serves on the legislative
subcommittee on election laws. He sees plenty of trouble on the
election horizon if the state elections board is forced to make all of
these changes in time for the primary.
He is especially leery of both the potential for fraud that provisional ballots present and the motivation behind them.
Voters who vote provisionally outside their own districts couldn't vote
on local races; the ballots would be prepared for the district in which
the vote is cast. The ballots would be certified and counted after
other votes are tabulated. Opponents of provisional ballots argue
there's little to prevent a voter from traveling from county to county
to cast votes for statewide office.
"Why would you, if you believe your vote is so valuable - and I believe
it is - why would you even consider voting a provisional ballot in
another jurisdiction?" Myers said. "The only answer to that question is
fraud."
Foes of Ehrlich and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, a candidate for U.S.
Senate, "can take anyone at all and load the system up with the two
offices they want to affect - the U.S. Senate and the governor."
And while he has supported the concept of early voting, Myers argues
the state doesn't have time to prepare for early voting - or any other
changes - by September.
He also believes that any change should include one requirement to
prevent fraud - presentation of photo identification before a voter is
permitted to cast a ballot.
Practical matters
As political as all of these arguments have become, simple practicality
might decide what changes, if any, are implemented in time for the
September primary. The House Ways and Means Committee heard last week
that studies of several systems designed to verify and recount votes
found they were expensive, difficult, untried and made voting more
difficult.
Don Norris, a professor at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County,
conducted some of the studies. He told the committee that "each system
may have something to offer only if it is fully developed, integrated
(with the current touch-screen systems) and properly implemented."
"None is yet fully developed or readily available," he said. None has
ever been used in the United States, and only one provided a paper
trail, he added.
Of all the systems studied, Norris said he couldn't recommend any.
The easiest way to get a paper trail, proponents argue, is to return to
the optical scan system the state has used before. True Vote Maryland,
an organization that has been on the forefront of the push for paper
trails, is pressing for a return to optical scan voting. Co-founder
Shelley Fudge told the Ways and Means Committee that "many around the
country are coming to believe that optical scan is the best system ...
it combines the best of both - computers and paper." And she argued
that maintenance of optical scan systems is cheaper than touch-screen
systems.
But Elections Administrator Linda Lamone told the committee that not
only would it cost the state millions - $65 million in the upcoming
fiscal year, in fact - to go back to an optical scan system, but there
just isn't time to do it this year.
"I have tried very hard not to come before you and tell you something
can't be done, but these changes are not administratively feasible by
September 2006," she said.
If the legislature forces changes this year, she said, "you will put the election - your election - next fall in jeopardy."
Implementing a new election would take 18 to 24 months of lead-in time
to acquire the machines, train staff and poll workers - and train
voters, she said. Trying to change systems now would bring
"administrative havoc that could have serious consequences for the 2006
election," she said.
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
