Governor says he lacks confidence in touchscreen system

By Tom Stuckey

The Associated Press 

February 15, 2006, 7:54 PM EST

ANNAPOLIS -- Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., citing concerns over electronic voting machines and a new early voting law passed by Democrats over his veto, said today he no longer has confidence "in the State Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006."

In a letter to Gilles Burger, chairman of the board, Ehrlich said he supports a paper ballot or some kind of paper trail that voters could use to verify that their ballots cast on the state's Diebold touchscreen machines were recorded and counted accurately.

"Right now, the state of Maryland is not prepared to conduct an election, let alone early voting," Ehrlich told reporters after meeting with Democratic House Speaker Michael Busch to discuss his concerns.

The governor said he does not know what can be done at this point. He asked the elections board to provide, by the end of February, answers to a series of questions about the Diebold machines and the ability of the state to implement the new law that will allow voters to cast ballots at a limited number of precincts during the week before the September primary and November general elections.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller rejected the governor's complaints, saying: "He's trying to create confusion and chaos" before the election.

"It's not the type of leadership one would expect from the governor," Miller said.

The Democratic Senate president said he is confident that the election results will be fairly and accurately recorded. He also said he is convinced that local boards can provide a way for voters to cast ballots during the week leading up to each election, a move that he said will encourage more Marylanders to vote in the primary and general elections.

Busch sided with Miller. "I think the election process will go well," he said.

But the speaker also said he, like the governor and Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Delegates, would like, if possible, to provide some kind of paper trail that would allow voters to ensure that their votes are recorded correctly.

"There has always been great concern that there is no paper trail," he said. 

The Diebold machines used in Maryland do not include a voter verification system. A recent study conducted for the elections board said there is too little time between now and the primary election to upgrade the system to provide a voter verifiable paper trail. 

Ehrlich said some other states and local election boards have either decertified or denied certification to the Diebold machines because of fears that vote-counting memory cards are susceptible to tampering that could change election results.

A test conducted for a local board in Florida determined that the electronic machines could be hacked and the vote changed. California counties using Diebold systems are being told to put them through more rigorous security tests before use in 2006. 

David Bear, spokesman for Diebold Elections Systems, defended the accuracy and reliability of the Diebold system used everywhere in Maryland for the 2004 elections except Baltimore, which had a different electronic voting system. Diebold Elections Systems is a segment of Diebold Inc., based in North Canton, Ohio.

"Not only have they been successfully used for many years in Maryland and are certified in Maryland at the federal and state level, they have been used in many elections across the country," he said. Bear had not seen Ehrlich's letter, and said he could not comment directly on the concerns expressed by the governor

Linda Schade, director of TrueVoteMD, an organization critical of the Diebold machines that has been lobbying for a voting system with a verifiable paper trail, said her group is pleased that "the leadership of both parties recognize the importance of paper ballots and verifiable voting." 

She said her organization will work with Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation this year to implement a system with a paper trail.

Calls today to Linda Lamone, state elections administrator, and her deputy, Ross Goldstein, were not immediately returned.