|
|
|
|
|
Voting-system debate colored by party politics |
By David Nitkin and Kelly Brewington
Sun reporters
Originally published February 21, 2006
When Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. delivered a stunning vote of no
confidence in the state's voting system last week, he raised the
specter of this fall's election ending in disarray.To some Democrats, he also began to lay the foundation to challenge the outcome - if he winds up losing.
Advertisement
"That's the first thing I thought about," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings,
a Baltimore Democrat who served with Ehrlich in Congress. "I don't put
anything past my good friend."
Ehrlich's questions about election safety cast a cloud over the coming
vote in a state that a dozen years ago experienced one of the closest
gubernatorial elections in U.S. history.
Democrat Parris N. Glendening defeated Republican Ellen R. Sauerbrey by
fewer than 6,000 votes in 1994, and Republicans grumbled that the
election was snatched from them through what they called misdeeds in
Baltimore and elsewhere.
Since then, other elections have also produced crises and concerns.
Florida in 2000, where a recount fight went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ohio in 2004, where challenges of a large number of voters held up
results in a close race.
Ehrlich's Republican Party has proven itself adept at besting Democrats
in election challenges, said Herbert C. Smith, a political science
professor at McDaniel College and former member of the Baltimore City
elections board.
Republicans "out-lawyered Gore [in Florida], and out-mobbed them as
well," Smith said. So Ehrlich steeling himself for trouble ahead is "a
reasonable hypothesis," he said.
"When you are 15 points behind [in the polls], you can mount all kinds
of paranoid conspiracies," Smith said. "Whether they are realistic or
not is another matter." Several polls in recent months show that while
Ehrlich maintains a solid approval rating, he trails the top Democratic
contenders for governor.
Ehrlich said he lost faith in Maryland's elections machinery because of
continuing questions about the security of Diebold electronic voting
machines, which were used statewide in 2004. For the first time, he
said he supported paper receipts for the machines, which could be used
to audit the results, even though he vetoed legislation creating a
pilot program for receipts last year because he said the trial process
would have circumvented his authority.
He also said a decision by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to
allow some polling places to open five days before the election -
overriding a gubernatorial veto that blocked the move - was an
invitation to tampering.
Letter from Ehrlich
As a result, Ehrlich delivered a four-page letter to state officials
last week, saying that the rising costs of maintaining machines,
alleged partisan acts by state elections officials and the absence of a
method for producing paper receipts means "I no longer have confidence
in the State Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate
elections in 2006."
The letter was the latest effort by the governor to exert influence
over the state elections board, something he has been thwarted from
doing in the past by Democrats who say he is overstepping his authority.
Ehrlich's 2002 victory gave the Republicans the reins of much of the
state's voting machinery. By law, the party of the governor also gains
a majority on the local and state elections boards, positions that make
important decisions on ballots, certifications and other election
matters.
But despite a strong push, the governor has been unable to persuade the
five-member state elections board to replace the state elections
administrator, Linda H. Lamone, with someone the administration favors.
Four votes are needed to remove the administrator, and Republicans have
three seats on the board.
The governor tried to name Democratic allies to the board last year, but the state Senate refused to confirm them.
"This is pure, unadulterated politics," said Sen. Paula C. Hollinger, a
Baltimore County Democrat who heads the committee that examines
elections issues. The governor's letter, she said, was an attempt "to
get back at Linda Lamone."
Critics of Diebold machines have for years called for printed receipts,
but Ehrlich until now has not supported the initiative, Hollinger and
others point out. Ehrlich commissioned a study of the Diebold machines
in 2003, and the administration signed off on their purchase.
"The issue has been front and center for years now," she said.
"Unfortunately, the governor hasn't seen this problem. He wants Florida
and Ohio to happen in Maryland."
John T. Willis, a Democrat and former Maryland secretary of state who
recommended the current electronic technology, said Ehrlich's letter
contained more criticism of the elections board than concern about the
Diebold system.
"I think, frankly, his issue about the voting system is the
independence of the people running the elections board," he said. "It
shouldn't be subject to politics. This is exactly why you need a very
independent board of elections."
Advertisement
Willis also said Ehrlich's letter "appeals to the emotions, not to reason."
As controversy over Lamone was percolating last year, Democrats in the
legislature were preparing other voting bills. They approved measures
lifting restrictions on absentee ballots and allowing selected polling
places to open days before the election.
With a 2-to-1 edge in Maryland, Democrats believe that any strategy
that produces higher turnout will help their candidates. Ehrlich vetoed
the bills, and the Assembly restored them last month.
Ranking Republicans say that Democrats in the legislature have sown concern over voting systems, not the governor.
"In their zeal to embarrass the governor with veto overrides, they have
put the integrity of the election system at risk," said Del. Anthony J.
O'Donnell, the House minority whip from Southern Maryland. "In their
zeal to protect Linda Lamone at all costs, they have created a
situation that now may cost us tens if not hundreds of millions of
dollars to fix. We should take a collective deep breath, back away for
two years, and sort out this mess created by this legislature."
In a radio interview last weekend, the governor said that Democratic
zeal to defeat him has resulted in laws and proposals that weaken the
state's voting system.
"Early voting, provisional voting, uncertified systems, lack of paper
trails, felons voting. We know what the bottom line here is," Ehrlich
said on WBAL radio. "We have a bunch of overrides that occured as a
function of one desire: to recapture the governorship."
Democratic leaders insist that the state's voting system is safe. But
by raising questions about the integrity of the machines, Ehrlich may
wind up suppressing voter participation in November, they say.
'Confusion and chaos'
"By creating confusion and chaos and uncertainty, Ehrlich is
deliberately trying to drive down turnout in a state where he knows
that the majority of voters do not support his party," said Derek
Walker, executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party.
"All of a sudden, because he's desperate, he's looking for anything he
can do to throw a wedge into the elections process and turn the tables
in his favor," Walker said. "It's underhanded, it's deceptive and it's
disingenuous."
Cummings, the congressman, said concerns about voters' security could reduce turnout.
"I do believe when people do not have the confidence, those who are
most likely to stay home will stay home," he said. "In my neighborhood,
people have become very frustrated when they look at what happened in
Florida, and what happened in Ohio."
Cummings wrote Ehrlich two years ago, asking for a paper receipt
system. He said the governor should now be sending a positive message
to voters - not a pessimistic one.
"What he ought to be doing, since he was the one who said the system
was OK, he should be encouraging people to vote, to do what is
all-American," Cummings said.
O'Donnell, the minority whip, said allegations of vote-suppression were "baloney."
The governor's concerns, he said, are driven by the merits of the issue - not politics. |
|
| |
| |
|
|
