|
Ehrlich's concerns about voting persist |
Governor says elections board has failed to address his questions regarding Diebold devices
By Kelly Brewington
Sun reporter
Originally published March 2, 2006
Two weeks ago, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said he no longer had faith
in Maryland's ability to conduct a fair and tamper-free election, and
asked the State Board of Elections for a written response to his
concerns about electronic voting machines.
Yesterday, a spokesman for Ehrlich called the Board of Elections' reply
- received this week - "completely unsatisfactory and evasive."
"After reading this letter, we have even less confidence in the board's
ability to conduct a fair election than we did two weeks ago," said
Henry Fawell, an Ehrlich spokesman.
An official with the board defended Maryland's voting system yesterday, saying the letter provides the requested facts.
Ehrlich's letter to State Board of Elections Chairman Gilles W. Burger,
a Republican, requested answers about recent controversies in other
states over Diebold Elections Systems, the Ohio-based manufacturer of
Maryland's voting machines. The governor said he wanted the state to
adopt a voter-verified paper trail for its touch-screen machines, an
issue that has been debated in the legislature for several years.
The governor's letter added a political dimension to the long-standing
debate over the security and accuracy of Diebold machines. Some
Democrats charged the governor with attempting to cast doubt on the
state's voting system as an election-year ploy and attacking elections
Administrator Linda H. Lamone, with whom he has clashed in the past.
Debate over Diebold intensified this year when California ordered
testing of the company's machines after a much-publicized incident in
which a computer expert hacked into the equipment during a mock
election in Leon County, Fla.
Ehrlich's letter asked whether the testing in California had any bearing on Maryland's system.
Burger responded that California's software, specifically its memory
card codes, are the same as those used in Maryland's system.
Joseph M. Getty, the governor's policy and legislative director, said
that answer does not explain whether Maryland's machines are secure.
"What does all that mean?" Getty said. "The letter doesn't explain that at all."
Getty said the letter suggests to him that Maryland's system, particularly the software, has not been properly tested.
"It's all evasive statements without providing any facts to the governor," Getty said. "The response is blather."
Advocates for a new voting system say Burger's response is evidence
that the state's system is not secure and violates federal guidelines.
"The same hackable software is on the voting machines we have," said
Linda Schade of TrueVoteMD, which has criticized the Diebold machines
for years. "Basically, somebody can go in and have the machines report
a different election result."
Ross Goldstein, deputy administrator at the State Board of Elections,
disputes that, saying its machines are secure and accurate. Burger's
letter notes that although a report is pending in California, that
state's secretary of state issued a news release certifying the use of
Diebold machines, with certain recommendations.
"I think it's laid out pretty clearly in the letter," he said. "The
information tested was reviewed by the [Independent Testing Authority],
and the advisory board in California was still satisfied with it."
Maryland was one of the first states to implement electronic voting
devices in 2003. The state spent an initial $55.6 million to buy the
automated teller-like machines, abandoning in many areas optical-scan
ballots, which provide paper verification. Critics have since
complained of security flaws, though Lamone has defended the machines
and observers have said they worked well in the 2004 election.
|
