Letters to the Editor: Baltimore Sun
Originally published March 19, 2006

Mary Howe Kiraly
Bethesda

Optical-scan voting still the best option
I am very concerned about the incomplete and misleading information contained in the editorial "Machine politics" (March 14).

There are no electronic voting systems that are without flaws and vulnerabilities. And there is currently no federal standard that these machines must meet.

However, states are being forced to move toward electronic voting machines as a result of the Help America Vote Act, which mandated, among other things, independent voting for people with disabilities.

Given this dilemma, machines that produce a paper record of the vote are preferable to machines that do not.

Johns Hopkins University professor Avi Rubin has looked at these systems very carefully with funding from a grant from the National Science Foundation. He has found, and has testified, that an optical-scan system - with a requirement for an automatic audit of a percentage of precincts - provides the best option currently available.

Maryland will have a number of hotly contested races this year. They will attract national attention. There may well be calls to recount the vote. But that is not possible with the current Diebold system - which does not permit a review of the ballots.

In surveys, Maryland voters have clearly stated their preference for a paper ballot. The House of Delegates unanimously passed legislation that would accomplish this goal ("Lawmakers debate paper versus electronic voting," March 11), and Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has articulated his strong support for a paper ballot.

It is now time for the state Senate, which has a long list of co-sponsors for a bill that would provide for a paper ballot, to move this legislation to a vote.