Shazia N. Anwar, Director, TrueVoteMD
Written Testimony before House Ways & Means Committee
In Support of HB18
Thursday, February 1, 2007

Distinguished Delegates,

As the Director of TrueVoteMD, I am here today to offer my support to Delegate Sheila Hixson’s voter-verified paper records bill HB18.

I appreciate the fact that the political environment has shifted from trying to convince legislators that we need a paper trail to what kind of paper trail should we have. I appreciate the cost concerns you have and the foresight you have shown by addressing this issue now before the 2008 Presidential Primary. This hearing is happening early enough in the legislative process so that these concerns could be one of the first major issues this legislature addresses. I give thanks to all of you for your diligent commitment to this dialogue.

As you know, HB18 would allow us to implement a precinct-based optical scan system. This system is the best, most fiscally responsible, solution to our current paperless voting problems. It provides us with a paper record of every vote making auditing the machines a simple matter. It offers each of you an opportunity to ask for a recount of the entire voting public if the legitimacy of your claim to your seat ever comes into question. It satisfies national standards currently in place, as well as those likely to come down in the near future. Each county local election board already knows how to work an op scan system, because that is what we use now to count all our absentee and provisional ballots. This system would require that we store, operate, maintain and repair fewer machines, because we would only need one op scan machine per precinct, as opposed to 5, 8 or 10 DREs. Op scan machines have a 10-15 year lifespan, unlike DREs, which have a 7% yearly replacement rate. Seven percent may not sound like much but it means that by the time our contract with Diebold expires in 2014, we would have replaced every single one of our 19,000 machines. And the bill is written in such a way that if newer, more secure technology comes into the market, you will not have to write new legislation for us to convert to a better system.

This bill does require at least one amendment. It should be amended to show your commitment to private and independent voting for disabled voters. Regardless of what kind of technology we purchase for this precinct-based optical scan system, it must continue to provide disabled voters with the ability to vote secretly and independently, and with the ability to verify their vote. This can be done with an op scan system. This can be ready by the 2008 Presidential Primary.

I know many of you are aware of TrueVoteMD and its constituents. We began four years ago by asking questions about how our voting technology really worked. Since then, we have recruited over 3000 members from across the State and the political spectrum. We have trained hundreds of pollworkers and pollwatchers for the 2004 & 2006 elections. One of our co-founders even filed suit against the State because she & others discovered that our voting system does not comply with Maryland law. In essence, TrueVoteMD is one of the most active, honest and hardworking watchdog groups on the issue in Maryland.

It is this reputation that I have tried to uphold since joining TrueVoteMD five months ago. To give you a little background on myself, I am an international human rights lawyer by training, and had spent the last five years educating law students from around the world about the important role they could play as human rights advocates. I am a first generation immigrant who has voted in every major election since becoming a citizen. I was so excited to join TrueVoteMD because now I could put my knowledge of the law and my passion about voting rights to good use in my new home state of Maryland. What I have learned about voting in this State has overwhelmed me everyday since.

It is about time that we show Maryland citizens that we are doing everything we can to ensure that every vote cast in a Maryland election is recorded and counted accurately. That includes verifying the results through a public audit of the tabulating machines, and resolving any discrepancies with the utmost commitment to the voter’s intent. Our biggest concern should not be the quickness with which we report the results, but its accuracy. Please look at HB18 as the most secure, and fiscally responsible, solution to our electronic voting woes and tell Maryland voters they are once again welcome back at the polls.