May 25, 2007

Dear Maryland Congressional delegation:

As the leading state election integrity group on the issue of paper trail in Maryland, TrueVoteMD urges your strong support of HR 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, in the upcoming floor debate by the full House of Representatives. With this letter, we present information concerning several points raised by various other members of the voting debate, including: the need for audits; cost concerns; feasibility; and the effect this bill will have on voter confidence and the recruitment of election judges. We assure you that this bill is realistic in presenting solutions for the 2008 presidential election year.

Audits. The audit provisions of HR 811 are a critical step forward for safe and accurate elections that do not exist under Maryland law today. HR 811 would require a 10% audit of all precincts involved in a federal race where the two leading contenders have less than a 1% margin of victory, and lesser audit percentages for larger initial margins. These audit provisions are critical to ensure that our voting machines used to tabulate our votes have not been intentionally manipulated or are unexpectedly malfunctioning. Many states have audit requirements already but Maryland has no defined audit percentage requirement even with our new paper trail law recently signed by Governor Martin O’Malley last week. All national computer scientists and voting experts recommend strong audit requirements as an essential element of voting procedures.

Purchasing New Equipment in Time. While we are aware of the potential difficulties of implementing a major voting system change in time for 2008, we are also aware that jurisdictions around the country have made voting system changes from DREs to optical scan within two months (CT) to nine months (NC), including conducting open-bid procurement processes, and hardware and software certification testing. The Florida legislature, in fact, recently banned DREs in favor of paper ballots, and intends to make a statewide switch to optical scan in time for 2008 regardless of HR 811.  In addition, concerns expressed by Maryland officials over paper-trail technology being “new” technology are unfounded. Almost 50% of US voters used paper ballots in the 2006 general election, and well over 50% will use optically scanned paper ballots in the 2008 presidential election. Furthermore, almost every state in the nation has used optical scans to count their absentee ballots for decades, including Maryland. In particular, Maryland election officials have used this technology in every county to count our absentee ballots, including more than 150,000 in our 2006 general election. Looking further back in Maryland election history, prior to our switch to the paperless voting machines in 2002, 19 of 24 Maryland jurisdictions used optical scan systems as their primary voting system. Optical scan technology is the most secure voting system in the market today, and will likely remain so for many years to come. What is required is not a delay in making this change happen, but a mandate to conduct every election in Maryland with the most secure and accurate technology available.

Funding. The fact that HR 811 provides financial assistance to those states that need to make a significant change is reason enough to support the bill. Given our recent enactment of the voter verified paper ballots bill this past legislative session, Maryland has decided to make the switch contemplated in HR 811. This bill will provide federal funds to finance the change required by our new verified voting law, and thus relieve the State of a $20 million expense that could be used to address our other financial needs. With our current $1.5 billion deficit, our Congressional delegation should be doing everything it can to support this bill to help navigate our difficult financial future.

Recruiting election judges. We witnessed the largest involvement of citizen participation in elections monitoring during the 2006 elections with poll watching projects around the country. Concerns about our national voting integrity were rampant in every jurisdiction. Contrary to some claims, HR 811 would not reduce the number of election judges Maryland is able to recruit, but would more likely increase it. According to various surveys, the average age of an election judge is approximately 70-72 years. Senior citizens have had major problems with the paperless DREs because they are bulky, heavy, difficult to set up, and extremely complicated to administer. In addition, numerous machines are required in each polling site, with some having upwards of 12-15 per precinct. With optical scan technology, only one optical scan machine and one ballot-marking device are needed in every polling site, for a total of 4,000 machines in Maryland, because one op scan machine handles approximately 2,000 voters. These optical scan machines have been used in Maryland before, as mentioned earlier, and most senior citizens are comfortable with their simpler technology. In addition, the inroads made this past election cycle in recruiting college students and other non-traditional election judges will not be affected by the changeover.

Voter Confidence. Passing HR 811 will improve voter confidence because voters will know that the new system is more reliable and will result in more accurate elections. Voters are familiar with this technology, from previous Maryland elections and other areas of their lives, including standardized school testing. The 2008 presidential election will determine the political paths of the US and the world as it relates to peace, war and climate change. Maryland citizens want to make this important decision using technology that they know will accurately and securely record and report their vote. By mandating the use of paper and optical scan technology, the federal government is ensuring that the 2008 elections are the most secure elections in the new millennium.

Cost. Maryland election officials have expressed concern that the changeover will result in local jurisdictions incurring additional costs, on top of the remaining payments for the DREs. While local payment requirements vary, every jurisdiction that switches from DREs to optical scan technology will begin to save money immediately because the operating and maintenance costs of optical scans is significantly less than the DREs. In Maryland, the cost to operate an election using DREs has more than doubled once the local jurisdictions began using them. By switching to optical scans, our jurisdictions could see savings similar to other jurisdictions that have reported an operational cost savings of 30-40% as compared to DREs. As mentioned earlier, optical scan machines are easier to operate, store, maintain and repair than DREs, because fewer machines are required and their overall technology is much simpler.

Time to change. Maryland election officials have pleaded that this federal legislation should not be enacted so that election officials can have more time to perfect the current system. In contrast, national technological standards and guidelines are moving towards effectively banning the current paperless voting system, and many states, including most recently Florida, have already banned DREs by legislation. There is no reason to give election officials more time to “perfect” a paperless voting system that will be replaced by either federal or state legislation. The Maryland legislation referenced above that passed both chambers unanimously will, if funded, require Maryland to certify an optical scan paper ballot system and decertify the current system in time for the 2010 elections. Maryland’s current paperless DRE voting system is eventually going to be decertified and retracted, and the time and resources of Maryland election officials will be better spent updating training materials for switching to paper ballots and optical scan machines than working to “perfect” the current system. 

While we are acutely aware of the political barriers to improving voting standards in Maryland, we will continue to push forward those mechanisms that will provide all Maryland citizens with a more secure and accurate method of voting. Please keep in mind that Maryland has over 600 documented voting incidents with the current non-verifiable system, so this bill has a very direct bearing on the accuracy of the 2008 House of Representatives and Presidential election in our state. The concerns you have heard from Maryland election officials reflect not only a lack of commitment from our highest election officials, but the need for change in our overall election administration. How can the citizens of Maryland trust our elections to accurately reflect our vote when our own election officials fight against changes that are known to improve voting integrity?

HR 811 is a critical mechanism that will improve Maryland elections, and we hope that you will show your full support during the coming House floor deliberations.

Sincerely,
Shazia N. Anwar
Director, TrueVoteMD