Maryland using controversial Diebold voting machines

By Brendan Armbruster, Montgomery County Sentinel
Monday, December 15, 2003

Last year, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which requires states to upgrade their voting machines to computerized versions in order to avoid a Florida-style fiasco. Several states, including Maryland, have mandated the use of the Diebold AccuVote Touch Screen Voting System in all elections throughout the state.

In Maryland, 2,600Diebold units were purchased for the 2002 Primary election. Most recently, the new machines were used in the 10 polling stations for the mayor and council election in Rockville last month.

Now, however, questions about the security of the county and state's new touch-screen voting machines are beginning to arise. Some fear that the "smart card" computer chips used by the machines could be duplicated. Other worry about whether the new machines will be able to produce a paper record.

And adding still further fuel to the national firestorm of debate is a leaked comment made by Diebold, Inc. CEO Walden O'Dell. In a letter to Republican donors in August, O'Dell wrote: "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

O'Dell has also contributed $100,000 to the president's re-election campaign.

Some administration critics, including presidential candidate Senator John Edwards, have questioned the appropriateness of this relationship between the Diebold CEO and the White House, and have asked the president to return the donation. Diebold, Inc is based in Ohio

And, as if the above were not already enough, doubts about the voting machines' accuracy and security linger were sparked as well by a high profile study by the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University in July. Among other charges, the Johns Hopkins researchers said that the "smart card," which is used by each voter to operate the machine and, presumably, ensures a single vote, has the potential to be illegally copied and used to vote multiple times.

Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute, has stressed, during interviews, that there is the possibility of abuse. "A 15-year-old computer enthusiast could make these counterfeit cards in a garage and sell them. Then, even an ordinary voter, without knowing anything about computer code, could case more than one vote for a candidate at a polling place that uses this electronic voting system," Rubin has said.

In light of all the above, a national debate has begun over whether a paper record must now be produced by the machine in order to verify votes. Some critics charge that, without such a paper record, it will be impossible to pinpoint multiple votes or other inaccuracies. Indeed, two state senators, Paula C. Hollinger and Norman R. Stone, both from Baltimore, have requested a study of the issue. And the Department of Legislative Services, a non-partisan organization, is currently compiling an analysis of electronic machine paper records and is expected to release its findings at the opening of the next Assembly.

"The study is looking at the whole Diebold issue, all the emails and questions we've received are being examined," Hollinger said. "The issue is whether people feel comfortable and secure in the voting system."

Meanwhile, a New Jersey Congressman, Rush Holt, has introduced a bill in the U.S. Congress that would require a paper trail from electronic voting machines nationwide.

But state and county officials have defended the current procedures and have said that there have been no serious charges against the voting machines. Margaret Jurgenson, executive director of the County Board of Elections, said her office has not received any official complaints against the machines other, that is, than copies of newspaper articles raising concerns over the machines' security. She also said that much training was provided to election officials in proper operation of the new machines.

"There was extensive training that went into the machines," Jurgenson said. "We had judges come in for 3 to 4 hour sessions and others provided technical support. This started in December, 2001 and continued to December, 2002."

As for the "smart cards," Pam Woodside, chief information officer for the State Board of Elections, said that the scenario envisioned by the Johns Hopkins University report is highly unlikely.

"The smart card technology used in the program is made uniquely for a given election," Woodside said. "Anyone who would want to make a duplicate card would have to know the technology, which is not available to the public. And they would have to know the code used on the card, which changes for each election and also is not available."

Woodside said she could not comment on the pending paper-record study, but said that most of the complains her office receives pertain to this issue. But, she philosophically noted, such concerns are always raised whenever a change to the system is enacted.

"What we're dealing with is changing how people vote, and people put their trust in the voting processes," Woodside said. "We're certainly not jeopardizing the process, we're just doing it in a different way. And we're still providing the same safeguards."

Last year, in Allegany County, a recount in a close vote produced a paper print-out of the election results from the county's Diebold voting machines. Kitty Davis, elections administrator for Allegany County, said that the machines assign a random number to each votera number which can be traced back to the polling station, but not to the voter's name.

Tracking a number to a specific person, Woodside said, would violate a state law that prohibits "verifying a vote to a voter." This law dates back several decades and was originally passed to block "vote buying," a practice in which a voter could produce evidence for a cast vote and receive money from the candidate.

Although critics of the machines have yet to find any specific evidence of wrongdoing, Hollinger said that just the perception of possible wrongdoing is enough to warrant scrutiny.

"I hope there isn't a genuine reason for concern, and I don't know enough about coded technologies to know for sure," she said. "But I feel that the voting public needs to feel secure when it goes to the polls. If we need additional legislation to ensure that security, then we'll do legislation."

Hollinger added that any recommended changes would probably not be implemented in time for the March primary elections. "I don't know for sure, but that would be my best guess," she said.

© Berlyn, Incorporated. All rights reserved.