On Sept. 1 in Annapolis, Md. Anne Arundel Court Circuit Judge Joseph P. Manuck upheld Maryland's decision to use Diebold electronic voting machines in the Nov. 2 election after three days of hearings in the case Schade v. Maryland Board of Elections.
"The court finds that the state of Maryland has acted reasonably in setting up the system and protecting it against any reasonable risks," wrote Manuck in the court's memorandum opinion.
Plaintiff Linda Schade, co-founder of TrueVoteMD.org, said, "The judge did not respond to the testimony of the witnesses."
She contended that the "Diebold AccuVote TS Electronic Voting System cannot preserve freedom," contesting the security and reliability of the Diebold machines.
In her defense, Dr. Aviel Rubin, technical director of the Hopkins Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Michael Wertheimer took the stand, speaking out against the Diebold electronic voting systems. Both are experts in the field of electronic security and have issued reports against the Diebold systems, the Hopkins Report, and the RABA technologies report respectively.
The reports cite numerous deficiencies in the system including that it lacks "several critical security updates from Microsoft," and that they found "significant and wide-reaching security vulnerabilities."
Speaking for the Maryland State Election board, Dr. Michael Shamos, an expert on Maryland law, said the RABA and Hopkins reports require "perfection" and "military" standards. The Court's Memorandum Opinion reads that Shamos "indicated that the State Board of Elections was more than reasonable in compliance with Maryland standards in selecting the Diebold system."
The Deibold.com Web site claims that the AccuVote TS system ensures that "election results are secured using a very sophisticated form of encryption. Security is further enhanced through the use of a dynamic encryption key capability."
Maryland previously used Diebold machines in fall 2002 in four counties including Montgomery County, and statewide in the March 2004 primaries. No voter complaints have been filed for either election.
"From a security standpoint, that's like saying that because you walked through a bad neighborhood and didn't get mugged, that the neighborhood is inherently safe," said Dr. Ruben.
Maryland isn't the only state that has encountered issues with Diebold's system. In May 2004 California Secretary of State Kevin Shelly banned the use of the Diebold machines in four counties for the Nov. 2 election due to lack of voter confidence and security concerns. California is also currently in the process of suing Diebold for fraud.
"No one else in the country agrees with Maryland," said Schade, the plaintiff. "Why would you trust a voting system that is being sued by another state?"
However, since the Hopkins and RABA reports have come out, Maryland has made some changes. The state issued mandatory parallel testing of the Diebold systems. This means that random machines will be tested for viruses and trojans on Election Day.
Other security measures that the state has taken to ensure voting security include changing the passwords for individual machines. Previously, all passwords were uniform for all of the voting systems. Information between machines will now be encrypted as well.
The plaintiffs also advocated giving voters the option of using paper ballots for those who were not confident in the Diebold voting machines.
Judge Manuck, in the court's memorandum opinion, writes that this is "clearly against the public interest."
"Maryland has indicated by law that there shall be one system in use throughout all counties in the state," Manuck wrote. "All experts [including those for the plaintiff] agree systems such as these are much more secure and less vulnerable than the paper ballot."
The Diebold voting systems, while controversial in some aspects, also provide benefits that voting on paper ballots cannot. Using specialized equipment, a blind voter can cast his vote without the assistance of another person, ensuring his or her privacy.
Unsatisfied with the decision, TrueVoteMD.org is taking measures to get 6,000 "poll-watchers" to get voters' stories in regards to their experience using the electronic voting system.
"That way if there is an issue with the electronic voting on Election Day, we will have voter testimonies," said Schade.
