Maryland Voting Systems

This message is in reply to Andrew Cameron's question about Maryland's 
Voting Systems Procurement Manual.

I had a long conversation with Joe Torre, who is in charge of certifying 
voting systems for use in Maryland, and who also runs the voter education 
program and wrote the manual in question.  The most recent version was 
published in August of 2000, and it outlines the voting systems in use in 
Maryland, the systems that are certified for use (which would exclude the 
lever machines used in PG, Allegany, and Dorchester Counties), and provides 
the analytical framework for soliciting offers and drafting RFP's for voting 
systems.

Incidentally, the manual has a section on punchcard systems, which I would 
like to quote:

"Most Votomatic voting systems require that the voting positions on the 
cards be pre-scored, for ease of punching and to ensure proper alignment.  
If these pre-scored locations are not punched out completely, the 
punched-out piece, called 'chad', could get pressed back into the whole 
during vote counting, causing that vote to be missed.  A similar miscount 
can olccur if a piece of a chad from one location is accidentally pressed 
into the hole of another locaion.  This problem can occur during the 
original counting process or during a recount.  If it occurs in one but not 
the other, then the total vote count will disagree."

Keep in mind that this manual was written in August of 2000.  No counties in 
Maryland use the Votomatic system, but only a Datavote system, which does 
not have prescored holes.  The manual continues, "Since the Datavote system 
does not use a pre-scored card, it does not suffer the 'floating chad' 
problem of the Votomatic system."

But I digress.  The manual is not available on-line, but you could probably 
obtain a copy through your county BoE, or through Joe Torre.  If you have 
any other questions about voting systems, he would definitely be the person 
to talk to, as he is very diligent and knowledgeable, and he enjoys talking 
about his work.

It should be noted in regards to this manual, though, that it is about to 
become completely obsolete.  In accordance with the Willis report,
Delegates Arnick and Kittleman (who both served on the commission) have 
introduced HB 1457, which would alter the current system of voting system 
procurement and certification.  Currently, the state certifies several types 
of systems, and leaves the county BoE's the discretion to select and procure 
systems themselves, subject only to the State BoE's certification and the 
numerous provisions of Article 33.  Under HB 1457 (which has already been 
reported favorably by CGM and adopted on the House floor), the State Board 
of Elections would select, rather than certify, a system for use throughout 
the state.  In my conversation with Mr. Torre, he said that he is 99% 
certain that some type of Direct Recording Electronic system (DRE, similar 
to the system in use in Baltimore) would be selected by the State Board.  
This means that the procurement manual is in effect obsolete.

The only exception to this is if there is no system that has been selected 
by the State Board soon enough before an election.  Mr. Torre said that this 
time frame is determined by the ability to give voters a chance to 
"practice" on the machines before their actual use in an election.  He 
estimated that November of 2001 would be the deadline for selecting a voting 
system for use in the General Election of 2002.  If a system is indeed 
selected, then, under HB 1457, those counties using systems that had been 
decertified (such as the lever machines in PG, Allegany, and Dorchester) 
would be required to obtain the new, probably DRE, voting systems.  
Furthermore, the State Board of Elections would be in charge of procuring 
the voting systems, removing some of the inexperience and slowness that is 
often encountered at the county level (not to say that the State BoE is 
always efficient, but at least they're centrally accountable).

All of this is good news, to my thinking, for a number of reasons.  I've 
been talking with Joe and some others at the State Board of Elections for 
quite a while about the possibility of Instant Runoff Voting in Maryland.  
When Kurt Hornig, the Assistant Director of the Elections Management 
Division was charged with writing the fiscal note for SB 233 (Instant Runoff 
Voting), he didn't even know what it was.  Joe gave him a copy of none other 
than Douglas J. Amy's "Behind the Ballot Box" (which Eric O. was 
distributing at the IRV workshop in DC).  Generally, the people at the State 
Board of Elections are used to receiving marching orders from the state 
government, and when asked directly or even indirectly, they say that when 
state law mandates it, they will happily move to an IRV system.  Of course 
the State Board of Elections isn't supposed to take formal positions on 
issues that could affect the political structure of state government, and 
they took no formal position on Pinsky's bill.  But they are beginning to 
learn about the system, and privately, some of them have been impressed with 
the idea of IRV.

As you may know, DRE systems are easily compatible with ranked ballots.  I 
asked Joe if they would be purchasing the software to allow ranked ballots 
when they procure the new systems for PG, Allegany, and Dorchester, and he 
said that they wouldn't do this until state law provided for IRV under any 
circumstances.  But this may bode well for IRV in municipalities that will 
soon be unable to lease the older mechanical systems because of their 
scarcity in Maryland.  For example, here in Anne Arundel County, we used the 
"marksense" ballots, but the City of Annapolis rents voting systems from the 
same company that provides the lever machines to PG County.  As long as 
those machines are available at such a cheap price to Annapolis, there is 
going to be no change in the voting system.  But if DRE's are the only 
system available in Maryland, it may be easier to convince the City after an 
election or two to adopt an alternative voting system.

In my conversation with Joe, I mentioned this possibility, and he said that 
he would very much like municipalities to adopt the system before moving 
statewide in order to extend the educational period over a period of time 
and also in order to convince some of the skeptics about the feasibility of 
ranked ballots.  Right now, our most serious open opposition outside of the 
General Assembly is coming from the Maryland Association of Election 
Officials (MAEO, sadly, chaired by the head of my home county's BoE), which 
has openly opposed IRV, citing the cost of educating the public and 
procurement of IRV-compatible machines.  HB 1457 is removing the fiscal 
argument, leaving only the education argument.  What needs to happen is to 
educate the county boards just as we have begun to educate the State Board 
about the feasibility of the system and our willingness to help in the 
educational process.

Sorry for the long message, but I hope that this information is helpful.

Isaac Opalinsky
diopey@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com