Paper trail possible for ’07, ’08 elections

Lamone proposes hybrid system until touch-screen voting machines can be equipped with printers

‘‘As we move forward, we need to have time to implement changes to ensure we have high standards,” Lamone told the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday. Her proposal would ‘‘provide an immediate and reasonable partial solution that gives a voter-verified paper record to those voters who want one.”

The state board would add a paper trail to the electronic machines in time for the 2010 gubernatorial election, she said.

Critics said the plan fails to increase voter confidence if there is no way to review all ballots, including those recorded on the touch-screen machines, which do not have printers.

‘‘We need a system-wide solution to make sure the entire system is auditable and verifiable,” said Johanna Neumann, a policy advocate for Maryland Public Interest Research Group. ‘‘If you start piecemealing, I think that just erodes voter confidence even more.

‘‘Voters want one system that they know is going to deliver a secure election,” she said. ‘‘They don’t want a supermarket of options.”

Ways and Means Chairwoman Sheila E. Hixson (D-Dist. 20) of Silver Spring, who sponsored the paper trail legislation, said the bill is a ‘‘work in progress” that could be considerably refined before it reaches the House floor.

Lamone, who has repeatedly defended the reliability and security of the Diebold voting machines, acknowledged a consensus among top legislators to implement some kind of voter-verified paper trail. She said that would take at least 18 months, leaving the state to find another plan for the next two election years.

Paper trail advocates disagreed with her timeline, saying an optical-scan system could be installed in time and would be simple for voters to use.

‘‘It’s not a lot of work to ask a voter to pick up a pen and fill out a piece of paper,” said Shazia N. Anwar, executive director of TrueVoteMD.org, a Takoma Park election advocacy group.

Lawmakers questioned how Lamone’s proposal would be able to provide a recount in 2008 if all voters aren’t required to use the optical scanners.

‘‘It doesn’t answer the logic of if we’re going to provide a paper trail because we want to create secure elections, then only provide a paper trail for a fraction of the votes. That doesn’t solve a problem,” said Del. Jon S. Cardin (D-Dist. 11) of Baltimore.

Adding a paper trail is critical to preventing fraud or glitches that could skew vote counts, said Edward W. Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton University. It would provide a similar kind of security that protects automated teller machines.

‘‘One of the most important lines of defense within the ATM is a paper record,” he said, noting that one receipt is given to the customer and one is stored electronically.

Del. Melvin L. Stukes (D-Dist. 44) of Baltimore asked Felten if there is a model that Maryland can follow to improve its elections technology. ‘‘Is there anybody on the planet doing this thing right?”

Felten replied that the more safety mechanisms that are in place, the better. A touch-screen machine that provides paper receipts could be ‘‘suitably secure.”

The most secure and reliable method, Felten said, would be an optical-scan system that combines a paper method of voting and electronic method of recording votes.

‘‘It takes one kind of fraud to compromise an electronic system and a different kind of fraud to compromise a paper ballot,” he said. ‘‘You can have a kind of belt-and-suspenders approach to security.”