More News

How often do the Maryland General Assembly and the governor come together and act swiftly and decisively on a good-government initiative?

Not often. But that is exactly what happened in 2007-08, when the House and Senate voted unanimously and the governor concurred to bring optical scan (op scan) voting to Maryland for the 2010 elections.

In 2004, Maryland moved to touch-screen voting. This system provides kiosks where voters press on the screen to cast their ballots, and their votes are recorded electronically. One of the extra benefits of this system has been that it facilitates a high level of accessibility for disabled voters.

However, touch-screen voting has not been the panacea that the good-government folks are looking for. A major problem has been the lack of a paper trail to verify the electronic voting.

Op scan was chosen as the system to go with because the voter fills in the ovals on a paper ballot, and the ballot is read by the optical scanner, thereby facilitating fast reporting of election outcomes. At the same time, a paper trail exists to verify accuracy — the ballot itself.

Hallelujah! Good government prevails. Op scan is coming our way, as promised, for the 2010 elections, right?

Wrong. Gov. O'Malley took op scan out of the FY2011 budget. Joseph Bryce, chief legislative officer for the governor, says the problem was "purely fiscal." The governor has done what it took to try to make op scan happen, but the money just wasn't there.

Op scan advocates such as Rebecca Wilson, co-founder of Save Our Votes, cry foul, saying the state Board of Elections "low-balled the cost of keeping the touch screens and overestimated the costs for op scan" for the governor last fall. They purport that bringing the new system on board actually would cost less than keeping the touch screens.

Their case was fortified by SBE Administrator Linda Lamone's testimony last week that greatly increased the amount of funds needed to keep touch screens and brings costs up to about as much as the op scan estimates from the elections board.

The advocates also charge that the estimates for op scans were front-loaded rather than spread out, as state financing provides, that the costs of year-round program managing and tech support are exorbitant, and that the charges for peripheral supplies like voting booths and carts are unnecessary.

The state, listening to their elections administrators from the 24 jurisdictions, are asking to buy carts to help move the one, heavy op scan machine and many free-standing voting booths for each polling place. The advocates say this a "Cadillac" approach that we can't afford. They argue that there is no need for those outrageously expensive carts and assert that most states don't use them. And, why buy voting booths when most of the voting sites in Maryland are in schools, libraries and similar places where there already are desks or tables and chairs, and inexpensive plastic tabletop privacy screens would be more than ample?

Ross Goldstein, deputy administrator for SBE, admits that with touch screens the state must have 18,000-plus voting booths, and with op scan only 2,000 are needed; however, we already have the touch screens whereas we would have to buy new op scans. He estimates that at a minimum, implementing op scan would cost $6 million more that the touch screens in FY 2011, because of all the needs. They include the voting booths, paper ballots, pens and other supplies, as well as start-up costs like voter outreach and public service announcements.

The advocates for op scan are so disheartened. The state has had three years to get ready for the 2010 elections with op scan. More than half of the states in the U.S. use op scan, according to electionline.org, a Pew Center on the States Election Information Project. So why isn't it happening in Maryland?

It's the cost to the state and the local jurisdictions, which split the bill. The Maryland Association of Counties told the governor last fall and the Board of Public Works more recently to "reject" the op scan contract "on the grounds of affordability, effectiveness and administrative implementation."

That statement leads to another major factor involved here. It is clear to me that election officials across the state don't want op scan. As one election official stated, "We got our marching orders and we'll do it, regardless of what we think about it." I sense a "we know better than the Legislature" attitude and exasperation with how a new system is being thrust upon election boards statewide.

"The touch-screen system is quicker and greener," says Guy C. Mickley, deputy director of the Howard County Board of Elections and president of the Maryland Association of Election Officials. He has had experience with op scan and says his election personnel found the ballots to be heavy and cumbersome.

SBE's Goldstein polled election officials across the state, and they were very concerned about voting taking longer with op scan and that more space might be needed for voters to use paper ballots. Having only had touch screen since 2004, is asking the localities to change to a new system too much for the people who have to implement the system, especially when they think touch screen without paper verification is a better system?

Goldstein highlights that by waiting the state hopefully will gain more competition in the bidding process and thereby save money for Maryland taxpayers. Another benefit could be finding a system for all voters. With op scan this year, the disabled still would use the touch-screen system because that technology is more accommodating.

But you have to wonder. How can Florida, North Carolina and so many other states already have op scan, but we can't do it here in Maryland? Unanimously our legislators ordered that it be done by the 2010 elections. Good government lost.

Gail Ewing of Potomac is a retired at-large Montgomery County Council member. Her e-mail address is gewing73@comcast.net.