On September 1 Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Joseph P. Manuck upheld Maryland's decision to use electronic voting machines in the November 2 election. The decision was reached 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 against any reasonable risks," wrote Manuck in the The Court's Memorandum Opinion. Plaintiff Linda Schade, co-founder of TrueVoteMD.org, said that "The judge did not respond to the testimony of the witnesses. Schade does not believe the machines, made by the Diebold Inc., are reliable or secure. "Diebold AccuVote TS Electronic Voting System cannot preserve freedom," she said. 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 to speak out against the electronic voting systems. Both are experts in the field of electronic security and have issued reports against the Diebold systems. The reports cite numerous deficiencies in the system including lacking "several critical security updates from Microsoft," and finding "significant and wide-reaching security vulnerabilities." Speaking for the Maryland State Election board, Dr. Shamos, an expert on Maryland law, said that the 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 Diebold website 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 had previously used Diebold machines in the fall of 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 of 2004 California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelly banned the use of the Diebold machines in four counties for the November 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," says Schade, the plaintiff. "Why would you trust a voting system that is being sued by another state?" However, since reports have come out saying the systems are not secure, the state of Maryland has made some changes. The state has 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 wanted to give voters who lacked confidence in the machines the option of using paper ballots. 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" writes Manuck of election law. He also writes that "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. Other action that TrueVoteMD has taken includes an appeal to this case set for September 14.
