ANNAPOLIS — A study criticizing one widely marketed electronic voting system as so flawed it could lead to more election fraud is causing some officials to reassess plans to purchase touch-screen computer terminals.
But the study itself by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore has been criticized by election officials who said the authors of the report don’t understand the levels of security built into state and local election systems.
“I do think there are a number of states out there that are taking a look just to make sure that the public knows everything is secure,” said Kay Albowicz, director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State.
In Maryland, which has plans to buy $55.6 million worth of Diebold Election Systems machines, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, has commissioned a study by a private consultant to investigate possible security flaws.
In North Dakota, a state plan to upgrade election equipment to comply with the new federal Help America Vote Act has been amended to eliminate references to voting machines. The change will provide “a pause before moving forward with any kind of specific technology,” Deputy Secretary of State Cory Fong said.
The Diebold system that Maryland plans to buy was the subject of the July 24 report by Johns Hopkins computer security researchers that said the machines would be subject to manipulation by voters and other outsiders, in addition to state and local election officials.
Diebold President Tom Swidarski dismissed the findings as “misguided conclusions” that resulted from faulty research, including, he said, testing of outdated computer codes for the touch-screen software.
There was no peer review of the study, and “neither Diebold nor any election official was contacted,” Mr. Swidarski said.
Avi Ruben, lead researcher for the report done for Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, stands by his finding that the Diebold system is so flawed it can’t be made secure from fraud and manipulation.
The problems are so basic there is no quick fix, he said.
Electronic machines allow voters to cast ballots by touching appropriate places on the computer screen. One of the advantages is that they can preserve secrecy of the ballot for voters who are blind or have very limited sight.
Those voters can work their way through the ballot using headphones to guide their choices.
The federal Help America Vote Act, signed by President Bush last October, set aside $3.9 billion to help state and local election officials replace lever and punch-card voting systems before the presidential election next year. By 2006, all machines must be capable of allowing voters to confirm the accuracy of their ballots, one of the advantages of electronic voting terminals.
Systems using touch-screen computers are generally seen by election officials as the best way to comply with the federal law. In areas where they have been used in the past, the Hopkins report has not shaken confidence in the electronic machines.
Kathy Rogers, director of election administration in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, said she has “the utmost confidence” in the Diebold system, which was used for the state election last year.
“It’s a travesty that all of these reports are coming out because this is the way to vote. Voters love it,” she said.
Virginia officials recently approved purchase of the Diebold system for use in Norfolk, and election officials in San Diego have asked the state to certify that the Diebold system is secure so the county can buy 10,000 touch-screen terminals.
Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer said the big problem with the Hopkins report is that researchers looked only at the computer equipment, not all the steps that election officials take to protect the security of the ballot.
Miss Rogers agreed, saying the researchers “did not take into account all the safeguards we have in place for an election.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.