P.O. Box 7041 Columbia, MD 21045
410/381-1811
Email us
DONATE NOW!
| P.O. Box 7041 Columbia, MD 21045 410/381-1811 Email us DONATE NOW! |
|||
| . |
RESOURCES GET INVOLVED |
General Assembly Orders Independent Study of Voting April 12, 2010 - Maryland should be voting on a new, reliable paper-ballot voting system in this year's elections, according to a law passed in 2007 mandating a change away from the highly vulnerable touch-screen voting equipment. But the transition was delayed based on cost estimates supplied by the State Board of Elections (SBE) which asserted that it would be far less expensive to continue using the current equipment. Skepticism about the accuracy of those cost projections has prompted the General Assembly to order an independent study of the costs of operating the current touch-screen voting system and the costs of switching to the paper ballot/optical scan voting system mandated by law. Read more Maryland Deserves Verifiable Voting in 2010!SOV Cost Analysis of buying and implementing new paper ballot/optical scan March 4, 2010 - Three years ago Maryland passed a law requiring the state to adopt a proven, verifiable, and cost-effective paper ballot/optical-scan voting system by 2010. But Governor O'Malley recently cut the funding to purchase the new voting system because of Maryland's severe fiscal crisis. That's not surprising, since the State Board of Elections (SBE) had told the Governor that it would cost the state $77 million to buy and operate roughly the same amount and type of equipment that Cuyahoga County, Ohio purchased and operates for about $16 million. In fact, the SBE told the governor it would cost Maryland $18 million next year alone! What accounts for the staggering cost difference between Maryland and Ohio? It's partly the $360 voting booths MD chose — Cuyahoga retrofitted their old punch-card booths for $35 each instead. Or maybe it's the $2.5 million per year in project managers the SBE plans to hire — at a time when other state employees are experiencing furloughs and layoffs. But the most important difference is that the Ohio election official in charge was committed to creating a smooth and cost-effective transition to an optical-scan voting system. She actively sought input from election integrity advocates who had the legal and technical expertise to help ensure a lean and cost-effective contract for the new system. If Ohio, Florida, and New York can do this so efficiently, why not Maryland? The sooner we transition to a safer, more reliable voting system, the sooner the state — and our cash-strapped counties — will benefit from extensive cost savings in operations and maintenance. Our current touch-screen voting systems cause long lines at the polls, cannot prove their accuracy, and do not allow meaningful recounts.
|
||