**[REBUTTAL TO UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND]{.underline}**

This report addresses the "Debugging Maryland Balloting" Op Ed piece
that appeared in the Washington Post on May 12, 2002 and the \"Usability
Review of the Diebold DRE System for the Four Counties in the State of
Maryland\", both of which were authored by Professors Paul S. Herrnson
and Benjamin B. Bederson of the University of Maryland College Park.

The major concern of the Maryland State Board of Elections (SBE) is that
these professors did not test the machines that the State is putting
into the hands of the voters. The machines used by the University of
Maryland were actually still under the contractor\'s ownership and
control. The machines used for testing had not yet gone through SBE's
rigorous acceptance testing process. In addition, the demonstration
ballot had been created by the contractor, was not sanctioned by SBE,
and obviously did not meet SBE ballot standards.

**This report cites the six inaccuracies that exist in the op ed piece,
in the order in which they were reported. The underlined parts are what
are considered incorrect.**

***1:*** "The good news is that Maryland took action to avoid a disaster
such as Florida had in 2000. At the legislature's direction, the state
and the four counties with the oldest technology---[Montgomery (it had
the same punch cards that proved a disaster in Florida),]{.underline}
Prince Georges's Allegany and Dorchester---chipped in to buy new
machines."

***SBE Response:*** Montgomery County did not use the same punch card
system as Florida. They used the Datavote system, not a Votomatic-type
card system that was used in Florida.

***2:*** "[The system needs some reprogramming; it currently uses
inconsistent terminology that could confuse voters.]{.underline}"

***SBE Response:*** The State Board of Elections has developed and
established standard ballot terminology. SBE has instituted these
standards on all ballots used on the new voting system. SBE does not
have any information on the ballot used in the University of Maryland
"Usability Review".

***3:*** "[Help instructions are unclear and are not available
throughout the voting process. A help button should be
added.]{.underline}"

***SBE Response:*** The ballot standards used on the new voting system
include comprehensive text and audio instructions. A function that will
provide the ability for voters to retrieve instructions during any point
in the voting process is not available in the current software version.
SBE has requested that Diebold Elections Systems provide this function
in a future software upgrade.

***4*:** "[No warning is given for over voting, and it is unclear how
voters are to make a change once they have selected a
candidate.]{.underline}"

***SBE Response:*** The ballot standards issued by SBE do not permit
over voting on the new voting system. Preventing over voting is an
option in the software. SBE does not have any information on the
programming of the ballot configuration used in the University of
Maryland review.

***5:*** "[The audio version designed for the disabled is confusing and
hard to navigate.]{.underline}"

***SBE Response:*** Audio ballots are developed from the text-based
ballots. If the text version of the ballot that was used was unclear,
then it is likely that the audio version would also be unclear and
confusing. Again, because SBE did not develop nor approve of the ballot
that was used, SBE cannot respond further to this issue. Furthermore,
the Diebold election system is the system preferred by the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB).

***6:*** "On Election Day, in real polling places with a more
representative range of voters, the problems and concerns could be even
greater. That's why officials need to start now to [launch a major voter
education campaign in the four counties."]{.underline}

***SBE Response:*** Pursuant to the State Election Law and the SBE
regulations, SBE mandated in the December 2001 contract that Diebold
provide an extensive voter outreach program.

As of May 14, 2002, approximately 10,000 voters have used the new voting
system in a demonstration environment. In addition 56,320 students used
the new voting system in a Montgomery County high school election in
late April. The new voting equipment has been used in five successful
elections in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties since early March.
Allegany County has held demonstrations at one municipal election
polling location and is scheduled to conduct demonstrations during four
additional municipal elections. Dorchester County is demonstrating the
voting units at schools, churches, and firehouses. A mock election is
scheduled in Dorchester County on June 8, 2002.

In addition, 30 demonstrations are currently scheduled through mid-June
in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; with additional
demonstration sessions added each week. Please refer to SBE web site,
[www.mdvotes.org](http://www.mdvotes.org/), for up-to-date demonstration
schedules.

**This report comments on the University of Maryland review,
\"[Usability Review of the Diebold DRE system for Four Counties in the
State of Maryland.\"]{.underline}**

The review cites problems mostly with the ballot layout that SBE has
addressed through ballot layout standards. Additional observations of
the review cite the following specific issues:

1.  Inserting card was very confusing

***SBE Response:*** Inserting the voter access card is not confusing
with proper signage on the voting equipment. Voter education anecdotal
evidence from actual elections indicates otherwise.

***2***. Concerns about reliability

***SBE Response:*** Pursuant to SBE regulations, a full test of each
unit must be conducted prior to acceptance and use.

***3.*** Colors are not well chosen

***SBE Response:*** SBE has established ballot standards that include
colors that are easy to read and comply with the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1998 (Section 508, §1194.26).

**4.** Font size could be bigger

***SBE Response:*** Increased font size is available upon request of the
voter. SBE can assume that the testing participants did not have a
working knowledge of the equipment.

***5.*** Layout of the ballot was confusing

***SBE Response:*** SBE has developed a simple, straightforward ballot
standard that is receiving widespread, positive reactions from voters
that have used the equipment in elections or demonstration environments.

May 21, 2002