State rejects voter's bid to have paper ballot counted Judge rejects voter's appeal, chastises county for process

07/08/04
By Pete Pichaske
Email this story to a friend

A state hearing officer last week rejected a Columbia woman's complaint that the county improperly failed to count her vote in the March 2 primary election.

However, the officer chided Howard County election officials for contributing to the mix-up, and ordered them to ensure that similar snafus do not occur in the November general election.

Helen Kolbe was one of 22 Howard County voters March 2 who filled out a paper ballot rather than use the new touch-screen voting machines, and whose votes the county did not count.

Kolbe and the others specifically asked for a paper ballot as part of a statewide protest against the voting machines, which are being used in most of the state for the first time this year. Critics say the machines provide no back-up "paper trail" of votes, and are therefore vulnerable to tampering.

Howard County election officials said they could not accept the votes since the 22 were not eligible to file such "provisional ballots."

Voters are allowed to use paper ballots in some cases, including, for example, if they mailed in their votes. But state election officials do not consider mistrust of the touch-screen machines a valid reason for using a paper ballot.

Kolbe complained that Howard election officials did not tell her until after the election that her paper vote would not count. The election judge at her polling place, Bryant Wood Elementary School in Columbia, led her to believe her paper ballot would count, she said.

Kolbe appealed the decision to toss out her vote to the state Board of Elections in April.

On July 1, board hearing officer Nikki Trella ruled that while the election judge should have warned Kolbe that her paper vote would not count, that mistake "constituted an act of omission and does not approach the level of fraud."

The judge, therefore, did not purposefully deceive Kolbe, Trella ruled. Also, Kolbe should have known that she did not qualify to cast a provisional ballot, Trella ruled.

Moreover, Kolbe used the paper ballot to protest the voting machines, and therefore "must bear the consequences of not ensuring that her method of protest was consistent with the law," Trella ruled.

But Trella faulted the election judge for not telling Kolbe that her paper ballot didn't count.

To avoid similar misunderstandings in November, Trella ordered the county to "provide sufficient instructions to and to post information at county polling places warning voters that a provisional ballot cast by a voter who is otherwise qualified to vote a regular ballot ... is not allowed and will be rejected."

Kolbe may file suit

Kolbe said the decision disappointed her.

"I think they would've been much wiser to count my vote and the others that were thrown out," she said.

While she does not have the right to appeal the decision, she could file a lawsuit challenging it, she said, adding that she has not decided whether to do so.

Guy Harriman, president of the county board of elections, said the ruling did not surprise him.

"We knew we had followed the state's instructions," he said. "We had applied all of the state's requirements."

County election officials already had planned to retrain polling judges before the November election in an effort to ensure that they understand the law on provisional ballots, and to post warnings about the ballots at polling places, Harriman added.

"Some judges got the information, some did not," Harriman said of the March elections. "We just couldn't get all of it out in such a short period of time."

The new electronic voting machines, he added, confused some judges and voters, and led to the improper votes. Harriman predicted far fewer problems in the November election.

Critics of the new system remain skeptical.

Janice Manyak is among the 22 county voters whose paper ballot the board rejected. She is hosting a potluck dinner July 11 at her home in Ellicott City to talk about the voting machines.

"It's informational," Manyak said of the meeting. "It's an opportunity for people concerned about this system to hear from others involved."

A representative from True Vote Maryland, an organization leading the fight against the touch-screen voting machines, is expected to attend the meeting, Manyak said.