Sherman, Alan T.Gangopadhyay, AryyaHolden, Stephen H.Karabatis, GeorgeKoru, A. GunesLaw, Chris M.Norris, Donald F.Pinkston, JohnSears, AndrewZhang, Dongsong2019-02-212019-02-212006-04-15http://hdl.handle.net/11603/12840We describe our findings and experiences from our technical review of vote verification systems for the Maryland State Board of Elections (SBE). The review included the following four systems for possible use together with Maryland’s existing Diebold AccuVote-TS (touch screen) voting system: VoteHere Sentinel; SCYTL Pnyx.DRE; MIT-Selker audio system; Diebold voter verified paper audit trail. As a baseline, we also examined the SBE’s procedures for “parallel testing” of its Diebold system. For each system, we examined how it enables voters who use touch screens to verify that their votes are cast as intended, recorded as cast, and reported as recorded. We also examined how well it permits post-election auditing. To this end, we considered implementation, impact on current state voting processes and procedures, impact on voting, functional completeness, security against fraud, attack and failure, reliability, accessibility, and voter privacy.14 pagesen-USThis item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.diebold accuvoteTSdiebold VVPATdirect recording equipment (DRE)computer system securityelectronic voting systemsinformation assurancemaryland state board of electionsMIT Selker VVAATTparallel testingscytl pnyx.DREVoteHere Sentinelvote verification technologyText