SBE put out a request for proposal (RFP) over a year ago for new voting machines and ultimately received three viable bids for the contract.

DeMarinis says ES&S provided the “best product to move forward with,” but Senior Advisor on Election Security at Free Speech For People Susan Greenhalgh disagrees.

“The $109 million price tag is unbelievably high for a state the size of Maryland,” Greenhalgh said. “A state the size of Maryland should see sizable differences – a 20% or more discount for something like this.”

Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County), who vice chairs the Senate committee that deals with election issues, also raised concerns over the cost of the new voting system.

“$109 million is a lot of money in tight fiscal times. We need to be very careful about what we spend money on and whether it’s needed, whether it’s needed now,” Kagan said. “The question of new voting equipment, both for the 2028 election, and then another version in 2030, is raising concerns among some of my colleagues, as well as by advocates.”

Kagan is referring to the crux of the controversy around the new voting system, which has to do with its federal certification, or lack thereof.

In 2005, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) created the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which are a set of principles and standards for election equipment. This initial set of standards is known as VVSG 1.0.

In 2021, the EAC adopted VVSG 2.0, which bolsters requirements around usability, accessibility and security for voting equipment.

The voting system that ES&S would initially be providing Maryland for the 2028 election meets the over 20-year-old 1.0 standards and was approved for operational use statewide by SBE in April.

But the contract also requires ES&S to implement a 2.0-compliant voting system in Maryland by 2030.

This troubles Greenlagh, who argues Maryland would be entering a contract while the 2.0 system is still under development.

“Maryland, in essence, will be committing in this contract to pay tens of millions of dollars for a system that it hasn’t tried, it hasn’t examined, it hasn’t tested, and is not really ready for prime time.”

“It feels as though we’re buying a house that we’ve never been able to walk through. We need to be able to test it and verify that it works for Maryland,” Kagan added.

WYPR reached out to ES&S for clarification on the status of the 2.0 system, and Government Regulatory Specialist Mac O’Connor provided the following statement:

“ES&S will work with the State Board of Elections on delivering a VVSG 2.0 compliant version prior to 2030, as required by the RFP. The Maryland State Board of Elections has not pre-determined which VVSG 2.0 version will be implemented in the state. ES&S’s next VVSG 2.0 release will be submitted to the EAC immediately following the completed certification of the version currently in testing.”

DeMarinis is confident ES&S will deliver on a certified 2.0 system by Jan. 1, 2030 and says the system would have to meet federal and state standards before becoming operational.

“If the vendor fails to meet that standard, then the vendor is in breach of contract, at which point the contract would be terminated and then we would seek damages for that, but it’s a contractual obligation,” DeMarinis said, continuing on to say ES&S would face reputational damage nationwide if it breached its contract.

ES&S’s $109 million bid was the most expensive of the three voting system vendors, although DeMarinis points out that all of the viable bids were above $90 million.

Maryland’s current voting system contract is costing the state over $77 million.

“We did a debrief as to why the the other ones did not meet the technical requirements for the state of Maryland and why they were ranked lower technically,” DeMarinis said. “I don’t think that the cost was in any sort of way not reflective of what we were budgeted for and expected.”

But the price tag and certification status isn’t the only turmoil surrounding the ES&S contract; Greenhalgh is also frustrated with the friction she was met with when trying to raise these concerns to SBE.

Greenhalgh says providing public comment at SBE meetings in the past few months has not been easy, noting she was denied the opportunity to speak at the Board’s May meeting.

She spoke at SBE’s June 25 meeting, which came just days before the Board of Public Works was slated to vote on the contract’s approval, although she was denied the opportunity to respond to SBE member’s questions at the meeting.

Instead, SBE Chair Michael Summers asked Greenhalgh to submit a written response to the board.

This prompted Kagan to send a letter to SBE, questioning how Greenhalgh’s response would be accessed by the public and how interested parties would be notified.

“Marylanders deserve a transparent process, especially when the Board is debating the procurement of more than $100,000,000 in election equipment– an item that directly affects public trust in our elections. I look forward to hearing back from you prior to the July 1 meeting,” the letter reads.

Within days of Kagan’s letter being sent, the senator and Greenhalgh told WYPR that the Board of Public Works (BPW) – chaired by Gov. Wes Moore, Comptroller Brooke Lierman and Treasurer Dereck Davis – intended to pull the voting system contract from its July 1 agenda.

“I think there were some questions that the BPW wanted to have answered. We’re happy to– we answered them; maybe they have more follow-up. So we’re ready to proceed in two weeks’ time as well. We just want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable moving forward with this procurement,” DeMarinis said.

He went on to say that he finds the concerns around the contract approval process to be “disingenuous,” arguing transparency within any procurement process is one of his top priorities.

“This has been a very open and transparent process from the RFP, throughout its entire course, to its conclusion,” DeMarinis said. “We have been extremely transparent throughout, not only just on this procurement, but with all our procurements and our activities in general.”

The contract is now expected to come before BPW for approval at its July 22 meeting.