By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
This article is based primarily on detailed interviews with one former Maryland election judge who worked multiple cycles through 2024. An additional judge independently corroborated key portions of the account but asked not to be quoted. No allegations of fraud are made.
Marylanders are repeatedly told their elections are “safe and secure,” supported by paper ballots, redundant audits, and a trusted vote-counting process. But some of the people who actually run those elections say the reality on the ground is far less reassuring.
MDBayNews spoke with a former Maryland election judge who agreed to describe her experience anonymously due to concerns about retaliation tied to disability-related housing and state services. Her account aligns with Maryland’s own public election manuals and procedures — and exposes structural weaknesses that rarely receive public attention.
What she describes is not evidence of rigged elections. It is evidence of a system that relies more on trust than on proof.
“We’re Not Allowed to Ask for ID” — A Built-In Weakness in Voter Verification
Under Maryland law, election judges are prohibited from asking voters for identification except in one narrow situation: same-day registration using a provisional ballot. The 2024 Election Judges’ Manual explicitly states, “Election judges may NOT ask for photo ID” except for that scenario.
“Anyone can walk in with someone else’s name, address, and birthdate,” the judge said. “We’re not allowed to ask for ID. And the public has no idea this is the rule.”
She also described the loose oversight surrounding ballot “assistance,” noting that groups sometimes accompany voters who do not speak English and effectively fill out ballots for them. Maryland law allows ballot assistance, but the process is difficult to supervise consistently at scale.
This is not an allegation of misconduct — but it is a verifiable gap in how Maryland authenticates voters at the polls.
The Count Happens on Memory Sticks — Not the Ballots
Maryland uses hand-marked paper ballots, but the election-night tally does not come from the paper itself. According to the State Board of Elections’ own documentation, the precinct scanners save results onto removable USB-style memory drives that election judges transport to county election offices.
The ballots remain sealed inside the machines.
“That stick is what gets counted,” the judge said. “Not the paper — at least not on election night.”
SBE’s publicly available “results transmission” diagrams confirm this process: memory drives are removed by a bipartisan judge team, sealed, and transported; ballots stay behind until equipment retrieval teams collect the machines.
“At my precinct in 2022, the machines and ballots weren’t picked up for about a week,” she said. “Results were already called and certified long before anyone collected the paper.”
State rules require equipment pickup “as soon as practicable,” a phrase that sets no firm deadline. In practice, retrieval often happens days later — and sometimes much later in busier counties.
This does not imply manipulation occurred. But it shows that Maryland’s security depends heavily on chain-of-custody practices that the public never sees.
A System That Functions on “Integrity,” Not Verification
“The whole system is built almost entirely on trust — on integrity,” she said. “But everything has an explanation. Nothing is independently verifiable for the public.”
Maryland emphasizes that its system is “not connected to the internet,” but that’s only partly true. Pollbooks — the tablets used to check in voters — operate on a private network that allows real-time updates. State officials clarify that the network isn’t the public internet, but technical documentation and past media reports confirm that wireless connectivity has caused issues in the past, including clock errors and slowdowns.
Again: no claim of tampering. But a reminder that connectivity exists, even where the messaging is simplified for public reassurance.
Mail-In Drop-Off: Logs Used in Some Places, Not Others
Maryland voters can return mail-in ballots by mail, drop box, or at a polling place. But documentation varies widely.
Polling-place drop-offs are supposed to use a sign-in log. Standalone drop boxes do not.
During one 2024 shift, the judge said her polling-place log had gone missing — and had apparently not been used all day.
“The bag was already half-full and we had no record of who dropped what,” she said. “That inconsistency — some drop-offs logged, most not — struck me as more theater than security.”
Maryland’s mail-in ballot pages confirm that drop boxes do not require sign-ins. Local boards differ on whether polling-place logs are consistently used or enforced.
Training Gaps: Provisional Ballots Mishandled Under Pressure
Provisional ballots carry the strictest handling requirements in the entire voting process. But training varies by county, and Chief Judges are not required to receive hands-on instruction for provisional procedures.
In 2022, the judge said, the worker assigned to provisional ballots “had zero idea how to do anything,” and she and another first-year Chief Judge had to call the county office for help.
“When the line is long and people are waiting, a manual is not enough,” she said.
The State Board’s manuals confirm that training is mandatory, but that actual procedural proficiency depends heavily on local implementation. In high-pressure situations, that variability becomes a vulnerability.
Pollbooks: A Networked System With a Public Messaging Problem
Maryland officials frequently assure voters that pollbooks are “not connected to the internet.” This is accurate in the narrow sense — but incomplete.
Pollbooks connect to a statewide private network, allowing real-time voter check-in updates, same-day registration verification, and precinct-to-precinct communication. Past reporting and SBE materials acknowledge that network connectivity has caused technical issues, including delays and timing errors.
“There’s a difference between ‘not connected to the internet’ and ‘never networked at all,’” the judge said. “People deserve the full picture.”
Networked devices are not inherently insecure — but transparency is essential.
Why These Insider Perspectives Matter
The judge emphasized that she did not witness fraud, nor does she accuse any individual of wrongdoing.
Her concern is structural:
“If the system is strong, it shouldn’t be afraid of daylight. It should be easy to prove everything was done correctly — not impossible.”
Marylanders of all political backgrounds increasingly mistrust elections not because of conspiracy theories, but because the system seems to rely on procedures the public cannot see or verify. Real transparency — not slogans — is the antidote.
What MDBayNews Will Request Through MPIA
MDBayNews will file Maryland Public Information Act requests for:
- chain-of-custody logs for memory sticks
- chain-of-custody logs for ballots and voting machines
- retrieval schedules for machines and ballots
- provisional ballot training materials
- incident reports involving provisional ballots (2020–2024)
- documentation on mail-in drop-off procedures
- pollbook network diagrams and connectivity explanations
- post-election audit plans and reports
We will publish every page as soon as they arrive — no spin, no cherry-picking.
In the meantime, one question lingers from the people who actually run the polling places:
If the system is as secure as officials claim, why does so much of it still run on trust instead of proof?
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.