At the February 19, 2026 meeting of the Maryland State Board of Elections, Secure the Vote Maryland (STVMD) presented public comments raising questions about voter list maintenance, provisional ballot transparency, and communications to underage registrants.
What followed was a series of responses-from the State Board, from the League of Women Voters of Maryland (LWV), and ultimately from STVMD.
This page provides the full record, including:
• Our original public comment
• The State's response
• Our follow-up response
• The LWV letter
• Our rebuttal
We believe transparency is essential. Readers can review each document directly and draw their own conclusions.
STVMD Public Comment (February 19, 2026)
At the Board meeting, STVMD raised three core issues:
• List Maintenance:
Approximately 904,000 voters remain listed as "Active" despite not voting in more than two election cycles. The concern is not inactivity itself, but whether the current system adequately identifies registrations that may no longer be valid.
• Provisional Voting Transparency:
Provisional ballot use has increased significantly, yet detailed "reason codes" are not clearly communicated to the public or consistently reflected in official materials.
• Underage Voter Communications:
A "Voter Registration Card" sent to a minor appeared to indicate eligibility to vote. We recommended clearer communication stating that voting before age 18 is illegal. These comments were based on analysis of official Maryland voter registration data and intended to identify areas for improvement-not to undermine confidence in elections.
State Board of Elections Response (March 6, 2026)
State Administrator Jared DeMarinis responded to STVMD's comments in a formal letter. Key points from the State's response include:
• Legal Constraints on List Maintenance:
Voters cannot be removed solely for inactivity. Removal requires specific triggers such as confirmation of a move or voter request.
• Provisional Ballot Improvements:
The State confirmed that new provisional ballot "reason codes" have been implemented to improve tracking and transparency.
• Underage Voting Clarification:
The State attributed the identified "471 underage voters" to a lawful exception allowing certain 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 by the general election.
The State emphasized that Maryland's election system is secure and that misinformation must be actively addressed.
STVMD Follow-Up Response to the State (March 28, 2026)
STVMD responded by clarifying that our concern was not a misunderstanding of the law, but a structural limitation within it.
Key clarifications:
• The issue is not removing voters due to inactivity, but the absence of a mechanism to address registrations that never trigger the existing review process.
• We acknowledged and supported the State's improvements to provisional ballot reason codes as a meaningful step forward.
• On underage registrants, we emphasized that the concern is confusing communication, not the legality of preregistration.
League of Women Voters Letter (February 27, 2026)
Following the February Board meeting, LWV submitted a letter criticizing STVMD's comments and the Board's handling of them.
LWV's key claims include:
• That STVMD suggested Maryland voter rolls contain "almost 1 million illegal voters"
• That concerns about underage voting are "ludicrous"
• That the Board should have publicly rebutted STVMD's comments
• That STVMD is part of a broader network spreading election "disinformation"
LWV also requested that the Board publicly affirm that Maryland's elections are secure.
STVMD Rebuttal to LWV (April 1, 2026)
STVMD submitted a formal response addressing LWV's claims. Key points from our rebuttal include:
• Mischaracterization of Our Comments:
We did not claim "1 million illegal voters." We cited inactivity data and raised questions about list maintenance standards.
• Evidence-Based Analysis:
All findings are based on official Maryland voter rolls and are fully traceable and reproducible.
• Underage Voting Concern:
Our focus was on preventing confusion among minors and improving communication-not alleging widespread violations.
• Transparency and Accountability:
We agree that public concerns should be addressed openly and that the State should engage directly with data-driven questions.
• Independence of Election Administration:
We raised concerns about any advocacy organization positioning itself as a "partner" in election administration.
Why This Matters
Secure the Vote Maryland believes that identifying vulnerabilities strengthens-not weakens-democracy, that transparency builds trust, and that better data leads to better policy. Confidence in election outcomes depends on openly addressing proven vulnerabilities in the system. Integrity requires continuous scrutiny, transparency, and validation-and that scrutiny strengthens democracy.
STVMD's public comments served as a catalyst for a broader, more constructive discussion about the state of Maryland's voter rolls. The skepticism expressed by LWV created an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of our data and the importance of addressing these issues directly. We can safeguard election integrity while also promoting access; in fact, greater trust leads to greater participation, advancing the shared goals of all parties engaged in this conversation.