--The Ohio state official holding authority over administering the
presidential vote in Ohio, the Secretary of State, was also
co-chairperson of the state campaign for the Republican Party
presidential candidate.

--That same Secretary of State, in response to a duly and timely and
properly prepaid filing to request a recount of the Ohio presidential
votes, decreed without practical cause that certification of the
original
presidential vote tally would be delayed until the last legally
allowable
date, so that the recount could not possibly even begin until after the
presidential electors met December 13.

--The available voting machine equipment in the state of Ohio was
allocated non-uniformly to election precincts throughout the state, so
that many areas dominated by central urban populations, by people of
color, by college students, or otherwise by Democratic Party members,
were forced to vote via an inadequate number of mechanically-functional
machines in relation to population demand. As a result, prohibitively
long lines of waiting voters discouraged many from participating.

--Large numbers of voters, apparently in areas dominated by central
urban
populations and by people of color, found on November 2, 2004 that
their
existing voting registrations were without plausible cause either
deleted
or else switched to an unfamiliar precinct location, thus preventing or
discouraging their voting.

--It has been documented that voting machines furnished by certain
equipment vendors in Ohio were pre-set to show by default a vote for
the
Republican presidential candidate, so that if the voter did not
specifically and successfully change the presidential vote designation
to
another candidate, a Republican presidential vote, rather than a blank
presidential vote, would actually be cast by the machine.

--In one Ohio county, the government building was "locked down",
depriving access to media representatives and nonpartisan / bipartisan
election observers during the vote-counting process, due to an
allegation
that a terrorist attack on the building may be imminent.

--Ohio law provides that in a presidential vote recount, a RANDOMLY
CHOSEN sampling of 3% of each county's votes would be recounted first
via
reprocessing of the machine tallies along with separate hand-counting,
and only if these counts diverged would a 100% hand-recount of the
county's votes be undertaken. However, in many Ohio counties, no
random
selection was done, but in violation of the law a specific selection of
precincts/districts for the 3% pre-count was done by the Secretary of
State or by partisan local officials, providing the opportunity to
shield
97% of the county's votes from any examination which could ever reveal
possible miscounting or fraud.

--It has been documented by sworn testimony that technicians
representing
voting machine vendor Triad entered recount sites and did parts
replacement, software updating and reprogramming of the voting machines
being used for recounting, and "coached" local election officials about
how to ensure that the machine could synchronize to the initial test
hand-count figures, so that no request for a county-wide hand-count
could
possibly be generated.

--The Ohio Secretary of State did not provide uniform standards for
procedures and counting methodologies in the presidential vote recount,
in violation of the year-2000 Bush v. Gore decision of the United
States
Supreme Court, and in many instances acted unresponsively and/or
uncooperatively to the needs of the parties who had filed for the
recount
and were attempting to monitor and observe its functioning in the
various
Ohio counties.

--Representative John Conyers, Jr. of the House Judiciary Committee as
part of his investigation directed over 30 questions regarding the
conduct of the Ohio presidential vote and its recount to the Ohio
Secretary of State, but the latter refused to respond in any way,
obstructing the rights of American citizens to learn about whether
their
democratic institutions were operating correctly.

--Several lawsuits are currently in progress in the state of Ohio
challenging the validity and adequacy of the recount process. The
acceptance of Ohio electors by the Congress on January 6 without
allowing
opportunity for the judicial system to interpret whether or not the
presidential election in Ohio was free, fair and lawful, would preclude
and void the American people's means of ensuring that they are being
represented properly via their voting processes.

--At the time of the first presidential ballot count in Ohio, well over
200,000 ballots which were classified as either "provisional" or
"spoiled" ballots, had not been counted. Even after the completion of
the first recount attempt, there remains a number of uncounted
"provisional" or "spoiled" ballots, never yet processed, which is
larger
than the Ohio presidential race margin of victory which was certified
by
the Secretary of State.

--In many areas of Ohio, ballot records for the November 2, 2004
election
were not stored and protected securely, thus they were vulnerable to
the
possibility being reached by partisan individuals and potentially being
tampered with prior to any recount or later inspection.

--There are many other examples found among the 57,000 Ohio-related
complaints received by the Democratic Party members of the House
Judiciary Committee, of misinformation provided to voters, of absentee
ballots not being furnished as requested, of inadequate or misleading
instructions available regarding voting machine usage, of harassment
directed toward voters, of polls not open for their full mandated span
of
Election Day hours, etc.

--What may be most upsetting of all, is data which is only gradually
emerging from statistical analysis, showing extraordinarily unlikely
shifts November 2, 2004 in presidential vote turnout percentages
throughout Ohio: dramatic increases in turnout %, compared with that
of
year-2000, in certain heavily-Republican districts; decreases or lack
of
increase in turnout %, compared with that of year-2000, in certain
heavily-Democratic districts; extreme divergence of turnout % between
heavily-Republican & heavily-Democratic districts within the same
localities, in some areas, always favoring the Republican side;
examples
of the Republican presidential candidate running dramatically ahead of
local Republican candidates in some areas, & of the Democratic
presidential candidate running significantly behind local Democratic
candidates in some areas;
heavily-Republican-district presidential turnout reaching implausible
heights as high as 98% in some areas, & heavily-Democratic-district
presidential turnout collapsing implausibly as low as 7% in some areas.

--There are some examples, still not corrected in the certified tally
of
the Ohio presidential election, of districts showing a greater recorded
vote count than they do of registered voters, and others showing a
greater recorded absentee ballot count than they do of absentee ballots
issued to voters.

In view of all the above, how can the American people have confidence
in
their democratic institutions, in the sanctity of their rights to vote,
and in the accuracy of their presidential election choice, when
investigation, analysis and correction of the stunningly wide array of
Ohio electoral-process irregularities and abuses has NOT been carried
out
and completed? The outcome of the presidential election is obviously
decided by the electoral votes of Ohio. How can all this not be
treated
with grave concern and utmost care by those who now bear the tremendous
responsibility of accepting the counts of electors?

passing on an email I got today........

From:
Micki Kaufman,

Good day. I write you today to ask that you please cover the report
from The House Judiciary Committee by Rep. John Conyers and his staff
detailing the unresolved irregularities and allegations of fraud
reported in the 2004 Presidential election, which occurred most
notably in Ohio and other battleground states.

Rep. John Conyers (D), NY and the other members of Congress have held
forums to review allegations and testimony regarding these incidents,
which range from accusations of deliberate withholding of voting
machines in populous, inner-city polling places to tampering by
voting company officials prior to recounts, from the improper
determination of which 'random' 3% precincts would be recounted to
the manipulation of actual totals. This says nothing of the conflicts
of interest such as Sec. of State Blackwell presiding over an
election in which he himself is campaign chairman for one side, or
the massive Republican orientation of the companies controlling the
tabulation of 80% of our vote, or the unprecedented mysterious exit
poll confusion and 'recalibration', and the 'private' status of the
underlying data.

The evidence and testimony, widely described as 'debunked', has been
rigorously culled and fact checked, and what remains is fundamentally
disturbing and casts doubt on the legality of Ohio's state recount.
The info has been updated by Rep. Conyers and his staff, and you can
view it here
http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

I included the Executive Summary below for your convenience.

I hope you will review the material and consider the breadth and
depth of the kinds of issues raised, and respond according to your
best judgment.

I write you today because I am a Democrat, but there is no
finger-pointing and no partisanship required... for example, there
have been Republican accusations of fraud in the Washington
Gubernatorial race. Both Republicans and Democrats suffer if our very
electoral process is co-opted and undermined. If issues of fraud of
this nature occured in Washington's race, I would ask that you
examine them as well, to ensure Washington citizens have chosen their
properly elected leadership.

I ask you now to act in your capacity as the Fourth Estate, to stand
up for our Democracy, and protect Fair and Competitive Elections.
It's the fundament of our entire Democratic way of life.

Thank you, and I hope this New Year brings you peace and joy!

Micki Kaufman, NY


--
Executive Summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House
Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to conduct an
investigation into irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential
election and to prepare a Status Report concerning the same prior to
the Joint Meeting of Congress scheduled for January 6, 2005, to
receive and consider the votes of the electoral college for
president. The following Report includes a brief chronology of the
events; summarizes the relevant background law; provides detailed
findings (including factual findings and legal analysis); and
describes various recommendations for acting on this Report going
forward.

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio
presidential election, which resulted in a significant
disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities,
which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio,
raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors
selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms
to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional
standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent
with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning
the counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law
implementing these requirements, there are ample grounds for
challenging the electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should
engage in further hearings into the widespread irregularities
reported in Ohio; we believe the problems are serious enough to
warrant the appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and
Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3)
Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our people's trust
in our democracy. These changes should include putting in place more
specific federal protections for federal elections, particularly in
the areas of audit capability for electronic voting machines and
casting and counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed
changes to federal and state election laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there
were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in
Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional
misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of
State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign
in Ohio.

First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr.
Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials
disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly
minority and Democratic voters:

* The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long
lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of
predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by
the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County,
"27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter
showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of
the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for
Kerry." Among other things, the conscious failure to provide
sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which
requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at
each polling place for conducting the election."

* Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted
in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of
voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr.
Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional
ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would
have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did
not do so in other states.

* Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter
registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in
thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004
election.

* The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection
"caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority
voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The
Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct
violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from
targeting minority voters for poll challenges.

* The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of
partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas
likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were
not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines.
Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and
acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the
Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create
chaos, longer lines and frustration."

* Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee
ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to
receive provisional ballots likely disenfranchised thousands, if not
tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court
found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies
and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have
yet to be accounted for:

* There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation
in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr.
Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a single investigation into
these many serious allegations represents a violation of his
statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

* We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by
election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of
voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition
projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost
their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.

* There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for
president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The
problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County
which had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting for nearly
6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to
vote for president.

* There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in
other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least
25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes
to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers
from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist
threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the
voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than
voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in
other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in
Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme
Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded
Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county,
poll worker error may have led to little known third-party candidates
receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever
received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in
Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect
98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported,
an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous
irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and
completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and
call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the
recount is still not complete) :

* Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent
standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the
loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County
alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary
review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out
of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest
proportion in the state.

* Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount
contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable
irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i)
counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii)
counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand
and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for
irregular marking of ballots and failed


to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which
prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects
of the recount.

* The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it
engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous
counties to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The
cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should
find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they
should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could
avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law
--

Micki