Kerry the likely winner in Ohio Recount if fair process used in recount
http://www.opednews.com/shurberg_112004_election.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/summary.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/cleveland.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/ohio.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/cameron.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/uncounted.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/columbus.htm

New Ohio voter transcripts feed floodtide of doubt about Republican election manipulation

www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/930

:D Thank you.........Thank you ...........Thank you :D

*Keeping fingers crossed*

I hope you're right...I think...at this point the world has gone so stark raving mad I'm not sure what to think:)

Think about new exciting ways to change it...

then share!

I am still holding my breath, waiting to hear that Kerry won Ohio and the presidency.

Me, too. Thanks for all the updates everybody who is updating on the election. Sometimes things are so wacky I feel like I'm in a Stephen King novel. Heh.

I know what you mean. It would be great to wake up one day and find out Kerry really won. *sigh* I can still hope and pray for some good news.

This may seem like a dumb question, but would Kerry have enough electoral votes to win the presidency with an Ohio win? The last count I saw, Bush was at least 50+ votes ahead of Kerry. This would not put Kerry over the top, right?

Ohio is worth 20 electoral votes. With Ohio for Bush it is 286-252 Bush wins. With Ohio for Kerry it is 272-268 Kerry wins. Ohio is the key to saving our world. Hope that clears things up for ya

anyhting going in in FL, the state that gave us this nightmare? It would be sweet if things in OH tip in our favor this time and bush & co are sent packing! Maybe that's why so many of his Cabinet members have been leaving, like rats on a sinking ship!

WOW!!

I doubt W will go without a fight. The Supreme Court will say that Kerry conceded and that will be the end of it. The good news is that it will also be the end to Bush's "mandate."

I gotta admit I'm loosing track of which story is new or recycled... Is this one new ? -- law

FYI, just because a candidate concedes, doesn't mean the election is over. the election is over when the votes are certified when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 13. So, we need to act fast, and no teh Supreme Court would have no say just because Kerry "conceded," he's within his rights to "unconceed." If this does happen, and I'm not one who believes this has much of a chance (hope I'm wrong), it would be poetic justice for GWB to get a taste of his own medicine, and more importantly, for this country to get its act together.

Best news I've read in awhile! Still waiting for mainstream news on this subject. Any out there yet?

THINGS ARE HEATING UP IN OH

Dear Reporters, Editors, News Anchors:
>
> Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, ranking Minority member
> of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing on Wednesday 8
> December 2004 to investigate allegations of vote fraud and
> irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election. The
> hearing is slated to begin at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House
> Office Building in Washington.
> We are asking you to report on the hearings. Enough about Ukraine:
> Turn your cameras to the United State's contested election.
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120404W.shtml
>
> Conyers to Hold Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud
> By William Rivers Pitt
> t r u t h o u t | Report
>
> Friday 03 December 2004
>
> Democratic Representative John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, ranking
> Minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing
> on Wednesday 08 December 2004 to investigate allegations of vote fraud
> and irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election. The
> hearing is slated to begin at 10:00 a.m. EST in the Rayburn House
> Office Building in Washington DC.
>
> Democratic Representatives Melvin Watt and Robert Scott will also be
> centrally involved with the hearing. Rev. Jesse Jackson will be in
> attendance, along with Ralph Neas (President, People for the American
> Way), Jon Greenbaum (Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers
> Committee For Civil Rights Under Law), Ellie Smeal (Executive
> Director, The Feminist Majority), Bob Fitrakis (The Free Press), Cliff
> Arnebeck (Arnebeck Associates), John Bonifaz (General Counsel,
> National Voting Institute), Steve Rosenfeld (Producer, Air America
> Radio), and Shawnta Walcott (Communications Director, Zogby
> International). Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has been
> invited to attend.
>
> The term ‘hearing’ is technically not accurate in this matter, as
> Conyers and his fellow Representatives will be holding this forum
> without the blessing of the Republican Majority leader of the
> Judiciary Committee. Staffers from the Minority office at the
> Judiciary Committee describe the event as a ‘Members Briefing.’ That
> having been said, this event will be a hearing by every meaningful
> definition of the word. Expert testimony will be offered, and a good
> deal of data on potential fraud previously unreported to the public
> will be discussed and examined at length.
>
> The hearing came together thanks to a confluence of events, and
> through the work of like-minded individuals who are deeply concerned
> about the allegations of vote fraud in the Ohio Presidential election.
> Tim Carpenter and Kevin Spidel, along with other members of
> Progressive Democrats of America, went to Washington DC to speak with
> the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee about the need for
> an investigation into these allegations. They found Rep. Conyers, his
> fellow Judiciary Democrats, and their staffers already working on
> assembling such an investigation.
>
> The core of what Conyers and his fellow Minority members will be
> discussing at this hearing can be found in the letter below, which was
> sent by the Minority office to Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell on 02
> December. In the letter, Conyers, along with Reps. Watt, Nadler and
> Baldwin, outline a broad and detailed series of questions and concerns
> about the manner in which the Ohio election took place.
>
> I will be traveling to Washington DC to begin t r u t h o u t coverage
> of this event on Tuesday night, and we will keep you posted on further
> developments as they arise.
>
> William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller
> of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know'
> and 'The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.'
>
>
>
> Go to Original
>
> One Hundred Eighth Congress
> Congress of the United States
> House of Representatives
> Committee on the Judiciary
> 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
> Washington DC 20515-6216
> (202) 225-3951
>
> December 2, 2004
>
> The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell
> Ohio Secretary of State
> 180 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> Dear Secretary Blackwell:
>
> We write to request your assistance with our ongoing investigation of
> election irregularities in the 2004 Presidential election. As you may
> be aware, the Government Accountability Office has agreed to undertake
> a systematic and comprehensive review of election irregularities
> throughout the nation. As a separate matter, we have requested that
> the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff undertake a thorough
> review of each and every specific allegation of election
> irregularities received by our offices.
>
> Collectively, we are concerned that these complaints constitute a
> troubled portrait of a one-two punch that may well have altered and
> suppressed votes, particularly minority and Democratic votes. First,
> it appears there were substantial irregularities in vote tallies. It
> is unclear whether these apparent errors were the result of machine
> malfunctions or fraud.
>
> Second, it appears that a series of actions of government and
> non-government officials may have worked to frustrate minority voters.
> Consistent and widespread reports indicate a lack of voting machines
> in urban, minority and Democratic areas, and a surplus of such
> machines in Republican, white and rural areas. As a result, minority
> voters were discouraged from voting by lines that were in excess of
> eight hours long. Many of these voters were also apparently victims of
> a campaign of deception, where flyers and calls would direct them to
> the wrong polling place. Once at that polling place, after waiting for
> hours in line, many of these voters were provided provisional ballots
> after learning they were at the wrong location. These ballots were not
> counted in many jurisdictions because of a directive issued by some
> election officials, such as yourself.
>
> We are sure you agree with us that regardless of the outcome of the
> election, it is imperative that we examine any and all factors that
> may have led to voting irregularities and any failure of votes to be
> properly counted. Toward that end, we ask you to respond to the
> following allegations:
>
> I. Counting Irregularities
>
> A. Warren County Lockdown – On election night, Warren County locked
> down its administration building and barred reporters from observing
> the counting. When that decision was questioned, County officials
> claimed they were responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a “10"
> on a scale of 1 to 10, and that this information was received from an
> FBI agent. Despite repeated requests, County officials have declined
> to name that agent, however, and the FBI has stated that they had no
> information about a terror threat in Warren County. Your office has
> stated that it does not know of any other county that took these
> drastic measures.
>
> In addition to these contradictions, Warren County officials have
> given conflicting accounts of when the decision was made to lock down
> the building. While the County Commissioner has stated that the
> decision to lockdown the building was made during an October 28
> closed-door meeting, emailed memos – dated October 25 and 26 –
> indicate that preparations for the lockdown were already underway.
>
> This lockdown must be viewed in the context of the aberrational
> results in Warren County. In the 2000 Presidential election, the
> Democratic Presidential candidate, Al Gore, stopped running television
> commercials and pulled resources out of Ohio weeks before the
> election. He won 28% of the vote in Warren County. In 2004, the
> Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry, fiercely contested Ohio
> and independent groups put considerable resources into getting out the
> Democratic vote. Moreover, unlike in 2000, independent candidate Ralph
> Nader was not on the Ohio ballot in 2004. Yet, the tallies reflect
> John Kerry receiving exactly the same percentage in Warren County as
> Gore received, 28%.
>
> We hope you agree that transparent election procedures are vital to
> public confidence in electoral results. Moreover, such aberrant
> procedures only create suspicion and doubt that the counting of votes
> was manipulated. As part of your decision to certify the election, we
> hope you have investigated these concerns and found them without
> merit. To assist us in reaching a similar conclusion, we ask the
> following:
>
> 1. Have you, in fact, conducted an investigation of the lockdown? What
> procedures have you or would you recommend be put into place to avoid
> a recurrence of this situation?
>
> 2. Have you ascertained whether County officials were advised of
> terrorist activity by an FBI agent and, if so, the identity of that
agent?
>
> 3. If County officials were not advised of terrorist activity by an
> FBI agent, have you inquired as to why they misrepresented this fact?
> If the lockdown was not as a response to a terrorist threat, why did
> it take place? Did any manipulation of vote tallies occur?
>
> B. Perry County Election Counting Discrepancies – The House Judiciary
> Committee Democratic staff has received information indicating
> discrepancies in vote tabulations in Perry County. For example, the
> sign-in book for the Reading S precinct indicates that approximately
> 360 voters cast ballots in that precinct. In the same precinct, the
> sign-in book indicates that there were 33 absentee votes cast. In sum,
> this would appear to mean that fewer than 400 total votes were cast in
> that precinct. Yet, the precinct’s official tallies indicate that 489
> votes were cast. In addition, some voters’ names have two ballot stub
> numbers listed next to their entries creating the appearance that
> voters were allowed to cast more than one ballot.
>
> In another precinct, W Lexington G AB, 350 voters are registered
> according to the County’s initial tallies. Yet, 434 voters cast
> ballots. As the tallies indicate, this would be an impossible 124%
> voter turnout. The breakdown on election night was initially reported
> to be 174 votes for Bush, and 246 votes for Kerry. We are advised that
> the Perry County Board of Elections has since issued a correction
> claiming that, due to a computer error, some votes were counted twice.
> We are advised that the new tallies state that only 224 people voted,
> and the tally is 90 votes for Bush and 127 votes for Kerry. This would
> make it appear that virtually every ballot was counted twice, which
> seems improbable.
>
> In Monroe Township, Precinct AAV, we are advised that 266 voters
> signed in to vote on election day, yet the Perry County Board of
> Elections is reporting that 393 votes were cast in that precinct, a
> difference of 133 votes.
>
> 4. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the
> Reading S precinct of Perry County?
>
> 5. What is the explanation for the fluctuating results in the W
> Lexington AB precinct?
>
> 6. Why does it appear that there are more votes than voters in the
> Monroe Township precinct AAV?
>
> C. Perry County Registration Peculiarities
>
> In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily high level
> voter registration, 91%; yet a substantial number of these voters have
> never voted and have no signature on file. Of the voters that are
> registered in Perry County an extraordinarily large number of voters
> are listed as having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no
> federal elections. Of these an exceptional number are listed as having
> registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100 voters apparently
> registered in Perry County on November 8, 1977.
>
> 7. Please explain why there is such a high percentage of voters in
> this County who have never voted and do not have signatures on file.
> Also, please help us understand why such a high number of voters in
> this County are shown as having registered on the same day in 1977.
>
> D. Unusual Results in Butler County
>
> In Butler County, a Democratic Candidate for State Supreme Court, C.
> Ellen Connally received 59,532 votes. In contrast, the Kerry-Edwards
> ticket received only 54,185 votes, 5,000 less than the State Supreme
> Court candidate. Additionally, the victorious Republican candidate for
> State Supreme Court received approximately 40,000 less votes than the
> Bush-Cheney ticket. Further, Connally received 10,000 or more votes in
> excess of Kerry’s total number of votes in five counties, and 5,000
> more votes in excess of Kerry’s total in ten others.
>
> It must also be noted that Republican judicial candidates were
> reportedly “awash in cash,” with more than $1.4 million and were also
> supported by independent expenditures by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
>
> While you may have found an explanation for these bizarre results, it
> appears to be wildly implausible that 5,000 voters waited in line to
> cast a vote for an underfunded Democratic Supreme Court candidate and
> then declined to cast a vote for the most well-funded Democratic
> Presidential campaign in history. We would appreciate an answer to the
> following:
>
> 8. Have you examined how an underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court
> candidate could receive so many more votes in Butler County than the
> Kerry-Edwards ticket? If so, could you provide us with the results of
> your examination? Is there any precedent in Ohio for a downballot
> candidate receiving on a percentage or absolute basis so many more
> votes than the Presidential candidate of the same party in this or any
> other presidential election? Please let us know if any other County in
> Ohio registered such a disparity on a percentage or absolute basis.
>
> E. Unusual Results in Cuyahoga County
>
> Precincts in Cleveland have reported an incredibly high number of
> votes for third party candidates who have historically received only a
> handful of votes from these urban areas. For example, precinct 4F in
> the 4th Ward cast 290 votes for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 215 for
> Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. In 2000, the same
> precinct cast less than 8 votes for all third party candidates
combined.
>
> This pattern is found in at least 10 precincts through throughout
> Cleveland in 2004, awarding hundreds of unlikely votes to the third
> party candidate. Notably, these precincts share more than a strong
> Democratic history: the use of a punch card ballot. In light of these
> highly unlikely results, we would like to know the following:
>
> 9. Have you investigated whether the punch card system used in
> Cuyahoga County led to voters accidentally voting for third party
> candidates instead of the Democratic candidate they intended? If so,
> what were the results? Has a third party candidate ever received such
> a high percentage of votes in these precincts.
>
> 10. Have you found similar problems in other counties? Have you found
> similar problems with other voting methods?
>
> F. Spoiled Ballots
>
> According to post election canvassing, many ballots were cast without
> any valid selection for president. For example, two precincts in
> Montgomery County 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. This is in stark contrast to the 2% of
> undervoting county-wide. Disturbingly, predominantly Democratic
> precincts had 75% more undervotes than those that were predominantly
> Republican. It is inconceivable to us that such a large number of
> people supposedly did not have a preference for president in such a
> controversial and highly contested election.
>
> Considering that an estimated 93,000 ballots were spoiled across Ohio,
> we would like to know the following:
>
> 11. How many of those spoiled ballots were of the punch card or
> optical scan format and could therefore be examined in a recount?
>
> 12. Of those votes that have a paper trail, how many votes for
> president were undercounted, or showed no preference for president?
> How many were overcounted, or selected more than one candidate for
> president? How many other ballots had an indeterminate preference?
>
> 13. Of the total 93,000 spoiled ballots, how many were from
> predominantly Democratic precincts? How many were from
> minority-majority precincts?
>
> 14. Are you taking steps to ensure that there will be a paper trail
> for all votes before the 2006 elections so that spoiled ballots can be
> individually re-examined?
>
> G. Franklin County Overvote – On election day, a computerized voting
> machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded
> a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic
> challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters
> in that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New
> Life Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer
> glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President
> George W. Bush.
>
> Fortunately, this glitch was caught and the numbers were adjusted to
> show President Bush’s true vote count at 365 votes to Senator Kerry’s
> 260 votes. However, many questions remain as to whether this kind of
> malfunction happened in other areas of Ohio. To help us clarify this
> issue, we request that you answer the following:
>
> 15. How was it discovered that this computer glitch occurred?
>
> 16. What procedures were employed to alert other counties upon the
> discovery of the malfunction?
>
> 17. Can you be absolutely certain that this particular malfunction did
> not occur in other counties in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential
> election? How?
>
> 18. What is being done to ensure that this type of malfunction does
> not happen again in the future?
>
> H. Miami County Vote Discrepancy – In Miami County, with 100% of the
> precincts reporting on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, President Bush had
> received 20,807 votes, or 65.80% of the vote, and Senator Kerry had
> received 10,724 votes, or 33.92% of the vote. Miami reported 31,620
> voters. Inexplicably, nearly 19,000 new ballots were added after all
> precincts reported, boosting President Bush’s vote count to 33,039, or
> 65.77%, while Senator Kerry’s vote percentage stayed exactly the same
> to three one-hundredths of a percentage point at 33.92%.
>
> Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd., the reporting company
> responsible for vote results of Miami County, has stated that the
> problem was not with his reporting and that the additional 19,000
> votes came before 100% of the precincts were in. However, this does
> not explain how the vote count could change for President Bush, but
> not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes were added to the
> roster. To help us better understand this anomaly, we request that you
> answer the following:
>
> 19. What is your explanation as to the statistical anomaly that showed
> virtually identical ratios after the final 20-40% of the vote came in?
> In your judgment, how could the vote count in this County have changed
> for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes
> were added to the roster?
>
> 20. Are you aware of any pending investigations into this matter?
>
> I. Mahoning County Machine Problems – In Mahoning County, numerous
> voters reported that when they attempted to vote for John Kerry, the
> vote showed up as a vote for George Bush. This was reported by
> numerous voters and continued despite numerous attempts to correct
> their vote.
>
> 21. Please let us know if you have conducted any investigation or
> inquiry of machine voting problems in the state, including the above
> described problems in Mahoning County, and the results of this
> investigation or inquiry.
>
> II. Procedural Irregularities
>
> A. Machine Shortages
>
> Throughout predominately Democratic areas in Ohio on election day,
> there were reports of long lines caused by inadequate numbers of
> voting machines. Evidence introduced in public hearings indicates that
> 68 machines in Franklin County were never deployed for voters, despite
> long lines for voters at that county, with some voters waiting from
> two to seven hours to cast their vote. The Franklin County Board of
> Elections reported that 68 voting machines were never placed on
> election day, and Franklin County BOE Director Matt Damschroder
> admitted on November 19, 2004 that 77 machines malfunctioned on
> Election Day. It has come to our attention that a county purchasing
> official who was on the line with Ward Moving and Storage Company,
> documented only 2,741 voting machines delivered through the November 2
> election day. However, Franklin County’s records reveal that they had
> 2,866 “machines available” on election day. This would mean that amid
> the two to seven hour waits in the inner city of Columbus, at least
> 125 machines remained unused on Election Day.
>
> Franklin County’s machine allocation report clearly states the number
> of machines that were placed “By Close of Polls.” However, questions
> remain as to where these machines were placed and who had access to
> them throughout the day. Therefore, what matters is not how many
> voting machines were operating at the end of the day, but rather how
> many were there to service the people during the morning and noon rush
> hours.
>
> An analysis revealed a pattern of providing fewer machines to the
> Democratic city of Columbus, and more machines to the primarily
> Republican suburbs. At seven out of eight polling places, observers
> counted only three voting machines per location. According to the
> presiding judge at one polling site located at the Columbus Model
> Neighborhood facility at 1393 E. Broad St., there had been five
> machines during the 2004 primary. Moreover, at Douglas Elementary
> School, there had been four machines during the spring primary. In one
> Ohio voting precinct serving students from Kenyon College, some voters
> were required to wait more than eight hours to vote. There were
> reportedly only two voting machines at that precinct. The House
> Judiciary Committee staff has received first hand information
> confirming these reports.
>
> Additionally, it appears that in a number of locations, polling places
> were moved from large locations, such as gyms, where voters could
> comfortably wait inside to vote to smaller locations where voters were
> required to wait in the rain. We would appreciate answers to the
> following:
>
> 22. How much funding did Ohio receive from the federal government for
> voting machines?
>
> 23. What criteria were used to distribute those new machines?
>
> 24. Were counties given estimates or assurances as to how many new
> voting machines they would receive? How does this number compare to
> how many machines were actually received?
>
> 25. What procedures were in place to ensure that the voting machines
> were properly allocated throughout Franklin and other counties? What
> changes would you recommend be made to insure there is a more
> equitable allocation of machines in the future?
>
> B. Invalidated Provisional Ballots
>
> As you know, just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, you
> issued a directive to county election officials saying they are
> allowed to count provisional ballots only from voters who go to the
> correct precinct for their home address. At the same time, it has been
> reported that fraudulent flyers were being circulated on
> official-looking letterhead telling voters the wrong place to vote,
> phone calls were placed incorrectly informing voters that their
> polling place had changed, “door-hangers” telling African-American
> voters to go to the wrong precinct, and election workers sent voters
> to the wrong precinct. In other areas, precinct workers refused to
> give any voter a provisional ballot. And in at least one precinct,
> election judges told voters that they may validly cast their ballot in
> any precinct, leading to any number of disqualified provisional
ballots.
>
> In Hamilton County, officials have carried this problematic and
> controversial directive to a ludicrous extreme: they are refusing to
> count provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place if they
> were cast at the wrong table in that polling place. It seems that some
> polling places contained multiple precincts which were located at
> different tables. Now, 400 such voters in Hamilton county alone will
> be disenfranchised as a result of your directive.
>
> 26. Have you directed Hamilton County and all other counties not to
> disqualify provisional ballots cast at the correct polling place
> simply because they were cast at the wrong precinct table?
>
> 27. While many election workers received your directive that voters
> may cast ballots only in their own precincts, some did not. How did
> you inform your workers, and the public, that their vote would not be
> counted if cast in the wrong precinct? How many votes were lost due to
> election workers telling voters they may vote at any precinct, in
> direct violation of your ruling?
>
> 28. Your directive was exploited by those who intentionally misled
> voters about their correct polling place, and multiplied the number of
> provisional ballots found invalid. What steps have you or other
> officials in Ohio taken to investigate these criminal acts? Has anyone
> been referred for prosecution? If so, what is the status of their
cases?
>
> 29. How many provisional ballots were filed in the presidential
> election in Ohio? How many were ultimately found to be valid and
> counted? What were the various reasons that these ballots were not
> counted, and how many ballots fall into each of these categories?
> Please break down the foregoing by County if possible.
>
> C. Directive to Reject Voter Registration Forms Not Printed on White,
> Uncoated Paper of Not Less Than 80 lb Text Weight
>
> On September 7, you issued a directive to county boards of elections
> commanding such boards to reject voter registration forms not “printed
> on white, uncoated paper of not less than 80 lb. text weight.”
> Instead, the county boards were to follow a confusing procedure where
> the voter registration form would be treated as an application for a
> form and a new blank form would be sent to the voter. While you
> reversed this directive, you did not do so until September 28. In the
> interim, a number of counties followed this directive and rejected
> otherwise valid voter registration forms. There appears to be some
> further confusion about the revision of this order which resulted in
> some counties being advised of the change by the news media.
>
> 30. How did you notify county boards of elections of your initial
> September 7 directive?
>
> 31. How did you notify county boards of elections of your September 28
> decision to revise that directive?
>
> 32. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many
> registration forms were rejected as a result of your September 7
> directive? If so, how many?
>
> 33. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many voters
> who had their otherwise valid forms rejected as a result of your
> September 7 directive subsequently failed to re-register? If so, how
many?
>
> 34. Have you conducted an investigation to determine how many of those
> voters showed up who had their otherwise valid forms rejected to vote
> on election day and were turned away? If so, how many?
>
> We await your prompt reply. To the extent any questions relate to
> information not available to you, please pass on such questions to the
> appropriate election board or other official. Please respond to 2142
> Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 by December 10. If
> you need more time to investigate and respond to some of these
> inquiries, we would welcome a partial response by that date and a
> complete response within a reasonable period of time thereafter. If
> you have any questions about this inquiry, please contact Perry
> Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
> at (202) 225-6504.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
> Rep. Melvin Watt
> Rep. Jerrold Nadler
> Rep. Tammy Baldwin

Maybe this might provide a lead in voting irregularities in Ohio as well ...

In sworn affidavit, programmer says he developed vote-rigging prototype for Florida congressman; Congressman’s office silent

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=477

In a sworn affidavit Monday, a former programmer for a NASA contractor said that he developed a vote-rigging prototype at the request of a then-Florida state representative who is now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

RAW STORY acquired the affidavit from The Brad Blog, which has been in contact with the programmer in Washington.

While working for Yang Enterprises in Florida, the 46-year-old programmer says he was instructed by then-Republican state representative Tom Feeney to “develop a prototype of a voting program that could alter the vote tabulation in the election and be undetectable.”

Feeney, a former failed running mate of Gov. Jeb Bush, now represents Florida’s 24th district in the House of Representatives. At the time, he was serving both as general counsel and lobbyist for Yang Enterprises and the Florida state congressman.

Feeney’s office in Orlando told RAW STORY they would check with the congressman and hoped to provide comment later today. A second call was placed this afternoon; the congressman’s press secretary was said to be “unavailable.”

A receptionist at Yang Enterprises said she would pass a message along to a vice president, who she said would return the call.

“They will give you a comment,” she said.

The programmer, Clinton Curtis, said that he was told the program needed to be “touch-screen capable, the user should be able to trigger the program without any additional equipment, [and that] the programming was to remain hidden even if the source code was inspected.”

Curtis asserts that he told Feeney it would be nearly impossible to write a code to change the voting results if anyone were able to view the source code.

“However,” he added, “if the code were compiled before anyone was allowed to review it then any vote fraud would remain invisible to detection.”

Nevertheless, he says that he was asked at the meeting by Yang to build the prototype anyway.

Curtis states he initially believed that Feeney’s sought to stop Democrats from using such a program and “wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred.”

It was not until after the prototype was delivered that he says he got wind of its possible, more nefarious usage.

According to his affidavit, Yang, his employer, later informed him that the software might be used to “control the vote in South Florida.” He says that he would never have developed the software had he known its alleged ultimate purpose.

Curtis details his claims on the fraud program in the affidavit:

In the vote fraud prototype that I created things are not what they seem. Hidden on the screen are invisible buttons. A person with knowledge of the locations of those invisible buttons can then use them to alter the votes of everyone before them. By clicking the correct order of invisible buttons the candidate selected by the user is compared to other candidates within that same race. If the candidate they selected is leading the race nothing happens. If the other candidate is leading the race the vote totals are altered so that the selected candidate is now leading the race with 51% of the vote. The other candidates then share the remaining 49% in exact proportion to the totals they had previously. In the prototype supplied to Feeney the vote totals show on the screen. In an actual application the user would receive no visible clues to the fraud that had just occurred. Since the vote is applied by race, any single race or multiple races can be altered. The supervisors or any other voter would never notice this fraud since no visible sign would appear. Additionally, the procedure could be repeated as many times as was necessary to achieve the desired results. No amount of testing or simulations would expose the fraud as its activation and process is completely invisible to everyone except the person programming the vote fraud routine.

The same procedure could be automated to activate without any user intervention whenever the machine detects a certain pattern of voting. The algorithm could also be altered from hidden keys or triggers that would allow the fraudulent user to manipulate both the margins and percentages of any particular race. In most national elections it is not necessary to win every area.

Yang Enterprises is currently under investigation by the FBI. Curtis has filed a suit with the state alleging the the firm also overbilled the state on
another contract, and his report of an illegal alien resulted in the arrest of a Chinese national in March who is accused of sending information on radar guidance chips for the U.S. Hellfire missile to China.

Curtis’ affidavit has been turned over to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee for further investigation.

More details on this story are available at The Brad Blog. Further updates will be available at RAW STORY later tonight.

Developing…

Correction: An early iteration of this article referred to the programmer as Clinton Collins due to a transcription error. The name signed on the affidavit is Clinton Curtis.

I'm waiting, and as I watch I knit the names of EVERY mean-spirited, moral values toting schmuck, and schmuckess,into my registar, PAYBACK WILL BE HELL!

Madame DeFarge

*sharpens le guillotine*

Are you the same VietnamVet from the Kerry forum? If so, how are you doing?!

teach

One other thing...

The cowardly media report that this year moral values was an overwhelming issue. Again, they have failed us in checking their facts. In 1992, the year our last working president was duly and honestly elected, when Bill Clinton won, 40% of those polled cited moral values. In 2004, this number was only 22%. I knew the media was afraid in reporting the truth, but they've caved so far into the right's hands that you can't trust them anymore. Broadcast news will nail its own coffin by being a lapdog for shrub and the radical right.

On July 2, 2003, Bush, from the safety of the White House, challenged enemy insurgents to "BRING 'EM ON" against our sons, daughters, mothers & fathers who serve in uniform in Iraq.

Since then 1,055 of these brave Americans have died.(last update 12/2/04)
For latest number of casualties since Bush's "Bring 'em On" please refer to: http://icasualties.org/oif/

I say if shrub fully supports this mission he should send a clear signal- have his daughters sign up! Afterall, they've finished their education, have no family of their own to raise and support, and are jobless. Why should they be any different??

From Terry McAuliffe, current chair of DNC:

Your response to Washington Governor candidate Christine Gregoire's plea for help has been overwhelming. Thanks to your generosity, the recount in Washington will now go forward. With only 42 votes separating Gregoire and her Republican opponent, today we can ensure that every ballot is accurately counted. This could not have happened without you.

Your incredible grassroots support is vital to our continued fight to ensure a full and legitimate count of every single vote in this election and future elections. In addition to our strong commitment to the recount in Washington State, the Democratic Party has empowered the Ohio Democratic Party to represent us as our official observer during the recount. We will make sure that every vote in Ohio is counted.

But we aren't stopping there. After consulting with our Voting Rights Institute staff, Voting Protection Coordinators, Ohio legal team, Party activists, supporters, elected officials, and others, and after reviewing available information, the Democratic National Committee has decided to conduct a thorough investigation of key election issues arising from the conduct of the 2004 general election in Ohio.

This investigative study will address the legitimate questions and concerns that have been raised in Ohio and will develop factual information that will be critically important in crafting further key election reforms. This project seeks to answer such questions as:

Why did so many people have to wait in line in certain Ohio precincts and not others?
Why weren't there enough machines in some counties and not others?
Why were so many Ohioans forced to cast provisional ballots?
We will find answers to help implement and advocate reforms in the future.

Let me be clear. We do not expect either the recount in Ohio or our investigation to overturn the results of this election. But both are vital to protecting every American's voting rights in future elections. And the Democratic Party will never waver when it comes to upholding this sacred trust.

Thank you again for your incredible support.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman

Okay, this gets worse and worse. Now there is a thread saying the Ohio courts will refuse to overturn the vote, even if there is evidence.

How can this be????

Simply put...the party in power makes the rules, and revises them when it suits their purposes(Tom Delay). Just read on Olbermann's site that the head of Kerry's OH campaign is not contesting the popular vote...so sadly, it looks more like 4 more years of misery. Both the Libertarian and green parties are to make their case for recount tomorrow. Stay tuned.

There will be one democrat and one republican counting at each precinct, if bigtime changes in the totals start showing up, those democrats will get that information out. Then do you think ANY politician of either party is going to stand in the way of awarding the rightful winner the electors?..........NOT!

Yeah, I live in Texas, seen DeLay's handiwork up close.

I just don't understand why Kerry's campaign wouldn't want what is rightfully theirs.