It's because they can't offer a decent explanation.

Another interesting article. Blackwell doesn't know who he is tangling with (and insulting) when he goes after Jesse Jackson!!

From Editor & Publisher:

Jesse Jackson Column Draws Heat from Ohio Sec. of State's Office

By Joe Strupp

Published: December 01, 2004 6:00 PM ET

NEW YORK A syndicated newspaper column by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, which slammed Ohio's handling of the recent presidential election, is being accused of "blatant inaccuracies" by the Ohio Secretary of State's office.

Carlo Lo Paro, press secretary for Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, claims that Jackson's column, distributed earlier this week through Tribune Media Services, contains numerous inaccuracies that hint at improper behavior by Blackwell's office.

"We expect someone writing an op-ed and a syndicate distributing that op-ed would fact-check information and have a responsibility to the facts," Lo Paro told E&P Wednesday. "We believe someone can have a different point of view, but offer truthful information."

Lo Paro said Blackwell had not yet decided if he would formally respond to the column, but he said the secretary of state had written his own op-ed, the second in less than a week, which will be made available to daily newspapers on Thursday. The first, distributed on Thanksgiving, was printed in The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Washington Times.

John Twohey, Tribune Media vice president of editorial and operations, said the syndicate had not received any negative reaction to the column, or any complaints from Blackwell's office. "If they have specific reservations about the column, I would be eager to talk to them," he said.

A spokesman at Jackson's office declined immediate comment.

The column in question was distributed by Tribune Media on Nov. 29, according to the syndicate's Web site.

Jackson took issue with Ohio's handling of the recent presidential race. The column contends that Blackwell, who has also worked for the Bush campaign, either made mistakes or overtly sought to help Bush.

"The vote in Ohio decided the presidential race, but it was marred by intolerable, often partisan, irregularities and discrepancies," wrote Jackson, who has spent several days in Ohio seeking attention for an investigation into the vote there. "U.S. citizens have as much reason as those in Kiev to be concerned that the fix was in."

Jackson's column then went on to cite several specific allegations of either improper actions or poor oversight by Blackwell's office. Those include several that Lo Paro contends are false.

Lo Paro challenged Jackson's assertion that the head of the Diebold Co. had helped sway the Ohio vote Bush's way through his company's electronic voting machines. "Ohio does not use Diebold electronic machines," he said.

Then there's Jackson's complaint that the vote count had taken too long. "It's three weeks after the election and Ohio still hasn't counted the votes and certified the election," the column says.

LoParo's response: "Legally we have until Dec. 7 to certify the vote and we are doing that. He insinuates some sort of delay marred by fraud, but it took this long in 2000 and it actually takes longer in non-presidential years, because there is no hurry to meet the electoral college."

The press secretary also counter's Jackson's charge that "Blackwell reversed the rules on provisional ballots that were in place in spring 2004" so that voters could only cast them in their home precincts. "That has been the law since 1990," Lo Paro said.

Finally, Lo Paro objected to Jackson's statement that "Blackwell presided over a voting system that resulted in quick, short lines in the dominantly Republican suburbs and four-hour and longer waiting lines in the inner cities." Said Lo Paro, "There is no proof that there were longer lines in Democratic precincts than in Republican precincts."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.

Niggling about micro-facts is one way to draw attention away from important truths. Nevertheless, for those who care about micro-facts:


In the 2004 election, two counties used equipment provided by Diebold, and many moreused equipment provided by ES&S. The historical ties between the two companies. as well as their close ties with the Republican party, have been well documented. In addition, the underlying software used by the two firms may be based on shared source code. Whether you count this equipment as "electronic voting machines" depends on what you mean by that term. I'll say more about that below.


But the quote from Jesse is factually correct, is it not? I see no "blatant inaccuracy" here. If people infer partisan motivation could that possibly be due to do the past statements and actions of Blackwell?


I have been told by residents of Ohio that in the 2004 spring primary they could cast provisional ballots by county, even if they were in the wrong precinct. But in September, Blackwell issued a new rule stating that provisional ballots would not be considered as valid unless the voter cast them in the right precinct. So while the law may have been the same since 1990, the rules interpreting that law obviously were reversed between the spring primary and the fall election.


Notice Lo Paro isn't saying it's untrue -- just that there's no proof. You didn't see it on national TV. Move along.

Wait! I hear Rev. Jackson saying "Turn in your hymn books to No.13, please!" I hear people singing. Do you hear it too? Something about a tree that's planted by the waters?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and others have questioned whether we should trust our votes to proprietary computer programs controlled by private companies, such as Diebold, whose founders and top managers are known to have close ties to the Republican party.

In response to such concerns, Carlo Lo Paro, press secretary for Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, has said "Ohio does not use Diebold electronic machines."

What counts as an electronic voting machine? Lo Paro seems to use that term to refer to touchscreen voting machines and nothing else. Touchscreen voting machines have gotten a lot of attention, but they are not yet widely used in Ohio. In the recent election, most Ohio voters cast their vote either by paper ballots or by punch card ballots. Those ballots are counted by electronic machines that also use proprietary computer programs controlled by private companies, incuding Diebold, with close ties to the Republican party. In two Ohio counties Diebold electronic scanning machines and central tabulating computers are used to count votes cast by paper ballot.

The software that controls these machines is vulnerable to exactly the kind of tampering that leads people to be concerned about electronic vote fraud when there is other evidence of voting irregularities and partisan efforts to supress voting based on profiling. When such concerns arise, the benefit of scanned paper ballots or puch cards is that these provide a paper trail that can be used to verify the results of the machine tabulation by a hand recount. However, having this paper trail is only a benefit when the option of a hand recount is actually available. If partisan election officials are allowed to override the rights to a recount provided for by law, based on their claim that such a recount would be "frivolous," then having a paper trail does not do us much good.

Unless at least a reasonable sampling of the votes are counted by hand, there is no way to detect a hacked vote count -- as long as the results are not obviously irregular. Computer experts have told us how it could be done and have also noted that certain "glitches" that produced obvious irregularities are very similar to the kind of glitches you'd expect to result from careless hacking.

Should be be comforted by the fact that only two counties in Ohio used electronic equipment from Diebold. Not really. Many of the other counties use equipment from ES&S. The connections between Diebold and ES&S, as well as the ties of each with the Republican party, have been well-documented. Also, the software used by both companies may be derived from the same source code.

As I said before, this software is vulnerable to exactly the kind of tampering that leads people to be concerned about electronic vote fraud when there is other evidence of voting irregularities and partisan efforts to supress voting based on profiling. And there IS evidence of voting irregularities and voter supression in Ohio, and in other states as well. That is what has undermined confidence in the integrity of the entire electoral process. That is why the Green Party and the Libertarian Party have asked for a recount.