Federal Judge Rules That Ohio Recount Will Go Forward in All Counties.
COBB/LaMARCHE 2004
http://www.votecobb.org
December 06, 2004 (released December 03, 2004)
Contact: Blair Bobier, Media Director at 541.929.5755
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES THAT OHIO RECOUNT WILL GO FORWARD IN ALL COUNTIES
Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb today expressed his satisfaction with a ruling by a federal judge taking jurisdiction over a Delaware County, Ohio lawsuit and denying the county's attempt to stop the recount of presidential ballots in that county.
"We are very pleased that the judge recognized our right to a recount and that the recount will go forward in each and every county in Ohio," said Cobb.
The judge also provisionally granted the motion by the Kerry-Edwards campaign to intervene in the lawsuit in defense of the position of Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Although the judge did not agree with Cobb that the recount should proceed on an expedited basis, the Cobb campaign is confident that a full and complete recount will take place.
For more information see the campaign website, http://www.votecobb.org.
Information about the Green Party can be found at http://www.gp.org.
Full Version: Federal Judge Rules That Ohio Recount Will Go Forw
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
Now Kerry joins suit in Ohio recount
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/s...5p-221479c.html
WASHINGTON - As the campaigns of John Kerry and President Bush filed their final financial statements of the 2004 contest, Team Kerry kept it going a little longer, adding its name to a lawsuit seeking a recount in Ohio.
A lawyer for the campaign said it does not question the Democrat's loss, but with a judge blocking recount efforts in one county, it wanted to make sure any new counting includes all counties.
"The Kerry-Edwards campaign felt it had to intervene," said Daniel Hoffheimer, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the campaign in Ohio. "We did not want a recount to go forward if it only was 87 [of Ohio's 88] counties."
Meanwhile, the candidate's statements filed with the Federal Election Commission showed they both raised such big bucks they weren't able to spend it all.
Kerry raised $249 million for the primaries, while Bush topped him with $279 million. Both campaigns had to stop spending that cash when each accepted $75 million in public financing for the general election.
Bush used his leftover cash to donate $11.3 million to the Republican Party and even send a few checks worth $1,680 to the White House Historical Association, records show. He finished the Nov. 2 election with $4.4 million left in his taxpayer-financed general election fund and $1 million in bills to pay.
Kerry had $1.2 million of his $75 million left, with $861,000 in bills to pay.
But he had even more money than Bush unspent after the primaries, in spite of raising less. He forked over $23 million to his party.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/s...5p-221479c.html
WASHINGTON - As the campaigns of John Kerry and President Bush filed their final financial statements of the 2004 contest, Team Kerry kept it going a little longer, adding its name to a lawsuit seeking a recount in Ohio.
A lawyer for the campaign said it does not question the Democrat's loss, but with a judge blocking recount efforts in one county, it wanted to make sure any new counting includes all counties.
"The Kerry-Edwards campaign felt it had to intervene," said Daniel Hoffheimer, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the campaign in Ohio. "We did not want a recount to go forward if it only was 87 [of Ohio's 88] counties."
Meanwhile, the candidate's statements filed with the Federal Election Commission showed they both raised such big bucks they weren't able to spend it all.
Kerry raised $249 million for the primaries, while Bush topped him with $279 million. Both campaigns had to stop spending that cash when each accepted $75 million in public financing for the general election.
Bush used his leftover cash to donate $11.3 million to the Republican Party and even send a few checks worth $1,680 to the White House Historical Association, records show. He finished the Nov. 2 election with $4.4 million left in his taxpayer-financed general election fund and $1 million in bills to pay.
Kerry had $1.2 million of his $75 million left, with $861,000 in bills to pay.
But he had even more money than Bush unspent after the primaries, in spite of raising less. He forked over $23 million to his party.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
THE NATION
Ohio Recount Gains Support
Associated Press
December 5, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio — About 400 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse on Saturday to support a recount of the presidential election in Ohio and call for an investigation into election day irregularities.
Speakers addressing the crowd alleged that many voters were the victims of a fraud in which votes intended for Sen. John F. Kerry were given to President Bush.
"I would like to welcome you to the Ukraine," said Susan Truitt, referring to the country where a new presidential runoff election was ordered after observers said the first one was rigged.
On Friday, a federal judge in Columbus ruled that a recount may proceed if two minority party candidates who sued for it could pay for it. Green and Libertarian party officials say they can. A recount probably would not begin before Dec. 13, when Ohio's 20 electoral votes would be officially counted.
Kerry would have won the presidency had he carried the state's 20 electoral votes. He conceded the day after the election, saying there were not enough provisional and other ballots to swing the results his way.
Bush won the state by about 119,000 votes, or 2 percentage points, according to an analysis of results by Associated Press.
The Kerry campaign has joined the lawsuit seeking a recount to make sure any recount is "done accurately and completely."
THE NATION
Ohio Recount Gains Support
Associated Press
December 5, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio — About 400 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse on Saturday to support a recount of the presidential election in Ohio and call for an investigation into election day irregularities.
Speakers addressing the crowd alleged that many voters were the victims of a fraud in which votes intended for Sen. John F. Kerry were given to President Bush.
"I would like to welcome you to the Ukraine," said Susan Truitt, referring to the country where a new presidential runoff election was ordered after observers said the first one was rigged.
On Friday, a federal judge in Columbus ruled that a recount may proceed if two minority party candidates who sued for it could pay for it. Green and Libertarian party officials say they can. A recount probably would not begin before Dec. 13, when Ohio's 20 electoral votes would be officially counted.
Kerry would have won the presidency had he carried the state's 20 electoral votes. He conceded the day after the election, saying there were not enough provisional and other ballots to swing the results his way.
Bush won the state by about 119,000 votes, or 2 percentage points, according to an analysis of results by Associated Press.
The Kerry campaign has joined the lawsuit seeking a recount to make sure any recount is "done accurately and completely."
Ohio election has been certifed by blackwell. Let the recount begin.
Very good news. It's time our Federal judges honor the fact that NO ONE is above the law, no matter how wily or powerful!
Lawsuit May Demand Ohio Recount
WBNS News
A formal lawsuit, demanding a recount of Ohio's presidential votes, could be filed Friday or Monday.
The lawsuit claims widespread abuses in the November 2nd election. Columbus attorney Cliff Arnebeck says the suit will request the Ohio Supreme Court allow a full review of the election process.
Ohio Secretary of State spokesperson Carlo LoParo says the abuse allegations in the planned lawsuit are "absurd."
WBNS News
A formal lawsuit, demanding a recount of Ohio's presidential votes, could be filed Friday or Monday.
The lawsuit claims widespread abuses in the November 2nd election. Columbus attorney Cliff Arnebeck says the suit will request the Ohio Supreme Court allow a full review of the election process.
Ohio Secretary of State spokesperson Carlo LoParo says the abuse allegations in the planned lawsuit are "absurd."
Ohio challenges loom
December 6, 2004 - 8:32AM
The Age
Two major challenges are expected to unfold today when Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the state's final presidential election results, declaring President George W Bush the winner by about 119,000 votes.
Lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the polls plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court, citing documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighbourhoods.
In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favourable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio's 88 counties.
About 400 people rallied at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on Saturday to demand a recount begin immediately.
The efforts represent "an incredible long shot", said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor.
"Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome."
Advertisement
AdvertisementBush came out with a two percentage point victory over John Kerry in the state when the provisional and absentee ballots were counted.
That was much closer than the totals election night showed but not close enough to trigger an automatic recount.
However, the Green and Libertarian party candidates have raised the $US113,600 ($A146,864) required to pay for a recount themselves.
A ruling by US District Judge Edmund Sargus on Friday, rejecting Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, paved the way for it to begin after Ohio's electors meet December 13.
Republicans say it won't change the final result.
"There's simply nothing in the election process that could possibly meet that standard, so the contest will fail like all the other legal manoeuverings that failed," said Mark Weaver, an attorney representing the Ohio Republican Party.
Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, said overturning the result is not the objective.
"We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved," he said.
Arnebeck wants Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to review evidence of election irregularities, an option allowed under state law.
- AP
December 6, 2004 - 8:32AM
The Age
Two major challenges are expected to unfold today when Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the state's final presidential election results, declaring President George W Bush the winner by about 119,000 votes.
Lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the polls plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court, citing documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighbourhoods.
In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favourable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio's 88 counties.
About 400 people rallied at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on Saturday to demand a recount begin immediately.
The efforts represent "an incredible long shot", said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor.
"Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome."
Advertisement
AdvertisementBush came out with a two percentage point victory over John Kerry in the state when the provisional and absentee ballots were counted.
That was much closer than the totals election night showed but not close enough to trigger an automatic recount.
However, the Green and Libertarian party candidates have raised the $US113,600 ($A146,864) required to pay for a recount themselves.
A ruling by US District Judge Edmund Sargus on Friday, rejecting Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, paved the way for it to begin after Ohio's electors meet December 13.
Republicans say it won't change the final result.
"There's simply nothing in the election process that could possibly meet that standard, so the contest will fail like all the other legal manoeuverings that failed," said Mark Weaver, an attorney representing the Ohio Republican Party.
Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, said overturning the result is not the objective.
"We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved," he said.
Arnebeck wants Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to review evidence of election irregularities, an option allowed under state law.
- AP
Presidential Election: Conyers to Hold Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud
Posted by : DavidSwanson on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 12:36 AM
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=m...order=0&thold=0
Conyers to Hold Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud
By William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Report
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.'
============================================================================
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
Posted by : DavidSwanson on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 12:36 AM
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=m...order=0&thold=0
Conyers to Hold Hearings on Ohio Vote Fraud
By William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Report
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.'
============================================================================
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
Posted on Sun, Dec. 05, 2004
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news...10346324.htm?1c
New round of challenges expected as Ohio certifies vote
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - While the rest of the country focuses on Christmas shopping and NBA slugfests, Ohio still is trying to decide who was elected president.
Two major challenges are expected to unfold Monday even as the secretary of state was ready to certify the final results,
First, lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the ballot Election Day plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court. They will cite documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighborhoods.
In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favorable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio's 88 counties.
Observers don't give either effort much hope.
"It's an incredible long shot," said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor. "Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome."
The election hung on Ohio, a battleground state prized for its 20 electoral votes. Not until the morning after the election did John Kerry, presented with the state's results, finally concede.
President Bush's 2 percentage point win over Kerry in Ohio was closer than unofficial election night totals showed, but the change in the final vote count was not enough to trigger an automatic recount, according to county-by-county results provided to The Associated Press on Friday.
About 400 people rallied at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on Saturday to demand a recount begin immediately and to point out Election Night irregularities they claim could have cost Kerry the election. On Sunday, Democrats trained coordinators to participate in recounts expected to begin later in the month.
"We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved," said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy. "Even if it's several million dollars, it's a minuscule investment to ensure the integrity of the process."
Arnebeck wants Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the state Supreme Court to review evidence of election irregularities, an option allowed under state law. A ruling in favor of the challenge could lead to a recount or even having the results set aside.
Moyer, a suburban Columbus Republican, oversaw the last time the law was used statewide, a 1990 challenge by Paul Pfeifer of Lee Fisher's 1,234-vote victory in the attorney general's race.
Pfeifer, a Republican now on the Supreme Court, argued that irregularities such as discrepancies between the number of ballots and the number of signatures in poll books could have cost him the election.
The six members of the court who ruled on the case disagreed and Fisher won.
"The process was very smooth," Moyer recalled. "We set up a schedule, we had good lawyers, everyone did the work."
A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus Friday rejected Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, avoiding a legal precedent that could have stopped other recounts. Green and Libertarian party candidates have already raised the required $113,600.
Republicans say the challenges won't work.
While voters may prove there were problems Election Day, they'll be hard pressed to show they resulted in a different outcome, said Mark Weaver, an attorney representing the Ohio Republican Party.
"There's simply nothing in the election process that could possibly meet that standard, so the contest will fail like all the other legal maneuverings that failed," he said.
When the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against Pfeifer 14 years ago, it was divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans control the court 6-1 today, but that shouldn't make a difference, said Jonathan Entin, a Case Western University law professor.
"If judges on the Ohio Supreme Court cannot decide political or election-related cases because they're selected through the political process, then how are we going to solve these problems?" he said.
In Noble County in southern Ohio, where Bush won by about 3,800 votes to Kerry's 2,600, election board director Donna Moore hopes any recount goes quickly.
"I have a reservation for the 10th through 14th to fly to Rhode Island to be with my pregnant daughter," Moore said.
ON THE NET
Ohio Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news...10346324.htm?1c
New round of challenges expected as Ohio certifies vote
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - While the rest of the country focuses on Christmas shopping and NBA slugfests, Ohio still is trying to decide who was elected president.
Two major challenges are expected to unfold Monday even as the secretary of state was ready to certify the final results,
First, lawyers representing voters upset about problems at the ballot Election Day plan to contest the results with the Ohio Supreme Court. They will cite documented cases of long lines, a shortage of machines and a pattern of problems in predominantly black neighborhoods.
In addition, third party candidates, bolstered by a favorable federal court ruling, plan to file requests for a recount in each of Ohio's 88 counties.
Observers don't give either effort much hope.
"It's an incredible long shot," said Steven Huefner, an Ohio State University law professor. "Courts are just incredibly reluctant to overturn the results of an election absent a really strong showing that something happened that affected the outcome."
The election hung on Ohio, a battleground state prized for its 20 electoral votes. Not until the morning after the election did John Kerry, presented with the state's results, finally concede.
President Bush's 2 percentage point win over Kerry in Ohio was closer than unofficial election night totals showed, but the change in the final vote count was not enough to trigger an automatic recount, according to county-by-county results provided to The Associated Press on Friday.
About 400 people rallied at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on Saturday to demand a recount begin immediately and to point out Election Night irregularities they claim could have cost Kerry the election. On Sunday, Democrats trained coordinators to participate in recounts expected to begin later in the month.
"We should verify the accuracy of the vote and the process by which the vote was achieved," said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus lawyer working for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy. "Even if it's several million dollars, it's a minuscule investment to ensure the integrity of the process."
Arnebeck wants Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the state Supreme Court to review evidence of election irregularities, an option allowed under state law. A ruling in favor of the challenge could lead to a recount or even having the results set aside.
Moyer, a suburban Columbus Republican, oversaw the last time the law was used statewide, a 1990 challenge by Paul Pfeifer of Lee Fisher's 1,234-vote victory in the attorney general's race.
Pfeifer, a Republican now on the Supreme Court, argued that irregularities such as discrepancies between the number of ballots and the number of signatures in poll books could have cost him the election.
The six members of the court who ruled on the case disagreed and Fisher won.
"The process was very smooth," Moyer recalled. "We set up a schedule, we had good lawyers, everyone did the work."
A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus Friday rejected Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, avoiding a legal precedent that could have stopped other recounts. Green and Libertarian party candidates have already raised the required $113,600.
Republicans say the challenges won't work.
While voters may prove there were problems Election Day, they'll be hard pressed to show they resulted in a different outcome, said Mark Weaver, an attorney representing the Ohio Republican Party.
"There's simply nothing in the election process that could possibly meet that standard, so the contest will fail like all the other legal maneuverings that failed," he said.
When the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against Pfeifer 14 years ago, it was divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans control the court 6-1 today, but that shouldn't make a difference, said Jonathan Entin, a Case Western University law professor.
"If judges on the Ohio Supreme Court cannot decide political or election-related cases because they're selected through the political process, then how are we going to solve these problems?" he said.
In Noble County in southern Ohio, where Bush won by about 3,800 votes to Kerry's 2,600, election board director Donna Moore hopes any recount goes quickly.
"I have a reservation for the 10th through 14th to fly to Rhode Island to be with my pregnant daughter," Moore said.
ON THE NET
Ohio Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//
Kerry Campaign Keeping Eye on Ohio Cases
By Associated Press
Friday, December 3, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio - John Kerry's campaign has joined a lawsuit by third-party presidential candidates seeking a recount in Ohio. A lawyer for the campaign said Thursday the campaign does not question the Democrat's loss but wants any counting to take place statewide.
Kerry's campaign this week joined the suit filed by Green and Libertarian party candidates seeking a recount of the vote in Delaware County. A judge in that county issued a restraining order blocking that request, but the order expired Thursday. A hearing is set in federal court in Columbus on Friday on the recount request.
"The Kerry-Edwards campaign felt it had to intervene," said Daniel Hoffheimer, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the campaign in Ohio. "We did not want a recount to go forward if it only was 87 (of Ohio's 88) counties."
The two minor parties also have asked for a statewide recount, but a judge ruled that cannot begin until Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the vote, likely on Monday. The parties say they have raised the $113,600 fee the state requires to conduct the recount.
The Kerry campaign isn't disputing the outcome of President Bush's Nov. 2 victory in Ohio - a 136,000-vote margin, based on unofficial results - but wants to make sure any recount is "done accurately and completely," Hoffheimer said.
Hoffheimer said he knew of no other challenge by the campaign to the national election results. Bush won the national popular vote by about 3 percentage points, but Ohio's 20 electoral votes would have been enough to turn the race for Kerry.
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing a group alleging fraud in the Ohio presidential election put off until at least Friday the filing of a challenge to the results. Cliff Arnebeck, who alleges that votes intended for Kerry were shifted to Bush, said his legal team needed more time to collect and analyze evidence. He said the filing could take place as late as Monday.
In another development, Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., sent a letter to Blackwell asking for his assistance in a House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff investigation of "election irregularities." That probe would be in addition to one sought by the Government Accountability Office.
Complaints received by congressional Democrats include disparities in vote totals for Democrats on the same ballot; too few voting machines in urban, Democrat-leaning precincts; and organized campaigns directing voters to the wrong polling place.
Blackwell's office is working with the GAO and "would be happy to fill in the gaps of information from the GAO and what Congressman Conyers is requesting," spokesman Carlo LoParo said. He said a review of media reports would answer many of Conyers' questions.
By Associated Press
Friday, December 3, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio - John Kerry's campaign has joined a lawsuit by third-party presidential candidates seeking a recount in Ohio. A lawyer for the campaign said Thursday the campaign does not question the Democrat's loss but wants any counting to take place statewide.
Kerry's campaign this week joined the suit filed by Green and Libertarian party candidates seeking a recount of the vote in Delaware County. A judge in that county issued a restraining order blocking that request, but the order expired Thursday. A hearing is set in federal court in Columbus on Friday on the recount request.
"The Kerry-Edwards campaign felt it had to intervene," said Daniel Hoffheimer, a Cincinnati lawyer who represents the campaign in Ohio. "We did not want a recount to go forward if it only was 87 (of Ohio's 88) counties."
The two minor parties also have asked for a statewide recount, but a judge ruled that cannot begin until Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certifies the vote, likely on Monday. The parties say they have raised the $113,600 fee the state requires to conduct the recount.
The Kerry campaign isn't disputing the outcome of President Bush's Nov. 2 victory in Ohio - a 136,000-vote margin, based on unofficial results - but wants to make sure any recount is "done accurately and completely," Hoffheimer said.
Hoffheimer said he knew of no other challenge by the campaign to the national election results. Bush won the national popular vote by about 3 percentage points, but Ohio's 20 electoral votes would have been enough to turn the race for Kerry.
Meanwhile, a lawyer representing a group alleging fraud in the Ohio presidential election put off until at least Friday the filing of a challenge to the results. Cliff Arnebeck, who alleges that votes intended for Kerry were shifted to Bush, said his legal team needed more time to collect and analyze evidence. He said the filing could take place as late as Monday.
In another development, Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., sent a letter to Blackwell asking for his assistance in a House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff investigation of "election irregularities." That probe would be in addition to one sought by the Government Accountability Office.
Complaints received by congressional Democrats include disparities in vote totals for Democrats on the same ballot; too few voting machines in urban, Democrat-leaning precincts; and organized campaigns directing voters to the wrong polling place.
Blackwell's office is working with the GAO and "would be happy to fill in the gaps of information from the GAO and what Congressman Conyers is requesting," spokesman Carlo LoParo said. He said a review of media reports would answer many of Conyers' questions.
December 6, 2004 SEND THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND
CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES
FIGHT IGNORANCE: READ BUZZFLASH
Support BuzzFlash
Get a copy of
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/12/con04533.html
Questions That Needed Addressing Before The Election
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by R. J. Crane, Editor, Topplebush.com
Dear BuzzFlash,
I have heard several media pundits trying to place blame on the Democrats, their party leaders, or even the primary process in Iowa as the reason Kerry lost the election in 2000. First it isn't all that certain Kerry did lose the election if we can recount all of the ballots. Joe Trippi was one of the pundits urging a better grassroots organization in order to win while faulting the Democratic party leadership. He made some valid points even if he used flawed numbers to try and convince people Kerry did worse than Gore did in 2000. The numbers from the 2004 election don't support his position on this point.
If the questions below had been addressed BEFORE the election [regardless of whose fault it was to do so] we would be celebrating Kerry's inauguration in January:
1. Why so many states, including important swing states, were permitted under HAVA to use punch card systems in this election allowing millions of ballots to be spoiled and not counted? Why Dems failed to do something to prevent 70% of Ohioans from voting on these poorly designed systems in 2004? Considering the lessons that should have been learned from Florida in 2000, these machines should have been taken out of play in Ohio. There are at least 93,000 spoiled ballots in Ohio with undervotes on them yet to be counted...more than enough with the provisional ballots to overcome Bush's margin there assuming most of these would be Kerry votes and valid votes. The worst part is that so many of these machines are used in poorer and/or Democratic precincts ensuring that so many Democratic votes won't be counted. Why didn't the Dems ensure that HAVA got rid of the punch card machines BEFORE this election?
2. What did the Democrats do to ensure that e-voting machines without paper backup ballots weren't being used in this election? From what I have learned, very little! These machines were in wide use in Florida and elsewhere. In fact Jeb Bush and Glenda Hood ensured that paper ballots would not be added to these machines in time for the 2004 election in Florida. Did anyone challenge these machines as being in violation of state election laws with regards to recounts and therefore unlawful without a backup ballot? I tried to explain to a friend and resident of Florida why she should not cast a vote on one of these machines. It took me a while before it finally sunk in that to be voting on one of these machines was casting a vote into a black hole. The subject of the security flaws and problems with these machines is well documented and there is not enough space to comment here on these. But it can be stated that in Florida, the election could easily have been stolen for Bush with e-voting machines and no one will be able to prove it, despite the exceptional efforts of Bev Harris' group.
3. What did anyone do to promote online voter registration? Again the answer is virtually nothing. I didn't see any prominent Dems in my state of Michigan show up in TV ads advising people how easy it is to register to vote online. In fact I didn't see anyone promoting online voter registration on a national scale either. Instead this task was left mostly to various web sites, online groups and the 527s, all which failed to make this a major issue during the campaign. And many of these groups even failed to promote online voter registration on their home pages. Online voter registration could have been THE ONLY thing that might have changed the election in a major way since it presented a new option to registering new people and was a cheap and easy way to do so.
4. When will Democratic politicians and party leaders stop resorting to boring political ads that try and make too many points in each ad? It has been reported that because these political ads are so uncreative it now takes way more runs and money to reach the same number of people these same ads would have reached several decades ago. In fact research has shown that political ads have changed very little since the late 1950s. Political ads are still one of the most effective ways to reach voters yet the Dems have shown absolutely no creativity in using them effectively. Despite my efforts to advise both the Kerry campaign and the DNC to fix their bad ads, nothing was done in this respect. Joe Trippi is correct that the Democratic leadership lacks creativity.
5. The Democrats as a group failed to put out actual data of military casualties in Iraq before the election. Despite several efforts to try and get Sen. Carl Levin's office to look into this under-reporting of military casualties in Iraq because of deliberately narrow definitions for them to protect Bush, they did nothing. Instead they advised me to look at the DOD's numbers, which was the problem being complained of. How many voters might have been swayed to vote for Kerry if they knew that 25,000+ personnel from Iraq had been medically evacuated? [http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/250...] How many voters might have been swayed to vote for Kerry if they had known that as many as 17,000 U.S. military personnel from Iraq have been treated by the VA for Gulf War type symptoms, probably as a result of depleted uranium poisoning as reported by Vanity Fair? [Dec. 2004, p. 208] Yes, we can all blame the media and we should. But we also need to blame the Democrats for not getting this issue into the public discourse on the war. Instead these casualty numbers had to come out by CBS and 60 Minutes AFTER the election.
6. Why don't we have uniform rules that pertain to the counting of Provisional ballots and the recounting of ballots for all Federal offices? Maybe someone should be working on this issue before the next election.
7. There have been numerous reports of voter frauds and election problems everywhere and more particularly Ohio. At least 57,000 complaints have been made to the House Judiciary Committee from this election. Who is being investigated, prosecuted, or held accountable for these? How many votes did these take away from Kerry since the overwhelming majority of these frauds favored Bush. How come not enough voting machines were placed in Democratic precincts in Ohio, creating long lines and discouraging voters? Was this a deliberate attempt by Secretary of State Blackwell to steer the election toward Bush? Why do we allow state elected public officials actively involved in a candidate's campaign [2000 in Florida with Katherine Harris and now in Ohio, with Blackwell], to take an active role in electioneering? How many Kerry votes were taken away by misleading information put out by Bush supporters and efforts to suppress voter turnout and registration in Ohio and elsewhere? Why isn't the mainstream media doing a better job of reporting on all of these election shenanigans and asking this question: Did all of these in tandem or any particular one allow Bush to steal another election?
8. No where did I find any Democrats in this campaign make the issue of Bush's failures to protect the country from 9/11, which was well documented and even part of the 9/11 Commission report, a major issue. In fact it was malpractice by omission not to have done so and to hold Bush accountable for these failures.
I have no doubt in my mind that had it not been for millions of spoiled ballots as a direct result of punch card systems, wide scale voter suppression efforts on the part of Republicans and their operatives, Democratic voter registration destruction efforts on the part of at least one company hired by the GOP, an inadequate number of voting machines in Democratic precincts in OH, voters being deliberately misled about voting rights, dates, and registration, efforts by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH to restrict the use of provisional ballots, and voter purging of people who would otherwise be qualified to vote in Florida, Kerry would have won this election...even despite the many mistakes his campaign and the Democratic Party made on his behalf.
One must remember that Kerry was a successful Democratic candidate in terms of the vast amounts of money he was able to raise to compete with the Bush money machine. Kerry was not outspent in this election. Also until the swift boat ads, Kerry had a decent lead over Bush. I would also claim that Kerry won this election if all of the votes had been counted and in the absence of so many deliberate voter frauds.
R. J. Crane, Editor, Topplebush.com
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Postscript from R. J. Crane: We believe Bush stole this election, too. Visit topplebush.com now to find: Intelligent, well-written articles and commentary, an interactive Bush resume, a huge collection of Bush-bashing humor, free anti-Bush mp3 downloads, a bookstore with CDs and DVDs, and our own Topple Bush Store with t-shirts, bumper stickers, and posters. We will continue to donate money from the sale of our products to help defeat Bush and what he stands for. 50,000 unique viewers each week and growing!
CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES
FIGHT IGNORANCE: READ BUZZFLASH
Support BuzzFlash
Get a copy of
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
click here
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/12/con04533.html
Questions That Needed Addressing Before The Election
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by R. J. Crane, Editor, Topplebush.com
Dear BuzzFlash,
I have heard several media pundits trying to place blame on the Democrats, their party leaders, or even the primary process in Iowa as the reason Kerry lost the election in 2000. First it isn't all that certain Kerry did lose the election if we can recount all of the ballots. Joe Trippi was one of the pundits urging a better grassroots organization in order to win while faulting the Democratic party leadership. He made some valid points even if he used flawed numbers to try and convince people Kerry did worse than Gore did in 2000. The numbers from the 2004 election don't support his position on this point.
If the questions below had been addressed BEFORE the election [regardless of whose fault it was to do so] we would be celebrating Kerry's inauguration in January:
1. Why so many states, including important swing states, were permitted under HAVA to use punch card systems in this election allowing millions of ballots to be spoiled and not counted? Why Dems failed to do something to prevent 70% of Ohioans from voting on these poorly designed systems in 2004? Considering the lessons that should have been learned from Florida in 2000, these machines should have been taken out of play in Ohio. There are at least 93,000 spoiled ballots in Ohio with undervotes on them yet to be counted...more than enough with the provisional ballots to overcome Bush's margin there assuming most of these would be Kerry votes and valid votes. The worst part is that so many of these machines are used in poorer and/or Democratic precincts ensuring that so many Democratic votes won't be counted. Why didn't the Dems ensure that HAVA got rid of the punch card machines BEFORE this election?
2. What did the Democrats do to ensure that e-voting machines without paper backup ballots weren't being used in this election? From what I have learned, very little! These machines were in wide use in Florida and elsewhere. In fact Jeb Bush and Glenda Hood ensured that paper ballots would not be added to these machines in time for the 2004 election in Florida. Did anyone challenge these machines as being in violation of state election laws with regards to recounts and therefore unlawful without a backup ballot? I tried to explain to a friend and resident of Florida why she should not cast a vote on one of these machines. It took me a while before it finally sunk in that to be voting on one of these machines was casting a vote into a black hole. The subject of the security flaws and problems with these machines is well documented and there is not enough space to comment here on these. But it can be stated that in Florida, the election could easily have been stolen for Bush with e-voting machines and no one will be able to prove it, despite the exceptional efforts of Bev Harris' group.
3. What did anyone do to promote online voter registration? Again the answer is virtually nothing. I didn't see any prominent Dems in my state of Michigan show up in TV ads advising people how easy it is to register to vote online. In fact I didn't see anyone promoting online voter registration on a national scale either. Instead this task was left mostly to various web sites, online groups and the 527s, all which failed to make this a major issue during the campaign. And many of these groups even failed to promote online voter registration on their home pages. Online voter registration could have been THE ONLY thing that might have changed the election in a major way since it presented a new option to registering new people and was a cheap and easy way to do so.
4. When will Democratic politicians and party leaders stop resorting to boring political ads that try and make too many points in each ad? It has been reported that because these political ads are so uncreative it now takes way more runs and money to reach the same number of people these same ads would have reached several decades ago. In fact research has shown that political ads have changed very little since the late 1950s. Political ads are still one of the most effective ways to reach voters yet the Dems have shown absolutely no creativity in using them effectively. Despite my efforts to advise both the Kerry campaign and the DNC to fix their bad ads, nothing was done in this respect. Joe Trippi is correct that the Democratic leadership lacks creativity.
5. The Democrats as a group failed to put out actual data of military casualties in Iraq before the election. Despite several efforts to try and get Sen. Carl Levin's office to look into this under-reporting of military casualties in Iraq because of deliberately narrow definitions for them to protect Bush, they did nothing. Instead they advised me to look at the DOD's numbers, which was the problem being complained of. How many voters might have been swayed to vote for Kerry if they knew that 25,000+ personnel from Iraq had been medically evacuated? [http://www.juancole.com/2004/11/250...] How many voters might have been swayed to vote for Kerry if they had known that as many as 17,000 U.S. military personnel from Iraq have been treated by the VA for Gulf War type symptoms, probably as a result of depleted uranium poisoning as reported by Vanity Fair? [Dec. 2004, p. 208] Yes, we can all blame the media and we should. But we also need to blame the Democrats for not getting this issue into the public discourse on the war. Instead these casualty numbers had to come out by CBS and 60 Minutes AFTER the election.
6. Why don't we have uniform rules that pertain to the counting of Provisional ballots and the recounting of ballots for all Federal offices? Maybe someone should be working on this issue before the next election.
7. There have been numerous reports of voter frauds and election problems everywhere and more particularly Ohio. At least 57,000 complaints have been made to the House Judiciary Committee from this election. Who is being investigated, prosecuted, or held accountable for these? How many votes did these take away from Kerry since the overwhelming majority of these frauds favored Bush. How come not enough voting machines were placed in Democratic precincts in Ohio, creating long lines and discouraging voters? Was this a deliberate attempt by Secretary of State Blackwell to steer the election toward Bush? Why do we allow state elected public officials actively involved in a candidate's campaign [2000 in Florida with Katherine Harris and now in Ohio, with Blackwell], to take an active role in electioneering? How many Kerry votes were taken away by misleading information put out by Bush supporters and efforts to suppress voter turnout and registration in Ohio and elsewhere? Why isn't the mainstream media doing a better job of reporting on all of these election shenanigans and asking this question: Did all of these in tandem or any particular one allow Bush to steal another election?
8. No where did I find any Democrats in this campaign make the issue of Bush's failures to protect the country from 9/11, which was well documented and even part of the 9/11 Commission report, a major issue. In fact it was malpractice by omission not to have done so and to hold Bush accountable for these failures.
I have no doubt in my mind that had it not been for millions of spoiled ballots as a direct result of punch card systems, wide scale voter suppression efforts on the part of Republicans and their operatives, Democratic voter registration destruction efforts on the part of at least one company hired by the GOP, an inadequate number of voting machines in Democratic precincts in OH, voters being deliberately misled about voting rights, dates, and registration, efforts by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH to restrict the use of provisional ballots, and voter purging of people who would otherwise be qualified to vote in Florida, Kerry would have won this election...even despite the many mistakes his campaign and the Democratic Party made on his behalf.
One must remember that Kerry was a successful Democratic candidate in terms of the vast amounts of money he was able to raise to compete with the Bush money machine. Kerry was not outspent in this election. Also until the swift boat ads, Kerry had a decent lead over Bush. I would also claim that Kerry won this election if all of the votes had been counted and in the absence of so many deliberate voter frauds.
R. J. Crane, Editor, Topplebush.com
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Postscript from R. J. Crane: We believe Bush stole this election, too. Visit topplebush.com now to find: Intelligent, well-written articles and commentary, an interactive Bush resume, a huge collection of Bush-bashing humor, free anti-Bush mp3 downloads, a bookstore with CDs and DVDs, and our own Topple Bush Store with t-shirts, bumper stickers, and posters. We will continue to donate money from the sale of our products to help defeat Bush and what he stands for. 50,000 unique viewers each week and growing!
Ohio Certifies Bush Win by 119,000 Votes
Ohio Certifies Bush As Winner by Nearly 119,000 Votes; Third-Party Candidates Seeking Recount
The Associated Press
Dec. 7, 2004 - While Ohio has certified a 2 percentage-point election victory for President Bush, scrutiny of the vote was expected to continue for several more days.
Independent candidates were prepared to demand recounts in all 88 counties Tuesday, action that election boards say they're ready for but don't believe is necessary.
"Our experience with recounts based on our system in Allen County show either no change in our count, or one or two votes possibly," said Keith Cunningham, the county's election board director and incoming president of the Ohio Association of Election Board Directors.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certified Bush as the winner Monday based on official results from county election boards, with the final tally of 2.86 million votes for the Republican, or about 51 percent of the vote, and 2.74 million or 49 percent for Democrat John Kerry.
The 118,775-vote lead was closer than unofficial election night results but not enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Absentee ballots and provisional votes counted after election night made most of the difference.
"Elections are human endeavors and as such they are never pefect," said Blackwell, a Republican. "But I can say with the fullest of confidence that this election in Ohio was perfectly inspiring."
The election hung on Ohio, a battleground state prized for its 20 electoral votes. Not until the morning after the election did Kerry, presented with the state's results, finally concede.
Presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties raised the $113,600 needed to pay for the recount under Ohio law, and will write individual checks to all 88 counties.
Counties have 10 days to start those recounts, allowed under state law, following Blackwell's certification.
The recount's goal is "to ensure that every citizen's vote is properly counted," said John Bonifaz, general counsel for the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute, which represents the independent candidates.
The candidates, David Cobb of the Green Party and Michael Bednarik of the Libertarian Party, together received less than 0.5 percent of the Ohio vote.
Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems, from long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts.
Republicans said the recount won't change anything.
"If there's a recount, there's going to be two losers John Kerry and the Ohio taxpayer," said Mark Weaver, a lawyer representing the Ohio Republican Party. "It's going to cost more than $1.5 million to find out what we already know."
The amount the independent candidates have raised is based on state law calculating the cost of a recount to be $10 a precinct, but Blackwell's office has said a more realistic price tag is $1.5 million.
A Friday ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus, striking down Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, ensured the process will go forward.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday the Ohio Supreme Court should investigate Bush's win in Ohio because of "massive problems" with the voting.
The required filing with the Supreme Court, planned for Monday, was put off until at least Tuesday because of its complexity, said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney representing the voters.
About 20 people protested outside Blackwell's office Monday, demanding Blackwell postpone the Dec. 13 electoral college vote in Ohio until the recount is finished. Blackwell said the vote will take place.
And in San Francisco, about 150 people rallied outside the office of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, to protest voting irregularities, particularly those in Ohio.
On the Net:
Ohio Secretary of State:
Ohio Certifies Bush As Winner by Nearly 119,000 Votes; Third-Party Candidates Seeking Recount
The Associated Press
Dec. 7, 2004 - While Ohio has certified a 2 percentage-point election victory for President Bush, scrutiny of the vote was expected to continue for several more days.
Independent candidates were prepared to demand recounts in all 88 counties Tuesday, action that election boards say they're ready for but don't believe is necessary.
"Our experience with recounts based on our system in Allen County show either no change in our count, or one or two votes possibly," said Keith Cunningham, the county's election board director and incoming president of the Ohio Association of Election Board Directors.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certified Bush as the winner Monday based on official results from county election boards, with the final tally of 2.86 million votes for the Republican, or about 51 percent of the vote, and 2.74 million or 49 percent for Democrat John Kerry.
The 118,775-vote lead was closer than unofficial election night results but not enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Absentee ballots and provisional votes counted after election night made most of the difference.
"Elections are human endeavors and as such they are never pefect," said Blackwell, a Republican. "But I can say with the fullest of confidence that this election in Ohio was perfectly inspiring."
The election hung on Ohio, a battleground state prized for its 20 electoral votes. Not until the morning after the election did Kerry, presented with the state's results, finally concede.
Presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties raised the $113,600 needed to pay for the recount under Ohio law, and will write individual checks to all 88 counties.
Counties have 10 days to start those recounts, allowed under state law, following Blackwell's certification.
The recount's goal is "to ensure that every citizen's vote is properly counted," said John Bonifaz, general counsel for the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute, which represents the independent candidates.
The candidates, David Cobb of the Green Party and Michael Bednarik of the Libertarian Party, together received less than 0.5 percent of the Ohio vote.
Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems, from long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts.
Republicans said the recount won't change anything.
"If there's a recount, there's going to be two losers John Kerry and the Ohio taxpayer," said Mark Weaver, a lawyer representing the Ohio Republican Party. "It's going to cost more than $1.5 million to find out what we already know."
The amount the independent candidates have raised is based on state law calculating the cost of a recount to be $10 a precinct, but Blackwell's office has said a more realistic price tag is $1.5 million.
A Friday ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Edmund Sargus, striking down Delaware County's attempt to stop a recount, ensured the process will go forward.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday the Ohio Supreme Court should investigate Bush's win in Ohio because of "massive problems" with the voting.
The required filing with the Supreme Court, planned for Monday, was put off until at least Tuesday because of its complexity, said Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney representing the voters.
About 20 people protested outside Blackwell's office Monday, demanding Blackwell postpone the Dec. 13 electoral college vote in Ohio until the recount is finished. Blackwell said the vote will take place.
And in San Francisco, about 150 people rallied outside the office of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, to protest voting irregularities, particularly those in Ohio.
On the Net:
Ohio Secretary of State:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.