The Scrapbook

Our series on questions over voter irregularities continues this morning. We'll speak to Will Doherty from Verifiedvoting.org about problems with electronic voting. The latest news on the Ohio front comes in the form of two letters from DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and four Democratic Congressmen including Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York. Read on for the two letters...

Send us your thoughts

In the meantime, you can listen to our past segments on the issue:

UPDATED:
December 15
John Conyers, Congressmember (D- Michigan 14th District)
[read the response letter Rep. Conyers received from Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (and Conyers' response)]
and
December 15
Bev Harris, Founder of Blackboxvoting.org

December 8
Will Doherty, Executive Director of the Verified Voting Foundation

December 1
Bill Cohen, reporter in the Ohio Public Radio TV Statehouse News Bureau
and
Jon Craig, statehouse reporter for the Columbus Dispatch

November 17
Miles Rapoport, President of the think tank Demos and former Connecticut Secretary of State

November 12
David Corn, Washington Editor of The Nation, and FOX News Channel contributor
and
Thom Hartmann, nationally syndicated radio host
and
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-8th Congressional District

November 5
Miles Rapoport, President of the think tank Demos and former Connecticut Secretary of State and Bill Cohen, reporter in the Ohio Public Radio TV Statehouse News
and
November 5
Greg Palast investigative journalist

Letter from Terry McCaulliffe

Your response to Washington Governor candidate Christine Gregoire's plea for help has been overwhelming. Thanks to your generosity, the recount in Washington will now go forward. With only 42 votes separating Gregoire and her Republican opponent, today we can ensure that every ballot is accurately counted. This could not have happened without you.
Your incredible grassroots support is vital to our continued fight to ensure a full and legitimate count of every single vote in this election and future elections. In addition to our strong commitment to the recount in Washington State, the Democratic Party has empowered the Ohio Democratic Party to represent us as our official observer during the recount. We will make sure that every vote in Ohio is counted.
But we aren't stopping there. After consulting with our Voting Rights Institute staff, Voting Protection Coordinators, Ohio legal team, Party activists, supporters, elected officials, and others, and after reviewing available information, the Democratic National Committee has decided to conduct a thorough investigation of key election issues arising from the conduct of the 2004 general election in Ohio.
This investigative study will address the legitimate questions and concerns that have been raised in Ohio and will develop factual information that will be critically important in crafting further key election reforms. This project seeks to answer such questions as:
• Why did so many people have to wait in line in certain Ohio precincts and not others?
• Why weren't there enough machines in some counties and not others?
• Why were so many Ohioans forced to cast provisional ballots?
We will find answers to help implement and advocate reforms in the future.
Let me be clear. We do not expect either the recount in Ohio or our investigation to overturn the results of this election. But both are vital to protecting every American's voting rights in future elections. And the Democratic Party will never waver when it comes to upholding this sacred trust.
Thank you again for your incredible support.
Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman

----
Congressional letter
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 leboheme at 09:17 AM