Ohio - Statewide Recount Appears Inevitable

Statewide recount appears inevitable
Third-party candidates say they want to ensure votes counted properly
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Mark Niquette
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

It seems the presidential election in Ohio is headed for overtime, even if the outcome isn’t in doubt.

A pair of third-party presidential candidates, Libertarian Michael Badnarik and the Green Party’s David Cobb, said yesterday that they have raised enough money to pay for a statewide recount after the results are certified in early December.

The goal isn’t to overturn President Bush’s unofficial 136,000-vote victory in Ohio but to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities, the candidates say.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, a spokesman for Cobb.

Bobier said yesterday that the campaigns have raised more than $150,000 in four days, mostly in small donations from contributors nationwide. Ohio law requires payment of $10 per precinct for a recount, or $113,600 statewide.

But that law dates to 1956, and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell’s office has estimated the actual costs to county elections boards would be a combined $1.5 million, spokesman Carlo LoParo said.

"A recount on a whim, while permissible under Ohio law, has a substantial impact on the process," LoParo said. Still, he added that Ohio "welcomes scrutiny of the process."

Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.

"There’s certainly suspicion about the results, and hopefully a recount will be part of the effort to dispel that cloud of suspicion," he said.

Supporters of Sen. John Kerry have pointed to several reported election problems — including a Gahanna precinct that had more unofficial votes for Bush than registered voters because of a computer error — and Internet sites have been buzzing with suspicion of fraud.

Ohio Republican Party Chairman Robert T. Bennett said yesterday that a recount wouldn’t bother him because "it’s not going to change any results."

Election-law experts also doubt a recount is necessary but say it’s important to put the state election system under the microscope and make changes for future elections.

State law requires a recount if the margin in a race statewide is less than one-fourth of one percent of the total vote. Based on unofficial results, that would be about 13,700 votes in the presidential race.

Otherwise, candidates may file in each county to pay for a recount, as long as the filing is done within five days after results are certified.

County boards must certify their results by Dec. 1 and send them to Blackwell, who will certify the state results between Dec. 3 and Dec. 6, LoParo said.

Besides raising money for the recount, Badnarik and Cobb are seeking volunteers to monitor the recount in all 88 counties, Bobier said.

During the recount, elections workers in counties with punch cards or paper ballots hand count 3 percent of the ballots, then run them through counting machines to determine whether the totals match.

If they do, the rest of the county ballots are run through the machines. If not, the manual count is rechecked and, if the count is still off, all ballots are counted by hand.

In Franklin County and other counties with electronic voting devices, workers must prepare test computer cartridges to run through tabulators to ensure vote totals match.

Those requesting a recount also may ask for each ballot to be physically inspected, and all work must be done with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

LoParo couldn’t predict how long the recount would take, saying it could be "several days to several weeks."

The last statewide recount was in 1990 in the attorney general’s race between Democrat Lee Fisher and Republican Paul E. Pfeifer. That recount was finalized Dec. 20 and cost $72,737, Dispatch files show. Fisher’s narrow Election Day victory held up after the recount.

Kerry’s campaign and election experts have said they think the unofficial results will stand. Kerry’s legal team continues to monitor the official vote count but doesn’t expect the outcome to change.

Still, some observers point to unanswered questions and continue to ask, "What if?"

They note, for example, that there are about 155,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted, as well as an undetermined number of military and overseas ballots that were due last Friday. Then there are the 92,672 votes statewide that were not counted on election night, either because people cast more than one vote in the presidential race or none at all.

Some undervotes are intentional, and some overvotes are the result of voter mistakes. But critics fear the heavy use of punch cards in Ohio means there could be other errors — and the uncounted ballots should be scrutinized to determine if a vote should have been counted.

Panel hears more complaints about Election Day problems
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Matthew Marx
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

In a room where 100 people shared accounts of suppressed votes, machine malfunctions and other Election Day problems, Jennifer A. Delaney stood out.

Maybe it was the black X scrawled on her forehead, as well as on the foreheads of several others attending last night’s public hearing at the Franklin County Courthouse.

Delaney, 29, of Hilliard, gave a simple explanation for why she made the mark.

"The X is because I don’t know if my vote was counted on Nov. 2."

Or maybe it was because disenfranchisement seemed to follow Delaney from one swing state to another.

"I lived in Florida in 2000. . . . I voted for (former Vice President Al) Gore. I was eager for every vote to be counted," Delaney said. "Afterward, I was suspicious for months."

This year, she voted in Ohio, where she is a teaching assistant at Ohio State University.

"I voted for (Sen. John) Kerry. I think I see similarities to last time. I keep thinking to myself, ‘Could this really be happening again?’ "

Delaney was one of about 30 people who spoke to a panel organized by local watchdog groups.

Addressing a panel of citizen advocates, Delaney explained that she had a "very easy" time, voting in 30 minutes at the Prairie Township firehouse.

Then she went to Ohio State and learned from her students about the problems they had. She submitted affidavits from 13 people who experienced long waits or had their voting rights questioned.

Other speakers told of problems with voting machines and uninformed poll workers.

"I pushed John Kerry and my vote went for George Bush," said Jeanne Smith White, who voted at St. Anthony School in Columbus Ward 3, Precinct B. "I started yelling. The poll worker came over and said, ‘That’s happened a lot.’

"I’m still not sure if I voted for John Kerry," she said.

A similar meeting drew twice as many people to a Near East Side church on Saturday. Testimony from both meetings will be used in formal complaints being filed with county and state elections officials.

The director of the Franklin County Board of Elections thinks that’s a good idea.

"It’s a good thing whenever people want to get together to air concerns. Just like the right to vote, the right to assemble and air concerns is important," Matthew Damschroder said from his home last night.

He said he heard many of those complaints — and about long lines — on Election Day.

"The bottom line is we had 102,000 more people vote this year on Election Day than in 2000. It is a phenomenal, wonderful thing, but we had the same amount of machines," he said.


ANGRY VOTERS AIR COMPLAINTS
Hundreds at hearing question process, suspect fraud
Published: Sunday, November 14, 2004
By Suzanne Hoholik and Jeb Phillips
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

An elderly man who was refused an absentee ballot left his hospital bed and showed up at a polling site with an IV still in his arm.

Another man had to convince four elections workers that he still lives in his Bexley house.

Broken voting machines, cars being towed from a Driving Park polling site, three- to five-hour waits and too few machines -- these were some of the stories shared by voters, poll workers and elections observers yesterday at a Near East Side church. Robert Fitrakis, a lawyer and political-science professor at Columbus State Community College, organized the hearing so attendees could air their election grievances -- then send the information to state officials.

It drew more than 200 people and ran hours longer than planned.

Most of the crowd favored Sen. John Kerry, with many wearing campaign stickers and buttons.

They cheered when one man called for Kerry to "unconcede'' the presidential election and booed at the mention of Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.

A sign leaning on the New Faith Baptist Church of Christ read Voting fraud = death to democracy and many cars had Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers.

Stories were collected by a court reporter, and the hearing was videotaped and broadcast on a local radio station.

Fitrakis said he'd give transcripts and tapes to Blackwell as well as county boards of elections, and if any glaring issues arise, he's ready to file criminal or civil lawsuits.

"I believe there is enough evidence for systematic voter suppression,'' he said. "To pretend that it went well on Election Day is wrong.''

Matthew Damschroder, Franklin County Board of Elections director, said later in an interview that the election was a success.

"Nothing happened in this election that doesn't happen in any other election,'' he said. "The difference in this election was there was far more attention being paid by everyone.''

Harvey Wasserman has been a voter since 1976 and has lived in Bexley since 1986. He knew he'd be out of town Nov. 2 and applied for an absentee ballot.

"A few days later, I received a rejection,'' he said. "It said I filled out the wrong address even though (the letter) came to me.''

After four phone calls, he received a ballot.

"How many other absentee ballots were rejected?'' Wasserman asked.

Carol Shelton was the presiding judge at the Linden library precinct, with three machines for 1,500 registered voters. At her home precinct in Clintonville, she said there were three machines for 730 voters.

"I called to get more machines and got connected to Matt Damschroder, and after lots of hassle he sent a fourth machine,'' she said. "It did not put a dent in the long lines. This was a clear case of voter suppression.''

Damschroder agreed in the interview that adding one machine per precinct wouldn't have made a difference with 102,000 more people voting than in 2000.

"We need to have a public discourse about what is the appropriate level of resources and funding for county boards of elections,'' he said.

Although there were enough machines at Derek Winsor's Victorian Village precinct, three broke down while he was in line for three hours. He asked how poll workers knew the votes cast on those machines would be counted and said he was told, "They just are.''

"How do we as voters and poll workers receive assurances that the votes are stored?'' he asked.

Floyd Mitchell Hall, a volunteer for the nonpartisan Election Protection group, worked at a Driving Park precinct where the man showed up with an IV in his arm.

"He was told he could not vote absentee, that he had applied too late,'' Hall said.

Before the hearing, about 15 people who planned to attend stood on the Broad Street sidewalk outside the Statehouse holding signs reading Count Every Vote.

Roxanne Ziegler, 41, of New York City, applied for the demonstration permit after she heard stories of voting and counting problems in Ohio.

"I started getting angry -- one, because my candidate didn't get elected, and because our votes weren't getting counted,'' she said.

She decided the best way to draw attention to that was to fly to Columbus and demonstrate. Via the Internet, she found Jeff Nolish, 23, a Bowling Green State University senior, who organized a rally in Columbus the day after the election. She got the permit Friday, and most of the 15 demonstrators yesterday were Bowling Green students.

Another hearing will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. Monday at the Franklin County Courthouse auditorium, 373 S. High St.

Did Your Vote Count?

Thanks to Keith Olbermann at MSNBC for bringing these voting stories to light. I sat with my jaw wide open on Monday night as the revelations of voting irregularites started to unwind. While I am a Kerry supporter, this is not about changing our election reults, it IS about making our democracy work. If you notice, about 3 entries down in my blog, I did report there would be issues for voters in Ohio. Unfortunately, the warnings came true.

Here is part one of three broadcasts Keith has done. He has some wonderful facts posted in his blog, I encourage you to read and write MSNBC for continued coverage on the stories that are emerging.

The craziest story comes to us from Warren, Oh. Citing "Homeland Security" threats - no one was able to enter the building, so it didn't include an approved ballot-count watcher. Hmmmmmmm, strange indeed!

As of today, MoveOn.Org is finally getting involved. If you want to see our democracy work, and actually count our votes, please sign the petition.

Last, but not least BlackBoxVoting.org is a non-partisan group investigating our new voting technologies - what worked and our vulnerabilities.

From David Shuster, MSNBC:
As promised, our examination of the vote in Ohio and Florida continues. At this point, I've seen enough to conclude that the congressman demanding a GAO (Government Accountability Office) investigation is not nuts... at least not on this issue.

Here's what we've established so far:

1. In Franklin County, Ohio, an electronic voting machine reported an extra 3,893 votes for President Bush. Local officials caught the error. But as my colleage David Corn of "The Nation" has reported, Peggy Howell, one of the key officials, "doesn't know" why the mistake occurred. That, by itself, is a strong argument for the GAO to step in.

2. We still "don't know" why the officials in charge of voting at Kenyon college in Ohio equipped the site with only two voting machines. No explanation has been offered. Students who waited in line for nine hours believe it was an effort to disenfranchise easily identifiable democrats.

Cuyahoga County, Ohio has changed its explanation as to how some precincts could have reported more votes cast than the total number of registered voters. The county says it added absentee ballots to the "reporting" not the "counting." Hmmm. Hello, GAO?

The question is, are these anomalies or part of a pattern to steal the election? Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says, "there is no overwhelming reason to cast doubt on the outcome of this election." Why? Consider Florida.

Regarding the Florida counties that went strongly for Bush, despite more registered Democrats than registered Republicans: In addition to the numbers listed on an earlier blog, I checked previous presidential elections... and those Dixiecrat counties have been trending Republican for 12 year. Lafayette County, which has 3,570 registered Democrats and 570 registered Republicans went strongly for President Bush this year as well as four years ago. It also went for Bob Dole over Clinton in '96, and for George H.W. Bush over Clinton in '92. Other Dixiecrat counties follow the same trend. The story is the same across the state.

We will continue to probe and keep an open mind... and we are not finished crunching numbers. But here are two nuggets we learned today about those infamous exit polls that gave Kerry an edge over the President in Ohio and in Florida...

The exit pollsters asked voters to answer a questionnaire that had not one or two questions... but 30. So most people in a hurry were not going to stick around. (And you can imagine the challenge for somebody with "energetic" toddlers or little children.) This could overstate the turnout of "single" voters (a group that broke towards Kerry) and understate "married with children voters" (a group that broke towards President Bush.)

The exit pollsters were clearly identifiable, through logos plastered on their clipboards and logos on the questionnaire, as representing a consortium of the major broadcast news organizations: (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and CNN.) The logos of the big three, NBC, CBS, and ABC are far more well known than the logo for Fox. My point is that voters who are suspicious of the major broadcast networks (whether those suspicions are justified or not) usually aren't interested in helping us do anything. Who are these voters? They tend to be Evangelical Christians and other conservatives. And if these voters are shying away from the network pollsters, the exit numbers are going to underestimate the president's support.

In any case, we still have a lot of unanswered questions... and I know many of you do as well. Can we agree that the non-partisan GAO is wise to get involved?

DShuster@MSNBC.com

Broken Borders

I've had a few stories on US/Mexican immigration policies in my blog for some time now. I've been collecting a few stories since September 21, 2004. Then the election rolled on and I got a little busy with the Kerry campaign and didn't have a chance to finish or post my collection of links.

Here I sit, November 10 - a mere week after the election. MUCH to my surprise, only 7 days after the election, I find the reporting from CNN couldn't have been more on the money regarding Bush's plan to legalize illegals - ALL 6 to 10 MILLION of them. It's hard to get a proper count since they are here, well - illegally.

I'm not a bigot - far from it. I just want the US to enforce the laws already on the books. After this year's election, Canada made it quite clear, if you want to leave the US - you cannot just cross our border and take up residence - you must file the appropriate paper work - take a number, stand in line.

Why is it the US treats this process any different regarding Mexican workers invading OUR borders? Would the US be considered unfair for enforcing laws that are on our books?

From what I can deduct, NOT enforcing our policies is costing us a shit load of money as tax payers. From health care to education we're funding around 6 MILLION illegal immigrants. And we wonder why (in part) our system is strained to pay for these services regarding our own citizens. And, in the wake of 9/11 it certainly stands to reason, NOT enforcing our borders has to be one of the biggest security blunders we could champion.

As we look to this issue regarding the illegals themselves, working in the US - we find a slave labor work force unable to protect themselves from the abuses of individuals and businesses paying them $5 an hour for their work.

Below is the blog I started back in September '04.

I'm a Lou Dobbs fan, I confess. For the past year this CNN anchor has been working his rear end off trying to enlighten us on two topics: Outsourcing and Broken Borders. Tonight, I sat in shock during the mother of all stories regarding our immigration problem in the U.S. Your new phrase for the day is "Totalization Agreement". Please educate yourself on this lopsided agreement pending with Mexico.

DOBBS: The Center for Immigration Studies today released a scathing report on a controversial agreement between the United States and Mexico. That agreement could allow millions of illegal aliens in this country to receive Social Security benefits. The State Department is working on the final draft of this deal, which has been kept in secret. Critics of the agreement say that it heavily favors Mexican workers and could cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The United States says Social Security totalization (ph) agreements with 20 countries. They're designed to make sure workers who come here and work get credit for that work back home, so that when they return home, they'll be eligible for their country's pension system. It works for American workers in foreign countries, as well. The pending agreement with Mexico is the exception to those other agreements.

MARTI DINERSTEIN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: This agreement is a perversion of the existing total of the 20 existing totalization agreements. Few, if any, conditions present in the other agreements exist.

TUCKER: The most obvious is that it would cover more people than any of the other agreements. But a less obvious and potentially more devastating difference centers on the issue of immigration status.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: While it is true that one cannot be illegal at the time that one would be applying for Social Security, prior work done while an illegal is in the country does count for Social Security under the agreement.

TUCKER: How could that happen? If there's any amnesty program or guest worker program which changes illegal status to legal, some estimated six million workers and their dependents would be eligible for Social Security payments.

(on camera): But the agreement with Mexico to become final, it needs to be presented to Congress. But Congress doesn't need to approve it. It can only veto it. And Congress has never vetoed a totalization agreement. Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California is one member of Congress fighting to block that agreement. It's called a totalization agreement. The congressman has introduced a bill that would forbid anyone working in this country illegally from receiving Social Security benefits, and he joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Congressman, good to have you with us.

ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Correct my interpretation if it is wrong -- not only are the American people denied representation on immigration policy in this country, but the effect of a totalization agreement is to deny participation by the U.S. Congress, other than through veto.

ROHRABACHER: I will have to say that this is an undemocratic way of approaching this problem. The threat of illegal immigration, not only just the threat, the effect of illegal immigration today on the American people is devastating, yet we do not have a national debate on this issue. Just a few shows like your own program and others are trying to stimulate that debate. But where are the national parties on this?

We're talking about a health care system that's going to pot. We're talking about education that's -- that's second -- you know, we are -- we -- our education system in California is falling apart because of illegal immigration, and yet now we have a threat to Social Security. This deserves a national debate.

DOBBS: It deserves a national debate. You are one of those, one of the few, speaking out. But the issue is -- isn't reported by "Time" magazine last week, as I said, on its cover story, reporting three million illegal aliens entering this country. You and Congress, your party and the Republican and the Democratic Party, has -- have been absolutely silent. Why...

ROHRABACHER: Both parties.

DOBBS: Why in the world can't the American people, the middle class, working men and women in this country, find representation in the United States Congress? What can be done?

ROHRABACHER: Well, both parties have got very special interests and very big interests that play here. In the Democratic party, the left of liberal wing of the Democratic party, which controls that party, sees the -- this influx of millions, out of control influx, of millions of illegals as potential constituents. It's going to give them political power.

On the other hand, big business, which has an undue influence on the Republican Party, sees this as a way of keeping down wages. And unless the political parties step up and address this issue, I predict that within a year or two, they'll be a third party that will emerge and it will sweep out the existing parties.

DOBBS: I imagine there are a few people asking why in the world do we have to wait when people look at important issues like immigration, they look at border security, national security, in some instances, spending on infrastructure on this country, state of education, we wonder why we need either party because both seem to be about the same? ROHRABACHER: Let me give them this recommendation. There have been four or five votes we've had on illegal immigration over this last year. Several of them were bills I have proposed. The American people are upset with the fact that we have this massive influx that is threatening our way of life and the well being of our people, should look at those votes and see who in Congress voted what way and then kick the scoundrels out who are not doing a good job.

DOBBS: How many scoundrels do you think it is, Congressman?

What would be the sum total?

ROHRABACHER: I would say there are large number of people who are portraying themselves concerned about illegal immigration, who are doing nothing. On the Republican side, and on the Democrat side, frankly, virtually every member of the Democratic Party in Congress votes to protect illegal immigration into our country.

DOBBS: Beyond that, and we will put that voting record up here shortly on our Web site, that will be loudobbs.com, but what else can people do?

Because the frustration -- I know reading the e-mails, the letters from our viewers, there is huge frustration on this issue?

ROHRABACHER: People are not -- people are dying. I mean American citizens are dying because they go into the emergency room and you got an emergency roomful of illegal aliens who shouldn't be there and their loved one does not get the care that they need. Our criminal justice system are letting these criminals who shouldn't be in this country, letting them loose among our population. Now, when we have American citizens who are dying and we have wages that are being kept down that keep our standard of living down, something's terribly wrong if the political system isn't addressing the problem. We need to ask questions of those people who are running for office and ask the tough questions, why didn't you vote this way, this way, or this way on these particular pieces of legislation.

DOBBS: Should we start with President Bush?

ROHRABACHER: I think we should start with every person who holds elected office in this country. And I think it should be a major question in the debates between the two presidential candidates.

DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, we thank you for being here. Thank you, Dana Rohrabacher.

September 23rd transcript of show.

Totalization Agreements Will Increase Social Security Benefit Payments to Mexican Citizens.
Social Security 'Totalization'; Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico

The Social Security totalization agreement that was part of President Bush's "temporary worker" proposal last week has stirred up a hornet's nest among some law-makers, and flies in the face of the General Accounting Office's September, 2003 report, according to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO).

President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program

In plain english - and explanation of the Bush plan.
One way to get illegal aliens to vote for you! Give them a RIGHT we earned to be U.S. citizens.

Bush Proposes Voting Rights for Illegal Aliens
(2004-01-08) -- U.S. President George Bush today proposed to "fully enfranchise" illegal aliens working in the United States by allowing them to vote even though they're not citizens. Critics immediately denounced the move as a political ploy to lock up the Latino vote.

However, Mr. Bush said it's just the next logical step following his proposal yesterday to grant working rights to people who came into the country illegally.

"Éste no es ningún truco politico (This is not a political trick.)," said Mr. Bush during a casual walk through a Latino neighborhood in a Texas border town. "No estoy haciendo esto apenas para conseguir los votos de Latino. (I'm not doing this just to get Latino votes.)"

An unnamed senior administration official said that voting rights are important for illegal aliens since they have to pay sales tax and "America was created to combat the idea of taxation without representation."

The official also said Mr. Bush is considering naming an illegal alien to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) during what Mr. Bush calls "mi segundo término de la oficina" (my second term).

The New North America