LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2005

Subject:

Exec. Summary of Status report of House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff--Conyers

From:

Wren Osborn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:42:07 -0800

Content-Type:

multipart/alternative

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (189 lines) , text/enriched (237 lines)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

The full 102 page report in pdf format can be downloaded at above URL

Preserving Democracy:
What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

Wednesday 05 January 2005

Executive Summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House 
Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to conduct an 
investigation into irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential 
election and to prepare a Status Report concerning the same prior to 
the Joint Meeting of Congress scheduled for January 6, 2005, to receive 
and consider the votes of the electoral college for president. The 
following Report includes a brief chronology of the events; summarizes 
the relevant background law; provides detailed findings (including 
factual findings and legal analysis); and describes various 
recommendations for acting on this Report going forward.

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio 
presidential election, which resulted in a significant 
disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which 
affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave 
doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on 
December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, 
let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards.

This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1) consistent 
with the requirements of the United States Constitution concerning the 
counting of electoral votes by Congress and Federal law implementing 
these requirements, there are ample grounds for challenging the 
electors from the State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further 
hearings into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we 
believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the appointment of a 
joint select Committee of the House and Senate to investigate and 
report back to the Members; and (3) Congress needs to enact election 
reform to restore our people's trust in our democracy. These changes 
should include putting in place more specific federal protections for 
federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit capability for 
electronic voting machines and casting and counting of provisional 
ballots, as well as other needed changes to federal and state election 
laws.

With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there 
were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in 
Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional 
misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of 
State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in 
Ohio.

First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. 
Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised 
hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and 
Democratic voters:

*       The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines 
that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of 
predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by 
the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 
of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed 
majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven 
wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See 
Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to 
provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code 
which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities 
at each polling place for conducting the election."
*       Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in 
the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of 
voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. 
Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional 
ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would 
have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did 
not do so in other states.
*       Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration 
applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of 
new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.
*       The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection 
"caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority 
voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The 
Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct 
violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from 
targeting minority voters for poll challenges.
*       The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan 
challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely 
disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only 
intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, 
these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by 
Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican 
Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer 
lines and frustration."
*       Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee 
ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to 
receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not 
tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court 
found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.



Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies 
and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have 
yet to be accounted for:

*       There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in 
violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal 
Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's 
apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many 
serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under 
Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.
*       We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by 
election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of 
voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition 
projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost 
their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.
*       There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for 
president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The 
problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County 
which 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.
*       There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other 
counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 
electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the 
Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote 
counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet 
the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records 
of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some 
precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, 
and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down 
ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate 
implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic 
Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker 
error may have led to little known thirdparty candidates receiving 
twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in 
otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, 
voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and 
after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 
extra votes were recorded for President Bush.



Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous 
irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and 
completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call 
the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount 
is still not complete):

*       Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards 
for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of 
thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, 
the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review 
standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 
24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion 
in the state.
*       Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount 
contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due 
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable 
irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) 
counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) 
counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and 
machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for 
irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store ballots and 
machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates 
from observing the various aspects of the recount.
*       The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it 
engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties 
to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat 
sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for 
each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate 
to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full 
county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
in receiving the included information for research and educational 
purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the 
originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored 
by the originator.)

 : t r u t h o u t 2005




Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager