Ohio bill would change recount process

Ohio bill would change recount process

Thursday, April 21, 2005 By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press writer

COLUMBUS — A revamped elections bill would require the state to finish its recount in a presidential election six days before the vote of the Electoral College and make other changes prompted by last November’s election in Ohio.
(snip)

The bill also would:


• Specify that election workers may direct voters to their correct precincts. Provisional ballots cast outside a voter’s correct precinct cannot be counted, but some counties collected such ballots, then disqualified them.

• Allow voters to use absentee ballots without giving a reason. Current law requires voters to be 62 or older, be out of the country on Election Day, have a relative hospitalized or meet other requirements.

• Move the statewide primary in presidential election years from March to May. The Legislature moved the date up to give Ohio more clout in presidential elections, but county boards and candidates have complained about the early date.

• Prohibit candidates for federal office from running for state or local office, currently permitted in Ohio.

• Purge the rolls of ineligible voters no later than 120 days after a general election.

• Establish the statewide voter database mandated by the Help America Vote Act as a public record.

• Change the filing deadline for candidates and ballot issues from 90 days before an election to 75 days.

• Require the secretary of state to publish directives on the agency’s Web site within 24 hours.

(snip/...)

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=13&ID=219042&r=0
(Free registration will be required)

Thanks to Judi Lynn for Posting in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1410726

HB 3 Regular Session Pending
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_3

Subcategories: | Counting Votes | HAVA Compliance | Provisional Voting | Recounts | Registration-Centralized Voter List | Voter Education/Information | Voter ID-New Voters Only | Voter Intent |

Description: · Permits an individual to cast a provisional ballot in an election for a federal office if the individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in that election but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.
· Permits an individual to cast a provisional ballot in an election for an office other than a federal office or for state or local questions and issues if the individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in that election but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.
· Defines a "jurisdiction" as the precinct in which a person is a legally qualified elector for the purpose of determining whether an individual is eligible to cast a provisional ballot.
· Establishes procedures for the casting and counting of provisional ballots.
· Requires the appropriate state or local election official to establish a free access system through which an individual who casts a provisional ballot may ascertain whether the individual's vote was counted and, if it was not counted, the reason.
· Requires certain voting information to be publicly posted at each polling place on the day of each election for federal office, the day of each election for an office other than a federal office, and the day of each election for state or local questions and issues.
· Defines "optical scan ballots" and specifies the types of marks on those ballots that constitute valid votes.
· Creates specific procedures for counting optical scan ballots.
· Specifies that teams of employees of a board of elections must remake and count as valid ballots, optical scan ballots that were improperly marked and rejected as blank ballots, if the teams are able to determine that specified types of marks demonstrate the intent of the voter.
· Requires first-time electors who registered to vote by mail to provide identification before being permitted to cast a ballot, and permits those electors to cast a provisional ballot if they do not provide the required identification.
· Requires the Secretary of State to establish a single computerized statewide voter registration list of all legally registered voters in Ohio that complies with the requirements of federal law.
· Requires the applicant for a non-automatic recount to pay the entire cost of the recount if its results do not change the result of the election, and modifies or repeals various provisions pertaining to applications for those recounts and the determination of the charges for them.


SB 3 Regular Session Pending
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_3

Subcategories: | Counting Votes | HAVA Compliance | Provisional Voting | Recounts | Registration-Centralized Voter List | Voter Education/Information | Voter ID-New Voters Only | Voter Intent |

Description: · Permits an individual to cast a provisional ballot in an election for a federal office if the individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in that election but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.
· Permits an individual to cast a provisional ballot in an election for an office other than a federal office or for state or local questions and issues if the individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction and eligible to vote in that election but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to vote.
· Defines a "jurisdiction" as the precinct in which a person is a legally qualified elector for the purpose of determining whether an individual is eligible to cast a provisional ballot.
· Establishes procedures for the casting and counting of provisional ballots.
· Requires the appropriate state or local election official to establish a free access system through which an individual who casts a provisional ballot may ascertain whether the individual's vote was counted and, if it was not counted, the reason.
· Requires certain voting information to be publicly posted at each polling place on the day of each election for federal office, the day of each election for an office other than a federal office, and the day of each election for state or local questions and issues.
· Defines "optical scan ballots" and specifies the types of marks on those ballots that constitute valid votes. · Creates specific procedures for counting optical scan ballots.
· Specifies that teams of employees of a board of elections must remake and count as valid ballots, optical scan ballots that were improperly marked and rejected as blank ballots, if the teams are able to determine that specified types of marks demonstrate the intent of the voter.
· Requires first-time electors who registered to vote by mail to provide identification before being permitted to cast a ballot, and permits those electors to cast a provisional ballot if they do not provide the required identification.
· Requires the Secretary of State to establish a single computerized statewide voter registration list of all legally registered voters in Ohio that complies with the requirements of federal law.
· Requires the applicant for a non-automatic recount to pay the entire cost of the recount if its results do not change the result of the election, and modifies or repeals various provisions pertaining to applications for those recounts and the determination of the charges for them.

:shrug:

He's probably looking to vote against them for establishing such laws.

Ballots for "any" reason -- There's not a lot of checks and balances in this option, and a huge risk of someone doing something inappropriate. I mean -- when the ballot comes into the BOE -- does it automatically get handled by a Dem and a Republican, recorded and then dropped anonymously into an absentee box?

Also, directives by the SOS were made up until the day before the election (which judgments coming on election day). There should be something in there about that -- I mean, the SOS should KNOW what his/her plans are and have them set BEFORE the PRIMARY in my opinion. General Elections should not have a flurry of judgments and lawsuits -- if they can't give us March, they certainly should be able to stop all of this by August. I don't have a problem either way with the early primary date -- not really sure why they would want this moved.

just a few thoughts...

I don't see anything in there about machine allocation -- ensuring that each precinct has at least enough machines for a 70% turnout in their precinct. But -- that may be asking for too much...

I have not looked at the details bit there are a lot of state bills addressing the two.

The absentee vote is especially worrisome because of the many who've opted for them over DRE voting THINKING that an absentee ballot would secure their vote.

I wish I were sure. :scared:

that to "ensure" better elections next time, they thought they would just make it easier to do an absentee ballot.... I actually started talking -- no yelling -- back to my radio...

Part of my Letter sent on November 5th to various Democratic BOEs in a 60 mile radius of my area. (only one wrote me back):

I listened this morning on public radio to small reports locally and nationally that the democratic and republican parties want to make sure that the long lines do not happen in Ohio next time,
and they are searching out ways in which to make Absentee Ballots easier to use. I think this idea of having ballots being sent without non-partisan checks and balances to oversee their arrival and to ensure that are counted is something we need to think long and hard about, especially given that in some states
voter registrations were alleged to have been tampered with.

I think the issue is not with the number of machines, but HOW the machines are being dispersed.

I am glad that the after effects of the election are not as crazy and
uncertain as they were four years ago, though in light of recent events, I'm also glad that I heard Mr. White say on WMUB (Oxford, OH public radio station) that the Ohio Democratic Party intends to see that every vote is counted. But that doesn't matter if every person didn't get a chance to vote.

....I went on about my own experiences in my "privileged" neighborhood and how it wasn't right that machine disparity could be so off kilter...

Ending with:

Seems to me, in this day and age, that an equal amount of voting machines could be dispersed to all voting locations -- or am I missing something? I've looked on the Internet for an Ohio Voting Location Map of some sort, to see precinct voting place lay-out, etc. but have yet to find anything. I'm trying to "breathe deep" and just carry on, but I also feel that in order to STOP any problems from occurring again next time, that everyone, republicans and democrats alike, need to look at how voting places are determined, and arrange for equality in dispersing the machines. I could have waited an
hour or more (my boss wouldn't have liked it, but I would have done it and just worked later that night) -- others, needing to pick up children from school, or go to jobs that aren't so forgiving, didn't have this luxury. And, to me, this is completely UNdemocratic.

Kind Regards.

The number of machines deployed would be based on...

1. the # of voters registered in the particular precinct.

2. The turn out during a comparable previous election.

I think that seems reasonable. An "even distribution" seems fair on it's face but I doubt would be so practically.

of precincts have been taken away in Ohio (more for the 2000 election (over 900) than for the 2004 election (over 700) even though in the same time period we have added over a million more registered voters. (I did not know this at the time I wrote the BOEs the original letter. At that time, I was just pissed off that I didn't have any wait time, that there was never a "line out the door" of my polling place, but all over Ohio people were disenfranchised. I found Brad Blog first, and that kept me fired up, but sane, and then found DU at the end of November and learned I had a LOT more things to be peeved about.)

If you need more information (because you never read those posts), let me know. I have a feeling you've probably read them.

I feel in my gut that Ohio was in a similar place in 2000 that it was in 2004 and that Florida2000 overshadowed the problems from the media and people walked away from long lines instead of voting, and didn't complain much, which made 2000's election turnout so low. No proof though, except for the strange precinct loss in the last 6-8 years, which doesn't prove much except that they weren't paying attention to the number of people allocated as registered voters per precinct and the potential number of voters expected (for example: 200 voters in a precinct, approximately 70% (because of previous years' turnout) expected -- about 140 voters -- so 2 machines allocated (1 machine per 99 voters)). To think that only 1 machine is needed for 200 people would be to be expecting a 50% turnout, would it not?

(the 1 per 99 is straight from the BOEs email to me in explaining the ratio).

For me, I don't understand why would it not be practical to assume a percentage of voters based on not just one election cycle, but at least 3 (of the same type of election -- off-year, or general). The only way it becomes impractical is if their database is so out of whack that they can't query by precinct of the registered voters to see how many they have per precinct (since they send out voter 'poll place' reminder cards, I'm pretty sure they have some sort of data). Oh, another way it becomes impractical is if they merge a bunch of precincts together and they don't look at the voter turnout per precinct first -- as those numbers would have to be averaged I suppose.

$$$ issues are certainly a problem I would guess. But if the standard is 1 per 99 voters -- there should be some way to ensure that happens (especially if 30+ machines are being held back at a warehouse.... in one particular district)

I'm not a number cruncher -- far from it -- just seems like this should have a workable solution. I'm probably missing something obvious, though.

Let's just say, "Stolen Polling Places", if that's easier. :)

I read some of your material on that...but about 10,000 others ago.

But what you write above generally rings.

What I don't recall seeing is a reasonable excuse for what happened.

Seems simple enough. Registrants, Previous Turn Out, and fold the #'s if you fold a precinct. Did they do that? Did they release a formula and data they used? There was a Dem involved, too. No?

Even with 2000 suppression, if any, factored, should we have had the lines we did? How much was it that the polling place didn't run a voter through fast enough? (Can you say, "touch-screen problems?)


Whether a factor or an excuse in Ohio, we ARE losing precincts around the country. They've not enough $ to run them AND buy the TouchScreens. The news stories I've seen and posted on the daily thread seem to indicate local jurisdictions are making those calls.

This seems largely, and ominously, happening below DU's radar. Perhaps others , as well.

You could quickly search for state legislation in the works with this engine:

National Conference of State Legislature
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/elections.cfm

I don't know if they're dealing with it at all. I don't think the Fed bills do, either.

Give me back my polling place and count my ballot by hand, please.

(Do you think 'please' is a nice touch? :shrug:)

makes the only decision on to close a polling place -- I wish I were a better number cruncher -- I could look at the stats for each precinct to see turnouts, etc. But, I also don't think its something to waste real time with (that is -- real statistician time). People have said -- "wait, Blackwell couldn't make these decisions without Dems," but according to his job description, it sounds like he can. I mean, if a boss tells you to do something you don't think is a right move, how often are we in the position of saying: "Wait, that doesn't seem like a good move to me...."? And we all know how well he listens... :eyes:

Because of the realiance of MSM going for the "Dixicrat" angle without much scrutinization for Florida's weird problems I kind of got interested in prior election information. I realize that there isn't a lot that can be proven by looking at this data -- voters come and voters go. And I'm too friggin' busy to do more than to keep sending the information out to those who might have the time to investigate it and hope that someone does.

But I do believe that, at least for Ohio, there were a lot of "stolen" polling places, and that these directly had something to do with the long lines. If it were a matter of it happening everywhere I wouldn't think about it -- like Mason, Warren County having the long lines too (evidently they got rid of machines that were available during the primary?? Other precincts did too). But if Some areas -- like my own (pretty close where * Rallied to over 50,000 people) had More Than Enough Machines, and the rest of the problems happened mainly in Dem leaning areas, then there is something here that needs to be addressed.

And for what its worth -- most of the areas had Punch Card -- (or lack of punch card) -- going to machines will cost a lot.

This is part of a letter I send out to such people:

Since Mr. Blackwell has been Secretary of State in 1998, there have been over 1,769 precincts lost, while we have gained 878,427 new voters.

From 1980 to 1996 Presidential Elections there has been an average of 72.86% voter turnout (with 1996 being under 70%). From 2000, to 2004 there has been an average of 67.75% voter turnout, with 2000 being closer to 60% than the average 70% for elections in the last 20 years. People stood in lines for HOURS in this 2004 election and yet we only had 71% reporting? Does that make any sense? For weeks prior to the election the media was warning us about“long lines.” Why? Why is it that machines that were supposed to be distributed in Franklin county never made it? Why is it that more Democratic areas were Merged than Republican? (On one 1-2 mile strip in my neighborhood in West Chester, I estimated at least 23 machines.) What was the voter to machine ratio in suburbs such as mine compared to the areas that had problems?

These issues must be addressed. If there is nothing of merit in the allegations, then Mr. Blackwell should have no problem in answering the Questions that Representative Conyers presented to him -- or no problem participating in the Deposition for the lawsuits before him. I, and thousands of other Ohioans, are waiting.

***
PRECINCT DATA INFORMATION
It has come to my attention that in the 1980s and early 1990s there were little changes to precincts. Consistently Presidential Elections had more turnout (in the 70% range usually) than off-year elections (in the 30%-40% range usually) .

From 1992 on as we added voters to our registry, somehow our precincts began to go down, but the most they declined were after Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, took office.

From 1980 to 1984 there was an increase of voters by 369,950.
From 1980 to 1984 there was a decrease of precincts by 36.

From 1984 to 1988 there was a decrease of voters by 56,816.
From 1984 to 1988 there was a increase of precincts by 285.


From 1988 to 1992 there was an increase of voters by 261,298.
From 1988 to 1992 there was an increase of precincts by 157.

Since 1992 things started going a little different.

From 1992 to 1996 there was an increase of voters by 300,485.
From 1992 to 1996 there was a decrease of precincts by 602.

From 1996 to 2000 there was an increase of voters by 697,767.
From 1996 to 2000 there was a decrease of precincts by 985.

From 2000 to 2004 there was an increase of voters by 439,482.
From 2000 to 2004 there was a decrease of precincts by 785.

**From 1992 to 2004 there has been an increase of voters by
1,437,734

** From 1992 to 2004 there has been a decrease of precincts by 2,372 -- the most not occurring this year, but in 2000!

I got this all from the SOS website. This is your data.


1980
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,332
# of Registered Voters.......5,962,864
Total Votes Cast.............4,378,937
Percent of Votes Cast........73.88%

Just For Fun: Actual Voters/Precincts...... 328 (This would be the number if voters to precincts were evenly distributed -- in this case would be 328 registered voters per precinct -- NOT the real number per precinct, as some are bigger than others -- but just for reference. You'll see why as you get further down.)


1884
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,296
# of Registered Voters.......6,332,454
Total Votes Cast.............4,664,223
Percent of Votes Cast........73.66%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 351


1888
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13581
# of Registered Voters.......6,275,638
Total Votes Cast.............4,505,284
Percent of Votes Cast........71.79%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 331

1992
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,738
# of Registered Voters.......6,536,936
Total Votes Cast.............5,043,094
Percent of Votes Cast........77.14%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 367

1996
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,136
# of Registered Voters.......6,837,421
Total Votes Cast.............4,638,108
Percent of Votes Cast........67.83%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 353


Non-Presidential Election 1997
Precincts Reporting……………………99.98%
# of Precincts ………………………… 13124 (Precincts reporting 13100??)
# of Registered Voters………………6,943,831
Total Votes Cast ………………………. 3,163,091
Percent of Vote Cast………………………………45.46%
Actual Voters/Precincts…………………………241


Non-Presidential Election 1998
# of Precincts............... 13,079
# of Registered Voters.......7,096,423
Total Votes Cast.............3,534,782
Percent of Votes Cast …..49.81%
Actual Voters/Precincts…………270
(Lost 57 precincts from 1998)

Non-Presidential Election 1999
No precinct data
# of Registered Voters.......7,146,895
Total Votes Cast.............2,467,736


2000
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 12,151
# of Registered Voters.......7,535,188
Total Votes Cast.............4,795,989
Percent of Votes Cast........63.6%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 394
(Lost 926 precincts since 1998 (no precinct data 1999))


Non-Presidential Election 2001
# of Precincts............... 11,844
# of Registered Voters.......7,153,796
Total Votes Cast.............2,574,915
Percent of Votes Cast........35.99%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 217
(Lost 307 precincts from following year)

Non-Presidential Election 2002
# of Precincts............... 11,756
# of Registered Voters.......7,113,826
Total Votes Cast.............3,356,285
Percent of Votes Cast........47.17%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 285
(Lost 88 precincts from following year)


Non-Presidential Election 2003
# of Precincts............... 11,488
# of Registered Voters.......7,138,493
Total Votes Cast.............2,649,482
Percent of Votes Cast........37.11%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 230
(Lost 268 precincts from following year)


2004
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 11,366
# of Registered Voters.......7,974,670
Total Votes Cast.............5,722,211
Percent of Votes Cast........71.75%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 530
(Lost 122 precincts from following year, 786 since 2000)

The Job Description of the Secretary of State in Ohio: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/

The Duties on the Ohio Secretary of State website state:
Chief Elections Officer
As Ohio's chief election officer, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell oversees the elections process and appoints the members of boards of elections in each of Ohio's 88 counties.

He supervises the administration of election laws; approves ballot language; reviews statewide initiative and referendum petitions, chairs the Ohio Ballot Board, which approves ballot language for statewide issues; canvasses votes for all elective state offices and issues; investigates election frauds and irregularities; trains election officials and reimburses counties for poll worker training costs.

The Elections Division compiles and maintains election statistics, political party records and other election-related records. Statewide candidates' campaign finance reports are filed with the office, together with the reports for state political action committees (PACs), state political parties and legislative caucus campaign committees.

The Secretary of State's office also licenses ministers to perform marriage; registers alien land; and issues apostilles, which are certifications verifying signatures on documents going out of the country.

All laws passed by the Ohio General Assembly, municipal charters, administrative rules adopted by agencies, and all executive orders issued by the Governor are filed with this office, as well.

Like I said, the BoE's/SoS should provide it to show how they came up with the decisions. Your ahead of the game with your own reference to check against their claims.

Has there been an effort to dislodge the data?

We don't have to prove they did it to hurt Kerry. They may have done it for that and/or a host of other deprecinctifacated reasons. :) We want to ask what they did, why, and then figure out if it was lawful. (in addition to awful.)

That SoS Job Desc. doesn't mention precincts. I'm getting the sense that may often be a county issue (like the Ohio pie-fight over DRE vs. OpScan).

I voted in Maryland, and I can tell my vote was counted, it was counted out, after seeing the machine default to GWB 5 times, what chance to we have in '06, I really have no confidence that my vote will really count in '06, Diebold is still "King" What is in place to make sure that the machines accurately count every vote, still nothing that I can see.

it worse.
What they need is guidelines to insure uniformity of application and lack of discrimination. That wasn't the case in 2004; the purges were used as a tool to reduce minority votes.

Blackwell's dictum, that provisional ballots are only valid if cast at the correct precinct, cost Kerry thousands of crucial Ohio votes.

The Hamilton County SOE carried that decision to its logical conclusion, and refused to count provisional ballots that had been cast at the correct polling place - but at the wrong precinct's table. In HC, 400 provisional ballots were rejected for being cast at the wrong table in the polling place.

It is imperative that the Ohio Bill be changed to allow provisional ballots to be counted if cast anywhere in the county.

how provisional ballots were "supposed" to work -- Blackwell's interpretation of them completely skewed her whole definition (they weren't speaking together -- woman was talking to one of the reporters....)

I agree that the provisional ballots should be counted after verification of voter (which they have to do anyway).

I should have said,

"It is imperative that the Ohio Bill be changed so that a provisional ballot is not invalid because it was cast at the wrong precinct in a county".


The issue is "validity" - not "counting", per se.

Cheers.

the presidential, state-wide and county wide contests. Remember the ballot "offerings" varies from district to district. Thus one is presented with the problem of deciding which contests the provisional voter is eligible to vote on. The precinct can't be expected to make available the entire ballot offerings for each district. Therefore, the rule would have to be -- if you want to vote all all contests, you must vote in your own precinct otherwise you will be limited to a provisional generic ballot that contains a subset of the contests.

and because they were in the "wrong line" they didn't get their provisional ballot counted, or get ferried over to the "right" line and was able to start a line in order to MERGE with people in their precinct line.

that's what I don't understand with all of this -- some people waited over an hour, and then were told they were in the wrong line (even though they were in the right "polling place" -- and had to get in back of the correct line -- they waited, why couldn't there be an alternative line so it would be line/alt/line/alt until the alternatives were taken care of? (No answer to that -- the procedures were what they were, I just don't understand the decisions they made for it....)

as opposed to precribing new procedures for handling provisional voters.

Since the interpretation of the laws and prescribed procedures (as defined in 2004) and the practices carried out in the polling stations by the staff clearly varied from precinct-to-precinct, there should be some remedy for retrospectively determining the will/intent of the voters in those cases. Surely this would be a valid argument in a court. But then I am not a lawyer ....

"Ohio Court: Provisional Ballots Outside Voter's Precinct Not Valid
The Associated Press
Saturday 23 October 2004

"Cincinnati - A federal appeals court ruled Saturday (23 Oct.) that provisional ballots Ohio voters cast outside their own precincts should not be counted, throwing out a lower-court decision that said such ballots are valid as long as they are cast in the correct county.

"The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supports an order issued by Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Democrats contend the Republican official's rules are too restrictive and allege they are intended to suppress the vote..."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_102504G.shtml

Vote Tabulators

Manufacturer Reps have Remote Patch to Vote Tabulators, including on Election Day(Manufacturer had election results live on web site as the votes were being compiled by the manufacturer)

Van Wert County (Punch Cards, Triad Tabulator ) random sample , Triad serviced tabulators remotely before recount.
"The hand recount of Jackson went smoothly and matched the total from election night. The Van Wert 1D count did not match the first time through. It was counted about three times and then matched.
"When asked if Triad had serviced the machine, the deputy director and a board member stated that they had serviced the machine over the phone via modem on December 9th."


Affidavits of Tampering by Manufacturer Reps prior to Recount
Hocking County(Punch Cards, Triad Tabulator)
At an Ohio hearing convened by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., an affidavit was filed on behalf of Sherole Eaton, an election worker in Hocking County, describing how an employee of Triad may have tampered with the vote tabulator when he dismantled it three days before the Dec. 13 recount. In her affidavit, she states the technician told her "how to post a 'cheat sheet' on the wall so the ... count would come out perfect and we wouldn't have to do a full hand recount of the county."
Conyers has asked the FBI to investigate. Attorneys for John Kerry filed two motions on Monday to preserve the evidence in this case and to take the deposition of the Triad technician

the stickers placed over votes in Clermont county and other circles darkened in?

Isn't the green party trying to get another recount? It's Ironic that Blackwell is holding Lucas County to the Random 3% rule, do you think that is going to bite them as this is (if this is) further investigated?

Green Recount Team statement(2 precincts examined)

"In Perry County, we inspected the voter logbooks, which showed 100 people voting in one precinct without any signatures, leaving no way to verify who actually voted." A lawsuit asking the courts to overturn the results of the Perry County auditor's race alleges that the number of votes exceeded the number of people who signed the voting books.