Blog Posts
The 20 latest Blog Posts
- New Book: A History of Hate in Ohio
- Fraudbusterbob.org Moved To here! Fitrakis.org Archived
- The Other Side of the News April 26, 2019 Nuclear Plants Plus
- LaRose knows not to purge
- Historical Digitization Hundreds Of Tapes Fitrakis Archive.org
- Historical Digitization Hundreds Of Tapes Fitrakis Archive.org
- Four Still Dead in Ohio
- Dr. Bob Speaking With Thom Hartmann About Alabama Election
- Bob Fitrakis speaks as an election attorney and political scientist who talks about the suspension of the laws of physics for exit polling only not working within the borders of the U.S.
- 10/7/2017, in Berkeley, Dr. Bob Fitrakis, Peter Peckarsky speak about voter exit polls and the massive issues American voters are facing
- The Other Side of the News October 6, 2017 – An interview with Ajamu Baraka
- Closing Statement At Summit County Ohio State Meeting
- Solartopia Green Power and Wellness Hour – 08.24.17
- 20170813 – anti fascist rally and march in support of charlottesville – web
- ORANGE IS THE NEW ORANGE: The President should be behind bars
- ORANGE IS THE NEW ORANGE: The President should be behind bars
- The Other Side of the News July 28, 2017 – Trump and the ACA
- Bob Speaks Out About Police Arrests At Portman’s “Private” Office
- Columbus Police on the Attack Again: Disabled demonstrators arrested
- Bob Fitrakis On WVKO Radio Columbus Series Audio 2012 Archive, Youtube Bonus at end
Pages
Available Pages
- About
- About Bob
- Bob Fitrakis Academics
- Cookie Policy (EU)
- Events
- Green Party to Obama: Whether foreign or domestic, it’s time for America to cut oil and gas from our energy diet
- Home
- Opt-out preferences
- Understanding Hackwell’s Right Wing Agenda
- Video Collection
- What Happened in Ohio? A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election
- Bob Fitrakis For Ohio U.S. House District 3 Green Party
Categories
Archives by Subject:
- Alt Energy
- Archived Event
- ART
- Bob and Connie's Hot Topics
- Bob's Hot Topics
- Campaign Updates
- Clean Elections
- Corporate Rule
- Debate
- Drugs
- Economic Justice
- Economics
- Education
- Election Integrity
- End War
- Endosement
- Environment
- Event
- Events
- Fighting Corruption
- fitrakis POER
- Grassroots Activism
- Green Party
- Green Party Local
- Green Party National
- Green Party State
- Green Technology
- Health Care
- History
- Immigration
- Investigation
- Investigations
- Issues
- Media
- No Nukes
- Occupy
- One Of Bob's Best
- Petition
- PETITIONS
- police officers for equal rights
- Politics
- Prisons
- Racism
- Rights and Liberties
- Security Industrial Complex
- Social Event
- Social Events
- Stop the War
- Universal Suffrage
- Women's Rights
Monthly
Archives by Month:
- August 2021
- March 2020
- April 2019
- January 2019
- May 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- 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
- 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

Sausage Making And Electronic Voting Machines
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
July 27, 2007
We’ve been long warned that foreign policy is like making sausage – you don’t want to know the gory details. The same is true of electronic vote counting on the so-called e-voting machines, or DREs.
Earlier this month, the 2006 election challenge court case Squire v. Geer gave us a rare tour inside the scam known as “touchscreen voting.” The “tour” comes with the backdrop of revelations that 56 of Ohio’s 88 counties have “lost” all or some of the election records from the stolen 2004 election. Though the records were protected by federal law, this means it may now be impossible to definitively tabulate who actually won the presidency in 2004. We will write more on this breaking news story in articles to come.
Carol Squire, a Franklin County Domestic Court Judge, refused to stand down after election observers and a post-election computer forensic analysis documented massive electronic voting machine irregularities in her race for re-election. She first paid for a recount of key precincts and used those results to file an election challenge. Squire’s election challenge sought a new election as the remedy.
Prior to last year’s election, the incumbent Democrat—the only African American female in the Domestic Relations Court her—was under fire from the Republican daily monopoly newspaper Columbus Dispatch as well as the Republican-controlled county court. Yet, most political observers expected her to win, particularly if the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland did well in Franklin County.
Strickland won with 58% of the vote in Franklin County. But Squire’s opponent Chris Geer purportedly won by 13,069 votes out of more than 262,000 cast. The outcome, to say the least, is highly implausible.
Magistrate Joel Sacco presided over the Squire v. Geer case, and while he declined to order a new election, his Findings of Fact in his decision of July 2, 2007 serves as a lasting testament to the illegitimacy of e-voting. The Finding of Facts encompassed the recount as well as evidence presented during the election challenge hearing.
Proving that they are either dyslexic or incompetent (or both), Franklin County Board of Elections (BOE) officials proved incapable of calculating 3% of the absentee vote as recount election law requires. The BOE officials “…counted 2072 absentee votes when they should have counted 2702 votes,” according to the Magistrate’s decision.
Compounding their inability to count, “Board of Elections did not check the public counters prior to this recount to verify that the numbers on these counters corresponded to the numbers on the VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail} and the poll books, poll lists or signature book records.”
This is a pattern repeated from the 2004 presidential election recount. Then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell issued a directive that allowed counties to recount, not based on their certified election results, but simply by running a few voted ballots through a counter and then hand-counting them to see if the numbers match. It defies logic that the BOE officials would recount without checking the numbers on the machine counters.
Repeating another tactic made infamous from 2004 presidential election, BOE workers, contrary to Ohio Secretary of State’s directive, violated principles of transparency. The Magistrate wrote that: Franklin County BOE “…did not in the presence of two election officials of different political parties make the poll books, poll lists or signature poll book records available on December 11, 2006 for visual inspection by the recount witnesses.”
Franklin County BOE officials not only refused to provide the books for inspection as required by law, they then proceeded to tamper with evidence in direct violation of election law. The Magistrate found that BOE workers “reviewed the poll books during the period before the official canvas began. Certain corrections were made to correct errors, voter audits were made, and voters were given credit before the official canvas began. Notations were made in precinct workbooks and poll books by Board of Elections staff. No date was placed by the initials of the person making the notation to indicate when the notations were made.”
In any other democracy, this would be called illegal cooking of the books.
After the books were well-done and well-seasoned, the Magistrate found that:
“For the November 7, 2006 general election, in 721 out of 835 Franklin County precincts, the public count on DREs did not equal the number of signatures in the poll books plus provisional votes cast minus the number of cancelled votes.”
Do the math. Of all DRE precincts in Franklin County, 86.3% had vote totals that failed to match signatures in the poll books. This is one of the most stunning indictments of e-voting in United States history.
Even after illegally withholding and anonymously correcting the book, the Franklin County BOE still “…reported 2824 more votes cast than signatures scanned,” according to the Magistrate’s Findings.
What this suggests is that while election officials had time to come close to an overall match by secretly and illegally “correcting” the books, they didn’t have time to match up the precinct-by-precinct tallies.
In an all too familiar scenario with e-voting machines, massive unexplained and improbable undervotes marred the race. The Magistrate noted that “of the voters in the November 7, 2006 election who voted for Governor by paper ballots, 22.15% did not vote in the Squire/Geer contest. Of those who voted for Governor by DRE or electronic ballot, 33.81% did not vote in the Squire/Geer contest. This represents a difference of 11.66%. In the past three elections this ‘voter drop off’ was reversed in the sense that persons voting absentee dropped off at a higher rate than persons utilizing voting machines or voting in the precincts.”
As in U.S. Senate races in 2006 in Montgomery County, Ohio, and in Sarasota, Florida’s House race that year, statistically impossible high rates of undervotes have gone against the Democratic candidates.
A conservative estimate in the Squire race suggests that 30,649 votes went unrecorded due to machine malfunction. The number is no doubt higher, as the Magistrate points out. DRE machines, since they flash when a voter fails to vote, historically have a lower undervote rate than paper ballots.
A staggering 33.81% — more than a third of all voters — allegedly did not cast a vote for Squire or Geer—but only on the DRE machines. Computer scientists have long documented that undervotes can be easily programmed. They can occur either by accident or design.
In Montgomery County’s 2006 Senate race, 30,000 unexplained undervotes occurred in the U.S. Senate race between Sherrod Brown and incumbent Michael Dewine. The county voted Democratic, implying that the Democrat Brown was hurt most by the undervote. In fact, the last major poll before the 2006 election by the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch had Brown winning the state by 24%. That poll was conducted by participants filling out and mailing in an actual paper ballot. A few days later, on Election Day, Brown only received 12% of the vote in the 2006 election conducted almost entirely on DREs.
The reason why the DRE votes are so unreliable may well be explained by the Magistrate’s finding that, “the voting system certified by the Secretary of State and the USEAC and the voting system utilized by Franklin County on November 7, 2006 varied in the following component versions. … Election Data Manager, Hardware Programming Manager and M100 Optical Scanner.”
The use of uncertified hardware and software installed at the last second can create not only massive undervotes but unexplained vote shifts due to recalibration problems, which is a quaint term for vote flipping. The software changes involved, among other things, ballot definitions. And, with rotating candidates’ names by precinct, so that all have equal chance of appearing first, uncertified changes could cause a vote cast for Squire to show up as a vote cast for Geer.
Squire’s expert witness, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, found and the Magistrate accepted as fact that “…The use of components that are mismatched — i.e., components that are configured in a way that was not certified by the USEAC — violates certification requirements and also runs the risk of exposure to programming errors or security vulnerabilities that could compromise the integrity of the election and could result in the loss of mistabulation of votes.”
Dr. Mercuri also testified and it was accepted as fact in the Magistrate’s decision that “…Franklin County had not completed a review of the 1.4 million lines of code contained collectively in the software which comprises the modules. Dr. Mercuri concluded that she had ‘very serious concerns about the security’ during the election.”
Computer election expert David Dill of Stanford publicly stated that, “It is practically impossible for someone to review software of any length at all – even 10,000 or even 1500 – lines of code to make sure that it’s 100% error-free.”
Professor Avi Rubin points out that it is easy to hide undetected codes in large code packages.
In 2004, Diebold, ES&S, and Triad technicians just prior to the election and recount, made numerous software and hardware changes to election voting machines, central tabulators and other computer technology without certification. In 2006, there were even more electronic voting machines in use, and the Squire challenge just happened to catch the use of uncertified software and hardware.
While the Magistrate found by clear and convincing evidence that there were election “irregularities,” he failed to order a new election in part because electronic voting creates a classic Catch-22. Because of the non-transparency of the computer black boxes we vote on, you can never really prove with “clear and convincing evidence” who won.
That now seems to be the case for Carol Squire—and for the majority of counties in Ohio’s stolen 2004 election.
—
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA’S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, available at www.freepress.org, where this article was first published.
Original article at,
https://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2712
FREE First Friday Flicks at the Free Press, August 3
You’re invited to the
FREE First Friday Flicks at the Free Press
Friday, August 3, 2007
Showing:
“Bush’s Brain-A documentary about Karl Rove”
6:30 doors open, 7pm film begins. Light refreshments.
BUSH’S BRAIN chronicles the life and work of Karl Rove, currently the Senior Advisor to President Bush. When the filmmakers began shooting BUSH’S BRAIN, Karl Rove was unknown to most of us. He was the most powerful man America had never heard of. He was the “Wizard of Oz” behind the curtain of the Bush Presidency.
Discussion will follow film showing.
Location: Free Press office, 1000 E. Main St., in Columbus Compact building, parking lot in rear, overflow in Salvation Army parking lot next door.
Phone: 253-2571, 224-1082
Email: truth@freepress.org
Website: Bush’s Brain
SHREDS OF EVIDENCE (How Ohio Participated In A Coup D’etat)
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
July 25, 2007
Those who would dismiss out of hand our allegations of election fraud are fond of claiming that there is not a “shred of evidence” to substantiate our charges. To the contrary, there are millions of shreds of evidence in Ohio. In at least 56 of 88 counties, ballots and other elections records were shredded or otherwise destroyed.
On September 11, 2006, Judge Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in the case of King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, et al. (Case No. 06-CV-745), issued an order requiring the Boards of Elections for all 88 counties in Ohio to preserve as evidence all the ballots from the 2004 presidential election, “on paper or in any other format, including electronic data.” The intent of Judge Marbley’s order was to extend the 22-month records retention period required by law for federal elections, which period would have ended on September 2, 2006. Judge Marbley cited Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.31, which states in relevant part:
. . . if the election includes the nomination or election of candidates for . . . president, the board shall carefully preserve all ballots prepared and provided by it for use in that election, whether used or unused for twenty-two months after the day of the election. (emphasis added)
. . . provided that the secretary of state . . . may order the board to preserve the ballots or any part of the ballots for a longer period of time, in which event the board shall preserve those ballots for that longer period of time.
In fact, Directive 2004-43, issued by Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, dated October 25, 2004, eight days before the election, had also instructed the Boards of Elections that “All used and unused ballots must be retained for at least 22 months.”
In addition, wrote Judge Marbley, the Boards of Election were required to preserve the ballots because they were the subject matter of a lawsuit (King Lincoln v. Blackwell), and the “duty to preserve the ballots began when each county Board of Elections office received a letter from Plaintiffs” on August 31, 2006, notifying them of the filing of the lawsuit.
In short, all ballots, used and unused, were protected from destruction until September 2, 2006 by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.31 and Secretary of State Directive 2004-43; from August 31, 2006 onward by the filing in Federal District Court of King Lincoln v. Blackwell (Case No. 06-CV-745); and by Order of Judge Algenon L. Marbley from September 11, 2006 “unless and until such time otherwise instructed by this Court.”
As it happens, Boards of Elections in at least 56 of 88 Ohio counties did not comply with the law.
During the spring of 2007, the parties to the King Lincoln v. Blackwell lawsuit reached a courtapproved Stipulated Agreement under which Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, successor to J. Kenneth Blackwell, agreed to take possession of the ballots from all 88 counties in Ohio. According to records provided by Brunner’s office, 46 counties destroyed their unused ballots (a.k.a. “unvoted” ballots). In addition, I was personally informed by the Trumbull County Board of Elections that their unused ballots had been destroyed as well. The 46 counties are: Allen, Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Champaign, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Darke, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Guernsey, Hamilton, Hancock, Hardin, Jackson, Lawrence, Licking, Logan, Lorain, Madison, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Mercer, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrow, Noble, Perry, Preble, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky, Scioto, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Warren, Wayne, Wood.
Many of these counties (e.g. Ashland, Champaign, Erie, Fayette, Monroe, Perry, Shelby, Warren) claimed that the records retention schedule does not state that they must retain their unused ballots for more than 60 days. Fairfield County could only “assume” that the unvoted ballots “would have been shredded” 60 days after the election. Others (e.g. Hardin, Scioto, Stark) stated that their unused ballots were destroyed prior to the court order. Hancock County claimed that they “received verbal direction” from the office of former Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell that the unused ballots and soiled ballots “did not have to be retained and these items were destroyed.” Logan County actually claimed that they destroyed their unused ballots “pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code.” Putnam County stated that “Following the 2004 General Election all unused ballots were destroyed for security purposes.” Thirteen counties which failed to produce their unused ballots (Columbiana, Coshocton, Darke, Lawrence, Licking, Lorain, Madison, Morgan, Noble, Summit, Tuscarawas, Wayne, Wood) submitted no explanation at all.
Five counties (Athens, Guernsey, Hamilton, Mercer, Van Wert) expressed surprise at being unable to locate their unused ballots. The Athens County Board of Elections stated that “The Director in 2004 has retired and we feel that these unvoted ballots from the polls were inadvertently discarded.” The Guernsey County Board of Elections stated that “The unused ballots as well as the punch card ballot pages were destroyed in error” because “the county maintenance worker, when collecting trash, picked up the boxes” that contained them. The Mercer County Board of Elections stated that the unused ballots “were not found in our storage area. Please note that the previous office administration was responsible for the handling of these ballots. We will continue to search for the unused ballots from this election.” The Van Wert County Board of Elections stated that “After a thorough search of our basement (where most of our equipment and supplies are kept) and our office, we are unable to find any unvoted ballot cards from the November 2, 2004 General Election. We assume that those ballots were discarded.” John M. Williams, Director of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, first discovered that their unused ballots were missing on August 22, 2006 when he failed to find them pursuant to my public records request. He submitted the following explanation to Secretary Brunner regarding the “unvoted” ballots and “soiled” ballots:
The above ballots were secured after the election in a basement storage area. To the best of my knowledge, the above ballots were inadvertently shredded between January 19th and 26th of ’06 in an effort to make room for the new Hart voting system. The unvoted ballots were stored in boxes and wheeled carts. The voted ballots were not destroyed as they were stored in punch card filing cabinets that were also located in the basement area. The unvoted punch cards cannot be replicated.
Failure to preserve the unused ballots makes it impossible for any Board of Elections to verify the authenticity of the voted ballots. The sum total of voted, spoiled, and unused ballots in each precinct must equal the total number of ballots issued to that precinct. Without the unused ballots, there is no way for Hamilton, Montgomery, Richland, Stark, Summit and Trumbull counties to prove that ballots in selected precincts were not punched in advance for independent and third-party presidential candidates. Without the unused ballots (and the stub numbers torn from the voted and spoiled ballots), there is no way for Clermont, Darke, Mercer, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren counties to prove that fake ballots were not substituted for real ones.
Clermont County is a special case, because of their infamous “stickered ballots.” During the “recount” of December 14, 2004, several witnesses saw numerous optical scan ballots with white stickers over the Kerry-Edwards mark, and the Bush-Cheney oval filled in. By the time we were allowed to photograph these hand-counted ballots in July of 2006, only one “stickered” presidential ballot survived. The most likely explanation is that the incriminating “stickered” ballots were replaced with “duplicates,” and then destroyed. The making of “duplicate” ballots would have partially depleted the stash of unused ballots, and because such a shortage would also be incriminating, the unused ballots would also have been destroyed.
My initial records request to the Clermont County Board of Elections was dated April 3, 2006. More than twenty weeks later, on August 24, 2006, Director Mike Keeley stated in writing to me that “As time permits, we are still attempting to locate said un-used ballots. When they are located you, and numerous other requestors, will be so notified.” More than one year later, on May 10, 2007, they were still looking, as stated in Keeley’s letter of explanation to Brunner:
According to records provided by Secretary Brunner, 23 counties destroyed their spoiled ballots (a.k.a. “soiled and defaced” ballots). The 23 counties are:
Allen, Ashtabula, Clark, Darke, Hamilton, Hancock, Holmes, Jackson, Lawrence, Licking, Logan, Marion, Medina, Miami, Montgomery, Morrow, Preble, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Wyandot.
Miami was the only one of these counties that destroyed their spoiled ballots and nothing else. They submitted no letter of explanation. Failure to preserve the spoiled ballots makes it impossible for Miami County to verify the authenticity of their 570 “recount remakes.” Without the spoiled ballots, there is no way to prove that the “remakes” match the originals they supposedly duplicate. As stated in a previous chapter, “Rain-Soaked Records in Miami County,” the rate of undervotes among the “remakes” was 13.9% (79 of 570), compared to a rate of 0.50% (248 of 49,744) among all the other ballots in the county. It cannot be proven that these were not “remakes” of tampered ballots on which a presidential choice had been erased or covered over.
Also according to records provided by Secretary Brunner, 19 counties destroyed their “ballot pages.” These are booklets, placed upon the voting machines, which list the candidates and the numbered positions on the punch cards that correspond to their names. The 19 counties are:
Adams, Ashtabula, Butler, Clinton, Fayette, Guernsey, Lorain, Marion, Medina, Montgomery, Morrow, Paulding, Preble, Richland, Sandusky, Scioto, Seneca, Shelby, Summit, Wyandot.
Fayette County stated that “The actual Election Day ballot pages would have been destroyed a month before the next election so we could reuse the frames.” The Director of the Clinton County Board of Elections stated that “I discovered the punch card ballot pages were not included in the boxes from the Records Department and began to search for them immediately. I called previous Board of Elections employees and searched our office.” She stated that they “opened and searched each box stored at the Records Department,” but the “Presidential ballot pages were not found.”
Four of these counties (Adams, Butler, Clinton and Paulding) destroyed their ballot pages and nothing else. The Butler County Board of Elections offered the following explanation:
Failure to preserve the ballot pages makes it impossible to verify that the ballot rotation was listed correctly on each and every voting machine. Without the ballot pages, there is no way for Butler County, for example, to prove that the “Connally anomaly” in specific precincts was not due to the ballot positions being reversed on one of several voting machines in that precinct. This could have happened in one of two ways. If the presidential positions were reversed on a machine in a “blue precinct,” there would have been a net loss of Kerry votes to Bush; or if the Chief Justice positions were reversed on a machine in a “red precinct,” there would have been a net loss of Moyer votes to Connally. Either way, by fraud or error, Connally would likely have run ahead of Kerry in that precinct. Reversing the ballot rotations on all machines for a single precinct would make the results obviously erroneous. But if only one machine of several was affected, the results would be merely anomalous.
Among the counties that failed to provide all their voted ballots to Secretary Brunner, two counties (Mahoning, Ross) are listed as having destroyed only their absentee ballots. That is because the only paper ballots they ever had were absentee ballots. Both of these counties utilized electronic voting at the polls on Election Day. The Mahoning County Board of Elections blamed the destruction of evidence on poor communications with the “Green Team” (a.k.a. Mahoning County Commissioners’ Reuse and Recycling Division):
Five counties (Allen, Holmes, Jackson, Lawrence, Scioto) provided some but not all of their voted ballots to Secretary Brunner. The Lawrence County Board of Elections, which failed to provide their provisional ballots, offered no explanation at all. The Jackson County Board of Elections found only “a partial portion” of the voted ballots, and offered two alternative explanations for how the ballots went missing: “They may have been destroyed pursuant to the retention schedule,” or they may have been “accidentally destroyed when we moved our Board of Elections office.” The Scioto County Board of Elections offered the following explanation:
Un-voted ballots were released and shredded following the twenty-two (22) month retention period and prior to our receipt of Judge Marbley’s order on September 11, 2006. Our staff has searched diligently and thoroughly for the box of missing voted ballots but they have not been located, to date. The ballots have not been intentionally destroyed. It is unknown whether the ballots were accidentally destroyed or have been otherwise misplaced.
The letter of explanation from the Holmes County Board of Elections is entertaining, although it does fall short of compliance with the spirit of the law (Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.31), which requires the Board to “carefully preserve all ballots.” (emphasis added)
A shelving unit collapsed in the Board of Elections storeroom on the morning of Friday, April 7, 2006. That shelving unit held the voted ballots, stubs, soiled and defaced ballot envelopes, and ballot accounting charts from the 2004 General Election. The shelves and stored items collapsed onto a side table holding a working coffee maker. The carafe on the coffee maker was full at the time of the incident. Many of the stored items had to be destroyed due to the broken glass and hot coffee. The ballot pages and unused ballots were stored on a neighboring shelf and were not damaged.
More serious problems were encountered by the Allen County Board of Elections:
Following the 2004 General Election the Allen County Board of Elections boxed and labeled all voted ballots and placed them in our vault for the required 22 months of storage. Throughout the latter part of 2004 and into 2005 the Allen County Board of Elections began to experience problems with storm water migrating and subsequently penetrating our primary storage areas including our vault. As a result of these events, much of what was stored in our vault, including the 2004 General Election ballots, was compromised by water damage and subsequently destroyed on or about August 20, 2006. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Allen County Health Department, the boxes displaying mold or mildew were set aside to be discarded. Unfortunately, the contractor hired to remove the damaged boxes also accidentally removed the undamaged boxes as well. Those items include: Poll Books, Clerks Books and a box containing 498 write-in ballots.
Finally, seven counties (Ashtabula, Marion, Medina, Montgomery, Preble, Sandusky, Seneca) provided no ballots at all to Secretary Brunner. Marion, Medina, Sandusky and Seneca counties stated that they destroyed their ballots pursuant to the records retention schedule, shortly after September 2, 2006. Marion and Medina counties stated that this was done before they received Judge Marbley’s order. Sandusky and Seneca counties claimed that they have “no record” of receiving Judge Marbley’s order. Ashtabula County gave the following explanation:
The Montgomery County Board of Elections, in a letter signed by Steven P. Harsman, Director, provided a lengthy and contentious explanation:
In short, Harsman is saying that the 2004 election records still existed at the time the Board of Elections received Judge Marbley’s order to preserve them, but because they “ran out of space” to store these records, and because the Board had already received authorization from the County Prosecutor to destroy these records, it was “imperative” and “proper” to destroy them. The opinion of the County Prosecutor trumps an order from a United States District Judge.
It was Steven P. Harsman who, accompanied by Betty Smith, Deputy Director, barged into the room where I was photographing ballots at about 3:30 P.M. on Thursday, August 24, 2006, and ordered me to stop. I refused, stating that Harsman had agreed to allow me one full day to photograph the uncounted ballots from all 23 precincts specified in my public records request. Earlier on this same day, the Montgomery County Board of Elections had received notification by e-mail from Cliff Arnebeck, Attorney at Law, of the impending lawsuit, and was asked to preserve the ballots as evidence in the case. But the Board was eager to destroy them. The employees who handled the ballots for me brought up the subject themselves.
Of the 501 uncounted ballots photographed in these 23 precincts, 322 (64.3%) contained multiple punches for president. Of these, 21 (6.5%) were punched for both Bush and Kerry, 273 (84.8%) were punched for Kerry and one or two independent or third-party presidential candidates, and only 19 (5.9%) were punched for Bush and for one or two independent or third-party presidential candidates. It is my conclusion, stated in a previous chapter, “Pre-Punched Ballots in Deep Blue Precincts,” that these ballots were pre-punched in order to ruin otherwise valid ballots in heavily Democratic precincts, but that the pre-punching was not done by the Board of Elections. However, 70 (14.0%) of the uncounted ballots had “dimpled chads” for president, 57 intended for Kerry, and 13 intended for Bush. There were 1124 holes punched cleanly through the very ballots on which these 70 “dimpled chads” were found, indicating that some of the voting machines were rigged to make it more difficult to vote for president than for any other office or ballot initiative. If the holes in the “masks” or “shields” that cover the punch card ballots are too small, the punching implement, or “stylus,” will leave only a dent, or “dimple,” in the ballot. It is the Boards of Elections, not the voting machine vendors, who punch the holes in the “masks” or “shields.” This would be a powerful incentive for the Board of Elections to destroy the ballots.
————————– ———————
Richard Hayes Phillips has been investigating the 2004 Ohio election ever since it happened. The Free Press was the first to publish any of his writings. The preceding chapter will appear in his forthcoming book, “Witness to a Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of an American Election.”