Ohio Vote Fraud Battle Heats Up
By Katherine Yurica
Dec 13, 2004, 15:56 Links to A New Affidavit From a Professional Willing to Testify
And Prima Facie Evidence of Fraud Today Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary and Dean, Congressional Black Caucus, will hold a congressional forum in Columbus, Ohio concerning new evidence of election irregularities and fraud in Ohio. The Congressional forum will discuss the moral issue of Ohio electors meeting while recounts and litigation are pending. They will raise the question, “How can any group of electors in good conscience meet and decide the outcome of the election before the votes are counted?” This is a moral issue. And the Rev. Jesse Jackson will be at the Columbus forum to call America back to its roots and to the sanctity of the right to vote and to the necessity to have one’s vote counted accurately. If the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and other leaders of the Dominionist movement tell Americans that it is all right for Mr. Bush to take the oath of office even if he is not the duly elected president-elect, then Americans have lost their spiritual and moral compass beyond anything any of us could imagine. For one thing, it dooms Mr. Bush to a cloud of suspicion. Republicans ought more than anyone to insist that all the votes be counted. The forum will convene at 10:30 a.m. (Ohio time). New evidence will be brought forward and legislative responses to the crisis will be discussed at the forum, which will be televised over C-Span.
One possible piece of new evidence is the Affidavit of Richard Hayes Phillips, which shows Kerry could win the presidency. Dr. Phillips, a PhD well versed in standard techniques of statistical analysis, testifies that in his professional opinion, “John Kerry’s margins of victory were wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes in Cleveland, by 17,000 votes in Columbus, and by as many as 7,000 votes in Toledo. It is my further professional opinion, that John Kerry’s margins of defeat in Warren, Butler, and Clermont counties were inflated by as many as 37,000 votes in the aggregate…” As Dr. Phillips analyzes each county and ward, Mr. Bush’s lead in Ohio begins to look as if it is based on smoke and mirrors, often resting on incorrect presidential vote tallies. At the same time John Conyer’s forum meets and examines new evidence, John Bonifaz, General Counsel for the National Voting Rights Institute is said to be filing a complaint before the Ohio State Supreme Court, requesting the Court to declare John Kerry the winner of the election in Ohio, based upon new evidence that fraud has indeed occurred. Injunctive Relief will undoubtedly be sought and the case will be heard in a Court of Equity. This legal maneuver is brilliant because when the courts decide a case in Equity, they wear a different hat than they do in Courts of Law. In its most general meaning, the term, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “denotes the spirit and the habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing” that should regulate man’s dealings with others. What American dare proclaim that it’s fair and just to steal the votes away from African Americans or students? Courts of Equity are moral courts who lay down moral justness. It is almost the Golden Rule: “the rule of doing to all others as we desire them to do to us.” A Court of Equity is a synonym for justice. It belongs in the sphere of morals and in the precepts of conscience. And those precepts belong in the hearts and minds of every citizen in this nation who call themselves “Christians.” The significance, of course, is that all Americans will be watching a court case based on moral grounds. The Republicans, who are opposing the recount and any attempt at fairness, will be facing a higher morality than their own. One side will be asking the court to be fair to all citizens--the other side will be forced to argue the court should not be fair and just. It won't be quite that simple, but it always helps to be wearing a white hat and one does that when one argues against fraud! According to Ray Beckman, a lawyer who is deeply involved in fighting election fraud, the Ohio recount team assigned to Greene County were in process of recording voting information from minority precincts, when they were stopped in mid-count by a surprise order from Secretary of State Blackwell’s office that made all voter records for the state of Ohio, private and no longer considered “public records.” According to Beckman, “the Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV, Elections, Sec. 3503.26, requires all election records to be made available for public inspection and copying.” Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit any person from inspecting the public records filed in the office of the Board of Elections.” Perhaps even more significantly, Beckman said, “ORC Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: ‘A violation of any provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud within the purview of such Title.’” To understand the significance of Ray Beckman’s analysis, one must understand what a “prima facie case” is. Black’s Law Dictionary says a prima facie case is one that “will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.” But that definition doesn’t quite tell us what’s involved. Black’s goes on to say: “A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it.” But consider this: “a grand jury is bound to find a true bill of indictment, if the evidence before them creates a prima facie case against the accused.” It isn’t necessary for a grand jury to hear the evidence for the defense, once a prima facie case has been established. When Kenneth Blackwell appeared for his interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann saying he would not interfere with the recount, (see Lisa Rein’s Radar) Olbermann said: “As it plays into the recount though sir, are you saying that your office does not anticipate taking any steps to try to prevent a recount in Ohio?” Blackwell: “No. We haven't! We've told the two officials candidates that once we certify on December 6th, they have five days to certify. I mean, to ask for a recount. Once they ask for a recount, we will provide them with a recount. And that's what I've said from the very first indication that they were interested in a recount. Once it was established that they were statewide candidates with standing, our law says that they can ask for a recount. We will regard this as yet another audit of the voting process. The reason it takes us from November the second to December the sixth to certify is because we have a very tedious, very comprehensive process where we audit by precinct, across the state, every vote that was cast to make sure that every vote that was legally cast is counted.” (see Lisa Rein’s Radar) Mr. Blackwell, at the very least raises questions about his truthfulness and integrity. Scott Peck in his book, The People of the Lie, tells us that lying is both a cause of evil and the result of evil. It’s time the American press and the American people wake up. What is at stake is the future of our country as a land of the people, by the people and for the people—a land where citizens can trust officials to count votes honestly! The Ohio recount is not evidence of a “conspiracy theory.” It is evidence of a travesty of justice and fairness. Another lawsuit that was filed in the federal court by Audrey J. Schering against J. Kenneth Blackwell, became a little larger when the Ohio Democratic Party intervened as a plaintiff in the case. This means that after studying the facts, the Ohio Democratic Party believed that its participation in the lawsuit was necessary in order to seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the Federal Courts based largely on the case, Bush v. Gore (2000), 531 U.S. 98. The complaint alleges that Kenneth Blackwell failed in his mandatory statutory duty (R.C. § 3501.05), to provide directives to each of the eighty-eight (88) county Boards of Elections in Ohio to assure uniform and consistent counting of the provisional ballots. The complaint raises the issue of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of equal protection of the laws. And the complaint alleges that uniform standards, procedures and rules for the counting of provisional ballots must be required as they were in Bush v. Gore. Otherwise, Mr. Blackwell violated the Equal Protection of the Constitution of the United States. This complaint was filed by Donald J. McTigue, Trial Attorney from Columbus, Ohio. All across America, Americans are demonstrating against fraud in our elections. They are marching, carrying candles in the dark. They are praying and they are reaching out to the discouraged and those who feel shocked at the hooliganism that has taken over and stripped the decency away from Americans who once held decency dear. Hooligans, if they could see themselves, are naked and their words like vomit on the altars of the churches. Yes, you can win an election by stealing it, but you’ll never be able to look at yourself in the mirror and respect the bloated coercive spirit behind the facile smile that stares back at you. If you were trusted with the sacred votes of trusting Americans and you embezzled them, “flipped” them as some call it, or stuffed the boxes, you are a moral disgrace, a sick and perverted individual. May God have mercy on your soul. http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/OhioVoteFraudBattleHeatsUp.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****
SIGN THIS!! Ask Senator Barbara Boxer to Stand Up and Support an Election Investigation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical Analysis may indicate Kerry Win in Ohio after Re-count&Clinton Curtis - Hear Streaming Audio of Dec 13 testimony
OHIO RECOUNT AFFIDAVIT December 10, 2004 I, RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS, do swear and affirm the following: 1. I hold a Ph.D. in geomorphology from the University of Oregon. I am a professional hydrologist and am well versed in standard techniques of statistical analysis, with special expertise
in spotting anomalous data. A copy of my curriculum vita is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit A. 2. I have analyzed unofficial precinct level results from the November 2, 2004 general election in nine Ohio counties, including Cuyahoga, Franklin, Warren, Butler, Clermont, Miami, Montgomery, Hamilton, and Lucas. In have compared these results with those from the November 7, 2000 general election where such data is available. I have examined the unofficial and official results for the
November 2, 2004 election, county by county. I have examined, in Franklin County, data on the number of voting machines deployed in each precinct. I have also examined United States census data for 2000 and 2003. 3. There are numerous examples of incorrect presidential vote tallies in certain precincts in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County.
These irregularities include at least 16 precincts where votes intended to be cast for Kerry were shifted to other candidates’ columns, and at least 30 precincts with inexplicably low voter turnout, including 7.10%, 13.05%, 19.60%, 21.01%, 21.80%, 24.72%, 28.83%, 28.97%, and 29.25%, and seven entire wards where voter turnout was reportedly below 50%, even as low as 39.35%. Kerry won Cleveland with 83.27% of the vote to 15.88% for Bush. If voter turnout was really 60% of registered voters, as seems likely based upon turnout in other major cities of Ohio,
rather than 49.89% as reported, Kerry’s margin of victory in Cleveland has been wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes. 4. The systematic withholding of voting machines from predominantly Democratic wards in Columbus, many of them with high black populations, severely restricted voter turnout in these wards and cost John Kerry 17,000 votes. I have meticulously compared election results with the number of registered voters per voting machine for each precinct in Columbus, and for each ward in Franklin
County. In Columbus, the median Bush precinct had a 60.56% turnout, while the median Kerry precinct had only a 50.78% turnout. County wide, the 73 wards with fewer than 300 registered voters per machine had a 62.33% turnout; 58 were in the suburbs, and 54 were won by Bush. The 73 wards with 300 or more registered voters per machine had a 51.99% turnout; 59 were in Columbus, and 58 were won by Kerry. In addition, there were 68 machines
not provided to anyone, according to data provided by the Board of Elections. 5. It has been widely reported that in Warren County, the administrative building was locked down on election night and no independent persons were allowed to observe the vote count. Based upon the official Board of Elections reports, there has been a 15.51% increase in voter registration in eight months time, and voter turnout was reportedly above 80% in 55 precincts. Since the 2000 election, voter registration was reportedly up by 79.0%, 38.3%, 32.4%, 31.0%, 29.7%, and 28.4% in six townships that provided 68.75% of Bush’s margin of
victory in Warren County. While the county population has increased by 14.75% since the 2000 census, 87 of 157 precincts had shown declines in voter registration at other times since the 2000 election, and yet every single precinct, 157 of 157, showed increases in voter registration since March 2, 2004. In Butler County, there are nine precincts and two entire townships where Kerry received fewer votes than Gore despite a sharp increase in voter turnout; and there are
precincts with reported increases in voter registration, since November 7, 2000, of 177.9%, 143.5%, 69.3%, 65.5%, 64.5%, 48.2%, 43.3%, 38.8%, 36.9%, 34.3%, 34.0%, and 33.8%, compared to an increase in population of only 3.12% county wide. In Clermont County, where the population has grown by 4.39% since the 2000 census, voter registration was reportedly up by 85.4% and 67.6% in two precincts, and down by 49.4% in another precinct, all in the same township; there were 23 precincts where turnout was up, but Kerry got fewer votes than Gore. All these data are indications that votes may have been shifted from Kerry to Bush. According to the official results certified by the Ohio Secretary of State, these three counties combined provided Bush with a plurality of 132,685 votes, which is 13,910 votes more than his statewide plurality of 118,775 votes. Given that George Bush carried these counties by 95,575 votes in 2000, the net loss for John Kerry could be as high as 37,000 votes. 6. It is my professional opinion that there is compelling evidence of fraud in Miami
County. Early on election night, when 31,620 votes had been counted, and later, when 50,235 votes had been counted, John Kerry had exactly the same percentage, 33.92%, and the percentage for George Bush was almost exactly the same, dropping by 0.03%, from 65.80% to 65.77%. The second set of returns gave Bush a margin of exactly 16,000 votes, giving cause to question the integrity of the central counting device for the optical scanning machines. Compared to 2000, voter turnout increased by 20.86%, while the population increased by only 1.38%. Voter turnout was reported at 98.55% and 94.27% in two precincts in Concord, numbers nearly impossible to achieve. Voter turnout was reported to have increased by 194.58% and 152.78% in two precincts in Troy compared to the 2000 election, and by more than 30.0% in ten other precincts. There are no data for voter registration in 2000, so the ballots cast offer the only meaningful comparison. Comparing the results of the 2004 election to the results of the 2000 election, there is one precinct where the reduction in turnout exactly
matched the reduction in votes counted for the Democratic presidential candidate. It is my professional opinion that these numbers are fraudulent, in that the true election results have been altered. Given that Bush officially carried Miami County in 2004 by 16,394 votes, and that Bush carried Miami County in 2000 by 10,453 votes, the net loss to John Kerry could be as high as 6,000 votes. 7. In Toledo, Lucas County, there were 50 precincts with less than 60% reported turnout. All of them were won overwhelmingly by John Kerry,
by a margin of better than 5 to 1 in the aggregate. There were 45 precincts with more than 80% reported turnout; 12 were won by Bush, 33 were won by Kerry, and most were competitive. When the precinct numbers are combined into totals for each ward, data not provided by the Board of Elections, a clear and unmistakable pattern emerges. The 14 wards with the highest reported turnout were won by John Kerry by a margin of 11 to 7 in the aggregate. The 10 wards with the lowest reported turnout were won by John Kerry by a margin of 6 to 1 in the aggregate.
It is my professional opinion that the election in Lucas County was rigged, most likely by altering the vote totals in each ward by a percentage chosen for that ward, plus or minus, based upon voting patterns in past elections. If turnout in Toledo had been as high as that reported elsewhere in the county, John Kerry’s plurality would have been 7,000 votes larger. 8. There are still 92,672 uncounted votes in Ohio, exclusive of any uncounted provisional ballots. According to unofficial results
provided by the Ohio Secretary of State, there were 5,574,476 ballots cast, and 5,481,804 votes counted, which leaves 92,672 regular ballots (1.66%) still uncounted. The official results, now certified, do not include these ballots, but differ from the unofficial results only in the addition of provisional ballots and some absentee ballots to the tally. In Montgomery and Hamilton counties, these uncounted votes come disproportionately from precincts that voted overwhelmingly for John Kerry. In Montgomery County there are 47 precincts, all of them
in Dayton, where the percentage of uncounted ballots is 4% or more. Kerry won all 47 of these precincts, by a margin of 7 to 1 in the aggregate. County wide in Montgomery County, the percentage of uncounted ballots was 1.70%. In Hamilton County there are 26 precincts, 22 of them in Cincinnati, where the percentage of uncounted ballots is 8% or more. Kerry won all 26 of these precincts, by a margin of 10 to 1
in the aggregate. Altogether there are 86 precincts in Cincinnati where the percentage of uncounted ballots is 4% or more. Kerry won 85 of these precincts, by a margin of 5 to 1 in the aggregate. County wide in Hamilton County, the percentage of uncounted ballots was 2.34%. Although I have not yet had time to examine similar data for Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Akron, Youngstown, Canton, or elsewhere, it is possible that
the same pattern will emerge in these cities as well. If these 92,672 uncounted votes were cast for Kerry by a 5 to 1 margin, this would reduce the statewide margin between the candidates by another 61,781 votes. 9. There are still provisional ballots uncounted in Ohio. On election night the Ohio Secretary of State reported that 5,481,804 ballots had been counted, and 155,428 provisional ballots had been issued. According to the official results, now certified, 5,625,621 votes have now been counted, an increase of 143,817, which
represents the number of newly counted ballots. Some of these were absentee ballots. The reported count of provisional ballots was 79,482 for Kerry, and 61,505 for Bush. This would leave 14,441 provisional ballots uncounted. 10. In summary, it is my professional opinion that John Kerry’s margins of victory were wrongly reduced by 22,000 votes in Cleveland, by 17,000 votes in Columbus, and by as many as 7,000 votes in Toledo. It is my further
professional opinion that John Kerry’s margins of defeat in Warren, Butler, and Clermont counties were inflated by as many as 37,000 votes in the aggregate, and in Miami County by as many as 6,000 votes. There are still 92,672 uncounted regular ballots that, based upon the analysis set forth above of the election results from Dayton and Cincinnati, may be expected to break for John Kerry by an overwhelming margin. And there are 14,441 uncounted provisional ballots. 11. My research into the
topics discussed in this affidavit is continuing, and I reserve the right to modify my conclusions as new information becomes available. TO THIS I SWEAR AND AFFIRM, ___________________________________ Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/supreme.htm Clinton Curtis - Hear Streaming Audio of Dec 13 testimony http://www.solutionassoc.com/TruthFire/blog/2004/12/clinton-curtisplay-testimony-december.html Also: Vote-rigging prototype story gains steam, but not without questions, denials Tuesday, December 14 2004 @ 12:42 PM
Contributed by: admin 12/14/2004
the blue lemur “From a technical standpoint, it is perfectly plausible,” said a middleware programmer for IBM in North Carolina, Kim Winz last week. “Whether or not this turns out to be true, it’s a very good reason why we need the source code available for all of these voting machines.”
Clinton Curtis seems a rather ordinary man, one who lapses into the occasional impolitic statement. He once called his longtime sparring partner, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), a “total piece of crap.” But his sworn affidavit–which asserts that then-Florida Republican state legislator Tom Feeney commissioned his employer to develop a vote-rigging software program designed to “control the vote in South Florida"–has made waves across the Internet, and has begun to attract attention from Congressional Democrats and the mainstream press. Curtis is quick to note that he has no evidence his program was used, and that the program he wrote was extremely elemental. But the plausibility of such a program has stood up to the rigorous onslaught of questions across the Web, even if its implementation seems to have not. The affidavit was fired released by The Brad Blog. “From a technical standpoint, it is perfectly plausible,” said a middleware programmer for IBM in North Carolina, Kim Winz last week. “Whether or not this turns out to be true, it’s a very good reason why we need the source code available for all of these voting machines.” No other witnesses have stepped forward to offer corroboration of Curtis’ claims, and the Yang employee whom Curtis named in his affidavit, Yang’s executive assistant Mike Cohen, told Wired Magazine he was “100 percent” wrong. Cohen has little to gain, however, from admitting his employer was engaged in illegal activity. Unfortunately for Curtis, all of the other alleged witnesses were either associated of Feeney or Yang. Feeney and Curtis’ then-employer Yang Enterprises have not returned repeated RAW STORY calls for comment. Their common law firm–Feeney was once general counsel and registered lobbyist for Yang–told another journalist who has yet to write a story on the issue that the claims were “absolutely untrue.”
Feeney’s attorney is his own former law partner and a contributor tho his campaign. Feeney’s spokesman is said to have called Curtis a “crackpot” who stole software. For his part, Feeney escaped an ethics investigation when he was Speaker of the Florida House, though many believe only because he, like U.S. House Speaker Tom DeLay, controlled the chamber. Feeney once promised to put Florida in the Bush column in 2000 even if it meant defying the courts. Yang, Curtis feud simmers The software charge dates to a November 2001 suit in which Yang Enterprises accused Curtis and a Florida Department of Transportation employee Mavis Georgalis of stealing software which the Transportation Department had paid Yang to produce. The suit came after Georgalis had alleged Yang of rampant overbilling. Florida subsequently decided against hiring Yang for a $77 million statewide contract. Georgalis declined to comment for this article. The Florida Transportation Department and Yang are still feuding; both Yang and Feeney have refused to give depositions in the case and it is likely to be dropped. By some accounts, Yang sued the Department to mute charges of overbilling. An official investigation by Florida’s Human Relations Commission found that Georgalis had been improperly treated and sued; several court rulings forced Florida to give her back her job. The Transportation inspector investigating the case was found dead of apparent suicide in July 2003. Questions around Yang employing illegal alien Another claim that Curtis made about a Chinese national who formerly worked for Yang passing sensitive material to China checks out. Hai Lin Nee, who Curtis names in his affidavit, was arrested in a 4-year-old Immigration and Customs Enforcement sting operation for trying to mail sensitive computer chips to Beijing in 1999 in violation of export rules. Nee, an illegal alien, is said to have worked for Yang in the capacity of as a software quality control manager. Curtis notes that as a Yang employee Nee would have had security clearances to sensitive space information. In a telephone call with RAW STORY last week, he suggested that the recent advancement of the Chinese space program was not a coincidence. One lawyer, however, who declined to be named, noted that encryption technology is classed as a “munition” under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, that Nee was arrested for having illegally exported 25 low-noise amplifier chips to China without first obtaining an export license. “This sort of thing happens all the time, usually to people who aren’t aware of the regulations in the first place,” he noted. Nee was ultimately fined and released. Unlikely program was used A Wired Magazine article by Kim Zetter, who covers voting issues for the magazine and online outlet, casts seriously doubt on whether such a vote-rigging prototype could have been used, even if it leaves many questions still unanswered. Florida’s West Palm Beach didn’t use touch-screen machines in 2000, Ketter notes, something Curtis hadn’t known when she spoke with him. Curtis did tell RAW STORY the program could have been used with any computer database tabulation, including punch-card machines and optical scan machines. And, Adam Stubblefield, a graduate student in computer science at Johns Hopkins University who has been critical of Diebold’s voting machines and penned a report (pdf) about Diebold’s voting machine code last year, told Zetter he thought the odds of Curtis’ program getting on voting machines was “nil.” He “clearly didn’t have the source code to any voting machine, and his program is so trivial that it would be much easier to rewrite it than to rework it,” Stubblefield said. Curtis told Congressional Democrats at their Ohio hearing Monday that the malicious code might never be detectable even if the voting machines were examined. Only “if you could get the machines and they had not been patched yet” would one be able to determine whether the code had been changed. “Once they get in and touch them, anything could happen.” “You could also set timers to do that, but then you could see the timer,” he added. In any case, so long as Curtis sticks by his claims, it seems unlikely the issue will be resolved anytime soon. http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=2004121412424056 Also: To Be Blunt, Missouri 's Election Reeks of Conflicts of Interest and Warrants a Recount Monday, December 13 2004 @ 10:01 PM
Contributed by: admin 12/13/2004
OpEd News
Matthew Fox Matt Blunt won the race for governor in Missouri while he was Secretary of State. I question the conflict of interest. Scrutiny of election results statewide and in Greene County raises graver questions about whether Matt Blunt may have exploited his position of electoral power to gain the governor’s seat.
In all the recent news hubbub about Ukraine’s fraudulent election, Guantanamo Bay tortures, the rare report about ongoing election showdowns in Ohio, and day by day new Bush appointees, each scarier than the last, here’s an AP headline you might have missed: “Blunt got bang for his buck in governor’s race” (David Lieb, AP, 12/3/04). The article’s opening one-liner says it all: “ Missouri ’s most expensive gubernatorial race was won by the candidate who spent the least.”
The article touches on (touches up? whitewashes?) one of the most under-the-radar coups that the GOP pulled off this year. Regional news stories on Wednesday, Dec. 1 marked an important stage in this coup: Matt Blunt, the Secretary of State, certified the election results. Some inevitable number adjustments had been made since the election, we are told, but no major race was affected. As Blunt is reported to have said, “I’m still the next governor. I checked that one myself.”
Whoa! Wait a minute—Governor!? Yes, you read it correctly, the current Secretary of State in Missouri, the guy in charge of elections, from code, procedures, ballots, precinct and voting maching placement, voting machine purchasing and certification, election results reporting and certification—the Ken Blackwell of Missouri, if you will—just won the highest elected seat in Missouri and will soon be sworn in as governor. Did anybody say conflict of interest? More importantly, didn’t anyone scream conflict of interest before the Nov. 2 election?
David Lieb doesn’t pause to expand on this point (indeed, he doesn’t even notice it), so I will. It is a basic rule of governmental ethics that public servants should uphold “the principle that even the appearance of preferential treatment or using one’s position for personal gain is not acceptable” (Amy Comstock, Director, US Office of Govt. Ethics).
By this very reasonable principle, Matt Blunt had every obligation to remove himself from the apparent conflict of interest. He could, and should, have done so by stepping down as Secretary of State when he decided to run for governor. That he did not do so, and that nobody raised a stink about it, and that he has—so far!—gotten away with it, is a sad testament to the state of (un)ethical oversight in our political arena today.
But wait, there’s more. First, some context. Matt Blunt is son of Roy Blunt, current House Majority Whip, whose job, as George Bush likes to say, is “to count the votes,” i.e. he is the guy who whips up formal support for party-backed measures and legislation. Blunt Sr. is also one of George Bush’s close buddies, and Bush was in Missouri several times during the campaign drumming up support for Matt Blunt’s governor’s race and other GOP candidates. Towards the end, Bush just started referring to Matt, even before the election, as “Governor Blunt.”
Maybe it was just a kind of “visualize it and it will happen” confidence ploy. Or maybe he knew something we don’t about Blunt’s solid hand on the electioneering machine. Remember, Matt Blunt was, all this time, the acting state official on elections. Maybe there was a reason they didn’t spend as much money as the opposition, Claire McCaskill, the current State Auditor. Is it possible there were other, more secretive reasons to give them confidence in the election’s outcome?
In the election results certified on Monday by Blunt, Bush won Missouri with 53.3% of votes. Roy Blunt regained his congressional seat with 70.4%. Matt Blunt himself did much worse, barely taking his opponent by a margin of 50.8% to McCaskill’s 47.9%.
The apparent handiness of that win is belied by closer scrutiny of Missouri voting trends. In a full 80% of Missouri ’s counties, both urban and rural, Matt Blunt underperformed George W. Bush, often by discouraging margins. For example, in Camden County , with 68% turnout, Bush garnered 67%, Blunt only 61%, of the vote. The pattern recurs in county after county.
Cass: turnout 65%, Bush 62%, Blunt 53.5%
Cooper: turnout 68%, Bush 67%, Blunt 61%
Grundy: turnout 68%, Bush 66%, Blunt 59%
And on and on. The average of Blunt’s statewide underperformance of Bush in those 80% of counties was a full 3.6%. Apparently, most Missourians thought less of Matt Blunt, his message and his state service so far, than they did of George Bush.
But this poor showing was, according to the final numbers, made up for by an incredible performance compared to Bush in the other 20%. In 23 counties Matt Blunt outperformed Bush, sometimes miraculously so. In Clark County , up in the state’s northeast corner, Bush just barely took the county with 50.8%.
Not Matt Blunt, he walked away with 67% of the vote!
Imagine that, 17% of Clark county residents who voted for the “liberal Massachusetts senator,” crossed the ticket and cast a vote for the son of one of George Bush’s closest buddies. Okay, it boggles the mind, but hey, I’m not from Missouri , so I won’t presume to know the mind of the “Show Me State” voter.
Apparently all across the north and northeast of Missouri there are voters of this sort—“anti-Dixiecrats” we might call them—who threw in their name for Kerry and presidential change, but then in the next penstroke voted for Matt Blunt. This also happened in Adair, Barton, Jasper, Knox, Lewis, Marion , McDonald, Mercer, Newton , Pike, Putnam, Ralls, Schuyler , Scotland , Shelby , Ste. Genevieve, Sullivan, Vernon, in all of which Blunt did far better than Bush (plus a couple others where he just matched Bush’s votes).
Perhaps the most curious of all is St. Louis City , where over 80% voted for Kerry; but in the governor’s race 2%, around 2800, of these diehard Democrats switched sides and voted for Matt Blunt.
Convinced yet that there is something strange going on in Missouri ? The results in Greene County and the city of Springfield may also raise eyebrows.
Springfield in southeast Missouri is Blunt’s hometown, so we might expect him to do well. But some suspicious patterns emerged when I culled precinct by precinct data from the county’s website and analyzed it. I found that the suburban and rural areas surrounding Springfield matched quite well the statewide pattern of Blunt’s underperformance compared with Bush. Only in the city precincts, where Democrats overall performed much better than in the surrounding county, did Blunt outperform Bush, sometimes by as much as 3% (as in Springfield 9-A). Again, urban Democrats voting for Kerry and Blunt, when rural or suburban Bush supporters voted more weakly for Blunt.
The other disturbing pattern in Greene County relates to voter turnout. The county-wide average turnout was around 70%. But dozens of the urban precincts had turnouts that were vastly below the average. We’re talking 20-30% below average! For example, 9-A, one where Blunt did so well, had a turnout of 40%. In that same precinct 30% of all votes were straight party Democratic, and John Kerry earned 55%. But in this same precinct Blunt beat Claire McCaskill 46.4% to 47%. (Incidentally, or not, Roy Blunt also did very well in these low turnout precincts, pulling in 47.5% in 9-A). In other statewide races 9-A gave the majority to Democratic candidates.
The numbers are most striking when seen altogether. The patterns are strong, and others who have looked at them are struck by them too. And the above is not the whole story. There is also a completely implausible occurrence involving sub-precincts, where voters were divided alphabetically into two or three groupings. In several cases voter turnouts were far lower in the second and third subsets than in the first.
In other words, in precincts countywide, it seems that voters with names A-L turned out to vote in far greater numbers than voters with names M-Z. I checked with the county BOE , and these were voters who went to the same polling place. The only difference was A-L names were in one poll book, M-Z in another. As one statistical analyst who has looked closely at this for me has said, “If one expects precinct turnout to fluctuate randomly about some average value, the pattern observed in Greene County is hugely improbable.”
Summary: the GOP just gained control of the governor’s office in Missouri , seating a key party player’s son there through an election for which he was, as the Secretary of State, the chief elections official. Conflicts of interest hardly run deeper, yet here we are. The votes are now certified, despite the fact that many things in the numbers, like those mentioned above but many others, still “smell fishy.”
For the AP writer David Lieb, the story was that Blunt won despite having spent the least money on the campaign. But maybe the author missed the point, though he did catch that wonderful quote, straight from the horse’s mouth. “I’m still the new governor. I checked that one myself.”
Now maybe the “Show Me State” needs to live up to its motto. Missourians, show the rest of us, so that we might have the same confidence, that this gross conflict of interest was appearance only, and Mr. Blunt did not in fact abuse his power and position to gain a very tempting advantage in his victorious race to become Missouri ’s next governor.
(Note: All research on election numbers conducted by author using readily available online results from the Missouri Secretary of State and the Greene County Election Board websites.)
Matthew Fox.matfox@gmail.com has a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from Princeton and lives in New Jersey where he teaches ancient Greek and Latin literature and history at the college level. He’s been driven into activism after this election because of the dire signs of growing unconstitutionality in our great but beleaguered republic. http://nov2truth.org/article.php?story=20041213220126667
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declaration of Intent Project
We at thedeanpeople have come to the conclusion that we can no longer tolerate the intolerable. We all watched in horror (many for the first time) as the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 opened by recounting how our political "leaders" sat idly by on Jan. 6, 2001 as the Congressional Black Caucus tried nobly but futilely to object to the unlawful Florida electors. But even Michael Moore seemed unaware of "the rest of the story."
On Jan. 7th two Democratic Senators were asked by Tim Russert why they didn't come to the defense of their House colleagues. Their answer (in unison): "Nobody asked us." They've made it clear: WE HAVE TO ASK THEM -- SO LET'S DO IT -- LOUDLY!
We want to get as many individual citizens as possible to contact members of Congress (both Reps and Senators) and ask/demand that they endorse a Declaration of Intent to object to unlawful electors on January 6th, 2005.
We have already presented the Declaration of Intent to several Members of Congress and it has been included in the record of the Conyers hearing on Ohio Voting Irregularities: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/voteforum.html
The Declaration was also a topic of discussion on the Mike Malloy Radio Show on the AirAmericaRadio network on Dec. 8th: www.mikemalloy.com
If you represent a group, try to get all your members to ACT NOW!
For more information on exactly what to do and how visit www.thedeanpeople.org
Questions, suggestions, or comments?
Patty Keeshan
thedeanpeople@comcast.net
908 233 8172
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 14, 2004 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact Cobb Tells Congress About Rigged Voting Machines Says Machines without Paper Trails are a Threat to Democracy Columbus, OH — Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb told members of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday about an Ohio Board of Elections employee who witnessed deliberate tampering with county voting machines. The revelation came as part of Cobb's testimony in a forum convened by Representative John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. The committee members are examining reports of voter suppression and intimidation and other irregularities that occurred in the Ohio 2004 presidential election. Cobb's report of rigged voting machines drew an instantaneous response from Conyers who directed his staff to immediately investigate the situation.
"This allegation is just the tip of the iceberg," said Cobb. "The bigger problem is the use of electronic voting machines that don't produce auditable paper trails. Electronic voting machines and tabulators without verifiable paper trails are one of the greatest threats to our democracy," Cobb added.
Cobb's comments come as 21 more Ohio counties begin the recount process today, including Franklin, Mahoning, Pickaway and Ross counties which use only electronic voting machines.
Problems reported with electronic voting machines in this election have included one Ohio county adding almost 4,000 extra votes to George W. Bush's tally, machines that wouldn't let voters record presidential votes for anyone but Bush, and "backwards counting" machines that subtracted votes from Kerry's vote totals.
"In the old days, crooked politicians stuffed ballot boxes. Today, computer technicians can fix the vote behind-the-scenes. There's compelling evidence that the 2004 presidential vote was manipulated. Until there's public scrutiny and access to all phases of the voting process, there will be lingering suspicions of fraud," said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.
The Green Party's presidential campaign has demanded recounts in both Ohio and New Mexico. The New Mexico state canvassing board, which oversees that state's elections, is meeting today to take up the issue of the New Mexico recount. By New Mexico law, the recount should have started there no later than today.
The Cobb-LaMarche website http://www.votecobb.org has more information about the campaign and recount efforts. Information about the national Green Party can be found at http://www.gp.org. http://www.votecobb.org/press/2004/dec/pr2004-12-14.php December 13, 2004 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact Cobb Testifies Before Congressional Forum in Ohio Reveals Shocking Allegation of New Evidence of Intentional Tampering with Voting Machines Columbus, OH — Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb received an enthusiastic response from members of Congress and the audience at today's congressional forum which was convened in the Columbus City Council Chambers. Cobb said that his campaign is seeking a recount because of the widespread and documented reports of voter suppression and intimidation in Ohio and the unexplained malfunctioning of electronic voting machines. Cobb also revealed a shocking allegation of new evidence of intentional tampering with voting machines. Representative John Conyers, the chair of the forum, reacted immediately and the matter is now under investigation. You can read more about Cobb's testimony, this new development and proposals to improve our election system below.
The forum was packed with information, details of a dysfunctional electoral system and positive ideas for change.
The forum was convened by members of the House Judiciary Committee who have sent a letter to the Governor of Ohio demanding that he "delay or treat as provisional" the vote of Ohio's presidential electors who met today under a cloud of suspicion.
The Reverend Jesse Jackson praised the Greens and Libertarians as "freedom fighters who have kept the flame burning.... Without their dogged determination, we would not have a platform today." TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL FORUM IN OHIO December 13, 2004 Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee: For the Record, my name is David Cobb and I am the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate. As a presidential candidate in Ohio this year, it is my statutory right under Ohio law to seek a recount of the presidential vote in this state. I am seeking a recount because of widespread and documented reports of voter suppression and intimidation, voting fraud and malfunctioning voting machines. On November 19, over 3 weeks ago, I formally demanded a recount by notifying each and every one of Ohio's 88 county election directors, and the Secretary of State, and by posting the required $10 per precinct filing fee. I requested a hand recount of all ballots cast in all precincts in the state. The total bond, or filing fee, was $113,600. It was paid in full. At that time, Mr. Chairman, it is worth it to note that half of Ohio's counties had already completed their initial canvass of the vote at that time. The recount could have started then. Today, December 13, the day that the presidential electors are meeting to cast their votes here in Columbus, the recount that I requested over 3 weeks ago is finally beginning; but only in eight Ohio counties. The other 80 counties will presumably begin recounting throughout the week. Why has this process been delayed so long when the election has been over for almost 6 weeks? How is it that the state of Washington has already completed one statewide recount and begun a second before Ohio has even started? The answer lies in partisan politics and the fact that the Ohio Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, is not only the supervisor of the Ohio election process but also served as the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in this state. We have asked the federal judiciary to intervene. Although two federal district judges have affirmed my right to a recount, they have declined to expedite the process. It is clear to me that the people of this nation need and deserve a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in order for citizens, and even candidates, to be able to impact this process. We have faced tremendous obstacles in our efforts to seek our statutory right to a recount. We were sued by Delaware County, Ohio, in their effort to block the recount in that county. On this issue, we prevailed in federal court although a Delaware County judge did in fact initially issue a temporary restraining order against my legal counsel, my colleague Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, and me. We have been unable to even have Mr. Blackwell clarify critical issues concerning the mechanics of the recount process. In good faith, my legal counsel sent this letter to Mr. Blackwell on December 7 seeking clarification of a number of issues. We have not received a response from Mr. Blackwell. In the interest of time, I won't read all the questions we have posed to Mr. Blackwell but I would like to have this letter entered into the record. My campaign has also filed for recounts in New Mexico and Nevada where, like Ohio, there were numerous problems with electronic voting machines. Faced with a hefty price tag and uncooperative election officials in Nevada, we withdrew our request. In New Mexico, as in Ohio, we are facing unwarranted, illegal delay. I raise the status of these other states just to point out that there is no single standard for conducting elections or recounts in our country. Today, the presidential electors will cast their votes. Yet here in Ohio, over 100,000 so-called "spoiled" and provisional ballots remain uncounted. We often hear people say that "voting doesn't matter" or that "my vote doesn't count." Sadly, as the presidential electors gather under a cloud of suspicion, these people are being proved correct. Recounts are an essential check and balance on the voting system. In order to be meaningful, they must be timely and must be completed before the electors meet and before the federally designated "safe harbor" day which precedes the meeting of the electors. If recounts are not conducted in a timely and meaningful way, then there is no accountability in the voting process. And if there is no accountability, then that is an invitation for fraud and corruption. Without uniform standards for recounts, the process is left open for abuse by partisan public officials. This is unacceptable and intolerable. We must have our elections supervised by independent and non-partisan election commissions. We must end black box voting and demand auditable, verifiable paper trails from electronic voting machines. We must enshrine in our Constitution the right to vote and establish national, uniform voting standards. We must have publicly funded elections. We must have Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation. The right to vote, and the right to have everyone's vote count, is perhaps the most sacred of all rights. Mr. Chairman, though our time is limited, I must bring to the committee's attention the most recent and perhaps most troubling incident that was related to my campaign on Sunday, December 12, about a shocking event that occurred last Friday, December 10. A representative from Triad Systems came into a county board of elections office un-announced. He said he was just stopping by to see if they had any questions about the up-coming recount. He then headed into the back room where the Triad supplied Tabulator (a card reader and older PC with custom software) is kept. He told them there was a problem and the system had a bad battery and had "lost all of its data". He then took the computer apart and started swapping parts in and out of it and another "spare" tower type PC also in the room. He may have had spare parts in his coat as one of the BOE people moved it and remarked as to how very heavy it was. He finally re-assembled everything and said it was working but to not turn it off. He then asked which precinct would be counted for the 3% recount test, and the one which had been selected as it had the right number of votes, was relayed to him. He then went back and did something else to the tabulator computer. The Triad Systems representative suggested that since the hand count had to match the machine count exactly, and since it would be hard to memorize the several numbers which would be needed to get the count to come out exactly right, that they should post this series of numbers on the wall where they would not be noticed by observers. He suggested making them look like employee information or something similar. The people doing the hand count could then just report these numbers no matter what the actual count of the ballots revealed. This would then "match" the tabulator report for this precinct exactly. The numbers were apparently the final certified counts for the selected precinct. Triad is contracted to do much of the elections work in this county and elsewhere in Ohio. This included programming the candidates into the tabulator, and coming up with the rotation of candidates in the various precincts (that is, the order of which candidate is first changes between precincts). They also have a technician in the office on election night to actually run the tabulator itself. Triad also supplies the network computers on which all of the voter registration information and processing is kept for the county. It was unusual for the computers to be taken apart. At least one member of the Board of Elections was told the tabulator was in pieces when he called to check on the office. The source of this report believes that the Triad representative was "making the rounds" of visiting other counties also before the recount. This person also stated they would not pass on the suggestion of the "posted" hidden totals, and would refuse to go along with it if it were suggested by the others in the office at the time. The source of this information believes they could lose their job if they come forward. http://www.votecobb.org/press/2004/dec/pr2004-12-13b.php December 13, 2004 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact Judge Affirms Green Party Right to New Mexico Presidential Recount Columbus, OH — Judge Carol Vigil today affirmed Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb's right to a recount of the presidential vote in New Mexico but the Judge declined to order the state canvassing board to begin the recount immediately. The state canvassing board consists of Governor Bill Richardson, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron and Supreme Court Chief Justice Petra Maes. They are scheduled to meet Tuesday at 5 p.m. in the governor's Cabinet Room.
Judge Vigil declined Cobb's request to order the canvassing board to begin the recount process immediately, because the board is meeting tomorrow to discuss the recount.
"We have a clear legal right to a recount. It's not a discretionary matter. If the state canvassing board fails to uphold the law and order the recount to begin on Tuesday, we'll be back in court on Wednesday," said Blair Bobier, Cobb-LaMarche media director.
"There's tremendous grassroots support for the recount and for verifying the accuracy of our voting system. We have 800 volunteers who are ready to jump in and monitor the recount process," said Rick Lass, the New Mexico recount coordinator for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.
The Cobb-LaMarche website http://www.votecobb.org has more information about the campaign and recount efforts. http://www.votecobb.org/press/2004/dec/pr2004-12-13a.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Recount: County Election Board Chair Disputes comments from spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell 12/14/04 4:45pm EST Yesterday, I reported on a phone interview with Carlo LoParo, a spokesperson for Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. One of the items LoParo repeatedly stressed was that 'each county in Ohio has an election board consisting of two Republicans and two Democrats' and that each board 'unanimously voted to certify their election results on December 6th.'...he urged me to contact these Democratic party chairs if I 'had any doubt' as to the conduct of the elections in any of Ohio's 88 county's, including oft discussed Franklin and Hamilton counties. So, I contacted Hamilton County's Board of elections Chair (Franklin's board did not return calls), but his comments did not line up with those coming out of the Secretary of State's office.
'I feel mixed' said Hamilton County Board of Elections chair Tim Burke, when asked about LoParo's comments. Burke, who is also the chairperson for the Hamilton County Democratic Party went on to say that he felt 'we accurately counted the ballots we all agreed on, yes, BUT, Conflicting decisions by the Secretary of State in the days and weeks leading up to election day, and in some cases made the morning of election day caused confusion and disenfranchised thousands around the state.' Burke also suggested that there were many more ballots that were not counted even though he felt that they should have been. 'On just provisional ballots 1100 were not counted in Hamilton County because of confusing information that sent people to the wrong precinct. In past years it would not have mattered because their ballots would have been accepted, but the Secretary of State made a very restricted ruling regarding provisional ballots and as a result, this election is the first election that votes like these were not counted...an additional 451 voters were disenfranchised when they arrived at the correct polling place, but voted at the wrong table (some locations served more than one precinct by using seperate tables).
Burke acknowledged that not all of the confusion can be attributed to the Secretary of State. Some of the confusion came as a result of the various court battles and resultant rulings that required changes to voting procedures. But Burke stressed that most of the confusion came as a result of conflicting messages from the Secretary of State [regarding where voters were to cast their ballots and other issues] and pointed to the recount about to start in Ohio as an example that the confusing messages are continuing.
Initially, a week ago, according to Burke, the Secretary of State sent out an order requiring that party witnesses to the recount had to have a designation note signed by the candidate. Thus, for the Democratic Party's 88 witnesses (one for each Ohio County's recount) John Kerry had to personally sign their letter designating them as the party's official witness, and the Ohio State Democratic Party and Senator Kerry had spent a fair amount of time, effort and money working to get that accomplished. Today, Blackwell backed off on that requirement significantly, allowing the certification of party witnesses to be signed off by local or state party organizations.
Meanwhile, the otherwise quiet Kerry/Edwards campaign weighed in on the recount with this email I received from their Ohio State Counsel, Daniel J. Hoffheimer of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP:
'The Kerry-Edwards Campaign supports the right of the third-party candidates to obtain a thorough recount of the Presidential election in Ohio. We, too, have appointed witnesses in boards of elections across Ohio who are witnessing the recount to make sure it is thorough, fair, and complete. The third-party candidates and others are also contesting the election and seeking legal remedies in the Supreme Court of Ohio for claimed election improprieties and anomalies, as is their right under the law.
'In the course of the election in Ohio, including the administration of the election before and on Election Day, the counting of ballots, the official canvass and certification, litigation, the recount, and now the third-party candidates' lawsuit contesting the election in Ohio, many allegations have been made of improprieties and anomalies. These alleged problems brought forward by many citizens go well beyond the facts known to the Kerry-Edwards Campaign from our own voter protection work before, on, and even since Election Day. It is essential that every voting irregularity in Ohio and elsewhere be investigated, understood, and reported to the public--not because it will change the outcome of this Presidential election but because it is essential to assure all Americans that their votes are counted. The integrity of our democracy, in this and in future elections, depends upon a full and open disclosure and understanding of all of the problems that have occurred so that the American people and their representatives can fix them.' Steven Leser, stevenleser@walla.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
No comments:
Post a Comment