GOP plan targeted new voters

By Barry M. Horstman
Cincinnati Post staff reporter  01 November 2004

Although U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott ruled early today that it is unconstitutional to post challengers at Ohio's polling places, Ohio Republicans apparently initially intended to target lists of voters many newly registered in heavily Democratic precincts throughout the state on Tuesday, according to a GOP training manual.

The 26-page pamphlet outlines general guidelines for challenging voters, including when an individual's name was not on a precinct's poll list, when his signature did not match the one in the poll register, when first-time voters had inadequate identification, when individuals appear to not be of legal voting age and when the person may have requested an absentee ballot.

Rules for GOP challengers  
The manual given to Ohio Republicans planning to challenge voters' eligibility offered suggestions on challengers' behavior, attire and other aspects of what is likely to be a 14-hour day at the polls Tuesday:

?  Challengers are instructed to arrive at least half an hour before the polls open at 6:30 a.m. and to remain after the polls close at 7:30 p.m. to watch ballots being processed for transportation to the Board of Elections for tabulation. To prepare for their long day, they are encouraged to show up with extra bottles of water and a snack, as well as a fully charged cell phone for occasional reports to party officials.

?  "Establish a good rapport with the election officials in your precinct," the manual says. "Be discreet, polite and professional."

?  "Dress professionally, but comfortably. Do not wear a suit or flashy clothing."

?  It also includes one final piece of advice: "Do not speak to the media."

It also offers advice about how challengers can most efficiently perform their jobs, including tips not to wear "flashy clothing" and not to challenge so many voters as to delay the voting process and risk being expelled from the polling place.

"Use good judgment about whether to challenge a voter or not," the manual says. "This is not just a legal decision, but also a political one."

During a highly unusual Sunday night hearing in federal court in downtown Cincinnati, one GOP challenger trained earlier Sunday said the party intended to challenge only voters who showed up  at the polls after having requested an absentee ballot, which may or may not have been returned. Those challenges, lawyer Drew Hicks said, were intended to insure that individuals do not cast more than one ballot.

Hicks's testimony came in the federal lawsuit on which Dlott ruled about 1:30 a.m. today. It contended the GOP plan to station challengers at the polls has racist overtones because many observers would be positioned in minority neighborhoods that typically vote heavily Democratic. Dlott said the presence of challengers who were inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting.

Republican officials had already scaled back their Election Day poll challenger plan.

Tim Burke, co-chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party, theorized that change in plans stemmed from embarrassment over the considerable adverse publicity generated nationwide since the plan was unveiled.

The training manual, however, suggests that the Republicans initially saw broader opportunities for challenging voters, justifying the effort on the grounds that there have been "unprecedented instances of voter registration fraud and widespread mistakes" in Ohio and nationwide.

On Friday, Ken Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state, instructed Attorney General Jim Petro to recommend that challengers from both major political parties be excluded from polling places because there was not enough time to resolve the legal issues; Petro said Blackwell's request was illegal.

According to the manual, challengers were to be sent to the polls with a "mirror voter list" with notations next to the names of those voters to be challenged. "If there is a notation by their name that they should be challenged, speak to the presiding (poll) judge before the voter is given a regular ballot," the manual says.

Under Ohio election statutes, while challengers are permitted in polling places to "observe all procedures except for an individual's actual vote casting," the challengers must lodge their complaint, not directly with the voter in question, but rather with the presiding poll judge. Four judges typically two Republicans and two Democrats staff each precinct.

"Be certain before you challenge and non-confrontational when you do," the manual says. "The other side is looking for an excuse to try to get you thrown out."

Reasons for which a voter's eligibility may be challenged, the manual explains, include questions over citizenship and age, whether he has been a resident of Ohio for 30 days and non-residency in the county or precinct where he is attempting to vote. The last factor not living in the precinct was "likely to be the main basis for challenges on Election Day," the manual states.

After a voter is challenged, the poll's presiding judge must ask the individual to take an oath punishable as a felony if proved to be false attesting that he is an eligible voter. If the person refuses to be sworn, refuses to sign his name, cannot answer any question or answers differently from the information on record with elections officials, the presiding poll judge may deny him a regular ballot. However, a successfully challenged voter may cast a provisional ballot, which could be counted later if election officials determine that he is properly registered.

Although most voters in Hamilton County are not required to provide identification other than their signature before voting, first-time voters who registered by mail this year face a higher threshold. They must provide either a current photo ID or a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or other government document showing their name and address. Those without identification may cast provisional ballots.

Other activities to watch for, the manual says, include voters' falsely claiming that voting machines did not work to delay or discourage other voters, voters falsely claiming that a vote did not register so as to vote again and the "extremely rare" cases of individuals attempting to "impersonate" a registered voter.