Ohio Recount: The Recount That Wasn't, a Chance to Reassure Voters Missed
  
Steve Lesor  ElitesTV  1/4/05

People who have been following Elites TV or my articles will attest to the fact that I have been attempting to raise awareness regarding the recount that had been going on in Ohio from December 13th until December 28th. I thought it important that all groups have a chance to have their say regarding the Ohio election and its subsequent recount, including the Ohio Secretary of State, county election boards, and more and that the public get all this information so that each reader could make up their own mind regarding how the election was conducted in Ohio. It was my sincere hope that any thought of fraud or conspiracy would be cleared up one way or the other via the recount process. If the recount had been conducted in strict adherence to Ohio state law, I have no doubt that this would have happened. Sadly, it does not appear that this was the case and if anything, the way the recount was conducted lends more credence to the conspiracy theories floating around the blogosphere that there was something wrong with the Ohio vote, something man-made and intentional.

Why do I say this? On or about December 23rd, I was forwarded a civil court filing by the head counsel for the Kerry Campaign in Ohio, a Mr. Daniel J. Hoffheimer of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP. The Kerry campaign had joined an action filed by the Green and Libertarian parties in conjunction with the National Voting Rights Institute, self described on their web site as 'a prominent non-partisan legal center in the campaign finance reform field. Through litigation and public education, the Institute aims to redefine the issue of private money in public elections as the nation's newest voting rights barrier, and to vindicate the constitutional right of all citizens, regardless of their economic status, to participate in the electoral process on an equal and meaningful basis.' The NVRI has frequently joined actions against both major parties for among other things, better access for third parties to the election process at various levels. This civil court filing contains a concise issue by issue and county by county description of allegations that Ohio county election boards refused to conduct recounts of their votes in accordance with Ohio state law. This filing is of an account by of Lynne Serpe, Campaign Manager of the Cobb 2004 (Green Party) Presidential campaign, and manager of Green Party election observations of the recount, and can be read in its entirety at http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_serpe_122304.pdf . If Democracy is a matter of great import to you, I suggest you steel your stomach before you begin reading. Also, it is important to note that Ohio state law requires that in a recount, each county must initially choose precincts randomly such that at least 3% of the total ballots are in ed precincts, then do a hand count of those ballots. If the hand count is the same as the initial machine count, the rest of the 97% of ballots can be recounted by machine. If it is off even by as little as one vote, the rest of the 97% of the ballots in that county must be counted by hand. That is Ohio state law regarding recounts. Some of the allegations are as follows:

1. Allan County, Clermont County, Cuyahoga, Morrow County, Hocking County, Medina County and Vinton Counties (among others) did not randomly the 3% of precincts to be counted, but specifically picked them using different criteria. For example:

'Clemont County chose the precincts by choosing the thirteen precincts with the lowest number of voters plus the next number of precincts that reached the total of 3% of the total votes cast in the county. This ion process eliminated larger and more diversified precincts.'

'The Morrow County Board of Elections ed the Harmony Township precinct for the initial hand count because it had 517 ballots cast, or just over 3% of the county.' Observers complained, the Ohio Secretary of State's office was called and the Ohio Secretary of State contravened state law and said the county was within its rights to do this.

'Election officials in Medina County were aware of several 'problem' districts, but instead choose to perform the manual 3% test recount on two [other] precincts'. Summit County's board of elections said they performed a random ion of the precincts, but performed this ion without any of the party election witnesses present.

2. Monroe and Fairfield Counties conducted the 3% hand counts twice and both times the hand count failed to match the machine count. Neither county followed state law and commenced with a hand count of the entire county. Instead, Monroe brought a repairman in to bring a new election machine and conducted a third hand count, this time the machine count matched and the county did not do a hand recount. In Fairfield, after the two counts failed to match twice, the county board ejected everyone except the Republican recount observers for a private meeting, then reconvened a few days later and performed only the machine recount of the remaining ballots. No hand count was done as prescribed by Ohio state law.

3. Summit county refused to let the people performing the counts OR the election observers talk. In addition, the Summit County board required observers to stand at least twenty feet away which prevented the legal observers assigned by the parties from actually being able to observe how the recount was conducted. Each county election board seemed to have a different interpretation as to the rights and privileges of political party assigned election observers. Summit County?s was the strictest. The Green Party has video of the election observers and counters? standing there silently as the recount is performed. The surreal video should be seen to be believed

In all, the filing notes 38 separate accounts of problems, or non-standard methods by which counties performed their recount duties. I interviewed Lynne Serpe to get some comments on these issues.

Lynne?s first comment was that a subsequent filing had been issued by the green party and the other counter-Plaintiffs on Thursday December 30th clarifying some of the issues in the December 23rd counter claim, more clearly defining allegations of how several of the Ohio Secretary of State?s actions were outside the bounds of, and in many cases directly contrary to Ohio state law and applicable federal statutes, and requesting ?declaratory and injunctive relief in order to protect their rights under federal and state law to have Ohio's Presidential electors participate fully in the federal electoral process in the manner intended by the legislature of Ohio, including a timely and fundamentally fair recount.? In layman?s terms, this request for relief is the legal way of saying the court should mandate that final certification of Ohio?s election should not be done because the recount was not performed in accordance with Ohio state law and because the counties did not perform their recounts according to uniform standards. This amended counterclaim can be seen in its entirety at http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_cobb_badnarik_counterclaims_123004.pdf . Another link that should be visited is the Cobb campaign?s home page for its election observers, which contains links to detailed reports by observers from each county in Ohio, http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/index.php

I asked Lynne to talk about the 88 Ohio county election boards and why few of them performed the recount in accordance with Ohio state law. ?It is clear to us that they did not want to have to do a full [hand] recount? Lynne said, ?They purposely did not choose ballots from problem precincts. Some did do the correct random ion of precincts. Ohio revised code is [for Counties] to randomly 3% of the total vote count [for the initial hand recount]. They must them by ing random precincts until the total ballots in the randomly ed precincts total 3% of the total ballots in the county. County boards forget that the election observers [chosen by the political parties] are legal representatives and the citizens of the state of Ohio have a right [to the recount and] to see the ballots. Their [the county election board?s] attitudes do not reflect this.? I then asked Lynne why a county election board would behave this way other than to cover-up innocent mistakes, carelessness or outright fraud. ?That?s a difficult question? Lynne answered cautiously, ?Most of the county workers were well intentioned individuals who are not trying to cover-up fraud but who are oblivious to the possibility or opportunity for fraud. It goes back to the attitude I mentioned. They forget that many people spent six, eight or eleven hours in the rain to vote and they view this [voting] as very important. Part of the reason for the attitude might have been a fear on the part of these boards that we, the observers were looking to accuse them of something. Our observers tried to call and meet with each of the boards to dispel this fear and reassure them that this was not the case.?

In all the allegations describing of problems, hostility to observers, non-standard counting and other issues, I asked Lynne if there were any bright spots, or counties that did a good job. Without hesitation, Lynne responded, ?Coshocton County. They were the only Ohio County to perform a full hand recount and they decided that this is what they were going to do before even performing the initial 3% count. The result was that the board in Coshocton found an additional 1080 votes above and beyond the initial certified count. A lot of people complained about the recount being done and its costs, etc. In Coshocton county, the recount reinfranchised 1080 people. 1080 voters had their votes counted because of the recount. I think that shows the value of the recount effort.?

When all of the above is read and digested, including the links to the filings and reports, it provides a disturbing picture of how the Ohio recount was conducted. I think it makes one wonder why the Ohio Secretary of State or any of the County election boards would allow the recount to proceed in such a way if they had nothing to hide and wanted to make sure everyone knew that. As far as this reporter is concerned, these officials could not have done more during the recount process to make people more suspicious about what happened in Ohio. The lawsuits and the entire situation deserves considerably more scrutiny.