La Révolution, 1896
Valentine Cameron Prinsep
Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions. Leap into the boundless and make it your home.
---Chuang-Tzu
The only preparation I can make (for death) is by fulfilling my present duties. This is the everlasting life.
---Ralph Waldo Emerson
The spiritual life is, then, first of all a matter of keeping awake.
---Thomas Merton
I confess I was caught flat-footed yesterday afternoon when a TruthOut update hit my mailbox containing a bulletin William Pitt had sent out the evening before. I scarcely took time to read it all until this morning so even though I can find absolutely no mention of this in the media or even most of the sites and blogs still awake to the issue, it may be old news to some of you. This is about Election 2004 and the Ohio Recount which most of us thought was dead and gone...and I must say I haven't even visited many of the sites in a long time and my whole computer research system on this stuff is rusty and in disarray. But guess who still is awake and watching! Kerry-Edwards.
Trying to catch up with a case as complicated as this one has gotten is not easy for the layperson, so I may make mistakes in my account. Essentially, it seems to me, we now are in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, the Honorable Judge Edmond Sargus presiding. David Cobb of the Green Party, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party, the National Voting Rights Institute and some others filed jointly last December that the Ohio election recount was conducted by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell in a manner inconsistent with even his own standards. They call for it to be done again. http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_cobb_badnarik_counterclaims_123004.pdf (You need Adobe for all these links to the briefs.)
Furthermore they demanded all the voting machines and materials be impounded pending investigation. http://www.nvri.org/about/ohio_memo_in_support_122304.pdf The charged tampering by Triad techies is involved in this one. There has been bluster from the Republican administration in Ohio, but no resolution of these charges. Attorney General Petro even decided to sue the plaintiffs for all the time and money they're costing our poor state. On February 11th, Cobb and Badnarik filed for a hearing before Judge Sargus to find out what is going on with these motions. On February 14th, Judge Sargus asked for a briefing as to why the case ought not be transferred to Judge Carr up in the Northern District of Ohio, where the case that expedited the recount was decided back in November. On February 23rd, Cobb and Badnarik responded in opposition and gave their reasons why. http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
The next day John Kerry and John Edwards added their names officially as Intervenor Counter Plaintiffs in these actions. Donald McTigue is their attorney and he introduces himself to the judge here http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf . They also present a survey they took of election officials who participated in the Ohio Recount. The contention in the case is the recount was not conducted randomly but rather from prepared vote samples. They present the survey as exhibit of evidence here http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf and the summary here http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf . Kerry-Edwards final filing on Thursday was in support of Cobb and Badnarik not to transfer the venue. http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf
William Pitt's account of these developments is here http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756 , while The Free Press' story of moves involving Blackwell and Conyers is here http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1172 , though as of this writing nothing about Kerry-Edwards yet. Ray Beckerman is mirroring the TruthOut story too, as well as continuing to present the staggering list of fraud evidence at this page http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/#110226258199324878 . Of special interest is the featured link to Richard Hayes Phillips' analysis of Ohio's vote that shows Kerry won. http://ohioelection2004.com/WordHost/phillipsestimate.doc (That's a Wordpad document.) David Cobb's site is not updated but does talk about the Recount effort. http://www.votecobb.org/press/2005/feb/pr2005-02-08.php
Finally, Will Pitt wrote last night that no one should get hopes up. He says Kerry blew it when he conceded too soon...and so all that will be accomplished will be for future generations. http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/25/182032/611 But wait a minute~~~if we get another recount and Richard Hayes Phillips' contention is upheld, what then? If Kerry won Ohio...and maybe some other states still in contention, what to do about that buffoon strutting around the world these days? Wouldn't Bush simply have to step down? Or would things have to get rough?
4 comments:
AG Petro: You Say Affect, I Say Effect
Yes it's finally happened. Jazzolog has snapped, and here I am at 4 in the morning trying to better Ira Gershwin in the lyrics department. Nevertheless, I know I'm not alone in singing "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off"! I mean the controversy here in Ohio over the reelection of George Bush.
I'm confused, and the dearth of news coverage on the court case(s) has brought me to my knees this morning. Previously I could turn to Dan Tokaji and the Moritz College of Law at OSU for help in sorting out developments in election law, but they are mystifyingly barely covering any of this. Am I daft or am I alone in this whole country in thinking the most vital elements of our democracy (or republic) are being fought out at this very moment---and only a handful of people are watching at all?
On Tuesday afternoon, as some of you know, TruthOut's William Pitt put out a bulletin, with the headline "BREAKING: Blackwell Seeks Depositions of Kerry and Edwards" http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/1/153814/3859 . What has happened is Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro is representing Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, named as defendant, since Blackwell runs all the elections here. (The grand governor of this place has ridden aloof of all the scuffling since November.) In fact on January 10th, Petro petitioned the federal court (Southern District Ohio Eastern Division, Judge Sargus presiding) to dismiss Blackwell from the litigation. "...The Secretary was never a proper party in that case and should not have been joined." http://www.votecobb.org/lib/downloads/references/2005-01-10_blackwell.pdf (That's an Adobe.)
This time, last Tuesday, the attorney general petitioned again the case be remanded to the US District Court for the Northern District (in which venue they have a more sympathetic judge?). But in the second part of the petition, as TruthOut found, Petro seeks to get rid of the intervening John Kerry and John Edwards. He says they have no connection to the case and have suffered no alleged injury. He concludes if they have, let them so state in a deposition. http://truthout.org/pdf/blackwelltransferstatement3205.pdf
Yesterday afternoon the Green Party responded, as one of the plaintiffs, with a mocking indictment of Blackwell's refusal to give deposition himself. "'Mr. Blackwell's contention that he needs to depose Senators Kerry and Edwards is a laughable and blatantly political move. Mr. Blackwell has refused to be deposed himself about the Ohio election, has refused to appear before Congress http://www.votecobb.org/newsclips/2005/feb/news2005-02-09.php and has refused to answer questions from members of the House Judiciary Committee who have been investigating allegations of election fraud. To suggest that Kerry and Edwards should be deposed to address a legal technicality while Mr. Blackwell continues to avoid any public scrutiny of his own misconduct in the Ohio election is the height of hypocrisy,' said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the 2004 Cobb-LaMarche campaign. The report by the House Judiciary Committee's Democratic staff on the Ohio election and recount states that 'there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.'"
While the Greens have a good point, Petro does too I think...especially since the Democrats have chosen, since conceding, only to flutter by occasionally to help the case stay afloat. Their clout is acknowledged, but just what are they trying to do? Kerry reminds me somewhat of the Roman patrician farmers, who liked just to tend their gardens unless all the citizens arrived to carry them back to the throne on their shoulders. Petro's not asking for both, just one or the other. I think it would be magnificent if the Democrats took a stand---or took THE stand. Do they think there might have been fraud in Ohio, or not? Do they think people were prevented from voting? Was the voting suppressed in Ohio? If so, was not Kerry/Edwards an injured party? This case seeks to find that out.
So far, I see only a newspaper in New Zealand carrying the story. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00017.htm
But wait, there's more...and here, unlike Paul Harvey (who uses that phrase in his commentaries), is where I've gotten confused. Last night the Associated Press put out a story that baffles me. Here it is~~~
State Wants Judge To Rule On Its Role In Election
Long Voting Lines Spurred Request
POSTED: 6:12 pm EST March 2, 2005
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The state has asked a federal judge to determine whether it complied with the law in how it conducted last year's presidential election, saying it needs a precedent for challenges in future elections.
The request grew out of a case originally brought by the Ohio Democratic Party against Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, and two county boards of election on Election Day. The party sought to alleviate long lines at polling places in two counties.
U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ordered Blackwell's office and the Knox and Franklin county boards of election to provide alternative methods of voting. The polls remained open past their 7:30 p.m. closing time to accommodate anyone who was in line at that time. Some voters waited in line more than seven hours and the last ballots were cast early on Nov. 3.
Democrat John Kerry conceded to President Bush on Nov. 3, after his campaign determined he could not significantly cut into Bush's Ohio lead, which wound up being 118,000 votes.
After Kerry conceded, the Democrats asked Marbley to dismiss the case. However, the Ohio Attorney General's office, representing Blackwell, is trying to keep it alive so Marbley will rule on its request. The state filed a motion to intervene, asking Marbley to rule that the state and county boards did not violate constitutional guarantees of the right to vote, as claimed by the Democrats.
The state has no standing in the case because it is moot, Kathleen Trafford, an attorney representing the Ohio Democratic Party, argued before Marbley during a hearing on Wednesday.
"Our action expired when the court's order expired," Trafford said. "The election is over. The votes have been counted. The president has been inaugurated. ... The state's counterclaim does present a live controversy."
The state countered that Marbley should rule so a judgment will be in place if similar court actions are filed in future elections.
"Unless everybody has a personally assigned voting machine, they are going to wait in line," Richard Coglianese, the state's attorney, told Marbley.
Marbley asked Coglianese how he could be sure problems would arise in future elections. "You could argue that 2004 was an aberration," Marbley said.
Coglianese responded that the national spotlight on Ohio was part of a change in the public's interest in politics.
"People have moved into a new era of how they deal with elections," he said.
Marbley said he would rule in the case within one week.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.nbc4i.com/politics/4248110/detail.html
I don't even know what case they're talking about here...and who's on what side. It probably serves me right for getting too close to all the legal dancing around, but I feel this is the real stuff of the democracy and freedom we're proclaiming to the world every day. Am I wrong, or is it at the ballot box Freedom seeks to settle its disputes...rather than on the battlefield? Is it in the courtroom or the corporate boardroom where our fate is decided? It's at this point I wish the media, and their plethora of legal analysts (ready to go on and on about Michael Jackson, as they did about O.J. Simpson) would help me out!
Oh yes, about "affect" and "effect". In his petition on January 10th to dismiss the complaint against Ohio, Attorney General Jim Petro wrote, "Unfortunately the continued litigation over a case that is moot only has the affect (sic) of destroying the sovereignty of the State of Ohio and its courts." (Second paragraph of the Introduction) Am I wrong or is that a misuse of the word "affect"? Maybe not. God knows, few political administrations in the history of mankind have been more affected than these Republicans by effecting attractive affect, rather than good and true effects for their actions.
In catching up with the news and issues (and you know how tricky that has become in our free, democratic society) since Dana and I took our little trip, I see Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell finally offered testimony before the House Administration Committee regarding all the charges made against him and his handling of the 2004 Presidential Election in this state. You mean you didn't hear anything about it either? My my, guess such matters must not be important.
Attorney and assistant professor of law Dan Tokaji introduced the story this way~~~
Congress Comes to Columbus
Several weeks ago, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell declined to accept the House Administration Committee's invitation to appear before it in D.C. regarding Ohio's 2004 election experience. Yesterday, the committee -- or at least two members of it -- came to Ohio. The Ohio News Network has this report http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=3109807&nav=LQlCXlnU and the Cleveland Plain-Dealer this one http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1111487748160380.xml .
Dan's own account and views follow here http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/index.html .
Two days later, on Thursday, the gentlemen of The Free Press (Steve Rosenfeld, Bob Fitrakis, and Harvey Wasserman) got their account of the session posted...and this version has the most reporting and actual detail. Please have a look~~~
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1208
Reply below original message~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Loraine McCosker
To: appalchianohiosc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:33 AM
Subject: [appalchianohiosc] Election 2004
Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered Group of University Professors Urges Investigation of 2004 Election
WASHINGTON -- March 31 -- Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3%[1]. According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.
In other words, by random chance alone, it could not have happened. But it did.
Two alternatives remain. Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count.
Exit polls have been used to verify the integrity of elections in the Ukraine, in Latin America, in Germany, and elsewhere. Yet in November 2004, the U.S. exit poll discrepancy was much more than normal exit poll error (and similar to that of the invalid Ukraine election.[2])
In a recent survey of US members of the world's oldest and largest computer society, The Association for Computing Machinery, 95% opposed software driven un-auditable voting machines[3], of the type that now count at least 30% of U.S. votes. Today's electronic vote-counting machines are not required to include basic safeguards that would prevent and detect machine or human caused errors, be they innocent or deliberate.[4]
The consortium that conducted the presidential exit polls, Edison/Mitofsky, issued a report in January suggesting that the discrepancy between election results and exit polls occurred because Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters in response to pollsters.
The authors of this newly released scientific study "Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Poll Discrepancies" consider this "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis to be highly implausible, based on extensive analysis of Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data. They conclude, "The required pattern of exit poll participation by Kerry and Bush voters to satisfy the exit poll data defies empirical experience and common sense under any assumed scenario."
A state-by-state analysis of the discrepancy between exit polls and official election results shows highly improbable skewing of the election results, overwhelmingly biased towards the President.
The report concludes, "We believe that the absence of any statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky's exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally is an unanswered question of vital national importance that needs thorough investigation."
Ph.D. statisticians in America who have seen this group's preliminary exit poll study have not refuted it. This new study is a much more comprehensive an analysis of the exit poll discrepancies.
The report is available on-line:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
An executive summary of the report by is available at:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_summary.pdf
Contributors and Supporters of the Report include:
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Temple University Statistics Department
Steven F. Freeman, PhD - Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania
Brian Joiner, PhD - Prof. of Statistics (ret) University of Wisconsin
Frank Stenger, PhD - Professor, School of Computing, University of Utah
Richard G. Sheehan, PhD -Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame
Paul F. Velleman, PhD - Associate Prof., Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University
Victoria Lovegren, PhD - Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University
Campbell B. Read, PhD - Prof. Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University
Jonathan Simon, J.D., National Ballot Integrity Project
Ron Baiman, PhD - Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago
About US Count Votes
US Count Votes is a Utah non-profit corporation. It is seeking financial support to complete its "National Election Data Archive" project. The goal of the project is to apply statistical and analytic methods to investigate the integrity of the 2004 elections and to provide nationwide, impartial statistical auditing services to help ensure the accuracy of future elections.
For further information: contact Bruce O’Dell, Vice President, US Count Votes
Email: bruce@uscountvotes.org
or visit www.electionarchive.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this Loraine. Some readers may be interested in those footnotes (in brackets) so here they are~~~
Footnotes:
[1] "Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004" prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP) Jan. 19, 2005
[2] In the November 21 runoff, Ukraine's official vote count had Prime Minister Yanukovych the winner by 2.7%. Two exit polls showed him losing by 8% and 2%, respectively. Thus, the discrepancy was between 10.7% and 4.7%. In the US, the discrepancy was between 6.5% and 5.5%. See http://www.templetonthorp.com/ru/news808 and http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=2669&category_id=44.
[3] http://uscountvotes.net/voting_machines/Best_Practices_US.pdf
[4] http://uscountvotes.net/voting_machines/Best_Practices_US.pdf
My source for the story, as usual these days, is a site out of New Zealand(!)~~~
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00470.htm
Today's papers are carrying the story of the Democratic National Committee's report on the 2004 election as conducted in Ohio. Dan Moritz should have his analysis of it for us soon. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/index.html In the meantime I like how BradBlog is covering it~~~
Blogged by Brad on 6/22/2005 @ 12:57pm PT...
DNC Releases Long-Awaited 2004 Ohio Election Report!
REPORT: African-Americans Were Far More Likely to be Challenged at Polls, Waited Longer and Were Disenfranchised!
Touch-Screen Machines Far More Problematic Than Others, 'Vulnerable to Fraud', Recommends Such Machines No Longer Be Used...
As presented to DNC Chairman Howard Dean this morning, the DNC Voting Rights Institute has finally released its long-awaited report entitled "Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio" ... http://www.democrats.org/vri/ohioreport/
As presented to DNC Chairman Howard Dean this morning, the DNC Voting Rights Institute has finally released its long-awaited report entitled "Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio".
We're currently reviewing the report, which is available for download in full or by sections at the DNC website.
Donna Brazile, the chair of the Voting Rights Institute introduced the report at a press conference this morning as reported by The BRAD BLOG late last night. In her opening statements she said that the report "was five months in the making and represents an exhaustive review of public documents."
The BRAD BLOG has obtained Brazile's complete opening statement, available here. http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/DNCVotingReport/DNCVotingReport_BrazileStatement.htm Here are some of the highlights from that statement...
"The right to vote is the bedrock on which our Democracy stands. If citizens cannot believe that their vote counts, and will actually be counted, they understandably lose interest in the basic work of citizenship, like voting and participating in public debate over relevant issues.
"Our study addresses legitimate questions and concerns raised in Ohio, including questions about voting machines – How effective were they?
"Why were there enough machines in some counties and not in others? Why were there so many more provisional ballots cast in Ohio than in other states of comparable size?
2.8% of all ballots cast in Ohio were provisional ballots, as contrasted with only 0.9% in PA and 0.3% in FLA.
"Why were people standing in line for hours and why weren’t they showing up on the rolls after so many new voters registered? Why did young people have so many hassles voting?
...
"Our report concludes that more than one-quarter of Ohio voters had problems at the polls. Far more troubling, twice as many African American voters reported problems at the polls than did white voters.
...
"African American voters reported waiting an average of 52 minutes before voting while white voters overall reported waiting 18 minutes.
...
"African American voters were far more likely to have their registration status challenged and to report experiencing intimidation at the polls than other voters. 16% of African Americans reported experiencing intimidation at the polls as opposed to 5% of whites.
...
"Counties using touchscreen machines had far more problems than voters in other counties.
...
"Nearly one-quarter of Ohio voters report that their experience in 2004 has made them less confident about the reliability of elections in Ohio. 71% of whites reported being very confident their vote was counted as opposed to 19% of African Americans.
...
"Election reform is a bipartisan responsibility and a bipartisan concern. The Democratic Party will continue to work with Members of Congress, state lawmakers, local election officials and community leaders to make sure that all voters maintain confidence in our system of elections.
...
"Among the recommendations made in our report, is the request for a commitment on the part of the Democratic Party to monitor election reform in all fifty states and the district of Columbia, including the codification into law of all election practices; the adoption of clear standards for the equitable distribution of voting equipment and the assignment of poll workers; the adoption of uniform standards for voter registration and the monitoring of same; the implementation of statewide voter lists; the adoption of uniform standards for the issuance of provisional ballots and enforceable rules for counting provisional ballots; to adopt legislation which limits identification requirements to first time voters at the time they apply for voter registration or the first time they vote, whichever should first occur, and to adopt and enforce procedures to guarantee that identification requirements are not abused as a voter suppression tactic; to encourage the adoption of precinct-tabulated optical scan voting machines; to abstain from using touchscreen voting machines unless or until they are perfected such that they are no longer vulnerable to fraud---and even then, to discontinue the use of touchscreen voting machines that do not have a reliable voter verifiable audit feature; to discontinue the use of punchcard systems; and to require voting equipment vendors to disclose source codes so that they may be examined by third parties and ensure that voting procedures are transparent at every level of the voting process; to push for legislation requiring that all equipment used by voters to tabulate votes must not be used for any other purpose; to encourage states to adopt “no excuse required” standards for absentee voting; to encourage states to make it easier for college students to vote in the jurisdiction where their school is located; to develop secure and effective voting procedures for registered voters living overseas; to make voter suppression a criminal offense in every jurisdiction; to improve the education of poll workers and to educate voters where, when and how to vote; and to prohibit partisan officials who volunteer to work for a candidate from overseeing or administering that candidate’s election."
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001485.htm#comments
The Republican National Chairman responded the whole report is "fiction." http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49234 That means all these people interviewed were lying? Ohio's Secretary of State Blackwell had his usual spokesperson Carlo LoParo (does anybody know his background?) tell us the report is a personal attack against him because he's running for governor. http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/11959244.htm What would happen to a Republican who said, "These problems are important to everyone; let's get together and take a look"?
Post a Comment