2004 Ballot Recount: Observer Report

• December 15, 2004:
  Report by Green Party Observer

December 15, 2004:
Report by Green Party Observer

The Ashland County rcount was held in a back room of the Ashland County Board of Elections office, at Ashland County Office Building, 110 Cottage Street, Ashland, Ohio 44805.

It began at 9:00 AM, there was a lunch break 11:35 AM - 1:00 PM, and the recount ended at approximately 4:40 PM.

I was told that the only ID needed was a photo ID, but this was not accurate. In fact, we did need a letter from each candidate and photo IDs were not asked for.

Present for the Recount

• Madhu Singh, Field Representative of the Ohio Secretary of State
• 4 staff members, consisting of two Republicans and two Democrats
• 4 Board of Election members
• 1 Republican witness
• 1 Democratic witness
• 1 Green Party witness for Cobb-LeMarche (myself)
• 1 Libertarian witness for Badnarick (Witness G.)

The Staff and Board were Polite and Forthcoming for Most of the Day

However, at 4:07pm we requested to be able to view the poll books after following their scheduled protocol all day for doing the recount. This was clearly unsettling or burdensome for some of the staff and Board, it was getting late and all present groaned a little but one female Board member yelled at me. I was told that I didn't know what I was doing and should have come prepared with forms to fill in.

I was told that I couldn't possibly know what to do with the data and was just scribbling in my notebook. I firmly read back to her the data I had just taken from precinct 1-A in an orderly fashion. I told them that we knew this was a further imposition at the end of a long day and yet insisted, quietly and politely that this was our job. In the end we prevailed and were given access to the poll books. Other Board members later made a point to let me to know that they understood that we were seeking information we had a right to ask for.

Random Selection

I asked about random selection. Did they do a random selection of the precincts to find the three percent to do a hand count on? They first said that they found two precincts — a city and a county precinct that totalled 773 votes which would be three percent of their total vote. Is this random? Doesn't sound like it — yet, what exactly is a random selection and how would a Board of Election conduct one? After seeing our confusion with their answer they insisted that this is a random sampling.

As witnesses, Witness G. and I did the best we could to absorb details about the Optical Scan Card used in Ashland County. It was a first for both of us. We asked many questions during conversation that happened while waiting for the tabulator machine to run parts of the recount and I'll try to bring out some of the information that we learned.

We asked about long lines on election day. None were reported. With Scan Cards, people are given their paper ballots and sit down together at tables to fill them out. A lot of people can, therefore, be reading and marking their ballots at the same time which could move things along a little faster.

We asked about signs at polling places and precincts. We were told that there were flags placed outside polling places and that each precinct was clearly marked with a sign on the front of the precinct table.

We asked about any precinct changes. We were told that no precinct changes have happened in their county since the 2000 election.

Ballot Storage and Security

Their method of storing the ballots is just plain mystifying.

They have been stored in the room in which the recount took place, a back room in the Board of Elections offices, about 15ft. x 10ft, which appears to be a lunch room or meeting room.

The cast ballots are stored by precinct in open cubicles along one wall of this room, completely open and visible to anyone who enters this room. Piled on top of the cubicles holding the vote are baskets, Doritos, paper plates, mugs, cleaning products, Fresh-n-Soft, Glad Wrap, etc. Also in this room is a small refrigerator, microwave and coat rack. The vote recount happened on a clean table covered with a plastic cloth. We were told that the room is locked except when staff is in there. Yet, where is the security one expects for the protection of cast ballots? How does anyone really know who has been in there?

The Ballots Themselves

Where do I start? The 2004 Optical Scan ballots are significantly different than the ballots of 2000. We obtained sample copies of both years. These will be given to State Coordinator C.

The instructions for the 2004 ballots are in a much smaller font, perhaps 8pt. By comparison, the intructions for the 2000 ballots seemed to be about 12pt font size. The 2004 ballots have more words and one more instruction.

Significantly, missing from the ballot instructions is anything referring to erasures. This is important because erasures are counted as over-votes and not counted as a valid vote. There was no clarity about this on the ballot. [In other words, if you erase a mark on the ballot, the ballot automatically becomes invalid, but the instructions on the ballot make no mention of this fact.]

We asked if pencils were provided at the polls, and were told that they were. We asked if the pencil had erasers, and were happy to be told that they did not. We were shown the pencils used at the polls. Sanford Design, Jet Black Smooth, no eraser.

We asked about the layout of the ballot. Who is responsible for wording, placement and font size? We were told by Madhu Singh that the office of the Secretary of State sends the exact format for each year's ballot. This year's was so confusing that there were 530 over-votes, as compared to 2000 when there were only 166 (a difference of 364 votes).

This may sound confusing but bear with me, and look at both samples first. It was determined (by some estimating among the 4 witnesses present) that about 80% of the over-votes were indeed clear about the intent of the voter.

However, due to the odd way that the bottom group of candidates (president and vice-president) was placed on top of the write-in space, many, many people filled in both the president and the write-in while leaving the space blank [thereby invalidating their ballots].

When the 2004 ballot is compared to the 2000 ballot, it is apparent that the names of president and vice-president for the same party were split up with their own spacing looking as if they were somehow separate. It produced an insecure feeling about their being together when the voter could only fill in a space by the presidential candidate yet the vice-presidential candidate was separate yet equal in vertical spacing. There was double spacing between each and every candidate whether for president or vice-president. Yet, in 2000 the placement was two names, same size font, enclosed between two parentheses with a tiny font underneath to designate their party. It was very easy to see which candidates were running together. Single space between candidates of the same party and double spacing between sets of candidates (refer to sample provided).

While we were assured that candidate's names were randomly place first, middle and last on different ballots a question persists. Who oversees this? Which counties are adversely affected by this unsure over-voting? There is too much wiggle room here.

Ink Used Instead of Pencil

At 10:25am we noticed that a vote in 1-C and then in 1-F, 3B and Loudonville-1 were cast in ink rather than pencil and kicked out as over-votes. We politely challenged that this was questionable procedure since the intent of the voter was clear and no other mistakes than using ink could be found on the ballots.

Madhu Singh stepped out, and the counting continued until word was given to stop for lunch early, at 11:35, rather than the 12:00 noon we were formerly told it would be. We were to return at 1:00pm to start again. Upon our return, the ink votes began to be put aside and eventually we were told that, during the lunch break, the Secretary of State had given Ms. Singh a phone ruling regarding ink votes.

They could now be included if the intent of the voter was clear. We were not, however told of this until the very end of the day. It would have been a courtesy to let us know about this right after lunch. Why keep this ruling back until the end when we continued to identify good ink votes for the rest of the count? It was puzzling at best. I have questions about prior knowledge regarding which candidate benefited most from this ruling.

I made a clear statement to Ms. Singh requesting a ruling about the over-votes that happened due to the odd name placement on the bottom of the forms with a candidate and his running mate, floating confusingly close to the blank write-in space. There was no response to this. At one point we were mildly told that as witnesses we were there only to observe the recount, and not to interfere with its going forward.

At various times during the day, Ms. Singh inquired as to where we would be observing the recount tomorrow. Witness G. immediately told her that she would be in Wyandotte County tomorrow. She intermittently continued to ask until I told her that I had no plans for tomorrow.

Absentee Ballots

Upon viewing the ballots themselves, it was clear that these were even more confusing than the regular ballots. In fact, there were two different forms: those sent before Sept. 1, 2004, and those sent after.

Slots to be filled with pencil marks were placed in front of every single name, whether candidate or running mate. The running mates, however were shaded over with a light grid-type shading. This visually disturbing shading seemed to just confuse the issue. Why were the circles there in the first place?

Provisional Ballots

I asked to see the list of reasons for 77 not being counted but was not given access to it. As discussion took place outside the door, I was able to take a cursory glance while Ben, the tabulator operator, opened both pages. I could only see that many ballots on both pages (possibly 2/3 of them) were rejected for reasons to do with inability to confirm registration.

Polling Books

Witness G. and I saw these late in the day, after a brief altercation and again Ms. Singh left the room along with most of the Board for a few minutes to discuss this. After an exhaustive day we had a hard time trying to calculate them so we just recorded the figures, verbatim, that were in the front of the book, handwritten on election day. I don't know if this is useful. I wish now that we had also looked at signatures.

We took information from absolutely every book we were shown. However, upon review, I can find no explanation for why there were none offered to us from Greene TWP 1 and Lake TWP. Further note — The numbers of precincts and the names of precincts did not exactly match the list on the Precinct Status Report 11/02/2004 that we were handed earlier.

Figures Recorded from the Polling Books

Note: these numbers do not add up to me, but I may not understand the formula for getting the final numbers.

 

PRECINCT	REC'D	CAST	SPOIL	PROV	TOTAL
001 1A	700	557	2	0	=141
002 1-B	600-R	354-C	3-S	6-P
003 1-C	520-R	291	3-S	5-P	=282
004 1-D	520-R	377-C	1--S	6-P	=370
005 1-E	520-R	426-C	2-S	2-P	=422
006 1-F	510-R	429-C	3-S	8-P	=418
007 2-A	430-R	292-C	3-S	7-P	=282
008 2-B	350-R	259-C	1-S	5-P	=253
009 2-C	369-R	450-C	3-S	6-P	=360
010 2-D	320-R	234-C	6-S	3-P	=225
011 2-E	250-R	180-C	1-S	2-P	=177
013 2-F	350-R	226-C	0-S	10-P	=216
014 2-G	500-R	386-C	6-S	8-P	=372
015 2-H	330-R	249-C	O-S	0-P	=249
016 3-A	400-R	227-C	0-S	8-P	=219
017 3-B	400-R	330-C	3-S	5-P	=322
018 3-C	400-R	306-C	2-S	4-P	=300
019 3-D	340-R	235-C	2-S	6-P	=227
020 3-E	600-R	482 -C	1-S	5-P	=476
021 3-F	550-R	332-C	4-S	17-P	=311
022 3-G	250-R	187-C	1-S	3-P	=183
023 4-A	410-R	256-C	0-S	12-P	=244
024 4-B	390-R	275-C	3-S	7-P	=265
025 4-C	560-R	345-C	6-S	14-P	=325
026 4-D	540-R	365-C	2-S	9-P	=354
027 4-E	360-R	230-C	4-S	9-P	=217
028 BAILEY LAKE VILLAGE	230-R	155-C	0-S	6-P	=149
029 SAVANNA VILLAGE	260-R	175-C	3-S	7-P	=165
030 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 1	620-R	478-C	4-S	5-P	=469
031 PERRYSVILLE VILLAGE	400-R	293-C	2-S	2-P	=289
032 GREENE TWP 1	500-R	494-C	0-S	6-P	=488
033 GREENE TWP 2	DID NOT SEE THIS
034 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 2	520-R	327-C	0-S	13-P	=167?
035 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 3	500-R	381-C	3-S	6-P	=110
036 HANOVER TWP	550-R	461-C	3-S	5-P	=80
037 POLK VILLAGE	250-R	166-C	2-S	5-P	=77
038 JACKSON TWP 1	800-R	605-C	3-S	11-P	=181
039 JACKSON TWP 2	850-R	643-C	3-S	1-P	=203
040 LAKE TWP	DID NOT SEE THIS
041 MIFFLIN 1	225+50+50-R	298-C	0-S	4-P	=76+17+30
042 MIFFLIN 2	325+30+50-R	282-C	2-S	4-P	=82+11+22
043 MILTON TWP 1	400-R	319-C	8-S	3-P	=69
044 MILTON TWP 2	530-R	465-C	3-S	7-P	=55
045 MILTON TWP 3	475-R	392-C	4-S	5-P	=74
046 JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE	325-R	222-C	2-S	2-P	=79
047 MOHICAN TWP 1	490+10-R	419-C	0-S	9-P	=65+7
048 MOHICAN TWP 2	440-R	357-C	1-S	11-P	=71
049 MONTGOMERY TWP 1	490+10-R	419-C	0-S	9-P	=65+7
050 MONTGOMERY TWP 2	250+100	258-C	2-S	1-P	=73+16
051 MONTGOMERY TWP 3	420+10-R	362-C	2-S	3-P	=57+6
052 MONTGOMERY TWP 4	475-R	357-C	2-S	3-P	=111
053 ORANGE TWP 1	435+15-R	354-C	2-S	6-P	=82+6
054 ORANGE TWP 2	450+20-R	367-C	1-S	2-P	=87+13
055 ORANGE TWP 3	450+10+40-R	384-C	1-S		=88+5+15
056 PERRY TWP 1	300+200+30-R	418-C	1-S	6-P	=39+55+11
057 PERRY TWP 2	385 +100+170-R	438-C	3-S	5-P	=108+36+65
058 RUGGLES TWP	475 + 10-R	444-C	3-S	1-P	=34+3
059 SULLIVAN TWP 1	620-R	513-C	4-S	7-P	=92
060 SULLIVAN TWP 2	500-R	375-C	1-S	3-P	=120
061 TROY TWP	690-R	558-C	0-S	5-P	=127
062 HAYESVILLE TWP	300-R	219-C	0-S	1-P	=79
063 VERMILLION TWP 1	440-R	351-C	3-S	6-P	=79?
064 VERMILLION TWP 2	400-R	329-C	3-S	4-P	=61?
65 VERMILLION TWP 3	440-R	359-C	3-S	4-P	=79

Respectfully submitted by Witness J.