2004 Ballot Recount: Observer Report

• December 15, 2004:
  Report by Green Party Observer

December 15, 2004:
Report by Green Party Observer

We arrived at BOE at 9:50 am. Board was having a meeting and so we waited until they finished at 10 am.

Also present was Dwayne A. Rapp, Vice President of Triad Government Systems, Inc. (and son of President.) Triad website is at http://www.triadgsi.com/. Rapp was acting as tech rep for county officials. He was not directing so much as making suggestions (good ones, that I heard). The Dir. and Dep. Dir. were comfortable giving him the technical lead.

Republicans showed up with at least two observers, one for Bush and one for Cheney, but only one observer was allowed.

The Board of Elections Director, Robin Burden, was present and generally treated as the person in charge.

Test of Reader and Counter

As required, they used a new test deck — not the same as used for election.

We did not hand count this deck.

The count was run five times, once for each of five different precincts, using precinct header cards. No errors were noted.

Hand Count

Total votes in Champaign county amounted to 190,808; three percent of this total is 572. Precinct chosen for recount was Salem North with 605 votes; chosen because it was closest precinct equal to or larger than 572.

I pointed out that the precinct was not randomly chosen and that this was required by law. They countered that they did not need to count more than three percent of votes and they did choose randomly between this precinct and Urbana 3B which had 607 votes. I told them that the way to do random was to put all the precinct names on pieces of paper and into a bowl, then make a blind selection of one. If that selection was smaller than three percent, they needed to choose a second and continue in that way until they had three percent. I told them also that this was not following the requirements of law and that I would put this comment in my report.

All the decks are stored in tin boxes, latched but not locked, in the same room with the counter. The precinct deck (Salem North) was sitting out ready to count. It was not stored in with the others.

In the hand count, the following anomalies were noted:
Two cards were punched for both 1 and 2. One of these was absentee.

[Note: While watching the hand vote count, I also noted on the Deputy Director's computer screen, "Campaign Finance Spreadsheet Sent."]

No chads observed during hand count.

Republican observer noted one card that had a dimple for "10" and a punch for something else.

We retested the reader/counter successfully. The Republican observer declared himself satisfied with everything and asked if there was agreement, which I gave. Then I asked about counting the rest of the precincts by machine and found that others had assumed my agreement with the hand count included agreement that no more counting was needed. After a bit more discussion we began the machine count which took about an hour.

We took a break for lunch around 1:30 and returned around 2:15. The BOE was closed while at lunch and when we returned; they reopened at about 2:30.

We requested access to the Signature books, the Poll books, the late or voided absentee ballots (envelopes), the rejected provisional ballots. After some discussion, Director Burden called SOS Blackwell's office and left the question with them. At 3:05 her call was returned and we were informed that we could see the Poll book but could not touch it. We then reviewed the poll book for 2 precincts, Salem North which we had just hand counted, and then Urbana 3A chosen by us at random.

For Salem North, the poll book showed 562 regular voters. We requested information on the absentee and provisional ballots and were told that 47 absentee ballots were sent out (and that this number included provisional ballots) and 44 of these were returned. The combined number of ballots would be 562 + 44 which is 606 and this is one off from the 605 figure. We did not see this conflict until we were writing this report and do not have sufficient information to resolve it now.

For Urbana 3A we only know that there were 642 regular voters and 100 absentee ballots for a total of 742. This would agree with the certified number and the recount number if the absentee ballots could be verified. Total votes cast for president were 725 leaving 17 undervoted ballots.

For the county as a whole, 1609 absentee ballots were sent out.

The 42 provisional ballots not counted because the people were not registered in Ohio needs to be checked because these people likely did not vote recently or may have been purged from the voter roles without due cause.

I, Witness P., want to state for the record that there were several serious problems with this recount in Champaign county on 15 Dec 2004. I believe that the recount for this county should be declared incomplete due to policies and actions by the office of the Secretary of State as detailed in the following problems.

First, I want to state that all the personnel were courteous and pleasant at all times. Further, I felt they were reasonably well informed and were doing things as their board and the Secretary of State wanted them.

1. There was no random selection of three percent of precincts. The precinct was chosen well before we arrived, probably days earlier because they were using printed tally sheets with the precinct Salem North printed at the top. I pointed out the importance of a random selection and explained how to do that by writing names of precincts on paper and putting them into a hat or bowl for the selection. They commented that making the selection that way they could wind up with a precinct that was too small and have to choose a second. I reiterated that I understood that could happen but random selection was important and that if they proceeded without making a random selection of precincts I would highlight that in my report. Without a truly random selection of precincts, the precincts that would be subject to a recount are easily predictable and the value of using a recount of a small portion to ensure accuracy throughout is useless. I think this is an easy concept for people to appreciate and that just about everyone connected with the BOE understands it intuitively.
2. The ballots were not stored in sealed containers. They were stored in latched tin containers in the same room where the counting machine is kept. The room may have been locked at night.
3. The signature book was not made available even though I requested it several times. Director Burden called the SOS office for clarification around 3:00 PM and still did not let me see them. She told me that I could never see it. At any rate, I needed it right away; without the signature book, I could not confirm how many people actually arrived to vote.
4. I was not allowed to see the absentee ballot envelopes that may have arrived late or had some other problem with them. I was given only a verbal count of how many absentee ballots were sent out and how many were returned.
5. I was not allowed to see any provisional ballot that was rejected. I was not allowed to see a summary of rejected provisional ballots.

In every case that I could not see documents that were necessary, I was told that I could see them after January 10, 2005, per orders of the Secretary of State. I believe the Champaign county BOE offices were orderly and everything seemed to be proper, to the credit of Dir. Burden and Dep. Dir. Nash.

Witness M. is also willing to sign an identical affidavit.