2004 Ballot Recount: Observer Report

• December 20, 2004:
  Report by Green Party Observer

December 20, 2004:
Report by Green Party Observer

Storage of Ballots
My view of the ballot storage area for Delaware County was as follows: we entered a normally locked storage room (I don't remember who unlocked that one) and entered. Inside was another door, with a lock and deadbolt.

A Republican has one key and a Democrat has the other. Once that door was unlocked, I saw two large containers on the left wall. I was told contained all the ballots in question.

The room expanded to the right with shelves or cabinets, and I'd estimate the total size of the room to be 10ft deep by 20ft wide.

The containers were the type that have a button-type lock at the top of each row (like a filing cabinet), and all but the removed rows were locked. One key was used to unlock the row, and then several trays were removed with ballots. This did leave the tray directly below open from the top.

Once trays were loaded onto a cart, they locked the row, locked both locks on the door, and then locked the larger room. I also noted that multiple precincts were in each tray.

ES&S Involvement
During the test stack run, the counting of the three percent run (four precincts) and the first half of the recount, the ES&S contractor remained seated against the wall. He had a metallic box (1 ft wide by 2 ft tall) that resembled a carry-on bag, with a handle and wheels. It sat over against the other wall, between the tabulation machine and the door. My thought was that it contained his tools, but I'm not sure. I never saw it opened.

At one point during the recount, a crumpled corner on a card kept a precinct from completing. (I noted the precinct in question on my daily report chart). After Kim (the Democratic worker) tried unsuccessfully several times to run it through, it was determined they needed to replace the ballot. They punched a replacement ballot (we verified all punches were correct) and ran that through. It was then determined that they needed to reset the precinct numbers and run the entire batch thru again.

It was at this point that the contractor actually showed them the steps (he was typing) to reset that one precinct and recount it.

I stood behind and watched to verify that the totals at the bottom for any previous precincts were not affected. I was completely convinced that only that precinct was reset and that no others were altered. The precinct in question then ran through with no further problems.

As it got later in the day, they decided to use both tabulation machines to save time, even though the second one had been known to stop more often and require attention, according to the witness next to me, Observer D.

It was at this point that the contractor began to help out, standing at the second machine and pressing the button as needed to keep the machine running. He also began calling out the numbers after each precinct.

I didn't have an issue with this for two reasons. First, I could see the totals on the screen myself, having the seat closest to them. Second, he had no paper readout anywhere near him telling him what the counts 'should' be to match the previous counts. Those were only at our table, and the counts he gave matched what we expected in each case.

I believe there was one other occasion in which both machines were running, and one of the precincts had to be rerun due to a bad card. He again went to the keyboard to determine which of the two counts to reset.

In conclusion, as to his involvement during the day, I began somewhat suspicious of his helping, just because we were told by our supervisor that he would not be actively participating in the process.

For that reason, I watched very carefully any time he went to the keyboard and also as he kept the tabulator running. The menu selections he made in each case made sense to me as he explained to Kim what he was doing in each case. I do not believe there was any foul play involved in these particular cases.