2004 Ballot Recount: Observer Report

• December 14-15, 2004: Introductory Remarks
• December 14-15, 2004:
  Report by Green Party Observer 2
• December 14, 2004:
  Report by Green Party Observer 1

December 14-15, 2004: Introductory Remarks by Green Party Observer

The Recount has gone smoothly with nothing significant in the way of "incidents." The Hamilton County BoE has an efficient and professional staff managed by John Willliams. The staff takes pride in their transparency and openness to the public's requests for voting information.

What follows are observations from some of the Volunteers of the Recount:

Chad Checking:

• 'Disqualified' ballots were carefully looked at by John Williams and the Operations Manager.
• There was an armed sheriff in the room.
• The Bush supporters had clipboards with them and wrote down more information than the the Cobb supporters.
• A news camera came in and 'swept' the room.
• There were very few chad problems proportional to the total vote. Possibly 1 in 400.
• There was one male chad checker that went through the ballots too quickly, as if dealing cards. This was mentioned by four of the Observers. One of the Cobb Observers brought this to the attention of a supervisor, but was told that the speed of the checking was not excessive.

December 14-15, 2004: Report by Green Party Observer 2

I was a witness to the 3% hand recount in Hamilton County. During the same time (and in a different room), other Cobb volunteers were observing the "chad check" designed to prepare the rest of the ballots (i.e., the remaining 97%) for recount.

At 9:00 Tuesday morning, as the recount was about to begin, it was explained to us by John Williams (Director of the Hamilton County BOE) that 3% of the Hamilton vote was equivalent to about 30 precincts. He indicated that they had selected these precincts by taking every 34th precinct beginning with 1A. The BOE believed that the final list was representative of both city precincts and those in outlying areas.

During the count, I observed that the precincts selected included some won by both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. The full list of precincts in the 3% was provided to me later on the first day, and I gave it to Volunteer Coordinator P. The list named the precincts and recorded the number of ballots cast in each on election day.

During this initial conversation with Mr. Williams, we asked for information regarding: the total votes cast on election day by precinct (a number that should equal signatures in the signature book and absentee ballots), whether we could have access to disqualified absentee ballots (to make sure they had not been opened), whether we could receive a list of provisional ballots (by name and address) that had been ruled invalid, and whether we could have access to the signature books. Mr. Williams agreed to work with us on these questions after some of the other parts of the recount had been conducted, although he mentioned that he was not yet sure if pending lawsuits would affect our access to any of the information (specifically regarding the names of discarded provisional ballots).

One volunteer asked for a list giving precincts by street address; it is not clear to me that we would need that unless we were to conduct a more in-depth examination of discarded provisional ballots. In addition, although I was the one who asked for the total votes cast by precinct on election day, it now seems like something we could easily gain ourselves from the BOE website. My main interest was in determining at the end of the recount how many more votes had been added to the final count (and recalculating the new total in comparison to total votes cast to determine the final proportion of spoiled ballots).

Overall, I think we will want to have some sense of the number of "spoiled ballots" that were actually reclassified as valid: a main objective of the recount as I understand it.

I then went to the 3% recount room, where I observed the hand recount being conducted for each precinct, followed by the subsequent machine tally. There were two tables of four workers each (2 Democratic workers and 2 Republican workers) doing this recount, and another Cobb volunteer observed the other table at all times. There was also a Bush observer at all times at both tables, and we were joined by Kerry people beginning in the afternoon of the first day. It is my general belief that the hand counters and computer supervisors were very trustworthy throughout this whole process. They were extremely professional at all times, and the officials in the computer room, in particular, were very willing to answer any and all questions we posed. We were advised not to speak to the counters themselves.

The first thing we witnessed was the machine test, which went off without a hitch.

The procedure for the hand recount itself varied slightly by table, but was generally done as follows at the table I observed on Monday and Tuesday mornings: the ballots were first sorted by position on the ballot, as well as over vote and under vote. This was also the time they "chad checked," although there were only rare occasions (I think two) where supervisors were called to settle a discrepancy over whether the vote was valid or not. I believe both cases decided in favor of counting the vote (and fully removing the chad, I think). Over votes and under votes were immediately counted and double-checked by another worker (generally of the other party), then set aside, as were ballots for the presidential candidates other than Kerry or Bush (which tended to have no more than 5-10 votes, if that, per precinct).

Ballot stacks for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush were then counted separately two times, with Republican and Democratic workers trading off their stacks to confirm the count. At the end, a total was recorded for each candidate on a tally sheet, the sheet was signed by the counters, and the ballots, tally and observers were sent to the computer room to watch the computer count the same ballots. In very few instances (I think 3 overall) the computer and hand count did not match. At this point, two new counters counted again, and every time were able to confirm the reason for the discrepancy and that the computer tally had been correct. All errors of this kind were due to hand counters not matching over votes. This seemed a perfectly logical explanation, and since the error was generally only 1 ballot, such as in Sharonville 1A (in one case, precinct 7A, it was 6), I found no cause for concern.

It is worth mentioning that there was no need for any second hand counting after the machine tally on the second day.

I did not keep full records of the results of the recount at the beginning; one supervisor, Dennis, said he would provide us with a final list of the results of the 3% count. I started recording late Monday morning with the following results (in case we want to check):

The 3% was completed at around 1:15 on Wednesday. The hand count and machine count corresponded, so the final 97% will be done by machine.

I observed the hand recount of write-in ballots at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Mr. Cobb received a total of 56 write-in votes in Hamilton County. This was the end of my direct observation on these two days. The following issues are still outstanding, although some are more properly, I think, the responsibility of the Democratic Party in a longer post-election analysis.

1. We were asked in the recount training to examine precinct signature logs. This seems an onerous task to complete for all of Hamilton County. If we want to make a general (and spot check) of election day practice with regard to signature books, I would recommend that we select a sample from the 3% precincts and see how well they were kept on election day, specifically whether all ballot numbers have a signature and vice versa. We might also compare the final count of signatures with the final number of votes recorded that day from that precinct (knowing, of course, that absentee ballots would have been added afterwards). In choosing a sample, we might want to pick from the 3% precinct list a precinct that indicated strong support for Mr. Bush and one that equally favored Mr. Kerry. Likewise, we may want to choose precincts that had relatively low (or high?) voter turnout rates overall.
2. It was asked in our training that we inspect rejected absentee ballot envelopes to make sure they have not been opened. I believe Mr. Williams has already agreed to this request.
3. It would be a good idea to find out as much information as we can about discarded provisional ballots. I mentioned it to the Kerry representative, and she said she does not know how/if the Kerry people will be analyzing that information. I was told by Mr. Williams (off the top of his head, as he emphasized) that there were approximately 3400 rejected provisional ballots in Hamilton County. Approximately 400 of those, he thought, were rejected because they were cast in the wrong precinct, despite the fact that they were cast at the right polling station (i.e., at a polling station with more than one precinct). At the least, we might like to see if Mr. Williams would be able to give us the exact final numbers of rejected provisional ballots and, if possible, a list of addresses and why they were rejected. One analysis (beyond our ability as volunteers, I think) would take into account the relative proportion of discarded provisional ballots per precinct (specifically, how often they occurred in the city versus outlying suburbs). In addition, it would be ideal for the Democratic party to ascertain the source of non-precinct related problems (were people mistaken in thinking they were registered to vote? or were registrations lost? were votes double cast? etc. etc.). For now, we need first to find out how rejected provisional ballots are recorded for public record. And, if it is not possible to get an absolute list of why each was rejected, we should ascertain from Mr. Williams a general breakdown of the various reasons for discounting provisional ballots in Hamilton County this election.
4. One employee mentioned in passing that the number of eligible voters in Hamilton was not as high as generally thought (i.e., given all the news coverage of new voter registration). This suggests to me that we might like more information about how/when voter records in Hamilton County were last purged. This might be beyond the purview of our volunteer effort, but would be significant if it is found that a high proportion of discarded provisional ballots were cast by people who believed they had been registered (especially if they attest they had been registered in prior years).

Finally, I wish to note that I was asked by Mr. Williams to speak to a reporter from the AP on Wednesday at about 11:00 a.m. to discuss my experiences with the recount in the Hamilton County office.

December 14, 2004: Report by Green Party Observer 1

There were a few cases where the machine count did not match the the initial hand count. After the machine count, BOE officials recounted manually and confirmed the machine count. This is because initial manual count missed overvotes. At this point, I am satisfied that the machine count is accurate.