Back to map of all all counties
Holmes County, Ohio

2004 Ballot Recount: Observer Report

 

"They [the Board of Elections officials] selected the Precinct [to be used for the recount]; we had nothing to do with it..."

"When they didn't invite us to join them on the other side of the counter where all four of them sat, I told them that we had to be able to see the cards and what they were doing with them in order to do our job."

"They said that observers had always stayed on the other side of the county and that Ken Blackwell's office informed them that they should do just what they had always done and continued to disallow our intrusion into their sphere of activity."

"When I insisted that they must allow us to view them closely, without being instrusive, one of them phoned "someone" and after hanging up, told us to bring our chairs to their side of the counter.

— Green Party Observer
Holmes County Recount

December 13, 2004:
Report by Green Party Observer

We arrived at the BOE office at 12:45 pm. The BOE officials, four ladies, were taking part in a Christmas Party upstairs in the County building in Millersburg, Ohio, at 75 E. Clinton. They came downstairs at about two minutes before 1pm. They were cordial and told us to take a seat on the opposite side of a counter separating the public from their office space. Then they proceeded to prepare for the initial test counts. (They selected the Precinct; we had nothing to do with it.)

When they didn't invite us to join them on the other side of the counter where all four of them sat, I told them that we had to be able to see the cards and what they were doing with them in order to do our job.

They said that observers had always stayed on the other side of the county and that Ken Blackwell's office informed them that they should do just what they had always done and continued to disallow our intrusion into their sphere of activity.

When I insisted that they must allow us to view them closely, without being instrusive, one of them phoned "someone" and after hanging up, told us to bring our chairs to their side of the counter.

There were only four observers: Observer P., two gentlemen, and I. Observer P. stationed herself behind two of the ladies conducting the recount and she has her own experiences documented elsewhere.

The Precinct ballots were not sealed per se. When I asked them why they were not, they said that instead of re-sealing them after the election, they stored them in a room immediately off their work space and placed a double lock on the door. Who knows what may have happened to those ballots between Nov. 16, 2004 when the official count was made and Dec. 13, 2004 when the recount was done.

While Observer P. observed the actual ballot count, I asked to examine the Polling Book for the Washington West Precinct 019, which was selected for the recount. Actually, there were three Polling books: (1) One a manila colored book containing a listing of all voters, except the absentees and provisionals, all written in the same hand, i.e. the names were not written by the voters. Another Polling book (2) was a black, loose-leaf book called a "Registration Binder" containing information about each voter and the voter's official signature. Another Polling Book (3) contained computer print-outs of the names and addresses of the voters and a blank box where each voter penned in his/her name and address.

"I asked ... if and how they compared the newest signature of each voter with the official signatures in the black book-since they weren't side-by-side so that a comparison could be made so as to identify voters."

"I was told that, 'In this county, everybody knows everybody here. Besides, signatures change through the years.'"

— Green Party Observer
Holmes County Recount

I asked one of the four if and how they compared the newest signature of each voter with the official signatures in the black book-since they weren't side-by-side so that a comparison could be made so as to identify voters. I was told that, "In this county, everybody knows everybody here. Besides, signatures change through the years."

I asked about Provisional ballots for Washington West Precinct. There were four. They and the absentee ballots were included in the Precinct pact; so I couldn't examine them. They said they would be too difficult to cull. Observer P. later told me that the Provisional and Absentee ballots were marked on the back of the ballot.

I asked to examine the "spoil pile," which I was told contained five ballots, and was told that they were sealed in an envelope and that they could not open them. I asked how long they had been doing that and was told "at least 22 years." I explained that the purpose of the recount was to document irregularities that impede the counting of each and every vote, and that I would like to examine the ballots to make sure good ballots weren't being thrown out. The response: "We wouldn't throw out good ballots." I assured them that I knew that they were trustworthy, but that I needed to see the ballots to document the fact that good ballots were not in that sealed envelope. They stood firm. I should have called the hot-line, but didn't.

"I asked to examine the "spoil pile," which I was told contained five ballots, and was told that they were sealed in an envelope and that they could not open them."

— Green Party Observer
Holmes County Recount

When the count was completed, the total votes cast was 380 for Washington West Precinct 019, which corresponded with my tabulation of the figures in the Poll books, the Absentee Ballots (including one serviceman's vote), and the Provisionals as follows: Washington Precinct (331 signatures recorded), Absentee Ballots (45), Provisional Ballots (4, including 3 in Absentee list, marked "Walk-ins" and 1 in Provisional Sheet).