Election Fraud Blog

The complete article, with Web-only citations, follows. For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary.Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush — and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in ”tinfoil hats,” while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ”conspiracy theories,”(1) and The New York Times declared that ”there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots — or received them too late to vote(4) — after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment — roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America’s voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ”We didn’t have one election for president in 2004,” says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ”We didn’t have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.”

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio’s Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn?t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes — enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)

”It was terrible,” says Sen. Christopher Dodd, who helped craft reforms in 2002 that were supposed to prevent such electoral abuses. ”People waiting in line for twelve hours to cast their ballots, people not being allowed to vote because they were in the wrong precinct — it was an outrage. In Ohio, you had a secretary of state who was determined to guarantee a Republican outcome. I’m terribly disheartened.”

Indeed, the extent of the GOP’s effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. ”Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,” Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ”You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.”

I. The Exit Polls
The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren’t just off the mark — they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)

Over the past decades, exit polling has evolved into an exact science. Indeed, among pollsters and statisticians, such surveys are thought to be the most reliable. Unlike pre-election polls, in which voters are asked to predict their own behavior at some point in the future, exit polls ask voters leaving the voting booth to report an action they just executed. The results are exquisitely accurate: Exit polls in Germany, for example, have never missed the mark by more than three-tenths of one percent.(17) ”Exit polls are almost never wrong,” Dick Morris, a political consultant who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, noted after the 2004 vote. Such surveys are ”so reliable,” he added, ”that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries.”(18) In 2003, vote tampering revealed by exit polling in the Republic of Georgia forced Eduard Shevardnadze to step down.(19) And in November 2004, exit polling in the Ukraine — paid for by the Bush administration — exposed election fraud that denied Viktor Yushchenko the presidency.(20)

But that same month, when exit polls revealed disturbing disparities in the U.S. election, the six media organizations that had commissioned the survey treated its very existence as an embarrassment. Instead of treating the discrepancies as a story meriting investigation, the networks scrubbed the offending results from their Web sites and substituted them with ”corrected” numbers that had been weighted, retroactively, to match the official vote count. Rather than finding fault with the election results, the mainstream media preferred to dismiss the polls as flawed.(21)

”The people who ran the exit polling, and all those of us who were their clients, recognized that it was deeply flawed,” says Tom Brokaw, who served as anchor for NBC News during the 2004 election. ”They were really screwed up — the old models just don’t work anymore. I would not go on the air with them again.”

In fact, the exit poll created for the 2004 election was designed to be the most reliable voter survey in history. The six news organizations — running the ideological gamut from CBS to Fox News — retained Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International,(22) whose principal, Warren Mitofsky, pioneered the exit poll for CBS in 1967(23) and is widely credited with assuring the credibility of Mexico’s elections in 1994.(24) For its nationwide poll, Edison/Mitofsky selected a random subsample of 12,219 voters(25) — approximately six times larger than those normally used in national polls(26) — driving the margin of error down to approximately plus or minus one percent.(27)

On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush’s 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)

As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states — including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida — and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. The exit polls even showed Kerry breathing down Bush’s neck in supposed GOP strongholds Virginia and North Carolina.(30) Against these numbers, the statistical likelihood of Bush winning was less than one in 450,000.(31) ”Either the exit polls, by and large, are completely wrong,” a Fox News analyst declared, ”or George Bush loses.”(32)

But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities — as much as 9.5 percent — with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)

According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ”As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,” he says, ”it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.” (See The Tale of the Exit Polls)

Puzzled by the discrepancies, Freeman laboriously examined the raw polling data released by Edison/Mitofsky in January 2005. ”I’m not even political — I despise the Democrats,” he says. ”I’m a survey expert. I got into this because I was mystified about how the exit polls could have been so wrong.” In his forthcoming book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, Freeman lays out a statistical analysis of the polls that is deeply troubling.

In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology — so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) — displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry’s favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

Industry peers didn’t buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation’s leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky’s ”reluctant responder” hypothesis is ”preposterous.”(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ”It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.”(37)

Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky’s own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters’ questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey — compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ”The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,” observes Freeman, ”but actually contradicts it.”

What’s more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent — a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)

”When you look at the numbers, there is a tremendous amount of data that supports the supposition of election fraud,” concludes Freeman. ”The discrepancies are higher in battleground states, higher where there were Republican governors, higher in states with greater proportions of African-American communities and higher in states where there were the most Election Day complaints. All these are strong indicators of fraud — and yet this supposition has been utterly ignored by the press and, oddly, by the Democratic Party.”

The evidence is especially strong in Ohio. In January, a team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state’s exit polls against the certified vote count in each of the forty-nine precincts polled by Edison/Mitofsky. In twenty-two of those precincts — nearly half of those polled — they discovered results that differed widely from the official tally. Once again — against all odds — the widespread discrepancies were stacked massively in Bush’s favor: In only two of the suspect twenty-two precincts did the disparity benefit Kerry. The wildest discrepancy came from the precinct Mitofsky numbered ”27,” in order to protect the anonymity of those surveyed. According to the exit poll, Kerry should have received sixty-seven percent of the vote in this precinct. Yet the certified tally gave him only thirty-eight percent. The statistical odds against such a variance are just shy of one in 3 billion.(40)

Such results, according to the archive, provide ”virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.” The discrepancies, the experts add, ”are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio’s electoral votes if Ohio’s official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.”(41) According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ”No rigorous statistical explanation” can explain the ”completely nonrandom” disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ”completely consistent with election fraud — specifically vote shifting.”

II. The Partisan Official
No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln’s, and both parties overwhelmed the state with television ads, field organizers and volunteers in an effort to register new voters and energize old ones. Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign — more than to any other state.(42)

But in the battle for Ohio, Republicans had a distinct advantage: The man in charge of the counting was Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of President Bush’s re-election committee.(43) As Ohio’s secretary of state, Blackwell had broad powers to interpret and implement state and federal election laws — setting standards for everything from the processing of voter registration to the conduct of official recounts.(44) And as Bush’s re-election chair in Ohio, he had a powerful motivation to rig the rules for his candidate. Blackwell, in fact, served as the ”principal electoral system adviser” for Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida,(45) where he witnessed firsthand the success of his counterpart Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who co-chaired Bush’s campaign there.(46)

Blackwell — now the Republican candidate for governor of Ohio(47) — is well-known in the state as a fierce partisan eager to rise in the GOP. An outspoken leader of Ohio’s right-wing fundamentalists, he opposes abortion even in cases of rape(48) and was the chief cheerleader for the anti-gay-marriage amendment that Republicans employed to spark turnout in rural counties(49). He has openly denounced Kerry as ”an unapologetic liberal Democrat,”(50) and during the 2004 election he used his official powers to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens in Democratic strongholds. In a ruling issued two weeks before the election, a federal judge rebuked Blackwell for seeking to ”accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(51)

”The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections — not throw them,” says Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Cleveland who has dealt with Blackwell for years. ”The election in Ohio in 2004 stands out as an example of how, under color of law, a state election official can frustrate the exercise of the right to vote.”

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party’s failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee’s minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ”massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.” The problems, the report concludes, were ”caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.”(54)

”Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,” Conyers told me. ”He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.”

When ROLLING STONE confronted Blackwell about his overtly partisan attempts to subvert the election, he dismissed any such claim as ”silly on its face.” Ohio, he insisted in a telephone interview, set a ”gold standard” for electoral fairness. In fact, his campaign to subvert the will of the voters had begun long before Election Day. Instead of welcoming the avalanche of citizen involvement sparked by the campaign, Blackwell permitted election officials in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive purge of their voter rolls, summarily expunging the names of more than 300,000 voters who had failed to cast ballots in the previous two national elections.(55) In Cleveland, which went five-to-one for Kerry, nearly one in four voters were wiped from the rolls between 2000 and 2004.(56)

There were legitimate reasons to clean up voting lists: Many of the names undoubtedly belonged to people who had moved or died. But thousands more were duly registered voters who were deprived of their constitutional right to vote — often without any notification — simply because they had decided not to go to the polls in prior elections.(57) In Cleveland’s precinct 6C, where more than half the voters on the rolls were deleted,(58) turnout was only 7.1 percent(59) — the lowest in the state.

According to the Conyers report, improper purging ”likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide.”(60) If only one in ten of the 300,000 purged voters showed up on Election Day — a conservative estimate, according to election scholars — that is 30,000 citizens who were unfairly denied the opportunity to cast ballots.

III. The Strike Force
In the months leading up to the election, Ohio was in the midst of the biggest registration drive in its history. Tens of thousands of volunteers and paid political operatives from both parties canvassed the state, racing to register new voters in advance of the October 4th deadline. To those on the ground, it was clear that Democrats were outpacing their Republican counterparts: A New York Times analysis before the election found that new registrations in traditional Democratic strongholds were up 250 percent, compared to only twenty-five percent in Republican-leaning counties.(61) ”The Democrats have been beating the pants off us in the air and on the ground,” a GOP county official in Columbus confessed to The Washington Times.(62)

To stem the tide of new registrations, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party attempted to knock tens of thousands of predominantly minority and urban voters off the rolls through illegal mailings known in electioneering jargon as ”caging.” During the Eighties, after the GOP used such mailings to disenfranchise nearly 76,000 black voters in New Jersey and Louisiana, it was forced to sign two separate court orders agreeing to abstain from caging.(63) But during the summer of 2004, the GOP targeted minority voters in Ohio by zip code, sending registered letters to more than 200,000 newly registered voters(64) in sixty-five counties.(65) On October 22nd, a mere eleven days before the election, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett — who also chairs the board of elections in Cuyahoga County — sought to invalidate the registrations of 35,427 voters who had refused to sign for the letters or whose mail came back as undeliverable.(66) Almost half of the challenged voters were from Democratic strongholds in and around Cleveland.(67)

There were plenty of valid reasons that voters had failed to respond to the mailings: The list included people who couldn’t sign for the letters because they were serving in the U.S. military, college students whose school and home addresses differed,(68) and more than 1,000 homeless people who had no permanent mailing address.(69) But the undeliverable mail, Bennett claimed, proved the new registrations were fraudulent.

By law, each voter was supposed to receive a hearing before being stricken from the rolls.(70) Instead, in the week before the election, kangaroo courts were rapidly set up across the state at Blackwell’s direction that would inevitably disenfranchise thousands of voters at a time(71) — a process that one Democratic election official in Toledo likened to an ”inquisition.”(72) Not that anyone was given a chance to actually show up and defend their right to vote: Notices to challenged voters were not only sent out impossibly late in the process, they were mailed to the very addresses that the Republicans contended were faulty.(73) Adding to the atmosphere of intimidation, sheriff’s detectives in Sandusky County were dispatched to the homes of challenged voters to investigate the GOP’s claims of fraud.(74)

”I’m afraid this is going to scare these people half to death, and they are never going to show up on Election Day,” Barb Tuckerman, director of the Sandusky Board of Elections, told local reporters. ”Many of them are young people who have registered for the first time. I’ve called some of these people, and they are perfectly legitimate.”(75)

On October 27th, ruling that the effort likely violated both the ”constitutional right to due process and constitutional right to vote,” U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott put a halt to the GOP challenge(76) — but not before tens of thousands of new voters received notices claiming they were improperly registered. Some election officials in the state illegally ignored Dlott’s ruling, stripping hundreds of voters from the rolls.(77) In Columbus and elsewhere, challenged registrants were never notified that the court had cleared them to vote.

On October 29th, a federal judge found that the Republican Party had violated the court orders from the Eighties that barred it from caging. ”The return of mail does not implicate fraud,” the court affirmed,(78) and the disenfranchisement effort illegally targeted ”precincts where minority voters predominate, interfering with and discouraging voters from voting in those districts.”(79) Nor were such caging efforts limited to Ohio: The GOP also targeted hundreds of thousands of urban voters in the battleground states of Florida,(80) Pennsylvania(81) and Wisconsin.(82)

Republicans in Ohio also worked to deny the vote to citizens who had served jail time for felonies. Although rehabilitated prisoners are entitled to vote in Ohio, election officials in Cincinnati demanded that former convicts get a judge to sign off before they could register to vote.(83) In case they didn’t get the message, Republican operatives turned to intimidation. According to the Conyers report, a team of twenty-five GOP volunteers calling themselves the Mighty Texas Strike Force holed up at the Holiday Inn in Columbus a day before the election, around the corner from the headquarters of the Ohio Republican Party — which paid for their hotel rooms. The men were overheard by a hotel worker ”using pay phones to make intimidating calls to likely voters” and threatening former convicts with jail time if they tried to cast ballots.(84)

This was no freelance operation. The Strike Force — an offshoot of the Republican National Committee(85) — was part of a team of more than 1,500 volunteers from Texas who were deployed to battleground states, usually in teams of ten. Their leader was Pat Oxford, (86) a Houston lawyer who managed Bush’s legal defense team in 2000 in Florida,(87) where he warmly praised the efforts of a mob that stormed the Miami-Dade County election offices and halted the recount. It was later revealed that those involved in the ”Brooks Brothers Riot” were not angry Floridians but paid GOP staffers, many of them flown in from out of state.(88) Photos of the protest show that one of the ”rioters” was Joel Kaplan, who has just taken the place of Karl Rove at the White House, where he now directs the president’s policy operations.(89)

IV. Barriers to Registration
To further monkey-wrench the process he was bound by law to safeguard, Blackwell cited an arcane elections regulation to make it harder to register new voters. In a now-infamous decree, Blackwell announced on September 7th — less than a month before the filing deadline — that election officials would process registration forms only if they were printed on eighty-pound unwaxed white paper stock, similar to a typical postcard. Justifying his decision to ROLLING STONE, Blackwell portrayed it as an attempt to protect voters: ”The postal service had recommended to us that we establish a heavy enough paper-weight standard that we not disenfranchise voters by having their registration form damaged by postal equipment.” Yet Blackwell’s order also applied to registrations delivered in person to election offices. He further specified that any valid registration cards printed on lesser paper stock that miraculously survived the shredding gauntlet at the post office were not to be processed; instead, they were to be treated as applications for a registration form, requiring election boards to send out a brand-new card.(90)

Blackwell’s directive clearly violated the Voting Rights Act, which stipulates that no one may be denied the right to vote because of a registration error that ”is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under state law to vote.”(91) The decision immediately threw registration efforts into chaos. Local newspapers that had printed registration forms in their pages saw their efforts invalidated.(92) Delaware County posted a notice online saying it could no longer accept its own registration forms.(93) Even Blackwell couldn’t follow the protocol: The Columbus Dispatch reported that his own staff distributed registration forms on lighter-weight paper that was illegal under his rule. Under the threat of court action, Blackwell ultimately revoked his order on September 28th — six days before the registration deadline.(94)

But by then, the damage was done. Election boards across the state, already understaffed and backlogged with registration forms, were unable to process them all in time. According to a statistical analysis conducted in May by the nonpartisan Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, 16,000 voters in and around the city were disenfranchised because of data-entry errors by election officials,(95) and another 15,000 lost the right to vote due to largely inconsequential omissions on their registration cards.(96) Statewide, the study concludes, a total of 72,000 voters were disenfranchised through avoidable registration errors — one percent of all voters in an election decided by barely two percent.(97)

Despite the widespread problems, Blackwell authorized only one investigation of registration errors after the election — in Toledo — but the report by his own inspectors offers a disturbing snapshot of the malfeasance and incompetence that plagued the entire state.(98) The top elections official in Toledo was a partisan in the Blackwell mold: Bernadette Noe, who chaired both the county board of elections and the county Republican Party.(99) The GOP post was previously held by her husband, Tom Noe,(100) who currently faces felony charges for embezzling state funds and illegally laundering $45,400 of his own money through intermediaries to the Bush campaign.(101)

State inspectors who investigated the elections operation in Toledo discovered ”areas of grave concern.”(102) With less than a month to go before the election, Bernadette Noe and her board had yet to process 20,000 voter registration cards.(103) Board officials arbitrarily decided that mail-in cards (mostly from the Republican suburbs) would be processed first, while registrations dropped off at the board’s office (the fruit of intensive Democratic registration drives in the city) would be processed last.(104) When a grass-roots group called Project Vote delivered a batch of nearly 10,000 cards just before the October 4th deadline, an elections official casually remarked, ”We may not get to them.”(105) The same official then instructed employees to date-stamp an entire box containing thousands of forms, rather than marking each individual card, as required by law.(106) When the box was opened, officials had no way of confirming that the forms were filed prior to the deadline — an error, state inspectors concluded, that could have disenfranchised ”several thousand” voters from Democratic strongholds.(107)

The most troubling incident uncovered by the investigation was Noe’s decision to allow Republican partisans behind the counter in the board of elections office to make photocopies of postcards sent to confirm voter registrations(108) — records that could have been used in the GOP’s caging efforts. On their second day in the office, the operatives were caught by an elections official tampering with the documents.(109) Investigators slammed the elections board for ”a series of egregious blunders” that caused ”the destruction, mutilation and damage of public records.”(110)

On Election Day, Noe sent a team of Republican volunteers to the county warehouse where blank ballots were kept out in the open, ”with no security measures in place.”(111) The state’s assistant director of elections, who just happened to be observing the ballot distribution, demanded they leave. The GOP operatives refused and ultimately had to be turned away by police.(112)

In April 2005, Noe and the entire Board of Elections were forced to resign. But once again, the damage was done. At a ”Victory 2004” rally held in Toledo four days before the election, President Bush himself singled out a pair of ”grass-roots” activists for special praise: ”I want to thank my friends Bernadette Noe and Tom Noe for their leadership in Lucas County.”(113)

V. ”The Wrong Pew”
In one of his most effective maneuvers, Blackwell prevented thousands of voters from receiving provisional ballots on Election Day. The fail-safe ballots were mandated in 2002, when Congress passed a package of reforms called the Help America Vote Act. This would prevent a repeat of the most egregious injustice in the 2000 election, when officials in Florida barred thousands of lawfully registered minority voters from the polls because their names didn’t appear on flawed precinct rolls. Under the law, would-be voters whose registration is questioned at the polls must be allowed to cast provisional ballots that can be counted after the election if the voter’s registration proves valid.(114)

”Provisional ballots were supposed to be this great movement forward,” says Tova Andrea Wang, an elections expert who served with ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford on the commission that laid the groundwork for the Help America Vote Act. ”But then different states erected barriers, and this new right became totally eviscerated.”

In Ohio, Blackwell worked from the beginning to curtail the availability of provisional ballots. (The ballots are most often used to protect voters in heavily Democratic urban areas who move often, creating more opportunities for data-entry errors by election boards.) Six weeks before the vote, Blackwell illegally decreed that poll workers should make on-the-spot judgments as to whether or not a voter lived in the precinct, and provide provisional ballots only to those deemed eligible.(115) When the ruling was challenged in federal court, Judge James Carr could barely contain his anger. The very purpose of the Help America Vote Act, he ruled, was to make provisional ballots available to voters told by precinct workers that they were ineligible: ”By not even mentioning this group — the primary beneficiaries of HAVA’s provisional-voting provisions — Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”(116)

But instead of complying with the judge’s order to expand provisional balloting, Blackwell insisted that Carr was usurping his power as secretary of state and made a speech in which he compared himself to Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the apostle Paul — saying that he’d rather go to jail than follow federal law.(117) The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Carr’s ruling on October 23rd — but the confusion over the issue still caused untold numbers of voters across the state to be illegally turned away at the polls on Election Day without being offered provisional ballots.(118) A federal judge also invalidated a decree by Blackwell that denied provisional ballots to absentee voters who were never sent their ballots in the mail. But that ruling did not come down until after 3 p.m. on the day of the election, and likely failed to filter down to the precinct level at all — denying the franchise to even more eligible voters.(119)

We will never know for certain how many voters in Ohio were denied ballots by Blackwell’s two illegal orders. But it is possible to put a fairly precise number on those turned away by his most disastrous directive. Traditionally, anyone in Ohio who reported to a polling station in their county could obtain a provisional ballot. But Blackwell decided to toss out the ballots of anyone who showed up at the wrong precinct — a move guaranteed to disenfranchise Democrats who live in urban areas crowded with multiple polling places. On October 14th, Judge Carr overruled the order, but Blackwell appealed.(120) In court, he was supported by his friend and campaign contributor Tom Noe, who joined the case as an intervenor on behalf of the secretary of state.(121) He also enjoyed the backing of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who filed an amicus brief in support of Blackwell’s position — marking the first time in American history that the Justice Department had gone to court to block the right of voters to vote.(122) The Sixth Circuit, stacked with four judges appointed by George W. Bush, sided with Blackwell.(123)

Blackwell insists that his decision kept the election clean. ”If we had allowed this notion of ?voters without borders’ to exist,” he says, ”it would have opened the door to massive fraud.” But even Republicans were shocked by the move. DeForest Soaries, the GOP chairman of the Election Assistance Commission — the federal agency set up to implement the Help America Vote Act — upbraided Blackwell, saying that the commission disagreed with his decision to deny ballots to voters who showed up at the wrong precinct. ”The purpose of provisional ballots is to not turn anyone away from the polls,” Soaries explained. ”We want as many votes to count as possible.”(124)

The decision left hundreds of thousands of voters in predominantly Democratic counties to navigate the state’s bewildering array of 11,366 precincts, whose boundaries had been redrawn just prior to the election.(125) To further compound their confusion, the new precinct lines were misidentified on the secretary of state’s own Web site, which was months out of date on Election Day. Many voters, out of habit, reported to polling locations that were no longer theirs. Some were mistakenly assured by poll workers on the grounds that they were entitled to cast a provisional ballot at that precinct. Instead, thanks to Blackwell’s ruling, at least 10,000 provisional votes were tossed out after Election Day simply because citizens wound up in the wrong line.(126)

In Toledo, Brandi and Brittany Stenson each got in a different line to vote in the gym at St. Elizabeth Seton School. Both of the sisters were registered to vote at the polling place on the city’s north side, in the shadow of the giant DaimlerChrysler plant. Both cast ballots. But when the tallies were added up later, the family resemblance came to an abrupt end. Brittany’s vote was counted — but Brandi’s wasn’t. It wasn’t enough that she had voted in the right building. If she wanted her vote to count, according to Blackwell’s ruling, she had to choose the line that led to her assigned table. Her ballot — along with those of her mother, her brother and thirty-seven other voters in the same precinct — were thrown out(127) simply because they were, in the words of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), ”in the right church but the wrong pew.”(128)

All told, the deliberate chaos that resulted from Blackwell’s registration barriers did the trick. Black voters in the state — who went overwhelmingly for Kerry — were twenty percent more likely than whites to be forced to cast a provisional ballot.(129) In the end, nearly three percent of all voters in Ohio were forced to vote provisionally(130) — and more than 35,000 of their ballots were ultimately rejected.(131)

VI. Long Lines
When Election Day dawned on November 2nd, tens of thousands of Ohio voters who had managed to overcome all the obstacles to registration erected by Blackwell discovered that it didn’t matter whether they were properly listed on the voting rolls — because long lines at their precincts prevented them from ever making it to the ballot box. Would-be voters in Dayton and Cincinnati routinely faced waits as long as three hours. Those in inner-city precincts in Columbus, Cleveland and Toledo — which were voting for Kerry by margins of ninety percent or more — often waited up to seven hours. At Kenyon College, students were forced to stand in line for eleven hours before being allowed to vote, with the last voters casting their ballots after three in the morning.(132)

A five-month analysis of the Ohio vote conducted by the Democratic National Committee concluded in June 2005 that three percent of all Ohio voters who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot.(133) That’s more than 174,000 voters. ”The vast majority of this lost vote,” concluded the Conyers report, ”was concentrated in urban, minority and Democratic-leaning areas.”(134) Statewide, African-Americans waited an average of fifty-two minutes to vote, compared to only eighteen minutes for whites.(135)

The long lines were not only foreseeable — they were actually created by GOP efforts. Republicans in the state legislature, citing new electronic voting machines that were supposed to speed voting, authorized local election boards to reduce the number of precincts across Ohio. In most cases, the new machines never materialized — but that didn’t stop officials in twenty of the state’s eighty-eight counties, all of them favorable to Democrats, from slashing the number of precincts by at least twenty percent.(136)

Republican officials also created long lines by failing to distribute enough voting machines to inner-city precincts. After the Florida disaster in 2000, such problems with machines were supposed to be a thing of the past. Under the Help America Vote Act, Ohio received more than $30 million in federal funds to replace its faulty punch-card machines with more reliable systems.(137) But on Election Day, that money was sitting in the bank. Why? Because Ken Blackwell had applied for an extension until 2006, insisting that there was no point in buying electronic machines that would later have to be retrofitted under Ohio law to generate paper ballots.(138)

”No one has ever accused our secretary of state of lacking in ability,” says Rep. Kucinich. ”He’s a rather bright fellow, and he’s involved in the most minute details of his office. There’s no doubt that he knew the effect of not having enough voting machines in some areas.”

At liberal Kenyon College, where students had registered in record numbers, local election officials provided only two voting machines to handle the anticipated surge of up to 1,300 voters. Meanwhile, fundamentalist students at nearby Mount Vernon Nazarene University had one machine for 100 voters and faced no lines at all.(139) Citing the lines at Kenyon, the Conyers report concluded that the ”misallocation of machines went beyond urban/suburban discrepancies to specifically target Democratic areas.”(140)

In Columbus, which had registered 125,000 new voters(141) — more than half of them black(142) — the board of elections estimated that it would need 5,000 machines to handle the huge surge.(143) ”On Election Day, the county experienced an unprecedented turnout that could only be compared to a 500-year flood,” says Matt Damschroder,(144) chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections and the former head of the Republican Party in Columbus.(145) But instead of buying more equipment, the Conyers investigation found, Damschroder decided to ”make do” with 2,741 machines.(146) And to make matters worse, he favored his own party in distributing the equipment. According to The Columbus Dispatch, precincts that had gone seventy percent or more for Al Gore in 2000 were allocated seventeen fewer machines in 2004, while strong GOP precincts received eight additional machines.(147) An analysis by voter advocates found that all but three of the thirty wards with the best voter-to-machine ratios were in Bush strongholds; all but one of the seven with the worst ratios were in Kerry country.(148)

The result was utterly predictable. According to an investigation by the Columbus Free Press, white Republican suburbanites, blessed with a surplus of machines, averaged waits of only twenty-two minutes; black urban Democrats averaged three hours and fifteen minutes.(149) ”The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African-Americans,” concluded Walter Mebane Jr., a government professor at Cornell University who conducted a statistical analysis of the vote in and around Columbus.(150)

By midmorning, when it became clear that voters were dropping out of line rather than braving the wait, precincts appealed for the right to distribute paper ballots to speed the process. Blackwell denied the request, saying it was an invitation to fraud.(151) A lawsuit ensued, and the handwritten affidavits submitted by voters and election officials offer a heart-rending snapshot of an electoral catastrophe in the offing:(152)

From Columbus Precinct 44D:
”There are three voting machines at this precinct. I have been informed that in prior elections there were normally four voting machines. At 1:45 p.m. there are approximately eighty-five voters in line. At this time, the line to vote is approximately three hours long. This precinct is largely African-American. I have personally witnessed voters leaving the polling place without voting due to the length of the line.”

From Precinct 40:
”I am serving as a presiding judge, a position I have held for some 15+ years in precinct 40. In all my years of service, the lines are by far the longest I have seen, with some waiting as long as four to five hours. I expect the situation to only worsen as the early evening heavy turnout approaches. I have requested additional machines since 6:40 a.m. and no assistance has been offered.”

Precinct 65H:
”I observed a broken voting machine that was not in use for approximately two hours. The precinct judge was very diligent but could not get through to the BOE.”

Precinct 18A:
”At 4 p.m. the average wait time is about 4.5 hours and continuing to increase?. Voters are continuing to leave without voting.”

As day stretched into evening, U.S. District Judge Algernon Marbley issued a temporary restraining order requiring that voters be offered paper ballots.(153) But it was too late: According to bipartisan estimates published in The Washington Post, as many as 15,000 voters in Columbus had already given up and gone home.(154) When closing time came at the polls, according to the Conyers report, some precinct workers illegally dismissed citizens who had waited for hours in the rain — in direct violation of Ohio law, which stipulates that those in line at closing time are allowed to remain and vote.(155)

The voters disenfranchised by long lines were overwhelmingly Democrats. Because of the unequal distribution of voting equipment, the median turnout in Franklin County precincts won by Kerry was fifty-one percent, compared to sixty-one percent in those won by Bush. Assuming sixty percent turnout under more equitable conditions, Kerry would have gained an additional 17,000 votes in the county.(156)

In another move certain to add to the traffic jam at the polls, the GOP deployed 3,600 operatives on Election Day to challenge voters in thirty-one counties — most of them in predominantly black and urban areas.(157) Although it was billed as a means to ”ensure that voters are not disenfranchised by fraud,”(158) Republicans knew that the challengers would inevitably create delays for eligible voters. Even Mark Weaver, the GOP’s attorney in Ohio, predicted in late October that the move would ”create chaos, longer lines and frustration.”(159)

The day before the election, Judge Dlott attempted to halt the challengers, ruling that ”there exists an enormous risk of chaos, delay, intimidation and pandemonium inside the polls and in the lines out the doors.” Dlott was also troubled by the placement of Republican challengers: In Hamilton County, fourteen percent of new voters in white areas would be confronted at the polls, compared to ninety-seven percent of new voters in black areas.(160) But when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court on Election Day, Justice John Paul Stevens allowed the challenges to go forward. ”I have faith,” he ruled, ”that the elected officials and numerous election volunteers on the ground will carry out their responsibilities in a way that will enable qualified voters to cast their ballots.”(161)

In fact, Blackwell gave Republican challengers unprecedented access to polling stations, where they intimidated voters, worsening delays in Democratic precincts. By the end of the day, thanks to a whirlwind of legal wrangling, the GOP had even gotten permission to use the discredited list of 35,000 names from its illegal caging effort to challenge would-be voters.(162) According to the survey by the DNC, nearly 5,000 voters across the state were turned away at the polls because of registration challenges — even though federal law required that they be provided with provisional ballots.(163)

VII. Faulty Machines
Voters who managed to make it past the array of hurdles erected by Republican officials found themselves confronted by voting machines that didn’t work. Only 800,000 out of the 5.6 million votes in Ohio were cast on electronic voting machines, but they were plagued with errors.(164) In heavily Democratic areas around Youngstown, where nearly 100 voters reported entering ”Kerry” on the touch screen and watching ”Bush” light up, at least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for chronically flipping Kerry votes to Bush.(165) (Similar ”vote hopping” from Kerry to Bush was reported by voters and election officials in other states.)(166) Elsewhere, voters complained in sworn affidavits that they touched Kerry’s name on the screen and it lit up, but that the light had gone out by the time they finished their ballot; the Kerry vote faded away.(167) In the state’s most notorious incident, an electronic machine at a fundamentalist church in the town of Gahanna recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry.(168) In that precinct, however, there were only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.(169) (The error, which was later blamed on a glitchy memory card, was corrected before the certified vote count.)

In addition to problems with electronic machines, Ohio’s vote was skewed by old-fashioned punch-card equipment that posed what even Blackwell acknowledged was the risk of a ”Florida-like calamity.”(170) All but twenty of the state’s counties relied on antiquated machines that were virtually guaranteed to destroy votes(171) — many of which were counted by automatic tabulators manufactured by Triad Governmental Systems,(172) the same company that supplied Florida’s notorious butterfly ballot in 2000. In fact, some 95,000 ballots in Ohio recorded no vote for president at all — most of them on punch-card machines. Even accounting for the tiny fraction of voters in each election who decide not to cast votes for president — generally in the range of half a percent, according to Ohio State law professor and respected elections scholar Dan Tokaji — that would mean that at least 66,000 votes were invalidated by faulty voting equipment.(173) If counted by hand instead of by automated tabulator, the vast majority of these votes would have been discernable. But thanks to a corrupt recount process, only one county hand-counted its ballots.(174)

Most of the uncounted ballots occurred in Ohio’s big cities. In Cleveland, where nearly 13,000 votes were ruined, a New York Times analysis found that black precincts suffered more than twice the rate of spoiled ballots than white districts.(175) In Dayton, Kerry-leaning precincts had nearly twice the number of spoiled ballots as Bush-leaning precincts.(176) Last April, a federal court ruled that Ohio’s use of punch-card balloting violated the equal-protection rights of the citizens who voted on them.(177)

In addition to spoiling ballots, the punch-card machines also created bizarre miscounts known as ”ballot crawl.” In Cleveland Precinct 4F, a heavily African-American precinct, Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka was credited with an impressive forty-one percent of the vote. In Precinct 4N, where Al Gore won ninety-eight percent of the vote in 2000, Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik was credited with thirty-three percent of the vote. Badnarik and Peroutka also picked up a sizable portion of the vote in precincts across Cleveland — 11M, 3B, 8G, 8I, 3I.(178) ”It appears that hundreds, if not thousands, of votes intended to be cast for Senator Kerry were recorded as being for a third-party candidate,” the Conyers report concludes.(179)

But it’s not just third-party candidates: Ballot crawl in Cleveland also shifted votes from Kerry to Bush. In Precinct 13B, where Bush received only six votes in 2000, he was credited with twenty percent of the total in 2004. Same story in 9P, where Bush recorded eighty-seven votes in 2004, compared to his grand total of one in 2000.(180)

VIII. Rural Counties
Despite the well-documented effort that prevented hundreds of thousands of voters in urban and minority precincts from casting ballots, the worst theft in Ohio may have quietly taken place in rural counties. An examination of election data suggests widespread fraud — and even good old-fashioned stuffing of ballot boxes — in twelve sparsely populated counties scattered across southern and western Ohio: Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert and Warren. (See The Twelve Suspect Counties) One key indicator of fraud is to look at counties where the presidential vote departs radically from other races on the ballot. By this measure, John Kerry’s numbers were suspiciously low in each of the twelve counties — and George Bush’s were unusually high.

Take the case of Ellen Connally, a Democrat who lost her race for chief justice of the state Supreme Court. When the ballots were counted, Kerry should have drawn far more votes than Connally — a liberal black judge who supports gay rights and campaigned on a shoestring budget. And that’s exactly what happened statewide: Kerry tallied 667,000 more votes for president than Connally did for chief justice, outpolling her by a margin of thirty-two percent. Yet in these twelve off-the-radar counties, Connally somehow managed to outperform the best-funded Democrat in history, thumping Kerry by a grand total of 19,621 votes — a margin of ten percent.(181) The Conyers report — recognizing that thousands of rural Bush voters were unlikely to have backed a gay-friendly black judge roundly rejected in Democratic precincts — suggests that ”thousands of votes for Senator Kerry were lost.”(182)

Kucinich, a veteran of elections in the state, puts it even more bluntly. ”Down-ticket candidates shouldn’t outperform presidential candidates like that,” he says. ”That just doesn’t happen. The question is: Where did the votes for Kerry go?”

They certainly weren’t invalidated by faulty voting equipment: a trifling one percent of presidential ballots in the twelve suspect counties were spoiled. The more likely explanation is that they were fraudulently shifted to Bush. Statewide, the president outpolled Thomas Moyer, the Republican judge who defeated Connally, by twenty-one percent. Yet in the twelve questionable counties, Bush’s margin over Moyer was fifty percent — a strong indication that the president’s certified vote total was inflated. If Kerry had maintained his statewide margin over Connally in the twelve suspect counties, as he almost assuredly would have done in a clean election, he would have bested her by 81,260 ballots. That’s a swing of 162,520 votes from Kerry to Bush — more than enough to alter the outcome. (183)

”This is very strong evidence that the count is off in those counties,” says Freeman, the poll analyst. ”By itself, without anything else, what happened in these twelve counties turns Ohio into a Kerry state. To me, this provides every indication of fraud.”

How might this fraud have been carried out? One way to steal votes is to tamper with individual ballots — and there is evidence that Republicans did just that. In Clermont County, where optical scanners were used to tabulate votes, sworn affidavits by election observers given to the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were filled in to replace them. Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ”strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.” (184) In Miami County, where Connally outpaced Kerry, one precinct registered a turnout of 98.55 percent (185) — meaning that all but ten eligible voters went to the polls on Election Day. An investigation by the Columbus Free Press, however, collected affidavits from twenty-five people who swear they didn’t vote. (186)

In addition to altering individual ballots, evidence suggests that Republicans tampered with the software used to tabulate votes. In Auglaize County, where Kerry lost not only to Connally but to two other defeated Democratic judicial candidates, voters cast their ballots on touch-screen machines. (187) Two weeks before the election, an employee of ES&S, the company that manufactures the machines, was observed by a local election official making an unauthorized log-in to the central computer used to compile election results. (188) In Miami County, after 100 percent of precincts had already reported their official results, an additional 18,615 votes were inexplicably added to the final tally. The last-minute alteration awarded 12,000 of the votes to Bush, boosting his margin of victory in the county by nearly 6,000. (189)

The most transparently crooked incident took place in Warren County. In the leadup to the election, Blackwell had illegally sought to keep reporters and election observers at least 100 feet away from the polls. (190) The Sixth Circuit, ruling that the decree represented an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, noted ominously that ”democracies die behind closed doors.” But the decision didn’t stop officials in Warren County from devising a way to count the vote in secret. Immediately after the polls closed on Election Day, GOP officials — citing the FBI — declared that the county was facing a terrorist threat that ranked ten on a scale of one to ten. The county administration building was hastily locked down, allowing election officials to tabulate the results without any reporters present.

In fact, there was no terrorist threat. The FBI declared that it had issued no such warning, and an investigation by The Cincinnati Enquirer unearthed e-mails showing that the Republican plan to declare a terrorist alert had been in the works for eight days prior to the election. Officials had even refined the plot down to the language they used on signs notifying the public of a lockdown. (When ROLLING STONE requested copies of the same e-mails from the county, officials responded that the documents have been destroyed.) (191)

The late-night secrecy in Warren County recalls a classic trick: Results are held back until it’s determined how many votes the favored candidate needs to win, and the totals are then adjusted accordingly. When Warren County finally announced its official results — one of the last counties in the state to do so (192) — the results departed wildly from statewide patterns. John Kerry received 2,426 fewer votes for president than Ellen Connally, the poorly funded black judge, did for chief justice. (193) As the Conyers report concluded, ”It is impossible to rule out the possibility that some sort of manipulation of the tallies occurred on election night in the locked-down facility.” (194)

Nor does the electoral tampering appear to have been isolated to these dozen counties. Ohio, like several other states, had an initiative on the ballot in 2004 to outlaw gay marriage. Statewide, the measure proved far more popular than Bush, besting the president by 470,000 votes. But in six of the twelve suspect counties — as well as in six other small counties in central Ohio — Bush outpolled the ban on same-sex unions by 16,132 votes. To trust the official tally, in other words, you must believe that thousands of rural Ohioans voted for both President Bush and gay marriage. (195)

IX. Rigging the Recount
After Kerry conceded the election, his campaign helped the Libertarian and Green parties pay for a recount of all eighty-eight counties in Ohio. Under state law, county boards of election were required to randomly select three percent of their precincts and recount the ballots both by hand and by machine. If the two totals reconciled exactly, a costly hand recount of the remaining votes could be avoided; machines could be used to tally the rest.

But election officials in Ohio worked outside the law to avoid hand recounts. According to charges brought by a special prosecutor in April, election officials in Cleveland fraudulently and secretly pre-counted precincts by hand to identify ones that would match the machine count. They then used these pre-screened precincts to select the ”random” sample of three percent used for the recount.

”If it didn’t balance, they excluded those precincts,” said the prosecutor, Kevin Baxter, who has filed felony indictments against three election workers in Cleveland. ”They screwed with the process and increased the probability, if not the certainty, that there would not be a full, countywide hand count.” (196)

Voting machines were also tinkered with prior to the recount. In Hocking County, deputy elections director Sherole Eaton caught an employee of Triad — which provided the software used to count punch-card ballots in nearly half of Ohio’s counties (197) — making unauthorized modifications to the tabulating computer before the recount. Eaton told the Conyers committee that the same employee also provided county officials with a ”cheat sheet” so that ”the count would come out perfect and we wouldn’t have to do a full hand-recount of the county.” (198) After Eaton blew the whistle on the illegal tampering, she was fired.

(199) The same Triad employee was dispatched to do the same work in at least five other counties. (200) Company president Tod Rapp — who contributed to Bush’s campaign (201) — has confirmed that Triad routinely makes such tabulator adjustments to help election officials avoid hand recounts. In the end, every county serviced by Triad failed to conduct full recounts by hand. (202)

Even more troubling, in at least two counties, Fulton and Henry, Triad was able to connect to tabulating computers remotely via a dial-up connection, and reprogram them to recount only the presidential ballots. (203) If that kind of remote tabulator modification is possible for the purposes of the recount, it’s no great leap to wonder if such modifications might have helped skew the original vote count. But the window for settling such questions is closing rapidly: On November 2nd of this year, on the second anniversary of the election, state officials will be permitted under Ohio law to shred all ballots from the 2004 election. (204)

X. What’s At Stake
The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ”We’re in a terrible fix,” Rep. Conyers told me. ”We’ve got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse — to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That’s why our citizens are not up in arms.”

The lone news anchor who seriously questioned the integrity of the 2004 election was Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. I asked him why he stood against the tide. ”I was a sports reporter, so I was used to dealing with numbers,” he said. ”And the numbers made no sense. Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls on Election Night — and then everything flipped.” Olbermann believes that his journalistic colleagues fell down on the job. ”I was stunned by the lack of interest by investigative reporters,” he said. ”The Republicans shut down Warren County, allegedly for national security purposes — and no one covered it. Shouldn’t someone have sent a camera and a few reporters out there?”

Olbermann attributes the lack of coverage to self-censorship by journalists. ”You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble,” he said. ”You cannot say: By the way, there’s something wrong with our electoral system.”

Federal officials charged with safeguarding the vote have also failed to contest the election. ”Congress hasn’t investigated this at all,” says Kucinich. ”There has been no oversight over our nation’s most basic right: the right to vote. How can we call ourselves a beacon of democracy abroad when the right to vote hasn’t been secured in free and fair elections at home?”

Sen. John Kerry — in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE’s investigation — expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen. ”Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had an intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can’t. There’s no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse.”

Kerry conceded, however, that the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the outcome reflected the will of the voters. ”I think there are clearly states where it is questionable whether everybody’s vote is being counted, whether everybody is being given the opportunity to register and to vote,” he said. ”There are clearly barriers in too many places to the ability of people to exercise their full franchise. For that to be happening in the United States of America today is disgraceful.”

Kerry’s comments were echoed by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. ”I’m not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided,” Dean says. ”We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That’s what we suspect has happened, and we’d like to safeguard our elections so that democracy can still be counted on to work.”

To help prevent a repeat of 2004, Kerry has co-sponsored a package of election reforms called the Count Every Vote Act. The measure would increase turnout by allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day, provide provisional ballots to voters who inadvertently show up at the wrong precinct, require electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts verified by voters, and force election officials like Blackwell to step down if they want to join a campaign. (205) But Kerry says his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to push the reforms, fearing that Republicans would use their majority in Congress to create even more obstacles to voting. ”The real reason there is no appetite up here is that people are afraid the Republicans will amend HAVA and shove something far worse down our throats,” he told me.

On May 24th, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried unsuccessfully to amend the immigration bill to bar anyone who lacks a government-issued photo ID from voting (206) — a rule that would disenfranchise at least six percent of Americans, the majority of them urban and poor, who lack such identification. (207) The GOP-controlled state legislature in Indiana passed a similar measure, and an ID rule in Georgia was recently struck down as unconstitutional. (208)

”Why erect those kinds of hurdles unless you’re afraid of voters?” asks Ralph Neas, director of People for the American Way. ”The country will be better off if everyone votes — Democrats and Republicans. But that is not the Blackwell philosophy, that is not the George W. Bush or Jeb Bush philosophy. They want to limit the franchise and go to extraordinary lengths to make it more difficult to vote.”

The issue of what happened in 2004 is not an academic one. For the second election in a row, the president of the United States was selected not by the uncontested will of the people but under a cloud of dirty tricks. Given the scope of the GOP machinations, we simply cannot be certain that the right man now occupies the Oval Office — which means, in effect, that we have been deprived of our faith in democracy itself.

American history is littered with vote fraud — but rather than learning from our shameful past and cleaning up the system, we have allowed the problem to grow even worse. If the last two elections have taught us anything, it is this: The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. If people lose faith that their votes are accurately and faithfully recorded, they will abandon the ballot box. Nothing less is at stake here than the entire idea of a government by the people.

Voting, as Thomas Paine said, ”is the right upon which all other rights depend.” Unless we ensure that right, everything else we hold dear is in jeopardy.

For more, see exclusive documents, sources, charts and commentary

1) Manual Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, ”Latest Conspiracy Theory — Kerry Won — Hits the Ether,” The Washington Post, November 11, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

2) The New York Times Editorial Desk, ”About Those Election Results,” The New York Times, November 14, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70615FA3C5B0C778DDDA80994DC404482&n
=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fE%2fElection%20Results

3) United States Department of Defense, ”Defense Department Special Briefing on Federal Voting Assistance Program,” August 6, 2004. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040806-1502.html

4) Overseas Vote Foundation, ”2004 Post Election Survey Results,” June 2005, page 11. http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/downloads/surveys/ovf_survey_01jun2005_
v1.0_usletter.pdf

5) Jennifer Joan Lee, ”Pentagon Blocks Site for Voters Outside U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, September 20, 2004.

6) Meg Landers, ”Librarian Bares Possible Voter Registration Dodge,” Mail Tribune (Jackson County, OR), September 21, 2004. http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0921/local/stories/02local.htm

7) Mark Brunswick and Pat Doyle, ”Voter Registration; 3 former workers: Firm paid pro-Bush bonuses; One said he was told his job was to bring back cards for GOP voters,” Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), October 27, 2004.

8) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

9) Ellen Theisen and Warren Stewart, Summary Report on New Mexico State Election Data, January 4, 2005, pg. 2. http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/files/
NewMexico2004ElectionDataReport-v2.pdf

James W. Bronsan, ”In 2004, New Mexico Worst at Counting Votes,” Scripps Howard News Service, December 22, 2004. 10) ”A Summary of the 2004 Election Day Survey; How We Voted: People, Ballots & Polling Places; A Report to the American People by the United States Election Assistance Commission,” September 2005, pg. 10. http://www.eac.gov/election_survey_2004/pdf/EDS%20exec.%20summary.pdf

11) Facts mentioned in this paragraph are subsequently cited throughout the story.

12) See ”Ohio?s Missing Votes.”

13) Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/2004pres.pdf

14) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 5 http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/fullreport.pdf

15) See ”VIII. Rural Counties.”

16) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofksy International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3 http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

17) This refers to data for German national elections in 1994, 1998 and 2002, previously cited by Steven F. Freeman.

18) Dick Morris, “Those Faulty Exit Polls Were Sabotage,” The Hill, November 4, 2004. http://www.hillnews.com/morris/110404.aspx

19) Martin Plissner, “Exit Polls to Protect the Vote,” The New York Times, October 17, 2004.

20) Matt Kelley, “U.S. Money has Helped Opposition in Ukraine,” Associated Press, December 11, 2004. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041211/news_1n11usaid.html

Daniel Williams, “Court Rejects Ukraine Vote; Justices Cite Massive Fraud in Runoff, Set New Election,” The Washington Post, December 4, 2004.

21) Steve Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count,” Seven Stories Press, July 2006, Page 102.

22) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3. http://www.exit-poll.net/election-night/EvaluationJan192005.pdf

23) Mitofsky International Web site. http://www.mitofskyinternational.com/company.htm

24) Tim Golden, “Election Near, Mexicans Question the Questioners,” The New York Times, August 10, 1994.

25) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 59.

26) Jonathan D. Simon, J.D., and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D., “The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data.” FreePress.org, December 29, 2004, P. 9 http://freepress.org/images/departments/PopularVotePaper181_1.pdf

27) Analysis by Steven F. Freeman.

28) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

29) Jim Rutenberg, ”Report Says Problems Led to Skewing Survey Data,” The New York Times, November 5, 2004.

30) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 134

31) Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies. U.S. Count Votes. Baiman R, et al. March 31, 2005. Page 3. http://www.electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

32) Notes From Campaign Trail, Fox News Network, Live Event, 8:00 p.m. EST, November 2, 2004.

33) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 101-102

34) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

35) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 120.

36) Interview with John Zogby

37) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004; prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 4.

38) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 128.

39) Freeman and Bleifuss, pg. 130.

40) “The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount,” U.S. Count Votes, National Election Data Archive, January 23, 2006. http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf

41) ”The Gun is Smoking,” pg. 16.

42) The Washington Post, “Charting the Campaign: Top Five Most Visited States,” November 2, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/charting.html

43) John McCarthy, “Nearly a Month Later, Ohio Fight Goes On,” Associated Press Online, November 30, 2004.

44) Ohio Revised Code, 3501.04, Chief Election Officer http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

45) Joe Hallett, ”Blackwell Joins GOP?s Spin Team,” The Columbus Dispatch, November 30, 2004.

46) Gary Fineout, ”Records Indicate Harris on Defense,” Ledger (Lakeland, Florida), November 18, 2000.

47) http://www.kenblackwell.com/

48) Joe Hallett, ”Governor; Aggressive First Round Culminates Tuesday,” Columbus Dispatch, April 30, 2006. http://www.dispatch.com/extra/extra.php?story=dispatch/2006/04/30/20060430-B1-02.html

49) Sandy Theis, ”Blackwell Accused of Breaking Law by Pushing Same-Sex Marriage Ban,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 29, 2004.

50) Raw Story, “Republican Ohio Secretary of State Boasts About Delivering Ohio to Bush.” http://rawstory.rawprint.com/105/blackwell_campaign_letter2_105.php

51) In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Ohio Northern Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

52) Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff (Rep. John Conyers, Jr.), January 5, 2005. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf

53) Preserving Democracy, pg. 8.

54) Preserving Democracy, pg. 4.

55) The board of elections in Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties.

56) Analysis by Richard Hayes Phillips, a voting rights advocate.

57) Fritz Wenzel, ”Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of Nov. 2 Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334&SearchID
=73195662517954

58) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

59) Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

60) Preserving Democracy, pg. 6.

61) Ford Fessenden, ”A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States,” The New York Times, September 26, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/politics/campaign/26vote.html?ex=1254024000&en=
cd9ae70cb6e69619&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

62) Ralph Z. Hallow, ”Republicans Go ?Under the Radar? in Rural Ohio,” The Washington Times, October 28, 2004. http://washtimes.com/national/20041027-115211-1609r.htm

63) Jo Becker, ”GOP Challenging Voter Registrations,” The Washington Post, October 29, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html

64) Janet Babin, ”Voter Registrations Challenged in Ohio,” NPR, All Things Considered, October 28, 2004.

65) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 2. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

66) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

67) Daniel Tokaji, “Early Returns on Election Reform,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2005, page 1235

68) Sandy Theis, “Fraud-Busters Busted; GOP?s Blanket Challenge Backfires in a Big Way,” Plain Dealer, October 31, 2004.

69) Andrew Welsh-Huggins, ”Out of Country, Off Beaten Path; Reason for Voting Challenges Vary,” Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH), October 27, 2004.

70) Ohio Revised Code; 3505.19

71) Directive No. 2004-44 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections Members, Directors, and Deputy Directors 1 (Oct. 26, 2004).

72) Fritz Wenzel, ”Challenges Filed Against 931 Lucas County Voters,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041027/
NEWS09/410270361/-1/NEWS

73) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Amy Miller et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-735, Page 4. http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

74) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

75) LaRaye Brown, ”Elections Board Plans Hearing For Challenges,” The News Messenger, October 26, 2004.

76) Miller v. Blackwell, (S.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004) http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/election2004
/mlrblackwell102704ord.pdf

77) James Drew and Steve Eder, ”Court Rejects GOP Voter Challenge; Some Counties Hold Hearings Anyhow; 200 Voters Turned Away,” Toledo Blade, October 30, 2004. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041030/NEWS09/410300450/-1/NEWS

78) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/
petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

79) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 04-4186 http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/petitionforrehearingenbanc.pdf

80) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

Greg Palast, “New Florida Vote Scandal Feared,” BBC News, October 26, 2004.

81) Kate Zernike and William Yardley, ”Charges of Dirty Tricks, Fraud and Voter Suppression Already Flying in Several States,” The New York Times, November 1, 2004.

82) Greg J. Borowski, ”GOP Demands IDs of 37,000 in City,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 30, 2004. http://www2.jsonline.com:80/news/metro/oct04/271173.asp

83) “The Disenfranchisement of the Re-Enfranchised; How Confusion Over Felon Voter Eligibility in Ohio Keeps Qualified Ex-Offender Voters From the Polls,” Prison Reform Advocacy Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 2004. http://www.prisonsucks.com/scans/Ohio%20Felon%20Voting%20Rights%20Paper.pdf

84) Preserving Democracy, 64.
Note: Additional reporting contributed to this paragraph.

85) Gardner Selby, ”Hundreds of Texans Ride Bandwagons Around U.S.; Volunteers Say Election is Too Important Not to Hit the Campaign Trail,” San Antonio Express-News (Texas), October 15, 2004.

86) ”Down to the Wire,” Newsweek, November 15, 2004.

87) Lynda Gorov and Anne E. Kornblut, ”Gore to Challenge Results; No Plans to Concede; top Fla. Court refuses to order resumption of Miami-Dade County,” The Boston Globe, November 24, 2000. http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_to_
challenge_results+.shtml

88) Al Kamen, “Miami ?Riot? Squad: Where are they Now?” Washington Post, January 24, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

89) Al Kamen, “Walking the Talk,” Washington Post, April 21, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042002067.html

90) Secretary of State Directive, No. 2004-31, Section II, September 7, 2004.

91) Tokaji, pg. 1227
and
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)(B) (2000).

92) Jim Bebbington and Laura Bischoff, ”Blackwell Rulings Rile Voting Advocates,” Dayton Daily News. 93) Congress of the United States House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, letter from Conyers to Blackwell. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohblackwellfollowupltr12304.pdf

94) Catherine Candisky, ”Secretary of State Lifts Order on Voting Forms; Lighter Paper Now Deemed Acceptable for Registration,” Columbus Dispatch, September 30, 2004.

95) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 2004, Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition, updated May 9, 2006, page 14. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Analyses_Full_Report.pdf

96) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page 5.

97) Analyses of Voter Disqualification, page. 1.

98) Lucas County Board of Elections — Results of Investigation Following November 2004 General Election, April 5, 2005, Richard Weghorst and Faith Lyon. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/electionsvoter/lucas/LucasCountyInvestigationReport.pdf

99) “Feds Confirm Investigation of GOP Campaign Contributor,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 28, 2005.

100) Mark Naymik, ”Coin Dealer Raised Chunk of Change for Bush,” Plain Dealer, August 7, 2005.

101) Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, “Noe Indicted for Laundering Money to Bush Campaign,” Toledo Blade, October 27, 2005. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/
DEVELOPINGNEWS/51027023

Mike Wilkinson and James Drew, “Grand Jury Charges Noe with 53 Felony Counts,” Toledo Blade, February 13, 2006. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060213/BREAKINGNEWS
/60213015

102) Lucas County Report, pg. 2.

103) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

104) Lucas County Report, pg. 10.

105) Lucas County Report, pages 9-10.

106) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

107) Lucas County Report, pg. 9.

108) Lucas County Report, pg. 18.

109) Lucas County Report, pages 18-19.

110) Lucas County Report, pg. 19.

111) Lucas County Report, pages 4, 6.

112) Lucas County Report, pg. 6.

113) “Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally,” Seagate Convention Centre, Toledo, Ohio, October 29, 2004, The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041029-16.html

note: Bernadette and Tom Noe?s last name is incorrectly spelled “Noy” in the official White House transcript.

114) Help America Vote Act, Title III, Uniform and Nondiscriminatory Election Technology and Administration Requirements, Subtitle A Requirements, Section 302. http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt

115) Directive No. 2004-33 from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Sec?y of State, to All County Boards of Elections 1 (Sept. 16, 2004.).

116) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, The Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04CV7582, Page 8. http://electionlawblog.org/archives/10-20%20Order.pdf

117) Gregory Korte and Jim Siegel, ”Defiant Blackwell Rips Judge; Secretary Says He?d go to Jail Before Rewriting Ballot Memo,” Cincinnati Enquirer, October 22, 2004. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/22/loc_blackwell22.html

118) Sandusky County Democratic Party v. Blackwell, (N.D. Ohio), (6th Cir. 2004).
And
Tokaji, pg. 1229

119)Tokaji, pg. 1231

120) ”Judge, Blackwell, Spar Over Provisional Ballots,” The Associated Press, October 20, 2004. 121) In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, The League of Women Voters of Ohio, et al. v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case No. 3:04 CV 7622 http://www.moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/lowv/doc15a.pdf

122) David G. Savage, Richard B. Schmitt, “Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights,” Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1029-10.htm

123) Judge Julia Smith Gibbons August 2, 2002
Judge John M. Rogers November 27, 2002
Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton May 5, 2003
Judge Deborah L. Cook May 7, 2003
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_of_appeals/courtappeals_judges.htm

124) Darrell Rowland and Lee Leonard, “Federal Agency Distances Itself from Ohio Official; Blackwell Says Their Provisional-Balloting Positions are the Same,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), October 20, 2004.

125) David S. Bernstein, “Questioning Ohio,” Providence Phoenix, November 12 -18, 2004. http://www.providencephoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi_1/documents/04259695.asp

126) Norma Robbins, ”Facts to Ponder About the 2004 General Election,” May 10, 2006. http://www.clevelandvotes.org/news/reports/Facts_to_Ponder.pdf

127) Fritz Wenzel, “Purging of Rolls, Confusion Anger Voters; 41% of November 2nd Provisional Ballots Axed in Lucas County,” Toledo Blade, January 9, 2005. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050109/NEWS09/501090334/-1/NEWS

128) Interview with Stephanie Tubbs Jones

129) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, “Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio,” June 22, 2005. Page 6.

130) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

131) Ohio Secretary of State Web site, Provisional Ballots; Official Tabulation, November 2, 2004. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=148

132) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ?Lost? Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004.

Christopher Hitchens, “Ohio?s Odd Numbers,” Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/printables/050214roco05?print=true

Additional analysis by Bob Fitrakis, editor of the Columbus Free Press, and Richard Hayes Phillips.

133) Democracy at Risk, pg. 3.

134) Preserving Democracy, pg. 29.

135) Democracy at Risk, pg. 5.

136) Bernstein, Providence Phoenix 137) U.S. Election Assistance Comm’n, Funding for States, http://www.eac.gov/early_money.asp
and Tokaji, pg. 1222.

138) ”The Battle Over Voting Technology,” PBS, Online NewsHour, December 16, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_technology_debate.html
Paul Festa, ”States Scrutinize e-Voting as Primaries Near,” CNET News.com, December 8, 2003. http://news.com.com/States+scrutinize+e-voting+as+primaries+near/2100-1028_3-5114062.html

139) Preserving Democracy, pg. 27.

140) Preserving Democracy, pg. 30.

141) Matt Damschroder, chairman of Franklin County Board of Elections. 142) Preserving Democracy, pg. 26. 143) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64737-2004Dec14?language=printer

144) Correspondence with Matt Damschroder.

145) Suzanne Hoholik and Mark Ferenchik, “GOP Council Hopes Rising; Party expects ruling on peititions will put its candidate on ballot,” Columbus Dispatch, March 26, 2003.

146) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

147) Mark Niquette, “GOP Strongholds Saw Increase in Voting Machines,” Columbus Dispatch, December 12, 2004. http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2004/12/12/20041212-A1-03
.html&rfr=nwsl

148) Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Washington Post, December 15, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64737-2004Dec14.html

149) Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis.

150) “Voting Machine Allocation in Franklin County, Ohio, 2004: Response to the U.S. Department of Justice Letter of June 29, 2005,” Walter R. Mebane, Jr., February 11, 2006, Page 13. http://macht.arts.cornell.edu/wrm1/franklin2.pdf

151) Tokaji, pg. 1238.

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004).

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

152) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLinecomplaint.pdf

153) Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, No. C2 04 1055, slip op. At 1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 2, 2004). http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/ohio/041102LongLineOrder.pdf

154) Washington Post, “Several Factors Contributed to ‘Lost’ Voters in Ohio,” Michael Powell and Peter Slevin, December 15, 2004.

155) Preserving Democracy, pg. 25.

156) Affidavit of Richard Hayes Phillips, December 10, 2004. http://www.yuricareport.com/2004%20Election%20Fraud/AffidavitPhillipsShowsKerryCouldWinOhio.html

157) Mark Niquette, “Finally, It’s Time to Vote; U.S. Appeals Court Overturns Ban, Allows Challengers Back in Polling Sites,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 2, 2004.

158) In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Case no. C-1-04-738, page 3. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

159) James Dao, “The 2004 Campaign: Ohio, G.O.P. Bid to Contest Registrations is Blocked,” The New York Times, October 28, 2004. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C11FA39590C7B8EDDA90994DC404482

160) Marian A. Spencer, et. al., v. J. Kenneth Blackwell; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division; Case no. C-1-04-738. http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pdf/Spencer.65.ord.pdf

161) Dan Horn, Howard Wilkinson, and Cindi Andrews, “Supreme Court Justice Allows Challengers,” Cincinnati Enquirer. http://www.enquirer.com/midday/11/11032004_News_mday_challengers03.html

162) Tokaji, pages 1237-1238.

163) Democracy at Risk, pg. 20.

164) The Columbus Free Press.

165) “Errors Plague Voting Process in Ohio, Pa.” The Vindicator, November 3, 2004, Vindicator Staff Report http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php

166) Voters Unite catalogues news reports from around the country that give examples of dysfunctional voting machines, among other election stories. http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL
&selectproblemtype=Machine+malfunction

167) The Columbus Free Press.

168) Jim Woods, “In One Precinct, Bush’s Tally was Supersized by a Computer Glitch,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), November 5, 2004.

169) Hitchens, Vanity Fair.

170) Letter from J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State, to Doug White, President, Ohio Senate 3 (Feb. 26, 2004).

171) Sixty-eight counties used punch card ballots. Thirteen used optical scan machines. Seven used touch-screen technology.

172) Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls For FBI Investigation Into Ohio Election,” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, December 15, 2004.

173) Tokaji, Page 1221.

174) Jim Konkoly, ”Volunteers Complete Local Recount,” Coshocton Tribune, December 18, 2004.

175) New York Times, “Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul,” James Dao, Ford Fessenden, December 24, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html?ex=1261544400&en=
0e0adbe08ff79c22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

176) Ken McCall and Jim Bebbington, ”Two Precincts had High Undercounts, Analysis Shows,”Dayton Daily News, November 18, 2004.

177) Lisa A. Abraham, “Punch-Card Voting is Illegal,” Akron Beacon Journal, April 22, 2006. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14404305.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

178) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

179) Preserving Democracy, pg. 57.

180) Analysis by Hayes Phillips.

181) Analysis completed by using official tallies on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.
Official tallies for Kerry:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

Official tallies for Connally:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

182) Preserving Democracy, pg. 55.

183. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=135

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results2004.aspx?Section=138

184. Letter from Rep. John Conyers to Chris Swecker, assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. See attached affidavits.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohelecfbifollowupltr12805.pdf

185. Miami County Board of Elections.

186. Confirmed by Bob Fitrakis of the Free Press

187. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

188. Erin Miller, “Board Awaits State Follow Up,” The Evening Leader.

http://www.theeveningleader.com/articles/2004/11/06/news/news.01.txt

189. “Preserving Democracy,” pages 58-59.

190. The Associated Press, “News Groups Sue Ohio Elections Chief Over Poll Access,” Associated Press, November 2, 2004.

and

Mark Crispin Miller, “None Dare Call It Stolen,” Harper’s, August 2005.

http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html

191. Incidents in Warren County were catalogued in a series of articles by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Erica Solving, “No Changes in Final Warren Co. Vote Count; E-mails Released Monday Show Lockdown Pre-planned,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 16, 2004.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041116/NEWS01/411160355/1056

Erica Solving, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

Erica Solvig and Dan Horn, “Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision; FBI denies warning officials of any special threat,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 2004.

Erica Solvig, “Warren Co. Recount Goes Public; After Election Night lockdown, security eases up,” Cincinnati Enquirer, December 15, 2004.

192. Erica Solvig, “Warren’s Vote Tally Walled Off; Alone in Ohio, Officials Cited Homeland Security,” Cincinnati Enquirer, November 5, 2004.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/11/05/loc_warrenvote05.html

193. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

194. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 52.

195. Analysis conducted through official vote tallies posted on the Ohio Secretary of State Web site.

196. Joan Mazzolini, “Workers Accused of Fudging ’04 Recount; Prosecutor Says Cuyahoga Skirted Rules,” The Plain Dealer, April 6, 2006.

http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/
1144312870224340.xml&coll=2

197. Malia Rulon, “Congressman Calls for FBI Investigation Into Ohio election,” The Associated Press, December 15, 2004.

198. Affidavit, December 13, 2004, Sherole Eaton, Re: General Election 2004, Hocking County.

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/5.121004.Robersondep.pdf

199. Jon Craig, “’04 Election in Hocking County; Worker Who Questioned Recount is Asked to Quit,” Columbus Dispatch (Ohio), June 1st, 2005.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/01/20050601-B3-03
.html&chck=t

200. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 81.

201. www.opensecrets.org

202. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 82.

203. “Preserving Democracy,” pg. 83.

204. Ohio Secretary of State’s press office.

205. Count Every Vote Act of 2005

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_493.pdf

206. Dena Bunis, “Senate Limits Immigration Debate,” The Orange County Register, May 24, 2006.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1153484.php

207. Tokaji’s blog, Election Law at Moritz, “McConnell’s Voter ID Amendment,” May 22, 2006.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/05/mcconnells-voter-id-amendment.html

208. United States District Court Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/Order%20Granting%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20email.pdf

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

Reposted from Rolling Stone Magazine

On March 31, a certain Air America Radio personality and comedian reportedly related a comment that it was "more likely than not" that 2004 Ohio presidential voting was not "hacked". He cited unspecified MIT professors that did an unspecified amount of work on this issue (perhaps none). In any case, it wasn’t too dang funny.

Leaving aside the issue that only four counties in Ohio had touch screen voting machines and that the bulk of available methods of altering computerized election results illegally would not be fairly described as "hacks", and also leaving aside the various professors and computer experts who would beg to differ with or qualify this MIT statement, there’s a very important realization that gets lost regarding the likely strategy of anyone contemplating election fraud:

******************************
WHEREVER it is more likely than not that something is innocuous or at least not deliberate, that is the VERY BEST place for a hacker or rigger to attack!
******************************

An insider rigger, in particular, has little to no barriers to action (they’re "insiders", right?). Yet, election fraud is among the most intentional and planned of crimes. So the rigger will concentrate their mental efforts on planning defenses and deniability. That’s why they attack particularly in places that look like "glitches", look like human error, that look like "voter error", or look like machine defects of a non-intentional nature.

Touch screen calibration problems are a great example. Miscalibration can happen naturally from vibration, it can happen from a attempted recalibration error, it can happen because of software "glitches", or IT CAN HAPPEN AS AN INTENTIONAL ATTACK, by a user, by an insider official, or by the source code.

But, in the event of such an actual intentional attack, it will be easy to find an expert who in good faith can state it’s "more likely than not" that this is just _________________ (you fill in the non-intentional excuse from the list above). They won’t be "lying", not intentionally.

Many things are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT non-intentional. Yet that very fact makes it the perfect place to attack. Journalists will almost never get beyond a fork in the road like this because they want "proof" not alternative possibilities, and investigators will similarly be either fooled by the seeming innocuousness or deterred from passing by this fork in the road by fears of going out on a limb. One necessarily IS going out on a limb and blowing past the innocent explanations.

But, once way out on the limb, you can pick up more facts that can help distinguish the non-intentional from the intentional. And, a good investigator NEEDS to do that, but few do. Among other things, piecing together facts to put together even a compelling VERY MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN NOT case is to be what we all know and are taught to distrust as "conspiracy theory". Because there’s an alternative innocent explanation. Some also invoke Occam’s Razor, saying the simpler explanation is the better one. But that also means that the slightly more complicated fraud is the BEST one of all, the one that doesn’t get you caught.

I am definitely NOT suggesting that every mis-named "glitch" evasion or every "voter error" allegation is cover for election fraud. I’m saying it’s attractive potential and even likely cover for election fraud. And I freely admit that it is quite possible that there is no actual intentional fraud in most given cases, so long as my opponent acknowledges that fraud can’t be ruled out, either.

In any event, regardless of the presence of intent or not, the damage to democracy from "glitches" is almost identical between when the results are thrown off non-intentionally and when they are thrown off intentionally. In both cases, an inaccurate election result is being published as the gospel truth. Passing off a knockoff tennis shoe as Adidas is itself a form of fraud on the consumer, even if the storekeeper had no idea they were knockoffs and therefore lacks the knowledge and intent necessary for the type of fraud laymen usually assume is the only type of "fraud", the intentional type more precisely called "common law fraud".

So given that in most cases where multiple possibilities exist on the issue of intentional vs. nonintentional, a fair-minded person has to admit that it is at least POSSIBLE that it was non-intentional error, just as a fair-minded person has to admit that it is POSSIBLE that it is fraudulent or intentional error, in the classic sense. MAKING ONE OF THESE TWO POSSIBILITIES THE ONE THAT IS "MORE LIKELY THAN NOT" HARDLY SEEMS TO END THE ISSUE, because the key evidence is still being withheld under trade secrecy claims of the corporate vote counting vendors.

This is why TRANSPARENCY is so VERY important. It is indispenable, and in fact MORE IMPORTANT THAN ACCURACY (if we were forced to choose). This is so because All serious barriers to full election data, information and testing are doomsday devices for democracy that prevent us from knowing which of thousands of glitches and miscalibrations were covers for fraud and which were not. Therefore we can not adjust our course, or make any correction and lies are known as the truth.

There are many serious issues to choose from, global warming, war and peace, human rights, etc. But the reason election transparency is more primary and more important than the rest of these issues is because the only thing scarier and more dangerous than these runaway train issues is having the ability to correct course via legitimate elections taken away.

It’s like putting blindfolds on the train engineer and all the passengers, who know they can’t see well but none of whom are allowed to be fully aware of the nature and extent of the blindfold, limiting their ability to even try to remove it. Then, just like elections, those who’ve placed the blindfolds on say you have no standing to challenge the blindfold or ask a court for its removal because you can’t prove that you’ve been damaged or that damage is otherwise imminent.

The barriers to information that are the doomsday devices for democracy are also the instruments of our collective terror, and that deceptively divide us passengers, even as we all act in complete good faith as passengers. This happens when the passengers argue amongst themselves as to what is happening to them on a "more likely than not" basis. The passengers are all themselves most likely acting entirely in good faith, but the arguments are part fact and part Rohrschach test, with no correct answer per se.

But there is one Answer that is clearly wrong. It is the Answer that says "because the data suggesting DANGER AHEAD, while present, is not Proven, and while these fellow passengers of course support transparency and taking the blindfolds off, they nevertheless strongly maintain that there’s NO BASIS to accuse those who placed the blindfolds on us passengers of bad faith."

There most certainly is such a basis. Reckless endangerment to democracy, attempted democracide, and democracide itself, though we won’t find the body of democracy until we realize that the act of blindfolding the passengers was the death of democracy, with the crime completed at that time. What happens after is the "collateral damage" to the passengers. Many passengers, unfortunately, tend to think that having been taught that they were born into a democracy, if they have not personally died or moved out of their country of birth, they must STILL BE in a democracy. And, all jailers have pretty much seen the wisdom of allowing television, so perhaps in this age of miniaturization it is not too far a stretch to imagine that the blindfolds look like shades, and the shades allow the passengers to watch virtual TV. With this TV, they think their field of vision has actually been expanded enormously.

Somebody should find out who placed the blindfolds on, and when that person is found, you will have found a true terrorist against democracy. Meanwhile, others will keep scouring the sands of the Middle East, for a similar purpose of finding terrorists against democracy. Perhaps you should have a little compassion for these rank and file Grand Old Passengers in support of the Middle East democracy threat hypothesis, for at least they understand or intuit that there’s a danger, though they fail to appreciate much danger from within. Those that have a better idea what’s happened to them can also fail to appreciate fully that what they are in fact trying to restore in democracy is a system that will continue to allow freedom, including the freedom to believe the TV, for freedom is meaningless if it doesn’t include the freedom to do or believe unpopular or incorrect things. So, this freedom we are fighting for, includes the freedom and certainly must include the freedom for innocent rank and file to continue to believe as they do.

At the end of my blindfolded runaway train allegory, the passengers win. But they do so for somewhat surprising reasons:

1. They win because they convince a majority of passengers that if they do not admit to the significant possibility that someone would takeover the American Train and blindfold the passengers, then they must not think TrainAmerica is a very good train, because they don’t think any one would truly covet her that badly. Our Grand Old Passengers were forced to admit on that because they loved their country, and thus the danger of election fraud was properly recognized as a serious threat.

2. They win because they agree to disagree with the Grand Old Passengers, acknowledging that both rank and file groups were out of luck if the overall situation continued, and that the condition to be restored retained all the rights of all political beliefs and that the officers of the train that had failed them included representatives of both parties. Our Grand Old Passengers were forced to admit that they didn’t want to be disfranchised either alone or together with the activist passengers, and thus the shared values and interests were recognized.

3. They win because it became clear that it wasn’t "cool" to have these kinds of "shades" on, train or no train. Our Grand Old Passengers were forced to admit that not being able to correct one’s course at all was a most serious recipe for maximum unhappiness of all passengers, and thus the value of transparency in elections was suddenly clear.

The passengers removed the blindfolds and stormed the engine. The terrorists against democracy turned out to be more pathetic than the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

It’s just that, in returning to their seats and now enjoying the train ride much more than before, those of both political parties that see themselves as the Masters of Democracy or even the Masters of the Universe were already secretly preparing the next set of blindfolds. But this time, every compartment on the train had regular visual and audio reminders that said:

"Beware those who would deny you information. For in their heart, they see themselves your Master."

—Paul R Lehto
Attorney at Law
lehtolawyer@hotmail.com

Posted by Land Shark on Democratic Underground 

In the next two weeks there will be a final push to get H.R. 550, a bill introduced by Rep. Holt of New Jersey, on the House floor. H.R. 550 would protect the integrity of our elections by requiring a voter verified paper record of every vote, requiring mandatory random hand counted audits to verify the accuracy of electronic tallies, which is the only way to ever conduct an audit we can trust. It will also prohibit the use of secret software and wireless communication devices in voting machines.

The recent change in leadership of the Committee on House Administration has created a new opportunity for passage of this vital election integrity measure. Previous constituent meetings in June and August of 2005 were a huge success, generating 24 new co-sponsors on the bill from both parties. In addition, 27 States have now passed voter-verified paper record requirements.

THERE ARE THREE WAYS YOU CAN HELP — lobby in person in Washington, D.C. or your home district . . . and/or sign the petition:

IF YOU CAN COME TO WASHINGTON DC ON APRIL 6 & 7 TO LOBBY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COSPONSOR HR 550, CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP:
http://www.icountcoalition.org/dclobby.html

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ARRANGE TO MEET LOBBY IN YOUR HOME DISTRICT, CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP:
http://www.icountcoalition.org/indistrictsignup.html

IF YOU CAN’T COME TO WASHINGTON DC (OR EVEN IF YOU CAN), CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION URGING THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE TO PASS HR 550 AS WRITTEN ASAP:
http://www.millionphonemarch.com/hr550.php

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

Powered by The People’s Email Network
Copyright 2006, Patent pending, All rights reserved

March 7, 2005

By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

The accumulated weight of evidence of election fraud – statistical, circumstantial, and anecdotal – has failed to move the mainstream media to report or investigate this evidence, or the Democratic party to acknowledge and protest the apparent Republican control of our elections.

This essay is not yet another account of that evidence, which I have spelled out extensively and which I firmly believe to be compelling.

Instead, I wish to deal with another indicator that our national elections no longer represent the will of the voters, but rather are manipulated to produce the outcome desired by the "winning" candidates and party. This indicator is the behavior of those who manufacture, program, and operate the paperless, unauditable machines (direct recording electronic: "DRE"), and those who benefit from this technology.

Perhaps this new electronic voting technology is as honest and reliable as the private election industry and the winning candidates tell us it is. However, they simply do not behave as if this were the case.

My contention might be illustrated by this parable:

Suppose that a drug-sniffing dog at an airport identifies a suspicious piece of luggage. The customs officer then locates the individual whose name is on the tag, and orders him to open it. Now suppose further that this person then proceeds to do one or more of the following:

a) He denies that the luggage is his.

b) He calls his lawyer who presents an injunction against further inspection of the luggage.

c) He claims that he is a diplomat, and thus not subject to luggage inspection.

d) He offers a bribe to the inspector if he will "forget the whole thing."

Might one not suspect that the traveler was trying to hide something?

The dog then gets back to work, and soon identifies another bag, and the owner of this parcel is identified and ordered to open the luggage for inspection. He does so willingly and without qualm, having packed the bag himself and thus knowing that there is no contraband therein. He is also aware that the dog has a record of 30% false positives.

Which of these two responses more closely resembles the behavior of the DRE manufacturers (Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia), of the Republican Congress, and of the Republican National Committee? Are the DRE manufacturers and the Republicans acting in a manner consistent with their claims that "e-voting" is both honest and accurate? Or are they behaving as if they have something to hide?

Here are a few indicators. Because there are so many, I will be brief. For details and documentation, follow the links:

• First and foremost: DRE machines use secret software and produce no separate record of the voting to allow auditing and validation of the votes. Thus, by design, it is impossible either to prove or disprove directly the accuracy of the vote totals of a DRE machine or the neutrality of the software. (However, there is abundant indirect evidence of e-voting fraud: statistical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. But that’s another topic).
• The manufacturers and programmers of DREs (all of whom have close ties with the Republican Party) insist that their software ("source codes") must be kept secret – for no apparent and defensible reason. (They claim to be concerned about copyright infringement. But music, essays, fiction, drama, etc., all are public by nature, and yet all are protected by copyright).
• The e-voting manufacturers also make ATM machines and automated gas pumps, both of which produce paper receipts. Yet they steadfastly resist demands that their "touch screen" voting machines produce printouts, which might then serve to validate the accuracy of the votes.
• DRE manufacturers will not allow "test hacks" of randomly selected machines. (Unauthorized hacks have proven DREs to be extremely vulnerable to fraudulent manipulation. So too a recent report by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office: a report that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream press).
• A bill by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would require validated printed paper receipts of the votes and random inspection of the DRE machines has been locked up in committee by the Congressional Republicans. A discharge petition, which would allow a vote on the bill, is unavailing, due to insufficient support by the Republicans.
• In 2000, computer programmer Clinton Curtis was asked by a GOP congressional candidate, Tom Feeney, to create a software program that would alter vote counts in favor of the Republicans. Curtis testified to this under oath, signed an affidavit, and took a polygraph test. Of course, Feeney, now a congressman, denies Curtis’ allegations, but unlike Curtis, Feeney refuses to state his denial under oath or to submit to a polygraph.
• In California, Stephen Heller, a temporary employee of Diebold Election Systems, obtained copies of memos indicating that Diebold may have used uncertified voting systems in the 2004 primary and suggesting that thousands of voters might be disenfranchised in subsequent elections. Heller’s "reward" for blowing this whistle? He was charged with three felony counts and, if convicted, could serve more than three years in state prison.
• In 2004, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified Diebold DRE machines. In a special recall election, Republican Arnold Schwarznegger replaced Democrat Gray Davis. Kevin Shelley was then harassed and forced out of office and replaced by Republican Bruce McPherson, who "conditionally" recertified the Diebold machines. (These are two types of machines: Optical scan with paper ballots, and "TSX" with touch-screens and no paper record. It is the paperless TSX machines that are especially vulnerable to undetectable manipulation and fraud." There is a heated debate within the election reform community as to whether Optical Scanning is an acceptable improvement over DREs, or whether, on the other hand, only hand counted paper ballots will do. But that’s a topic for another essay).
• The Alaska "flip-flop." The Republican state government of Alaska refused to release to the Alaska Democrats the Diebold database files from the 2004 election on the grounds that it was "a company secret." (These were records of a public election, mind you). After persistent requests, the state relented albeit under very restrictive conditions. But then, just two weeks ago, the state again denied the request, claiming that it was a "security risk" to the state of Alaska.
• December 20, 2005: Rather than obey a North Carolina law requiring that source codes be made public, Diebold withdrew its machines from the state elections.

There is much more, which you might find here and here. But this much suffices to make my point.

What we find, then, is an industry and a political party which, on the one hand, insists that the totals from electronic voting machines are entirely accurate and honest, though these same machines are so designed that they preclude any independent evidence to support these claims. On the other hand, this same industry and party steadfastly resist any and all attempts to introduce reliable methods of validation, much less the most reliable system of all: hand counted paper ballots.

Persistent suspicion and charges of fraud are damaging to the industry and the GOP. If they are as innocent as they claim to be, why don’t they just eliminate these damaging suspicions by offering proof, and then allowing, and even encouraging, paper records, independent audits, and exit polls?

Despite a near-total embargo by the mainstream media of news, analysis, investigation and commentary on ballot security and allegations of fraud, combined with an astonishing indifference to the issue on the part of the Democrats and their allies, public doubts about the security and accuracy of elections and hence of the legitimacy of the Republican control of the White House and the Congress, simply will not go away. In fact, these concerns appear to be increasing and will likely continue to increase, as the credibility and public approval of the Bush regime continues to drop.

Here’s a thought experiment for those who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the past three elections were above reproach and doubt. Put this confidence aside for a moment and just imagine, hypothetically, that the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were all fixed, and that the coming election of 2006 will be fixed. Then ask yourself: if this were so, how would the behavior of the industry and the GOP be in any way different from what it is now?

Then ask, if the elections are honest and accurate, why don’t the industry and the Republicans act like it? In short, if they are innocent, why do they willingly persist in appearing guilty?

These questions must be asked by the Democrats, loudly and persistently, for as Karl Rove and the GOP propaganda machine knows so well, repetition is the key to successful persuasion of the public. Satire and ridicule are also very much in order. We must "pile it on" until continuing silence by the GOP and by the compliant mainstream media becomes unendurable.

And if the e-voting establishment – party and industry – are ever forced, however reluctantly, to enact reforms consistent with their protestations of innocence, what might they do?

Here is a list of proposals that any honest voting machine industry and political party should be willing to endorse:

a) Publish the source codes. (The copyrights can be fully protected.)

b) Include printers with all machines. Stipulate by law that in case of recounts, the paper receipts are to be the official ballots of record.

c) Require independent audits – of local balloting, and of regional compiling of election returns.

d) Allow examination and "test hacks" of machines, selected randomly.

e) Outlaw all data inputs (by direct line, wireless, or UV) to voting machines and compilers with the exception, of course, of the "inputs" by the voters.

f) Rigorously enforce and prosecute election fraud laws.

If the industry and the Republicans won’t agree to these assurances, then they must present a plausible explanation as to why they decline to do so. Absent that explanation, we citizens of this alleged democracy under an alleged rule of law must demand that every vote be counted and verified, and we must be supplied with proof that this has been accomplished. Furthermore, every individual who has engaged in election fraud must be tracked down and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We are entitled to no less than this.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers. He is at work on a book, Conscience of a Progressive, which can be seen in-progress here. Send comments to: crisispapers@hotmail.com.

Crisis Papers Archive

Re-posted from Democratic Underground

by Buzzflash.com columnist Maureen Farrell
Extracted from Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 2.
See also… Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 1

"There was one exact moment, in fact, when I knew for sure that Al Gore would Never be President of the United States, no matter what the experts were saying — and that was when the whole Bush family suddenly appeared on TV and openly scoffed at the idea of Gore winning Florida. It was Nonsense, said the Candidate, Utter nonsense. . .Anybody who believed Bush had lost Florida was a Fool. The Media, all of them, were Liars & Dunces or treacherous whores trying to sabotage his victory . . Here was the whole bloody Family laughing & hooting & sneering at the dumbness of the whole world on National TV. The old man was the real tip-off. The leer on his face was almost frightening. It was like looking into the eyes of a tall hyena with a living sheep in its mouth. The sheep’s fate was sealed, and so was Al Gore’s."
— Hunter S. Thompson, ESPN, Nov. 27, 2000

"[The Bush Family’s] sense of how to win elections comes out of a CIA manual, not out of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."
— Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips, BuzzFlash, Jan. 7. 2004

While some believe a coup began on Sept. 11, others will tell you it began with the 2000 election. Even though George Bush’s first cousin declared him the winner and his brother Jeb assured him he’d won Florida, many Americans remained unconvinced.

First there was the surreal sight of the Bush family on national TV, as staged and phony as Susan Smith’s tearful plea to return her "kidnapped" children. Then came the well-groomed thugs, sent on Enron and Halliburton planes to stop the Florida recount. But it wasn’t just James Baker’s ploys or the Supreme Court’s ruling that signaled something was amiss — it was the attitude of ordinary citizens who were more concerned about their "team" winning than about democracy itself.

Unless you rely solely on FOX news (the modern equivalent to "living under a rock"), the shenanigans that occurred in pre-election Florida are now old news, and have been dissected at length in documentaries, magazines and to some degree, in the mainstream press. A St . Petersburg Times op-ed later deemed the election "stolen," the Associated Press reported that Florida had "quietly" admitted "election fraud," and Vanity Fair devoted a sizable portion of its Oct. 2004 issue to exactly how Team Bush pulled it off. By the time CNN sued the state of Florida for its ineligible voters list in 2004, the underbelly of the beast was plainly visible.

But in Nov. 2001, when Greg Palast uncovered then Secretary of State Katherine Harris’ role in the shameful voter roll purge in Florida, the news was explosive. The New York Times — the paper that would later print front page disinformation to sell the war in Iraq — took a pass, however, until three years later, when it was too late to do anything about it.

At first, election irregularities were featured as anomalies, like when the Washington Post covered computer glitches that literally subtracted thousands of votes from Al Gore and gave them to a Socialist candidate. By the time similar problems were reported during the 2002 midterm and 2004 primary elections, people were understandably skittish, with e-voting failures having "shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts" — with as many as 20 states introducing legislation calling for paper receipts on voting machines.

In early 2004, Mother Jones predicted that "Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago" and sure enough, Americans awoke the day after the election without a decisive winner. And though John Kerry later conceded, questions have since been raised by computer programmers, mathematicians, journalists and others. "Was the election of 2004 stolen?" columnist Robert Koehler asked, before addressing the many "numbers-savvy scientists are saying that the numbers don’t make sense."

There were warnings before the election, of course, with red flags being raised by researchers at prestigious Stanford and John Hopkins Universities. But despite Diebold’s CEO’s promise to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes to George W. Bush, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell’s prominent role in the Bush/Cheney campaign, and the suspicious election night lock-down in Warren County, Ohio, many still believed election angst could be attributed to a super-sized case of "sour grapes."

When Christopher Hitchens, who is admittedly not a Kerry fan, also weighed in, however, that excuse flew out the window. "Whichever way you shake it, or hold it to the light, there is something about the Ohio election that refuses to add up. . . ," he wrote.

Rep. John Conyers and the Government Accountability Office also found widespread irregularities, and when statisticians picked apart the election results, Bush was not the legitimate winner. Pollster John Zogby compared the 2004 election to 1960’s suspicious contest, and University of Pennsylvania professor Steven F. Freeman put the odds that exit polls were that wrong, in that many states, at 250 million to one.

The evidence was so compelling, in fact, that NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller took it upon himself to tackle the proverbial suggestion "somebody should write a book." His extensively-researched yet largely ignored Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them) shines a crucial light on the "stealthy combination of computerized vote theft, bureaucratic monkey business, systematic shortages of viable equipment and old-fashioned dirty tricks. . . " that led to democracy’s last debacle, and will most likely lead to the next.

Ohio’s 2005 election also failed the smell test, and by late Jan. 2006, the Washington Post looked into allegations of election tampering — without the dismissive, lazy reporting usually afforded the subject. Describing tests conducted by Florida’s Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho, using "relatively unsophisticated hacking techniques," the paper quickly uncovered how easy it is to steal an election. "Can the votes of this Diebold system be hacked using the memory card?" election officials asked test participants, and though two marked their ballots "yes" and six said "no," by the time they went through Diebold’s optical scan machine, the results read seven "yes" votes and one "no."

"More troubling than the test itself was the manner in which Diebold simply failed to respond to my concerns or the concerns of citizens who believe in American elections," Sancho said. "I really think they’re not engaged in this discussion of how to make elections safer."

Hmmm. You don’t say.

There is a reason, you see, that "None Dare Call It Stolen," and that reasons extends beyond the preponderance of evidence. "If electronic voting machines programmed by private Republican firms remain in our future, dissent will become pointless unless it boils over into revolution," former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts wrote. "Power-mad Republicans need to consider the result when democracy loses its legitimacy and only the rich have anything to lose."

James Madison predicted a similar scenario. "The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility," he reportedly told the New York Post. "It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few."

Those would be the "one percenters." And chances are, you aren’t one of them.

*************

© Copyright 2004, Maureen Farrell

Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

Extracted from Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 2. See also… Top 10 ‘Conspiracy Theories’ about George W. Bush, Part 1

From Scoop Independent News

State and County Elections officials from coast to coast to coast are now in a mad, confused, frustrated scramble trying to figure out how the hell to comply with and make sense of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) legislation.

HAVA has proven to be an unmitigated disaster, gamed as it was from the start by Congressmen like Ohio’s Bob Ney working in cahoots with voting machine companies. The effort has shamefully employed disabilities groups like the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) and American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), who received more than a million dollars from companies such as Diebold, Inc., to help trump up the sympathy factor in order to force jurisdictions to purchase unreliable electronic voting machines (read: junk), said to be needed by disabled voters who would be unable to vote in secret without assistance from others.

As of the 1/1/06 HAVA deadline, Boards of Elections are now officially plunged into complete and utter disarray as they attempt to comply with the reckless and cynical legislation’s mandated requirement (dreamt up by the American Voting Machines Vendors who stand to make billions) for at least one disabled-accessible voting device in every precinct around the country — even in small precincts without a single disabled voter!

Touch-screen (DRE) voting machines created by mega-corporations like Diebold, Inc. and ES&S have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be unsecure, hackable, unreliable and finally, not fully accessible by many segments of the disabled community. Meanwhile, the one electronic-based device in which voters with disabilities have expressed the most interest, the AutoMARK system, has reportedly been kept largely out of the marketplace through a number of means. ES&S, the voting machine company who managed to secure exclusive rights to distribute the AutoMARK system, has reportedly been overpricing it in favor of their own DRE systems. As well, there have been a number of reports of ES&S sales reps being actively dissuaded from properly demonstrating that system in pitches to potential customers around the country.

As well, states such as Florida and many others have been incredibly slow at certifying the system — which prints a readable, verifiable, recountable paper ballot with every vote cast — even while they’ve already giving their blessings to DRE systems made by both Diebold and ES&S, despite the demonstrated inaccuracy, hackability and secret-software that employs "interpreted" source code, explicitly banned by HAVA guidelines.

With the rapid approach of the 2006 primary elections, the question is now: What the hell are these Boards of Election around the country going to do, to both meet HAVA requirements for voters with disabilities and provide all voters with some semblance of an accurate, reliable, recountable, democratic means of casting their vote in secret and with some certainty that it may be counted, and counted correctly?

Comes now, with not a moment to spare, an ingeniously simple, non-electronic device to allow voters with disabilities of all sorts to be able to cast their own vote, in secret, and with the knowledge that their paper ballot will accurately reflect their intent.

Say hello to the Vote-PAD, the little paper and plastic voting assistive device, that just may save American democracy…

At approximately one-tenth of the cost of competing (and crappy) electronic devices, the Vote-PAD (which stands for "Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device") was designed by Ellen Theisen, the former Executive Director of the non-partisan election watchdog group, VotersUnite.org. She created it along with the cooperation of people with dexterity and visual impairments.

It may well be the solution that exasperated Elections officials across the country have been praying for.

Vote-PAD is little more than a plastic sleeve which is fitted to an existing paper ballot, allowing voters with disabilities a number of ways to mark and verify their ballots without additional assistance. It is used along with an audio prompt and an electronic "verification wand" to further assist blind voters.

The paper ballots that the voter marks with the assistance of Vote-PAD can then be either optically-scanned or hand-counted. The device, Theisen says, requires no Federal HAVA certification since it doesn’t contain any software (secret or otherwise) or electronic parts that would require such approval from Federal authorities, according to HAVA guidelines.

And apparently both disabled voters and Election Officials from around the country who have been given demonstrations of the device seem to love it!

Last week it was announced that Yolo County, California has agreed to purchase Vote-PAD to assist persons with disabilities in marking a paper ballot. Yolo is the very first such jurisdication in the country to come aboard, but, in interviews with The BRAD BLOG, Theisen suggests that more counties and even whole states may be on the verge of signing on to Vote-PAD, as well.

Freddie Oakley, the Clerk-Recorder of Yolo County, is quoted in Vote-PAD’s press release about the first contract, as singing the praises of the new system:

While the cost of the system varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on a number of elements, Theisen pointed out to us that Oakley had informed her that the cost for their county to use Vote-PAD for five years would roughly be "the same amount of money Yolo County had been planning to allocate for storage of electronic machines alone."

There are "no maintenance fees, no licensing fees," Theisen explained, "All you have to do after you buy the original package is replace the consumables," like the plastic sleeves when they eventually run out.

The Vote-PAD website quotes a number of citizens with disabilities who also sing the praises of the device. "The Vote-PAD keeps my marks inside the circle, and the pages are easier to flip," says one tester with quadriplegia.

"For me, this 2005 election on the difficult-to-use DRE machines was just another real reminder that we definitely need your Vote-PAD," said another voter who is blind.

While evidence continues to mount about the many failures of computerized voting systems, the exhorbitant costs associated with them, and the lack of accessibility that many disabled voters have complained about while using DRE machines, Vote-PAD just may save democracy after all.

Theisen is struggling to arrange for the manufacturing of the device quickly and in large enough numbers to meet the sudden demand for the product. But, as she told us recently, she’s determined to make it all happen since witnessing first hand, in her role with VotersUnite, just how needed and necessary a device such as Vote-PAD now is for this country.

The BRAD BLOG fervently endorses the much-needed device, and recommends strongly that readers who give a damn about democracy make sure their local and state election officials are aware of the Vote-PAD!

The mega-corporations such as ES&S and Diebold are spending millions to promote their flawed devices and to ensure potential customers won’t hear about Vote-PAD. So, once again, it will be a matter of the citizenry making sure that word about Vote-PAD gets to the folks that need to know about it!

The Vote-PAD was recently featured in an article by WIRED NEWS which includes a few instructive graphics showing how the device basically works.

Much more information, explanation, testimonials, graphic explanations and downloadable brochures are available via the Vote-PAD website at www.Vote-PAD.us.

Vote-PAD can be contacted via email by clicking here.

Let’s make some noise about it!

from The Brad Blog 

Introduction: … Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of Media Studies at New York University. He has written articles for The Nation and the New Yorker and many books. He’s been on many different national radio and television shows, and we are extremely fortunate to have him with us here today. He is a real champion for election integrity and for getting the word out about what we need to do to save our Democracy.[Loud Applause]

Mark Crispin Miller: Well, thank you very much and thanks to both groups for doing all this great work and for making enough to bring me here for a book tour.

I want to start out by telling you a story, which some of you may have heard. And in fact much of what I have to say will probably not come as news to many of you, because I know you all are very well informed about these issues. Two years ago I got myself invited to a fund raiser for John Kerry, when he was just one of many aspirants to the Democratic party nomination for president. I got myself invited by the New York treasurer of his campaign, who shared my concern about the integrity of the electoral system, precisely, or I should say primarily, because of the use of electronic touch screen machines. This had been a profound concern of mine and of certain other people, since the passage of the HAVA Act. And this limited network of people were trying to do everything they could to get this on the national agenda, so I got a little face time with the senator.

It was at George Plimpton’s house. He came in. I was introduced to him. I looked up at him, he was very tall. And he looked down at me. I had about 5 minutes to try to convey the seriousness, the complexity of this problem to him, and with a sense of urgency. And so, you know, I think the cards were stacked against me because I’m sure I sounded psychotic, you know. (audience laughter) And as far as he was concerned, I probably looked psychotic,… short but psychotic…(audience chuckle) because he had never given this a thought. I think he didn’t know about it at all, but he did wear a look of grave concern, you know (smoothing his hair back in a John Kerry gesture, audience chuckle). He nodded thoughtfully for a moment. (Like Kerry, Miller crosses his arms and rests his left first finger on his chin with his face looking downward in a thoughtful pose.)

He thanked me for my effort to enlighten him. He was going to take this under advisement, you know. I could almost see my words go, you know, in one ear and out the other. I also met with Terissa Heinz Kerry and talked to her about it. And she at least seemed to get it. She was very exercised about it. But nothing came of this. And we all know what happened, well, I should say we all think we know what happened.

Concerning that, what we think happened, as you know I wrote a book about the Election 2004. And I wrote this book to give people a panoramic sense of what went down last year and to try to give people a view of the kind of mentality that drives the anti-democratic crusade. I wrote this book for one reason only, I’m not going to challenge the outcome of the last election, there is no constitutional way to do that. I wrote the book to jump start a national movement of radical electoral reform. And so, knowing as I did that the mainstream media is not going to take this seriously, I decided that I’ve got to get to as many prominent people as possible….So two weeks ago, I got myself invited to a fund raiser for John Kerry. (audience laughter.)

His political action committee was meeting in New York. They were going to have a dinner, and I was allowed to come in before the dinner. And in he came, tall as ever, and I had a very different perception of him this time. (audience chuckle.) Ok, I had the book held up, you know, for all to see, and he looked very interested. And I said, "You were robbed, senator!" And he said "I know" (and held his hands up to his head like he had a headache, as Kerry would do) just like that. "I know! (Miller makes the same hand gesture.) And he started to say, "I can’t find the evidence." I can’t persuade my colleagues to take this seriously. I certainly knew what he was talking about. But I had to say, it was more than refreshing to hear him say this. I was delighted. He said he just had a big argument the week before with [Senator] Christopher Dodd from Connecticut trying to tell Dodd that these voting machines are really not reliable. And Dodd just got mad. He didn’t want to hear about it. Dodd said: "We looked into this. There’s no story there!" He (Kerry) said, "Well is there evidence in your book?" I said, "Well, yeah, you know, there is really quite a lot of evidence." I told him what the Government Accountability Office Report said, the GAO Report. People in here have heard of it. Most people in this country have not, because this ground breaking report on the flaws and dangers of touch screen voting, by a very, very establishment government body, has gone almost completely unreported in this country. In fact, Kerry had not heard about it. [Kerry said]: "Oh really, the GAO report?"

So instead of saying, "What, is your staff in a coma?" (loud audience laughter and applause)….so because you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, I didn’t say that. (Audience laughter) I said, "Yeah, the GAO Report, you can just go on-line and get a copy." He was quite pleased. You could see…see that it was obvious that he was going to use this, these arguments. So I said, "Now senator, I believe that, in the spirit of these ground breaking investigations into Iran Contra and the BCCI in the Senate," which I happen to think is his best, his greatest work, "in the spirit of those investigations, you should really look into what happened last year. And you should make a larger inquiry into the state of American electoral apparatus. Because it’s in a shambles." And I cannot remember how I put this, I can only tell you what I was trying to say to him.

But I was being tactful, so I don’t know what I said. I was trying to say to him: "If you think you are going to get like 10 votes from the people you sold out last time, you know, if you don’t embrace this issue with both arms, you don’t have a prayer." So I didn’t say that either (audience laughter.) So I said, "There are a lot of people felt disappointed…" [Kerry] nodded. Now he wasn’t just wearing a mask of concern. He was really listening. He said, "Well I don’t know if I can be the one to do that because there is the sour grape factor," he said. OK. Well I understand that. I’m not a politician. It is very easy for me to say, "Do this, do that." But I said, you know, “Read the book. The book is very persuasive.” He said “I will. I’m really excited. I’ll read it this weekend. Thanks a lot.” He punched me on the arm. He gave me the thumbs up. (audience chuckle) Threw me a football, you know. (audience laughter) I caught the football. (laughter) We rough housed a little bit. (loud audience laughter.) The memory is very precious to me. (loud laughter)

So anyway, I was really happy. I thought this was a great thing. It didn’t occur to me that this was news exactly. But I did tell my friend, I emailed people that "Kerry thinks the election was stolen." And my book tour started Tuesday a couple weeks ago in New York. And I found that telling that story really went over. I mean, it really made people feel optimistic. Then I was on Democracy Now last Friday. Did any of you hear that? (audience applause) I was debating with Mark Hertzgaard who’s got a piece in the latest Mother Jones, seeking to throw cold water on the "wild theory" that the Republicans stole the election last year. And one of the things that struck me in his arguments …. he’s a friend of mine, OK, I have known him a long time. I don’t think this is his best work. (audience laughter). One of the things that struck me was that he was unduly swayed by the "say so" of Democrats.

So we’re talking about Warren County [Ohio]. You know how they declared a terrorist alert throughout the press before the vote count. His claim was, “Well I talked to a Democrat who was there, and he said: "Gee, I wish I could tell you that it was suspicious, but, you know, frankly there is nothing to it." It turned out the next day according to the FBI said that there was no terrorist alert, and then the Cincinnati Inquirer reported that this plan had been in the works for nine days. So I don’t care what a Democrat told him. Who is this democrat? Who cares? Why does that trump common sense? (Audience applause). I didn’t say any of this. But I says to myself, I says, ‘Well, if he wants to strut out Democratic authorities, I’ve got a great response.’ So I said, “Well as a matter of fact, Kerry thinks the race was stolen.” And I told the story. And Mark was very impressed. “Wow this is really big news. You really buried the lead. You should call a press conference. This is important.”

Well in fact that day, Democracy Now sent out a press release. "Breaking: Kerry Believes the Race was Stolen." So there was a lot of stuff on the internet. It was all over the place. And sites like Democratic Underground, long threads about it. Raw Story, in a website in D.C., called Kerry’s office to get a response. And a staffer of Kerry’s office made a statement that categorically denied that he had ever had this conversation with me. (Audience says "Whoa") "The only true thing in Mr. Miller’s account is that he gave the senator the book"…(audience gasps)..like a process server. He kind of pressed it on his arm and ran away…"You’re served!"

This was….the most galling thing to me personally was the fact that this implied that I had made this up to sell the book. "We know that Mr. Miller is trying to sell the book," they said. This really pissed me off. So I gave Raw Story my response. And the next day Robert Perry, a great reporter who has the website Consortium News, ran a piece based on what he was told by a guy named John Weiner, who was an old Kerry associate, who said to Perry: "John thinks the race was stolen, he said that to me too."

So, there is trouble in making things up. I don’t make things up. In this world, these days, you don’t have to make things up. (Audience laughter.) Do you know what I mean? You can’t. It is impossible to keep track of reality. So I tell this story to make a few larger points. It is not about Kerry per se. And it is not about my personal pique, about being treated so disrespectfully. This is not a personal issue. It is not even a partisan issue. It is a civic issue. It is a civic issue of profound importance. And I tell the story about Kerry partly to make clear that this is not a left versus right, or Democrat versus Republican issue. In fact, on this issue, it’s really the people at risk because of the collusion of the two parties. I think the collusion is passive. Some people have said that they know, they have made a deal, but I think that is unlikely.

If someone has the evidence, I’ll look at the evidence. But I don’t think that it is necessary for there to be a deal, because this has happened before. When you have a resolved, well organized, highly disciplined fascistic movement of some kind, (audience applause) right. (Audience applause) Let’s hear it for Fascism. (Sarcastically…Loud audience applause.) Calm yourselves. (Laughter) And they have a tremendous amount of social power and media influence, and they manage to get the press on their side for various reasons, those who would resist this, but who aren’t all that zealous about it, are simply going to deny that there’s a problem. Now why do the Democrats refuse to face this issue? Does it make any sense? Their existence as a party is threatened. They will cease to be, if this Republican party, the Bushevic party, (audience laughter) the theocratic Republican party, has it’s way, there will be no more Democrats. Now, one of the reasons that Democrats refuse to look at this, or read the evidence, or listen to it, is just corruption. Because a lot of democrats are in fact republicans. And in places like Ohio, rural Ohio….maybe you’ve had Bob Fitrakis come here and speak? …(audience confirms)…as he explains to me and he says in his writing, the democrats in rural Ohio are just as much a part of the status quo as the republicans. They are very close to the Republicans and they all serve at the pleasure of Ken Blackwell. So they all toe the line.

There was only one board of elections member, a democrat in the state, who blew the whistle. And that was Sheryl Eaton, who …(loud audience applause)… We love Sheryl, we know she exposed the deliberate subversion of the recount that was supposed to take place. And it has never taken place. And there are still 100,000 plus votes in that state that haven’t been counted to this day. She is the exception. Since a lot of Democrats just go along to get along and they figure, hey, you know, the two parties have divided the spoils. We can work it out. This is our turf. We’ve got the Sharks and the Jets, you know? We’ve got to divide it up. So why upset the apple cart? There is a lot of that.

But aside from that there is just plain old denial. Kerry was describing denial to me. Dodd wouldn’t have gotten angry if this thought did not frighten him. Because the implications of what happened last year are quite frightening….quite frightening. It doesn’t make any difference how brilliant a campaign you run. It doesn’t make any difference how smart your TV ads are. It doesn’t make any difference what a stellar profile your candidate has. You could run Jesus Christ for President, ok? You’re not going to win. You’re not going to win because this is not a functioning Democracy. America is no longer a Democracy. The last three elections have been stolen.

This refusal to confront the implications of what is going down has to do with deeply rooted ideological assumptions that we all have. Like "it can’t happen here." That’s the very important one. Like this is "The city on the hill." This nation was claimed by God. And what has happened to other countries can’t happen here, can’t happen here. So however copious and solid the evidence you have that it has happened here, you can’t get anywhere. It’s fascinating. You’ve got a moment in which pretty much everyone now finally agrees that the Bush regime lied, or deluded itself and the rest of us, to get us into a major war that we are losing. That’s really not a good thing. And people will face that. And the press will say yes that seems to be true. You’ve got a moment at which the people will say: yes, they did deliberately conspire to out a CIA agent who was responsible for keeping us safe from weapons of mass destruction, and they did it for petty political reasons. The people struggling to deny this are having an ever harder time. We accept this. We accept that they had to know that the attack was coming on 9/11 and they, at best, did nothing about it. (Audience applause.) We also accept that in the face of one of the worst natural disasters in our modern history, they did nothing and they continue to do nothing. All of this we accept. Right? All of this we accept. All this the press will admit "Yeah that’s true." OK. Progressives, everybody snarling foaming at the mouth…Bush is wicked, terrible. But somehow there is this magic circle drawn around "The Election." "Oh no, they wouldn’t do that! They wouldn’t to that!" Well, that’s what they would do first of all. In fact, that’s what they did do! That’s why they’re there. (Applause)

Understand this…I want to try to give you a sense of what we’re really up against, because I think it’s only if we face that, will we be able to deal with it. Ok, here it is folks. It’s about the elections. The electoral system is a mess. I think there are certain policies we should all pursue to improve the system. And we can talk about those policies. I want to give you a foretaste, because often people want to hear that. These are "take home points." We should go back to paper ballots. (Applause.) We should ban the participation of all private vendors in our electoral system. (Loud long applause.) So that means in Oregon, you know, you’ve got the paper ballots. You’ve got to get the software out of there, because as you know, using proprietary software to count the votes is like having a secret vote count. And so this is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. Anyone who defends this is a foe of American Democracy. It’s a simple as that. We also need a uniform federal standard for our election from coast to coast, from county to county, from precinct to precinct. We have to have….I’m going to say the dirty "B" word…we have to have an efficient, utterly non-partisan bureaucracy, on the order of the Post Office (it just delivers mail) to oversee our elections.

And I will add, that I would like to have as an ally in this fight any authentic conservative who believes in The Bill of Rights, way before I’ll accept the half hearted support of an Al Franken or somebody like that, or Mother Jones. The people, now this is us, not the Democratic Party, not the media, the people have got to fight back. We are at that point. And in order to do that we’ve got to make common cause with a lot of people we don’t ordinarily talk to. The Bush administration and the movement it represents is only one part of the Republican party. The Republican party is divided now. A lot of Republicans voted against Bush or just stayed home. In "Fooled Again" I gave a lot of examples. The very prominent Republicans of all kinds came out publically against Bush before the election and the press would never report on this trend, which was remarkable. But you had Bob Barr of Georgia, you can’t get much more right wing than that. You had John Eisenhower. You had General Tony McPeak of the Air Force, who was a pro-Bush military guy in 2000, now coming out for Kerry! You had Tom Clancy! You had Lee Ioacoca. You had an open letter signed by 169 tenured emeritus business professors deploring Bush’s economic policies. And the letter started at the Harvard Business School. You remember who went there? Bipartisan groups of diplomats, military men, moderate Republicans. A guy who ran a chapter of Republicans Abroad said he could not in good conscience support Bush. This guy [Bush] did not really win the election, because very few people really voted for him! (Audience applause.) Just read my book.

The thing is that it can happen here, and they knew it. And if we don’t reacquaint ourselves with their concerns, it will happen here, and have happened here for good. Because this is what we’re up against, ok? We are not up against conservatism. Bush is not a conservative president. Cheney is not a conservative vice president. The movement that we’re fighting is not a conservative movement. That is why it didn’t get all those Republican votes. I am not a conservative, but I respect conservatism. I see it as a coherent philosophy. I see it essentially as a philosophy that’s based on the improvement or at least the maintenance of THIS world. See. They believe in limited government, fiscal prudence, no foreign wars, all that kind of stuff. I can live with all of that. What does that have in common with this regime and its agenda? This is a guy who with all his tax cuts has spent more money than all of our other presidents combined. Did you know this? He has vastly expanded the police powers of this government, vastly expanded them. He has repealed Habeas Corpus. I mean, if on his say so, you’re a terrorist, they can come and drag you off to prison, and they don’t have to tell anybody that they did it. This is called disappearing people. This is unprecedented in our history. We don’t have freedom of assembly. We have First Amendment Zones. (Audience groan.) Freedom of Speech has been radically abridged. I mean, you know all that I am saying. Right? This is not conservatism. It is extremely radical. It’s much closer to Fascism. It has a great deal to do with the power of corporations. You can hiss all you want, and I am with you, but they are not going to listen. The fact that End Corporate Personhood is involved with this is really something that makes me very happy, because in a sense the idea that corporations should have the rights of persons, the status of persons, can be regarded, in a sense, as the worm in the apple here. I mean, things really started to go wrong in this country when corporations took on such power. Indeed as we have seen from the dangerous sway of the corporate manufacture of touch screen voting machines, corporations are reeking havoc on American Democracy, because corporations are driven by concern for only one thing, and that is their own profits. That’s money over the franchise, money over votes. This is something I think we can all agree on. We have to take a step further because there is something else at work here. It’s not just corporations. It’s not just the drive for profits. It’s not just corporate capitalism. As a matter of fact, certain large sectors of the corporate system are extremely unhappy with this president, like the insurance industry has done a big about face on global warming. Well for rational reasons. (Audience laughter.) Because they don’t want to go bankrupt!

So this is rational self interest at work. You read accounts of the financial get together in Datyl, Switzerland…it’s like a wake there now. They’re just miserable because this guy, this cabal, this movement is destroying the economy. They are on a suicide course. So even though they are infinitely pleasing to many corporate interests, you know, Haliburton and so on, especially their cronies, they are on a suicide course. They had an apocalyptic streak, that cannot be explained in economistic terms. Now people on the left tend to explain everything in economistic terms. It’s always about the money, follow the money. That’s true to a great degree. But it is not enough, because it does not account for the ferocious strain of anti-enlightenment activism that this regime represents. (Audience applause.)

Understand that this is a theocratic movement. It is not just a bunch of corporations, that know better, slyly manipulating the pieties of the masses. That is a leftist fallacy. Because we are talking about the energetic, political participation of a number of extremely right wing billionaires with enormous clout, people like Richard Mellon Scaif, and Howard Ahmanson. These are people who are extraordinarily active and productive on the political front and they make [George] Soros look like a piper. They spent far more money that he does. They spend it on propaganda; they spend it on political issues. Howard Ahmanson is the motive force behind the schism in the Episcopalian Church. He supports the Discovery Institute which is behind the spread of Intelligent Design. So to say there is religion over here and there are corporations over here is a mistake. It’s not that simple because there are points of convergence.

What we have here is a movement intent on turning the United States into a Christian republic. Now they often say that the United States is a Christian republic, then you say to them, "As a matter of fact, it isn’t." Look at say the First Amendment, look at Article 6 which forbids a religious test for office holders, look at everything the framers ever said on the subject. Well they don’t want to hear that so they say, "Well, it’s a Christian republic." Does this sound familiar? "Mr. President, there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." "0h yeah? there is too." "Go back and find it." "Oh, wait. Here it is, here it is." See? We think they are lying through their teeth, but please believe me that Cheney still believes there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If it were only lying, or or if it was only machiavellian manipulation, I promise you we would be better off than we are right now. What we are dealing with is pathological. You tell them, "Hey, there is no evidence for intelligent design," and they say "oh yes there is." They proclaim that there is. There is no evidence that abstainance based sex education does anything except raise pregnancy rates and raise rates of sexually transmitted diseases. They say "Nope…no…" Because it’s faith based.

They live in a faith based universe. I want you to grasp the enormity of this problem. We have all grown up in the shadow of the cold war. All of our politics were forged in the context of a post enlightenment moment. I mean the enlightenment is settled, ok? And now we have the clash between two great enlightenment doctrines, capitalism and socialism. Do you want to know something? That turned out to be a blip on the radar screen. We are right back where we were when the framers wrote the Constitution. We are right back there. They did this incredibly brave and intelligent thing. They forged a national charter that was the first in human history not to invoke the deity. They separated church from state. And this was not a plot by a handful of professorial smarty pantses, who were a lot less religious than the average Joe. This was on the one hand an innovation by brilliant Deists who were indeed Rationalists. But it wasn’t just that. Separation of church and state grew out of American soil. Because this was a nation of religious immigrants, and most believing American were grateful for the separation of church and state. You know that the Baptists for over a hundred years were arch- Jeffersonians? Because they understood that if there is a state church in this country it would be Episcopalian and they would be persecuted again. So it was in everybody’s interest to separate church from state. There is no reason to apologize for it. There is no reason to dance away from it. There is no reason to meet with Hillary and decide, "How we can look more religious?" Screw that! (Loud audience applause.)

When de Tocqueville came here in the 1830’s, he remarked on the fact that this country was the most religious country on the earth and he understood that the reason is because they separated church and state. The reason is because there is no coersion here. So religion thrives. Why can’t Democrats just say that? What’s wrong with that? Is there any problem? Now the fact that they don’t seem to have any faith in our revolutionary division, they don’t seem to have any understanding of what the framers wrote, they don’t really believe in American democracy, leaves us just extremely vulnerable to a highly organized, extremist movement that is intent on undoing all that. We don’t hear about it. Right? Like this business about the Supreme Court, we hear about Alito’s style, you know his style, what kind of person he is, we parse his record. We talk about what kind of demeanor he has and what kind of suit he wears, his life experiences, and so on. Maybe if we get really bold and specific, we’ll say, "They are going to repeal Roe vs. Wade." What they don’t understand is that Roe vs. Wade is only "Step One" for these people, right? Step one!

Do you know what the Constitution Restoration Act is? A few of you do. Go home and do a little google search on it. The Constitution Restoration Act would declare that God is the sovereign basis of American Law. Do you know what that means? That means that a judge could make decisions on the basis of the Old Testament and it couldn’t be reversed. So if you want to see a vision of the possible future as these people imagine it, go home and read the book of Leviticus, and see how many things you can be executed for doing. Heresy, for example, Astrology, Pre-marital sex … well, only the woman gets killed for pre-marital sex. This is directly and ferociously opposed to the whole American tradition. So when I said this is not a partisan issue, I really meant it. The American people don’t go for this, I promise you. A lot of Americans may have been hood-winked by Bush and so on, but understand that his strong support is now at 22% with a margin of error of 4 points. So it could be 18%. I estimate that at least Kerry won by 51 to 48%. Kerry won! And probably by more or would have, because between the votes that were thrown away, and the votes that were pre-empted, and the votes abroad, it’s a significant number.

The American, you know, people for all their, or all our shortcomings, for all the decadence that has been sponded by a consumer culture, which has had a seriously destructive effect on our ability to function in a democracy, for all that, the American people are not extremists. The American people are not theocrats. The Wall Street Journal just a few days ago ran an piece about the new phenomena of the Evangelical Churches trying to do something about global warming through their churches. So it’s time for us all to join hands with each other, all rational Americans who love our traditions got to join hands and insist on electoral reform which both parties seem not to want. Right? It’s not up to the Democrats. It is certainly not up to the media. It’s up to us. Now this is the kind of thinking we’ve become estranged from, as I say, because we’re mostly parked in front of the set, you know, with a big gulp and a bag of Doritos. And we’re thinking, "Oh gee, am I getting fat," or "Don’t I look great?" "Oh let’s watch reality TV" …getting into so and so’s life for a minute, unreality TV, you know.

But we have to get back to that. Do you know why? Because we don’t have any choice. There’s no choice. If we don’t get electoral reform in place, if we don’t reclaim the system from the Right, this experiment is over. If this experiment is over, the world could well be over. I think we should return to the best that our framers had to offer. And consider ourselves as noble and dedicated representatives of that tradition. We have nothing to apologize for, and everything to gain. Thank you.

Farhad, Manjoo
test 2