At 04:54 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
> Mr. Okrent
>
> I personally think it's outrageous that the Times
> failed to cover the Conyer's hearings.
>
> And now, Mr. Blackwell is sabotaging the Ohio recount
> in violation of OH state law.
>
> Is the Times going to ignore this whole story? I'd
> like to know so that I can reconsider my subscription
> options. If the Times won't cover the news, I have to
> find a paper that does.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Elizabeth Ferrari
>
> >
> >
>
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackwell-locks-out-recount-volunteers.html> > Subject: Blackwell Locks Down Ohio Voting Records
> >
> > Ohio Election Investigation Thwarted by Surprise
> > Blackwell Order
> >
> > Dayton, Ohio Friday December 10, 2004
> >
> > On Friday December 10 two certified volunteers for
> > the
> > Ohio Recount team assigned to Greene County were in
> > process recording voting information from minority
> > precincts in Greene County, and were stopped
> > mid-count
> > by a surprise order from Secretary of State
> > Blackwell’s office. The Director Board of
> > Elections
> > stated that “all voter records for the state of
> > Ohio
> > were “locked-down,” and now they are not
> > considered public records.”
> >
> > The volunteers were working with voter printouts
> > received directly from Carole Garman, Director,
> > Greene
> > County Board of Elections. Joan Quinn and Eve
> > Roberson, retired attorney and election official
> > respectively, were hand-copying voter discrepancies
> > from precinct voting books on behalf of the
> > presidential candidates Mr. Cobb (Green) and Mr.
> > Badnarik Libertarian) who had requested the recount.
> >
> > One of the goals of the recount was to determine how
> > many minority voters were unable to vote or denied
> > voting at the polls. Upon requesting copies of
> > precinct records from predominantly minority
> > precincts, Ms. Garman contacted Secretary of State
> > Blackwell’s office and spoke to Pat Wolfe,
> > Election
> > Administrator. Ms. Wolfe told Ms. Garman to assert
> > that all voter records for the State of Ohio were
> > “locked down” and that they are “not
> > considered
> > public records.”
> >
> > Quinn and Roberson asked specifically for the legal
> > authority authorizing Mr. Blackwell to “lock
> > down”
> > public records. Garman stated that it was the
> > Secretary of State’s decision. Ohio statute
> > requires
> > the Directors of Boards of Election to comply with
> > public requests for inspection and copying of public
> > election records. As the volunteer team continued
> > recording information from the precinct records in
> > question, Garman entered the room and stated she was
> > withdrawing permission to inspect or copy any voting
> > records at the Board of Elections. Garman then
> > physically removed the precinct book from Ms.
> > Roberson’s hands. They later requested the records
> > again from Garman’s office, which was again
> > denied.
> >
> > Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26
> > that requires all election records to be made
> > available for public inspection and copying. ORC
> > Sec.
> > 3599.161 makes it a crime for any employee of the
> > Board of Elections to knowingly prevent or prohibit
> > any person from inspecting the public records filed
> > in
> > the office of the Board of Elections. Finally, ORC
> > Sec. 3599.42 clearly states: “A violation of any
> > provision of Title XXXV (35) of the Revised Code
> > constitutes a prima facie case of election fraud
> > within the purview of such Title.”
> >
> > Contact Information: Joan Quinn (937) 320-9680,
> > (916)
> > 396-9714 – cell Katrina Sumner (937) 608-5861
Dear Ms. Ferrari,
In the first few weeks after the election several readers wrote us about this issue. Mr. Okrent responded to these concerns on his web journal. I include the entry below (see post #35).
http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=36&fid=.f555e99/36 dokrent - 5:40 PM ET November 21, 2004 (#35 of 40)
The Times and Covering Allegations of Election Fraud
Sorry to have been neglecting this spot for so long; I could give you a list of excuses, but none of them
is especially good.
Now, though, my mailbox has begun to overflow with criticisms of The Times for not looking more deeply
into allegations of large-scale vote fraud in Ohio and Florida, a story (if true) that no one can ignore. In some
of these messages, writers say that "now that the theft of the election has been proven ...," The Times must
reveal this to the wider world.
Were the assertion even nearly so, I would do more than recommend that The Times reveal it Id be
demanding it publicly, loudly and frequently. But the evidence I have seen to date proves nothing, other than
that there was a certain amount of error in certain counties, and an aggressive effort by some partisans in
some areas to challenge some likely Democratic voters. To my knowledge, no one in the Kerry campaigns
vast on-the-ground operation, or in its armies of well-situated lawyers, has made the argument that what
happened in Ohio (or Florida) could have changed the result of the election. Similar views were explained
in "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Buried," by Tom Zeller (Nov. 12).
And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed
be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Timess investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the
papers Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. Im confident that if
they find something, theyll publish it. A good investigative reporter (much less a whole staff of them) turning
away from a story like this one if true would be like a flower turning away from the sun. Careers are made
by stories that detail massive election fraud.
But: the operative words here are if true. Wishing doesnt make it so. Although it would probably pain him to
have someone from The Times touting his work, David Corn of The Nation, in a recent column, offers plenty
of reason to examine the allegations before I, or anyone else, should leap to give them credence. You can
find Corns column here.
Since then, over seven hundred other readers have raised similar concerns requesting more coverage on this issue. You may be interested in the following articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/22/politics/22poll.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/politics/15ohio.htmlI raised reader concerns with Mr. Okrent and a few days ago he asked me to let you know that he does not believe The Times's coverage of the voting in Ohio is over.
The following articles have since appeared:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.htmlMr. Okrent wanted me to write you back asking that you please stay tuned.
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Vote-Challenge.htmlDecember 28, 2004
Ohio Official Refuses Interview Over Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:21 a.m. ET
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The secretary of state, who declared President Bush the official winner in Ohio, is seeking a court order to keep himself from being interviewed as part of a court challenge of the Nov. 2 vote.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell claims his deposition is not required, and accused 37 voters challenging the election of ``frivolous conduct.''
The court challenge cites irregularities including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in minority precincts and problems with computer equipment.
Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry by 119,000 votes, according to Blackwell's official count; Ohio's 20 electoral votes gave Bush the 270 he needed for victory.
Attorney General Jim Petro, representing Blackwell, said the voters ``are not trying to actually contest the presidential election but are merely using this litigation to cast public doubt on the voting system of the State of Ohio without a shred of evidence.''
On Dec. 21, officials learned lawyers for the voters planned to issue subpoenas to several high-ranking officials, including Blackwell, Bush and the president's political adviser, Karl Rove, according to Petro.
The state Supreme Court ``should halt their ability to subpoena any person until such time as they make a good faith showing for the reason to take any deposition,'' Petro said in the court filing.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Vote.htmlDecember 28, 2004
Ohio Recount Ends, Shows Vote Closer
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:41 p.m. ET
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -- Election officials finished the presidential recount in Ohio on Tuesday, with the final tally shaving about 300 votes off President Bush's six-figure margin of victory in the state that gave him a second term.
The recount shows Bush winning Ohio by 118,457 votes over John Kerry, according to unofficial results provided to The Associated Press by the 88 counties. Lucas County, home to Toledo, was the last to finish counting.
The state had earlier declared Bush the winner by 118,775 votes and plans to adjust its totals to reflect the recount later this week.
The Kerry campaign supported the recount, but said it did not expect the tally to change the election winner. Supporters of the recount, requested by two minor party candidates, said they wanted to make sure every valid vote was counted.
Kerry gained 734 more votes in the recount, and Bush picked up 449, mostly from disqualified ballots that were counted in the second tally because hanging chads had come loose when ballots were handled again or rerun through counting machines.
That put Kerry 285 votes closer to Bush. The president's victory margin declined by about three dozen more votes when some counties adjusted their certified vote totals.
The Green and Libertarian party presidential candidates asked for the recount and raised the $113,600 required under state law for the process.
Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell has estimated that the recount will end up costing taxpayers $1.5 million.
Witnesses who watched workers count ballots by hand and machine said the effort provided assurance that boards were accurately counting ballots.
But the completion of the recount will not bring an end to questions surrounding the vote in Ohio.
A group of voters citing fraud have challenged the election results with the Ohio Supreme Court. The voters, supported by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have cited irregularities including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in minority precincts and problems with computer equipment.
Attorney General Jim Petro has called the challenge frivolous and argued that the state Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a federal election.
Cliff Arnebeck, an attorney representing the voters in the challenge, wasn't taking much stock in the recount effort. He questioned why there was no independent investigation into the accuracy of counting machines to determine whether the machines had been tampered with.
``You're allowing the original error to be repeated a second time, so it's not a meaningful recount,'' he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Election-Poll-Data.htmlDecember 21, 2004
Michigan Congressman Seeks Exit Poll Data
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:00 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has asked The Associated Press and five broadcast networks to turn over raw exit poll data collected on Election Day so that any discrepancies between the data and the certified election results can be investigated.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan said in a letter released Tuesday in Washington that the polling firms that conducted the polls on behalf of the news organizations, Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research, had declined to share the information with the committee.
``Without the raw data, the committee will be severely handicapped in its efforts to show the need for serious election reform in the United States,'' Conyers said in the letter.
The AP and the five television outlets -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox -- formed a consortium called the National Election Pool to conduct exit polls for this year's election after disbanding a previous exit poll group called the Voter News Service, which had problems in both the 2000 and 2002 elections.
Edie Emery, a spokeswoman for the National Election Pool and a CNN employee, said the poll data were still being analyzed and that the group's board would decide how to release a full report on the data early next year. ``To release any information now would be incomplete,'' she said.
Several Web logs carried accounts on the afternoon of Nov. 2 of what they said were leaked information from the exit polls showing that Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, was leading Bush in several battleground states, including Ohio, and poised for victory.
But Bush, a Republican, beat Kerry by about 119,000 votes in Ohio, winning that state's 20 electoral votes and putting him over the top in the race. Bush won re-election with 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 252.
Conyers' letter said the exit poll information could help determine whether there is evidence ``of voting irregularities that occurred as a result of poor election practices and intentional voter disenfranchisement.''
The exit polling was conducted for the AP and for ABC, a unit of The Walt Disney Co.; CBS, a unit of Viacom Inc.; NBC, a unit of General Electric Co.; CNN, a unit of Time Warner Inc.; and Fox News, owned by News Corp.
``Like Congressman Conyers, we believe the American people deserve answers,'' said Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP. ``We want exit polling information to be made public as soon as it is available, as we intended. At this time, the data is still being evaluated for a final report to the National Election Pool.''
Officials from ABC and NBC referred calls for comment to the National Election Pool, where CNN's Emery responded for the group. A CBS spokeswoman declined to comment, and officials at Fox could not be reached.
Earlier this month Kerry asked county election officials in Ohio to allow his witnesses to inspect the 92,000 ballots cast in the state in which no vote for president was recorded.
Despite improvements since 2000, when the presidential outcome was delayed for weeks by problems counting ballots in Florida, the nation's voting system remains a locally administered patchwork whose lack of national uniformity distinguishes the United States from many other democracies.
Most complaints have come from Democrats and third-party candidates, but Republicans and bipartisan groups have acknowledged problems. The Government Accountability Office is investigating election problems. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio and chairman of the House Administration Committee, will oversee an inquiry next year.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, created in 2002, is also scrutinizing the outcome. It plans to publish in January the government's first report on the voting, which will serve as the basis for congressional recommendations and reforms.