Legal question: does "motive" really matter with the cheat sheets?

[garybeck]

Let's just assume that the cheat sheets were real, and they were used in several places.

Here are two motives for such:

1)technician was just being stupid and trying to avoid a recount because he knew it would mean more work and expenses for everyone?

2)technician was part of a larger plan to thwart the voter's intentions and put Bush in office

my question is, does it really matter, from a legal standpoint?

in either case, if they were used, the recount was not valid and there should be some kind of legal ramification, either another recount, or countywide handcounts.

I guess, if there was evidence that #2 was the case, then it would immediately open pandora's box. But #1 is no small matter and assuming state law was broken it seems there should be some kind of action even if it was stupidity that motivated him.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Prima facie fraud? n/t

[delphine]

2. It walks like a duck . ..

Seriously, the idea of a recount is to take a random sampling and count it and compare it to the original total.

None of it is supposed to be controlled or manipulated in any way. The mere act of "trying" to avoid having to do a complete count is anathema and probably election fraud.

In addition, the only way to do this would be to know which districts were being recounted and know the totals in advance. This also thwarts the spirit of the law because you are aiming at a target instead of simply taking a second count and comparing only the final totals.

Even when the totals didn't match these guys went out of their way to certify anyway, even ordering new counting machines or setting ballots aside and forgetting them, etc. (All this stuff is on the Cobb website).

Even if no one is "punished" over this, at the very least it tells us that the "random sampling" was not random or trustworthy and that only a full hand recount will yield us the true count. Which is what the Glibs/KE wanted all along.

After all, Triad has gone to quite a bit of trouble and expense to help local BOE's avoid hand recounts. What the heck does Triad care if the local BOE's have to hand recount? Unless a hand recount will reveal that their machines don't count properly . . .

[dzika]

3. it walks suspiciously like a duck. n/t

[sandnsea]

4. Probably depends

If you were going to charge the technician with fraud, being able to prove motive probably matters. I don't know if there's lesser charges that might not require proof of an intent to sway the election. As to the election itself, probably not because laws were broken regardless of the motive, which taints the election.

[shiina]

5. It does

'Motive' doesn't really matter, but the two scenarios are two different crimes. If he was doing (1), he was just breaking an Ohio law. If he was doing (2), that's fraud. There is a big difference there.

[shraby]

7. Number 1 is

prima facie fraud and number 2 is fraud. Either way, fraud is indicated. In number 1, he may have been doing what his boss told him to do and didn't understand the implications of it which means Triad committed "prima facie" fraud by having the machines manipulated. They were responsible for the machines and by extension should have been aware of their legal responsibilities as well.

Isn't there an old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

[Mistwell]

6. Answers

First, there is a difference between motive and intent.

Motive is the reason behind a crime. A motive may be greed, love, hatred, revenge, etc.... While motive may be the "why" behind a crime, it does not affect the act itself. A crime is a crime, regardless of why it is done (with some rare exceptions that do not apply here). Intent, on the other hand, is the larger goal of the criminal.

In this case, you have to prove the knowing intent to commit a fraudulent act. Most of the time, fraud involves intentional misrepresentation of material facts and circumstances to the direct detriment of someone. If you cannot prove that the individual knew that he was misrepresenting a material fact likely to harm someone, then you cannot make a fraud charge stick. It might be negligence...perhaps even criminal negligence (though that is unlikely), but it isn't fraud without proving intent to actually misrepresent a material fact likely to harm someone.

As for the statutory crime...I would have to review the law to see if it is a criminal, civil, or administrative violation to do something in contravention of the statute.