BLackwell: "200 voters/machine"

[luaptifer]

one fascinating little item from Sch C of those docs:

"The Secretary has determined that the purchase of one DRE voting unit for every 200 registered voters in the state is appropriate for this Contract..."

it might be very interesting to know that, since SOS Ohio had made this determination some time previously and certainly WELL before the Nov. 2, 2004 election, how many registered voters were known to be in the precincts where he'd allocated what, between 1 and 3 ballot machines, in those videotapged Columbus precincts. this would seem to me a politically, if not criminally, indictable offense."

as in Diebold contract:

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/Diebold/Contract%20No%20217%20Schedule%20C.pdf

this verbiage probably comes from HAVA recos and legislation and thus, stood as precedent well before Nov. 2, 2004.

can anyone provide hard data as to the number of voters AND number of machines per precinct where there were difficulties?

it would seem that would be at least a politically indictable offense.

first posted this here:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/2084.html?1105663631#MT

[Carolab]

1. PM berniew1. n/t

[luaptifer]

2. some relevant directories

some documents of interest, in this context:

ENTIRE DIEBOLD CONTRACT (??? - have not DL'd it) ARCHIVED
ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/diebold.zip

ENTIRE ESS ???
ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/ESS.zip

ENTIRE MAXIMUS ???
ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/Maximus.zip

----------- Found within this directory:
FTP directory /free/publications/ at serproxy.sos.state.oh.us

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to higher level directory

10/29/2004 02:24PM 3,321,589 10-28Elections_Test_Report.zip
11/01/2004 07:26AM 2,504,028 10-31Elections_Test_Report.zip
01/06/2005 11:37AM Directory Diebold
01/06/2005 11:37AM 33,372,086 diebold.zip
10/28/2004 12:02AM 3,204,680 Elections_Test_Report.zip
01/06/2005 11:38AM Directory ESS
01/06/2005 11:42AM 18,337,084 ESS.zip
01/06/2005 11:40AM Directory Maximus
01/06/2005 11:46AM 15,028,896 Maximus.zip
08/05/2004 01:43PM 5,908,213 municipal_roster.csv

-------------
FTP directory /free/publications/Diebold/ at serproxy.sos.state.oh.us

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/Diebold/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to higher level directory

12/28/2004 03:24PM 3,490,116 Contract No 217 Schedule A.pdf
12/28/2004 03:28PM 1,207,591 Contract No 217 Schedule B.pdf
12/28/2004 03:38PM 3,957,876 Contract No 217 Schedule C.pdf
12/28/2004 03:45PM 4,598,590 Contract No 217 Schedule CA.pdf
12/28/2004 03:49PM 261,489 Contract No 217 Schedule D.pdf
12/29/2004 04:04PM 8,282,571 Contract No 217 Schedule E.pdf
12/29/2004 04:06PM 77,047 Contract No 217 Schedule F.pdf
12/29/2004 04:08PM 334,069 Contract No 217 Schedule G.pdf
12/29/2004 04:10PM 73,908 Contract No 217 Schedule H.pdf
12/29/2004 04:12PM 222,332 Contract No 217 Schedule I.pdf
12/29/2004 04:13PM 197,993 Contract No 217 Schedule J.pdf
12/29/2004 04:15PM 82,559 Contract No 217 Schedule K.pdf
12/29/2004 04:17PM 547,150 Contract No 217 Schedule L.pdf
12/29/2004 04:21PM 289,244 Contract No 217 Schedule M.pdf
12/29/2004 04:23PM 519,539 Contract No 217 Schedule N.pdf
12/28/2004 03:15PM 9,090,030 Contract No 217.pdf
12/29/2004 04:27PM 1,108,718 December 2004 License Agreement.pdf
12/29/2004 02:31PM 1,256,902 June 2004 License Agreement.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP directory /free/publications/ESS/ at serproxy.sos.state.oh.us

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/ESS/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to higher level directory

09/22/2004 12:16PM 1,490,789 Contract No 218 Sch A.pdf
09/22/2004 12:18PM 2,735,527 Contract No 218 Sch B.pdf
09/22/2004 12:25PM 3,167,008 Contract No 218 Sch C Att A.pdf
09/22/2004 12:21PM 1,991,724 Contract No 218 Sch C.pdf
09/22/2004 12:26PM 543,777 Contract No 218 Sch D.pdf
09/22/2004 12:31PM 3,782,155 Contract No 218 Sch E.pdf
09/22/2004 12:32PM 13,788 Contract No 218 Sch F.pdf
09/22/2004 12:33PM 572,089 Contract No 218 Sch G.pdf
09/22/2004 12:34PM 33,025 Contract No 218 Sch H.pdf
09/22/2004 12:34PM 661,520 Contract No 218 Sch I.pdf
09/22/2004 12:35PM 50,985 Contract No 218 Sch J.pdf
09/22/2004 12:36PM 123,179 Contract No 218 Sch K.pdf
09/22/2004 12:37PM 219,014 Contract No 218 Sch L.pdf
09/22/2004 12:38PM 447,187 Contract No 218 Sch M.pdf
09/22/2004 12:13PM 4,055,766 Contract No 218.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FTP directory /free/publications/Maximus/ at serproxy.sos.state.oh.us

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/Maximus/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to higher level directory

09/22/2004 01:10PM 1,362,495 Contract No 219 Sch A.pdf
09/22/2004 01:12PM 2,903,040 Contract No 219 Sch B.pdf
09/22/2004 01:16PM 2,274,929 Contract No 219 Sch C.pdf
09/22/2004 01:17PM 609,716 Contract No 219 Sch D.pdf
09/22/2004 01:22PM 3,885,924 Contract No 219 Sch E.pdf
09/22/2004 01:23PM 14,449 Contract No 219 Sch F.pdf
09/22/2004 01:25PM 247,832 Contract No 219 Sch G.pdf
09/22/2004 01:26PM 21,367 Contract No 219 Sch H.pdf
09/22/2004 01:27PM 97,812 Contract No 219 Sch I.pdf
09/22/2004 01:28PM 117,358 Contract No 219 Sch J.pdf
09/22/2004 01:29PM 46,178 Contract No 219 Sch K.pdf
09/22/2004 01:30PM 214,907 Contract No 219 Sch L.pdf
09/22/2004 01:31PM 144,617 Contract No 219 Sch M.pdf
09/22/2004 01:32PM 286,642 Contract No 219 Sch N.pdf
09/22/2004 12:52PM 4,125,188 Contract No 219.pdf

[IndyOp]

3. I don't know if this is relevant, but only 2 counties in Ohio

had Diebold this past election, see and only a handful of counties had DRE machines see <http://www.verifiedvoting.org> for information. (Actually DUer rosebud57's list of counties, companies, voting machine type is the most convenient sourse of information -- you might want to send him a DU message or PM him).

It sounds like what you might be reading are documents that were released by Fraudwell back when Ohio was considering purchasing DRE's for all counties for the election. They did not do it because people were concerned that new requirements anticipated for DRE machines in the next year or two might mean that any that were purchased in 2004 would be too quickly obsolete. The majority of Ohio counties used punch card machines.

:kick:

[luaptifer]

4. if DREs are speedy and should be one/200 voters, WTF happened in columbus?

i'm trying to consider that Blackwell figures 200 voters/DRE machine is appropriate as per the cited Diebold contract which would stand as a sort of gauge for, presumably speedy processing. i don't know that my presumption is good but, if it is, then the precincts where we saw hundreds and hundreds of people standing in line in the rain to use 1 or 2 or 3 non-DRE's says blackwell et al, had determined previously, what speedy should be, and had very expliclty, despite that knowledge, underallocated machines to those precincts

so if DRE's are faster ways to gather votes and they allocated 1 to 3 non-DREs per polling station in videotaped columbus per many, many people, there were clearly problems that can be pinned back on these guys.

fyi, what prompted my digging those files up...


Ohio pulls plug on electronic voting
Blackwell opts for people filling out ballots by hand

Thursday, January 13, 2005
Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus- The battle is over and electronic voting machines, at least in Ohio, are dead.

After years of wrangling and protests, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell announced Wednesday that he will limit Ohio's uncompleted voting-machine conversion to a single device: the precinct-count optical-scan machine.

The decision effectively sidelines the embattled touch-screen voting machines that protesters portrayed as razor-toothed, vote-eating monsters prone to hacking.

An Ohio security review completed in December 2003 uncovered dozens of security risks in the machines, many of which companies were working to fix.

Complicating matters was a recent state mandate that all electronic machines be equipped with expensive voter-verifiable paper backup systems, a technology for which the state had not yet laid out standards.

"We have a tight election reform deployment schedule, too few allocated federal and state dollars and not one electronic voting device certified under Ohio's standards and rules," Blackwell said in a statement.

Blackwell's order calls for optical-scan machines - which process paper ballots filled out by hand and fed into a computerized counter at the precinct - to be deployed statewide by November.

Spokesman Carlo LoParo said these machines - long Blackwell's favored technology - produce the required paper record and are more flexible and affordable than electronic machines. Ohio has a limited pot of federal money to pay for the conversion.

Keeping costs down is important because adding a paper trail to touch-screen devices could have increased spending on the machines by 20 percent, he said.

And long lines in November caused election boards to want more machines per voters - and there are 900,000 more voters statewide than in 2000, he said.

Blackwell's move was backed by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio, which called the optical-scan plan more prudent.

Executive director Larry Long said Blackwell's proposal "is the only way Ohio can comply with federal law without counties being required to pay for part of the cost for installing new voting devices."

But not all elections officials liked it.

Michael Vu, director of Cuyahoga County's elections board, the largest in the state, said Blackwell's directive is "not acceptable."

"There are a lot of questions that need to be looked into before we make an arbitrary decision like this without input from elections officials from around the state," said Vu, whose board was preparing to replace its punch card system with an electronic one. Most counties still use punch cards.

"We already made a decision, and now we have to throw that out for a different system by Feb. 9."

Lake County Elections Director Jan Clair said Blackwell's decision will mean replacing her county's $3 million system.

The county has been using touch-screen machines since 1999.

She said Lake County tested different machines, including optical scan, before settling on electronic machines.

Converting to optical scan would waste money and saddle taxpayers with the expenses of printing and processing paper ballots, she said.

"I'm not prepared to tell my commissioners and my voters that a system that I have in place, and have had no problems with, is no longer the voting system that's allowed," Clair said.

"One county might like driving a Pontiac, another might like driving a Chevy, but don't tell us all we have to drive a Volkswagen."

Two of Ohio's three authorized machine vendors - Diebold Election Systems, and Election Systems & Software - are cleared to provide optical-scan machines.

A third, Hart Intercivic, was certified only to sell electronic machines, so it is shut out. The exception is that one electronic machine per voting location is required for the disabled.

"We are obviously very disappointed to hear about the change of events, but we don't feel we're out of the game," said Hart spokeswoman Michelle Shafer, who noted the company has other devices that would meet Ohio's criteria.

A Hart computer programmer sent a three-page letter to Blackwell in July accusing the company of misrepresentations and illegalities.

Among his allegations was that Hart submitted a specially programmed machine - not one using the configuration voters would get - to security testers.

Shafer characterized that claim, and others in the letter, as "erroneous nonsense."

Diebold's Mark Radke said attacks on electronic voting - which focused for many months on his Ohio-based company - were proven wrong in November's election.

He said Diebold electronic machines showed lower than average error rates in the states that used them, and had met all Ohio's certification requirements two weeks ago.

"We are surprised by this, especially because of the terrific success we had in November," he said.

Ohio State law professor Dan Tokaji said the purpose of Ohio's voting machine conversion - ordered under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 -was to replace antiquated, error-prone punch card systems.

"The state has continued to drag its feet on that," he said.

"And, while I think deploying optical-scan machines could resolve the constitutional questions , I'll believe it when I see it."

Plain Dealer Politics Writer Mark Naymik contributed to this report.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
[e-mail], 1-800-228-8272

[Moderator]

9. luaptifer

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source
and provide a link to
the source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator

[luaptifer]

16. oops, thank you for kindly reminding me :-) !!!! n/t

[roseBudd]

13. Rosebud57 is a she...

I will have to search DU for that post, hopefully it's not archived...

[roseBudd]

14. Vendors, County, Population,Vendor, Voting Method for OH

"# Vendors","State","County","Population","Vendor","Voting Method"
1, oh,"adams",28026,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"allen",108241,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Precinct-Based"
1, oh,"ashland",53749,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"ashtabula",103120,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"athens",64380,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"auglaize",46740,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"belmont",69636,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"brown",43807,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"butler",343207,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"carroll",29599,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"champaign",39544,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"clark",143351,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"clermont",185799,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"clinton",41756,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"columbiana",111523,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"coshocton",37132,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"crawford",46091,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"cuyahoga",1363888,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"darke",52960,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"defiance",39054,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"delaware",132797,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"erie",78709,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"fairfield",132549,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"fayette",28158,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"franklin",1088944,"Danaher Controls (Danaher Guardian)","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"fulton",42446,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"gallia",31398,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"geauga",93941,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"greene",151257,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"guernsey",41362,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"hamilton",823472,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"hancock",73133,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"hardin",31608,"Diebold Election Systems","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"harrison",15967,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"henry",29318,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"highland",41963,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"hocking",28644,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"holmes",40681,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"huron",60231,"unknown","Punch Card"
1, oh,"jackson",33074,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"jefferson",71888,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"knox",56930,"MicroVote General Corporation","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"lake",228878,"Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc.","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"lawrence",62550,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"licking",150634,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"logan",46411,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"lorain",291164,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"lucas",454216,"Diebold Election Systems","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"madison",40624,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"mahoning",251660,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","E-Voting: Touchscreen"
1, oh,"marion",66396,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"medina",161641,"Fidlar Doubleday","Punch Card"
1, oh,"meigs",23242,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"mercer",40933,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"miami",100230,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"monroe",14927,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"montgomery",552187,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"morgan",14843,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"morrow",33568,"Fidlar Doubleday","Punch Card"
1, oh,"muskingum",85423,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"noble",14054,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"ottawa",41192,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"paulding",19665,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"perry",35074,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"pickaway",51723,"MicroVote General Corporation","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"pike",28194,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"portage",154870,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"preble",42417,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"putnam",34754,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"richland",128267,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"ross",74424,"MicroVote General Corporation","E-Voting: Other"
1, oh,"sandusky",61753,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"scioto",77453,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"seneca",57734,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"shelby",48566,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"stark",377519,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"summit",546773,"Voting Technologies International","Punch Card"
1, oh,"trumbull",221785,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"tuscarawas",91706,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"union",43750,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"van wert",29277,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"vinton",13231,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"warren",181743,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"washington",62505,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Optical Scan: Central Count"
1, oh,"wayne",113121,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"williams",38802,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"
1, oh,"wood",123020,"Triad Governmental Systems, Inc.","Punch Card"
1, oh,"wyandot",22826,"Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S)","Punch Card"

[luaptifer]

5. for the moment this may be a good check on my thinking:

i'm figuring the operating assumptions here are:

>> contracts with vendors are legal records, documents that stand up in court as showing intent of the authorities to act in good faith on the basis of their contents.

>> OH SOS was acting in good faith to enter a contract with Diebold assuming he'd be serving the interests of voters at 200 voters/Diebold machine.

>> if in their interest, speed of processing must at least be such that a polling station with 200 voters/machine would get them all voted in the 12 hours or so they'd be open.

so, his willingness to act on this contract with Diebold stands as a record of what he thinks as reasonably in the interests of the voters of OH. therefore, no matter what machines were used where, we know that if DREs are considered in the interests of 200 voters per, anything that stands in the way of accomplishing that rate of processing should be able to be considered as intent for legal purposes.

my main point is that we have an explicit legally-defined gauge against which to measure whether allocation of machines to those columbus polling stations was against their interests, or not. if it's known that other polling methods are even less speedy than what OH contracted for with Diebold, then it's even more compelling an argument that based upon his preceding decisions, it was explicitly not in the interests of those voters where polling places were allocated machines at rates processing greater than 200 voters per machine.

that's my thinking, don't know how it would go in a court of law. any thoughts?

[Igel]

10. Blackwell didn't allocate the machines to precincts.

Sorry, but that's the BOE's job.

Don't know who bought them originally, but since most precincts used punch cards, some were probably old.

[luaptifer]

17. right, it's a question i have as to whether his estimation of 200/machine

and his role as SOS plays into how BOE allocates, etc.

i don't know the answer but if you refer to this link,

ftp://serproxy.sos.state.oh.us/free/publications/Diebold/Contract%20No%20217%20Schedule%20N.pdf

you'll see that roughly 40 counties are on board through this Statewide Voting Systems Project to purchase from Diebold and under the guidelines, consraints, restrictions, prescriptions, etc. of Blackwell's implementation of HAVA.

that would seem to me to implicate him directly or indirectly in his role as overseer of this process and through his role in elections in general.

dunno, we'll see what the man with the law in his hand thinks about this.

[bleever]

6. Kick.

[KaliTracy]

7. Hmmmm.... at 4 minutes per voter and a 12 hour day

I get that only 180 persons could vote on a machine --

to get 200 (204) on a machine each voter would have to spend only 3.5 minutes on the machine.

So -- does this mean in a Precinct of 1000 people there would be 5 machines?

um... yeah, I believe he has learned the errors of his ways, and never meant to disenfranchise tens of thousands of people -- I believe he is just and true and would make a terrific governor, see, he's putting more machines in, isn't he the greatest? NOT!

[Pooka Fey]

8. Kick.

[Igel]

11. Offhand, I'd like to know the average number of registered

voters per machine in the current election. I don't suppose that's an easy number to find, though.

[luaptifer]

15. Effect of Voting-Machine Allocations on the 2004 Election

i included this link in a note to Conyers Effect of Voting-Machine Allocations on the 2004 Election -- Franklin County, Ohio

Despite unprecedented registration and get-out-the vote efforts in Franklin County, with predicted record turnout, only 61% of the county's registered voters turned out in the 2004 general election. Coupled with a time-consuming complicated ballot and the same number of voting machines as in 2000, the system was unable to handle the load of approximately 25% increase in registration rolls and high voter interest in what was billed as the most important election of a lifetime. Indeed, the county did process an increase of 23% in total voters compared to 2000. Many would-be voters were deterred by long lines and hours-long waits, prompting one observer to cite:

Ohio's new poll tax: if you can't afford to wait four hours in line, you don't vote.

The shortage of voting machines was particularly acute in high-Democratic precincts. New registrations and GOTV efforts by 527 organizations were also largely concentrated in these shortchanged Democratic precincts. The lines thus created by the unequal machine allocation throttled the effect of registration and GOTV efforts of ACT, MoveOn and other 527 groups in Franklin County.

<snip>

http://copperas.com/machinery/

[chorti]

18. they also took machines away. See:

Also, this report on Franklin county. Not only did they fail to distribute new machines legally and fairly, they took away machines from African-American and other Democratic precincts. <http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708672.php>

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[luaptifer]

19. Duties and Responsibilities of Chief Elections Officer

Kenneth Blackwell as OH SOS

http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/blackwell/duties.htm

Duties and Responsibilities of Chief Elections Officer

As Ohio's chief election officer, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell oversees the elections process and appoints (?!) the members of boards of elections in each of Ohio's 88 counties.

He supervises the administration of election laws; approves ballot language; reviews statewide initiative and referendum petitions, chairs the Ohio Ballot Board, which approves ballot language for statewide issues; canvasses votes for all elective state offices and issues; investigates election frauds and irregularities; trains election officials and reimburses counties for poll worker training costs.

The Elections Division compiles and maintains election statistics, political party records and other election-related records. Statewide candidates' campaign finance reports are filed with the office, together with the reports for state political action committees (PACs), state political parties and legislative caucus campaign committees.

The Secretary of State's office also licenses ministers to perform marriage; registers alien land; and issues apostilles, which are certifications verifying signatures on documents going out of the country.

All laws passed by the Ohio General Assembly, municipal charters, administrative rules adopted by agencies, and all executive orders issued by the Governor are filed with this office, as well.

[Chi]

20. Here are the numbers.

Heya luaptifer

Takes too long (for me)to format properly , so here is the link..
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/suburbs.htm

Here are other links that might also help...
http://www.copperas.com/machinery/

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/12/1708672.php

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/990

DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING MACHINES, BY WARD

Ward Voters/ Percent Kerry
Machine Turnout Percent

HARRISBURG * 118.5 66.24 47.06
LOCKBOURNE * 121.0 46.28 40.54
PLAIN 195.4 63.62 31.95
MARBLE CLIFF 207.0 56.52 49.43
TRURO 219.0 56.34 42.17
GAHANNA 4 219.9 68.28 42.58
WORTHINGTON 1 222.1 66.05 45.63
WORTHINGTON 3 226.5 66.76 47.34
NORWICH 229.9 69.52 37.55
UPPER ARLINGTON 5 235.5 64.07 40.01

GAHANNA 2 239.6 62.41 42.63
RIVERLEA 240.0 67.92 55.59
UPPER ARLINGTON 3 243.5 66.05 45.23
BEXLEY 2 244.3 65.08 56.97
DUBLIN 2 245.5 61.89 38.35
CANAL WINCH 246.3 68.60 34.60
UPPER ARLINGTON 1 246.8 64.04 47.43
BROWN 248.4 73.78 31.19
JACKSON 250.8 68.22 33.12
UPPER ARLINGTON 6 254.2 64.65 37.70

UPPER ARLINGTON 4 255.2 65.93 45.25
UPPER ARLINGTON 2 257.2 64.56 41.10
WESTERVILLE 2 257.3 66.65 34.68
HILLIARD 2 258.2 69.15 35.28
WASHINGTON 259.0 61.13 31.33
GROVE CITY 3 259.1 73.50 30.57
PLEASANT 259.4 65.56 36.09
BEXLEY 1 260.4 63.40 57.75
PERRY 260.5 64.16 39.38
REYNOLDSBURG 2 263.5 61.58 43.35

VALLEYVIEW 267.0 54.68 46.29
BEXLEY 3 268.0 66.94 59.36
DUBLIN 1 268.4 65.33 31.93
GAHANNA 3 269.4 63.12 43.91
GRANDVIEW 274.3 67.36 61.10
MADISON 275.5 61.20 41.96
BLENDON 276.3 60.29 40.43
URBANCREST 277.0 51.62 84.04
GROVEPORT 277.7 65.29 40.76
HAMILTON 278.3 59.67 41.36

WESTERVILLE 1 278.5 63.84 40.49
WESTERVILLE 4 278.8 64.77 36.48
HILLIARD 4 281.2 68.59 36.36
GROVE CITY 2 281.4 63.84 34.99
HILLIARD 1 281.5 59.72 41.00
DUBLIN 4 284.7 60.92 33.51
DUBLIN 3 285.5 59.86 27.70
SHARON 285.8 61.46 48.99
REYNOLDSBURG 1 286.0 59.68 48.17
REYNOLDSBURG 3 286.6 59.25 44.64

WESTERVILLE 5 287.9 61.64 44.49
GAHANNA 1 288.4 60.28 no data **
WORTHINGTON 2 289.6 67.51 59.35
WHITEHALL 3 293.9 54.38 53.01
WESTERVILLE 3 295.8 56.38 43.19
BEXLEY 4 296.0 56.15 62.88
JEFFERSON 298.6 67.57 35.85
WORTHINGTON 4 298.7 59.49 48.09
PRAIRIE 300.0 58.51 42.20
MINERVA PARK 300.3 59.53 42.16

NEW ALBANY 306.6 66.06 33.66
WHITEHALL 1 310.7 52.17 59.44
GROVE CITY 4 313.1 59.82 39.76
OBETZ 313.7 57.25 46.17
GROVE CITY 1 315.1 61.14 39.16
HILLIARD 3 317.6 58.34 42.06
MIFFLIN 322.5 47.44 65.88
WHITEHALL 2 324.8 53.81 53.86
REYNOLDSBURG 4 325.6 52.73 50.44
FRANKLIN 348.9 49.77 49.32

CLINTON 351.1 48.73 57.07
WHITEHALL 4 368.9 51.99 60.31

[luaptifer]

21. great data and links Chi, going to Conyers in followup, thx! n/t

[luaptifer]

22. OHIO 5-MINUTE RULE: 5 Voter-min/machine = 12 Voters/h = 156 V/Mach/Day

according to the Ohio HAVA Planning Committee minutes of April 4, 2003, Ohio has a standard 5 minute rule. as described in the context of the then-recent election, Ms. Clair had been working with electronic machines since '99, had gone through elections successfully, and administered one of the larger counties of Ohio. anticipating the needs for HAVA she spoke to the committee and divulged some very interesting basics.

an opening anecdote suggests that the Ohio elections administrators believe machine voting would be faster so consider Sec. Blackwell's contract-basis of 200 voters per Diebold machine as not allowing for Ohio's 5-minute rule that expects to get 156 voters through an election day per machine.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/hava/minutes/040403.txt

NOTE: in SOS HAVA minutes excerpts below, i've left the line numbers included in the transcript and the intervening page numbers of the transcript interspersed among the text.

<snip>
8 Re: Meeting of the Help American Vote Act
9 State Planning Committee.
10 - - -
11
12
13
14
15 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16 of the meeting held on Friday, April 4, 2003, beginning at
17 9:30 o'clock a.m., at the Conference Room B & C, 31st
18 Floor, The Riffe Center, 77 South High Street, Columbus,
19 Ohio.
20 - - -
21
22
23
24
25

2
1
2
3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS
4 Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell**
5 Chairman Dana Walch
6 Ms. Donna Alvarado***
7 Ms. Linda Carr
8 Mr. Tom Coyne
9 Mr. Eric Duffy
10 Ms. Daisy Duncan Foster
11 State Representative Nancy Hollister
12 Mr. Larry Long
13 State Senator Mark Mallory**
14 Mr. Jeff Matthews
15 Mr. Guy Reece
16 Ms. Catherine Turcer
17 Pastor Aaron Wheeler**
18 Ms. Faith Lyon, Secretary
19 - - -
20
21 **Not present.
22 ***Arrived in progress.

<snip>

8 We asked Miss Clair to come here today as Lake
9 County is one of our larger counties in the state of Ohio,
10 but is also a county that made a switch to new voting
11 equipment in the last few years.
12 I think you made it in '99; is that correct?
13 MS. CLAIR: That's correct.
14 CHAIRMAN WALCH: So we asked her to come share
15 some of her experience with us. A little story that I
16 always tell folks about Jan -- Miss Yarman brought this up
17 in her testimony, about how quick tabulation is with this
18 new equipment. The first year that Lake County used their
19 equipment, at about 2 o'clock in the morning we had not
20 receive any updates from Lake County on their elections
21 updates.
22 We are saying, "Where is the stuff from Lake
23 County?"
24 We hadn't had anything. So I had the pleasure
25 of calling Director Clair at 2 o'clock in the morning at

57

1 home, because they were finished, to say, "Jan, we didn't
2 get your stuff. What is going on?"
3 What she told me, "We were done at 9 o'clock
4 tonight."

<snip>

11 MS. CLAIR: I thank you for inviting me and
12 thank the Committee for letting me be part of this.

<snip>

17 As we moved forward, we had an RFP in April,
18 contract awarded in July, delivery commenced September,
19 election held November. Regarding voting equipment,
20 consideration for the number of machines. Ohio has a
21 5-minute rule, allows 12 voters per hour per unit. If
22 they were to use the full 5 minutes allowed, that's 13
23 hours times 12 voters per hour, equals 156 voters.
24 So when you are looking at your equipment you
25 are going to be ordering, you need to kind of factor that

60

1 in. Understand that this is not factored into
2 consideration, that the equipment takes time to internally
3 scramble the votes cast. The more voters you have, the
4 longer time it will take for the vote to be recorded. The
5 larger the ballot on the equipment, the longer time it
6 will take for the ballot to appear for the next voter.
7 And you need to have enough machines for training and/or
8 backup delivery.

<snip>

<snip>

13 CHAIRMAN WALCH: Other questions for Miss Clair?
14 Jan, if you could, I have one last question. I
15 am looking at the sheet you provided. Lake County has
16 approximately 150 thousand registered voters?
17 MS. CLAIR: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN WALCH: You have 550 machines?
19 MS. CLAIR: Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN WALCH: I am getting that as an average
21 of one machine for every 270 voters approximately in your
22 county. Can you talk to us a little bit about lines,
23 things of that sort. You have now gone through a
24 presidential election and gubernatorial election here.
25 Can you talk to us a little about lines, things of that

76

1 sort.
2 MS. CLAIR: You are going to -- during a
3 presidential election, as we all know, we have the largest
4 populous come out that we can. That 270 number you are
5 looking at is based on registered voters per precinct, not
6 voter turnout. So I always look at each election to
7 determine how many machines I want to send out to a
8 precinct, and look at my past voter turn-out for that
9 community.
10 So even though my first year into the election
11 we had 50 additional machines that I used for training
12 that we then had at the polls on election day, we still
13 had lines after 7:30. So it's up to us to get the message
14 out there will be lines. It's not going to be necessarily
15 quicker, but it is going to be the most accurate, reliable
16 form of voting. If you want your vote to be counted
17 accurately, then surely you won't mind making certain that
18 you stay there to cast that vote.
19 I do have something that happens though. You
20 are going to make sure your poll workers have in place a
21 procedure for people that come in -- and Guy can relate to
22 this too. People come in, make their selections and then
23 leave without casting, completing that vote. You have to
24 have a procedure in place as to how you are going to deal
25 with it.
77

1 In addition to that, you will have people that
2 will come in and look at that and say the line is too
3 long. They have signed in, and now I am leaving. As long
4 as you have your procedures in place, then your audit at
5 the end of the night, you will have an explanation for
6 everything.
7 MR. MATTHEWS: Good morning, Jan.
8 MS. CLAIR: Good morning, Mr. Matthews,
9 Mr. President Matthews.
10 MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
11 MS. CLAIR: Or God, as you like to be referred
12 to.
13 MR. COYNE: You guys have met before.
14 MR. MATTHEWS: You are telling tales.
15 I wanted to get back to your calculation on your
16 consideration for the number of machines. You have
17 calculated about 156 voters. Is that your recommendation,
18 that of expected turnout you would have one machine per
19 156 voters? Is that -- am I reading that correctly?
20 MS. CLAIR: Ideally.
21 MR. MATTHEWS: We have more than enough money
22 now.
23 MS. CLAIR: In the best world we could live in.
24 I think what this points out to, Jeff, is that I don't
25 believe the State will have enough money to do everything

78

1 we want to do in the state of Ohio.
2 MR. MATTHEWS: I agree.
3 MS. CLAIR: I am hoping the Commissioners will
4 recognize that likewise, and perhaps be able to then have
5 a joint relationship. But for those counties who are not
6 that fortunate, they just need to know that, for a base of
7 how long can my lines be on election day if every voter
8 comes in.
9 Obviously if you have someone who only wants to
10 vote for president, he can hit it, be out of there in a
11 couple seconds as long as he advances through the screens.
12 But for those others, if you are faced with amendments on
13 the ballot, full language on the ballot, you will have
14 voters taking that 5 minutes. I did my first
15 presidential. So based on that, just know how long it
16 could be.
17 CHAIRMAN WALCH: Okay, thank you.
18 Did you have a question, Catherine?
19 Thank you very much. We appreciate you giving
20 us some good information.
21 MS. CLAIR: Thank you.

<snip>

<snip>

6 We at one point talked about, well, how much can
7 we spend per precinct in the state. Then we started doing
8 some research on that, and we found that we have one
9 county in the state who has an average of approximately
10 365, I think it is, 365 voters per precinct. And then we
11 looked at Franklin County here that has almost 9 hundred
12 voters per precinct. Statewide it comes out somewhere
13 just a little shy of 6 hundred voters per precinct, but
14 obviously as we started to look, say county A has an
15 average of 360 voters per precinct, and Franklin County
16 and some surrounding have 9 hundred. We obviously said
17 that's not a very equitable way to distribute resources
18 provided to us by the federal government.
19 So that's why we started leaning much more
20 toward a system of, by the counties' percentage of
21 registered voters of the state, or voting age population,
22 or some factor like that to come up with a number of how
23 much a county -- how much we can spend in what county.
24 Certainly we have gone through and thrown out random
25 numbers as to if a system costs X number of dollars per

111

1 machine, that sort of thing, and we do one machine for
2 every X number of registered voters. We have gone through
3 those number crunch scenarios, and a lot of that will
4 depend on exactly how much we do get from the federal
5 government. Those numbers are dependent upon that.

<snip>

SO, it'd seem that a very clear understanding of the requirements needed to meet the interests of Ohio's voters had been codified sometime before the HAVA Planning Committee tried to account for voting rate and lines at polling places on April 4, 2003, which was well in advance of the recent Presidential election. and the number of voters per machine was certainly a consideration when the Committee started consideration of how to allocate Federal HAVA dollars! Blackwell may have missed this meeting but, as now, the resulting minutes were certainly available to him!

OK, finally consider the misallocation of voting machines ONLY within the Franklin County area of Columbus Ohio. I discovered this report by way of Chi's link and from which i have excerpted interim data summaries and ultimate conclusion:

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/columbus.htm

STEALING VOTES IN COLUMBUS

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
November 23, 2004

The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing
story, later confirmed by the Columbus Dispatch. The
Free Press reported that Franklin County Board of
Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately
withheld voting machines from predominantly black
Democratic wards in Columbus, and dispersed some of
the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.

Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the
Franklin County Republican Party. Sources close to
the Board of Elections told the Free Press that
Damschroder and Ohio’s Secretary of State Kenneth
Blackwell met with President George W. Bush in
Columbus on Election Day.

<snip>

Was the uneven distribution of turnout due to a lack
of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate? Or was
it due to an uneven distribution of voting machines?
To answer this question, I arranged the data, ward by
ward, according to the ratio of registered voters per
voting machine.

<snip>

...the 38 wards in which the
number of registered voters per voting machine was
the lowest enjoyed high voter turnout.

<snip>

Clearly, Kerry enjoyed a
higher turnout where the polling places had enough
voting machines. What about the bottom of the list?

<snip>

...the 36 wards in which the
number of registered voters per voting machine was
the highest suffered low voter turnout.

<snip>

Clearly, Kerry suffered a lower turnout where the
polling places did not have enough voting machines.

A similar pattern is evident when examining the data
for individual precincts. I have arranged the data
in the same manner as above, precinct by precinct,
according to the ratio of registered voters per
voting machine.

<snip>

This proves once and for all that the
Kerry precincts could have enjoyed a voter turnout
similar to that of the Bush precincts, if only they
had been supplied with enough voting machines.

<snip>

And what of the precincts with not enough voting
machines?

<snip>

...of the 60 precincts with
the fewest voting machines per registered voter, only
5 were won by Bush, and 55 were won by Kerry. Again,
Bush enjoys disproportional favoritism.

It is important to understand what these numbers
mean. The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30 A.M. to
7:30 P.M. That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes. If
there are 400 registered voters per voting machine,
and turnout is 60%, each voter has less than 3.5
minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream
of voters, with no rushes at certain hours. It also
assumes no challenges to voters at the polls. If
there are 550 registered voters per voting machine,
and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes.

All of this amounts to theft of votes. It has been
shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a voter
turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when
supplied with enough voting machines.

<snip>

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting
machines from predominantly Democratic wards in the
City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000
votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on
a precinct by precinct basis, but that is not
necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the
magnitude of the conspiracy.

Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are 74
wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not
possible for one person to have delivered all the
voting machines, and it is unlikely that nobody else
was involved in planning where to deliver them.
Anyone who associated with Mr. Damschroder on or
shortly before Election Day should be investigated
for possible complicity.

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

<snip>

so, bottomline would seem to me that Blackwell, responsible for oversight of elections, etc., was guided by Ohio's 5 MINUTE RULE. knowing that electronic voting machines had given Ms. Clark an early night in the previous election as was known to the HAVA committee planning members, he ultimately contracted with Diebold for a voter/machine rate that didn't quite meet Ohio's 5 MINUTE RULE.

BUT, when it came time to consider the requirements for the 2004 election, Ohio's 5 MINUTE RULE apparently was meant only for consideration in Republican-leaning districts!

is this indictable? clearly knowledge of the requirements of the people he represented in his duties and responsibilities as Ohio's SOS would suggest that he do something to move machines TOWARDS polling places like these:

PRECINCTS WITH THE FEWEST VOTING MACHINES


Ward & Voters/ Percent Kerry Kerry
Precinct Machine Turnout Percent Margin

12-A 551.7 34.50 84.96 + 407
01-B 540.0 34.57 68.41 + 211
25-B 507.7 41.56 91.33 + 522
23-B 501.0 41.38 79.13 + 363
41-C 490.0 38.91 60.53 + 127
60-E 481.0 40.47 51.05 + 15
11-A 476.7 35.24 74.80 + 252
18-A 475.0 48.77 80.46 + 430
59-D 464.3 45.51 59.46 + 123
03-D 462.3 46.21 79.15 + 374

<snip>

finally, i found this a bit ironic ;-)

<snip>

22 On the second issue of local control, we feel
23 that our County Board has a relationship, positive
24 relationship with our local community. There is a level
25 of trust that has been built, and that is why I used the

89

1 Florida example. We only had, it was less than 5 -- I
2 think the number was 2 calls after Florida that were
3 people that called our County and said we don't think our
4 votes were counted right. When we even went out to the
5 polls since then, we have not -- we have had people say,
6 "Boy, those voters in Florida are something, but we know
7 that we are okay up here in Ohio." Because they had --
8 they believed that the problem was in the administration
9 and not the system.

<snip>