Ohio Presidential Results to be Challenged
By Steven Rosenfeld
FreePress.org

Saturday 20 November 2004

Ohio's 2004 presidential vote will be challenged as soon as next week in the state Supreme Court, a coalition of public-interest lawyers announced Friday.

The lawyers have taken sworn testimony from hundreds of people in hearings in Columbus and Cincinnati, and will use excerpts as well as documents obtained from county election officials and Election Day exit polls to make a case that thousands of votes were incorrectly counted or not counted on Election Day.

"The objective is to get to the truth," said Columbus Ohio lawyer Cliff Arnebeck, coordinator of the Ohio Honest Elections Campaign. "What's critically important, whether it's President Bush or Sen. Kerry, whoever's been elected actually elected, is to know you won by an honest election. So it's in the interest of both sides as American citizens to know the truth and have this answered."

The challenge comes as the Green Party has plans to file for a recount of the state's 2004 presidential vote. The Green Party and the Ohio Honest Elections Campaign both believe the unofficial results announced on Election Day were wrong. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has not yet certified the Nov. 2 vote. The state's election law says an election challenge must show the wrong candidate was been declared the winner, or it can be dismissed without a hearing. The state Supreme Court's chief justice hears the case.

The Ohio Republican Party dismissed the challenge on Friday, the Associated Press reported, but the coalition announcing it said they were ready to litigate.

"The sworn statements that we've received should give everyone cause to go forward in terms of this inquiry," said Robert Fitrakis, a lawyer, political science professor at Columbus State Community College, and editor at http://www.freepress.org, at the announcement.

The 'Ohio Honest Election Campaign' is a coalition of public-interest groups and citizens interested in free and fair elections. The three lawyers announcing the challenge are associated with a variety of established groups. Arnebeck is the counsel for Common Cause's Ohio chapter and The Alliance for Democracy. Attorney Susan Truitt is with Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections-Ohio, http://www.caseohio.org. The boards of groups have not yet formally endorsed the election challenge but are expected to do so in coming days.

The Honest Election campaign is part of a populist groundswell to safeguard voting rights. The 2004 campaign saw the most new voters in a generation. Even though Kerry conceded on Nov. 3, many people were not satisfied with national media explanations of the Ohio vote. Scientifically designed nonpartisan exit polls taken during the day showed a different result from the result reported that night, when George W. Bush was declared the victor.

Moreover, on Election Day there were long lines and widespread accounts of people who did not get to vote in urban Democratic-leaning precincts across the state. These factors and other reports of voter frustration, computerized voting miscounts and still-changing provisional ballot counting rules left many doubts about the unofficial vote count and George W. Bush's 130,000 vote margin.

Those concerns coalesced into a grassroots campaign for an answer. Within two weeks following Election Day, Arnebeck had talked to the Green and Libertarian Parties about filing for a recount - if the funds could be raised. The Greens and the Honest Election Campaign started fundraising the same day, and in less than a week, the Greens had raised $150,000 via their website to file for the recount. The Ohio Honest Election Campaign raised about $90,000 via the Alliance for Democracy site, after two Air America Radio hosts, Laura Flanders and Randi Rhodes, embraced the cause and talked up the campaign.

Meanwhile, FreePress.org's Bob Fitrakis inspired Amy Kaplan and Jonathan Meier, two young members of the League of Pissed-Off Voters' Ohio chapter (http://www.indyvoter.org) to organize public hearings to gather testimony under oath of the people who saw or experienced what they thought was voter suppression or intimidation. Such intentional acts would violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Two hearings were held in Columbus and hundreds of people showed up and testified. Then activists in Cincinnati and Cleveland organized hearings.

At these hearings, scores of people said too few voting machines were put in Democratic-leaning inner-city precincts, creating long lines and deterring many people from voting. In contrast, Republican-leaning suburbs had plenty of voting machines and did not have the long lines. There were also reports of miscounts by computer voting machines, as well as errors registering the wrong candidate for president. Minority voters also spoke of disproportionately getting provisional ballots, including long-time residents.

Early in the weeks those hearings were being held, the Green and Libertarian Parties announced they would seek a statewide recount. By week's end, the Honest Election Campaign announced its intention to challenge presidential election result at the Ohio Supreme Court.

Others lawsuits may be announced next week, Arnebeck said, because there is limited time to hold a meaningful recount and to address election irregularities before the Electoral College meets in December.

I'm not holding my breath.

A recount really doesn't matter. Kerry conceded. He'd have to withdraw his concession, and I'm pretty sure there are rules for that.

Also, Bush won.

From the site you linked:




Is it a constant? This continual invoking of race and hate language to get what they want?

I found this jewel, too:



Seriously. Sick. And a blatant lie. I watched a lot of the testimony from "supressed" voters in Ohio, they have two strong cases of people claiming to be encouraged in their vote, but no real electioneering.

Then you have to love when they insult our armed forces, and slander the recruiting process. They like to forget the guys (like the ones on 60 minutes last night) who lost arms and legs, who joined up because they wanted to, and still defend the war, and their involvement.



Give me a break.

Anyway, I laughed when I poked around.



IEB, seriously, man. This is not a fucking news site. You insult me, and everyone else here who knows their dick from their asshole when you post news you could get from the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or any other respected news publication.

Here's one link, same story:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -5115r.htm

maybe it's not totally about changing the election but investigating voter fraud. Come on, you seem like a smart guy. Tell me, what are the odds that for all the mishaps with electronic voting the overwhelming majority (if nto all) of these errors were in Bush's favor? Shouldn't it be more close to 50.50? But no, it's always Bush you hear about getting all these extra votes isn't it? It's awlways Bush/Cheney that is the mistake on the confirmation screen, isn't it?

From the site you linked:




it's not an insult...in some aspects it is entirely true. There's lots of ppl from poor areas that lost their jobs and the armed forces is the only job they can get. Free food, free place to stay....go to a fair or mall in a poorer county and you'll find recrutiers all over

Wednesday, November 17th

Why Isn't Kerry Using $50M Unspent Campaign Money to Fund Recounts?

Democracy Now

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party candidates are requesting recounts in swing states as reports of widespread voting problems and malfunctions in electronic voting machines continue to emerge. Meanwhile, Democratic candidate John Kerry is sitting on over $50 million in unspent campaign funds, which could be used to fund recount efforts. We speak with Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

President Bush nominated Condoleeza Rice yesterday as he continues to reshape his Cabinet for his second four-year term.
But, controversy continues to rage over the fairness of the November 2 presidential election. Stories are still emerging from states like Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and New Mexico of widespread problems with vote counting, voter suppression and malfunctions of electronic voting machines.

Now three candidates in the 2004 presidential race are demanding recounts. And not one of them is John Kerry.

In New Hampshire, independent candidate Ralph Nader is asking for a recount to test the accuracy of optical scan vote-counting machines. The request covers 11 of the state's 126 precincts that use Diebold's Accuvote optical scanning machines to count paper ballots. Backers urged Nader to request a recount after a statistical analysis posted on the Internet appeared to show that some New Hampshire precincts using the machines gave President Bush up to 15 percent more votes than had been expected on the basis of exit polls and the 2000 presidential vote.

Meanwhile, the Green and Libertarian Parties announced they raised $150,000 over the past week, enough to file the required fee for a statewide recount of the vote in Ohio.

While they scrambled to raise the required $150,000 in time to file the recount request, Democratic candidate John Kerry has been sitting on over $50 million in unspent campaign funds. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Kerry could use that money to fund recount efforts.


David Cobb, a lawyer from Texas. He now lives in California. He is seeking the Green Party nomination for president.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by David Cobb, lawyer from Texas, now lives in California, Green Party presidential candidate in this election. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, David Cobb.

DAVID COBB: Thank you, Amy, it’s a pleasure to be back.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you talk about what you're calling for in Ohio?

DAVID COBB: Well, Amy, we are demanding -- we will be demanding a full statewide recount of every ballot cast that we can get our hands on in the state of Ohio. I want to stop for a moment, back up and really give some context to this story, because corporate media is attempting to manufacture consent around the lie that this was a clean and fair election. The reality is that this was not a clean and fair election. Far from it. There is a litany of problems, not only the problems that you mentioned in terms of the voting equipment themselves, but the clear and obvious civil rights and voting rights violations that occurred in this election. I just want to observe that it was only thanks to Pacifica and community radio across this country that this story was really getting out, and the internet and ordinary citizens telling each other the stories that they were hearing. Corporate media manufacturing consent around a lie, the people's radio, Pacifica community radio stations, telling the truth. I think that's a profound background and backdrop that we should remember as we go through with this story.

AMY GOODMAN: So what exactly will happen? You have got the $150,000. What will happen now?

DAVID COBB: Well, we're not allowed under law to actually demand the recount until the republican Secretary of State, Blackwell, actually officially certifies the results. He has not done so. They're still counting, that we know of, over 153,000 provisional ballots. That high number of provisional ballots is actually part of the problem, by the way, where only he and his office has the final say on how and where and under what circumstances those ballots will be counted. But as soon as that certification takes place, we will be demanding and filing in every single count in the state of Ohio for a full recount. Under Ohio state law, they must certify the results by December 3, but they might do it earlier, so we're prepared immediately to file that recount.

AMY GOODMAN: The New York Times moved very quickly and did a whole piece basically debunking any questions about the vote and said there's a lot of blogs and internet swirls that are alleging some kind of fraud or miscount, but that, you know, it's got to be put to rest pretty fast.

DAVID COBB: Well, again, the corporate media doing its job to try to manufacture consent, but the reality -- what we know on the ground from citizens on the ground, and in fact providing testimony at citizen-conducted hearings, public hearings, we know for a fact there were screens which had a, quote, jumping screen problem. That is where folks attempted to cast a ballot for one presidential candidate and the screen literally jumped in an attempt to default the vote for Bush. We know, of course, the infamous precinct where less than 700 people voted yet the machines attempted to record 4,000 extra votes for Bush. Of course, the intolerably long lines in low-income communities, especially communities of color, African American communities, which is a function of the allocation of voting machines, decisions made by a republican Secretary of State where too few machines went into African American communities. We know that there are over 92,000 ballots that are literally being discarded, or the so-called spoiled ballots where there was an alleged overvote or undervote. It's the hanging chad problem all over again. We're demanding that the votes need to be looked at to determine whether there was an intent to actually cast a ballot or not. These provisional ballots, and the high number of them are really problematic, because so many were cast because long-time voters simply disappeared from the voter roles. We don't know why. There was an illegal use of I.D. requirements for voters that were illegal under Ohio law. This is just the tip of the iceberg, Amy. We haven't even touched upon the inherent problems with black box voting. I'm talking about reports on the ground flooding in by the thousands of people in Ohio who experienced voting rights violations as they attempted to exercise their right to vote. So, I don't know if this recount is going to result in changing the election results. Frankly, that's not my intent. My intent is to attempt to do two things, really. To raise a cloud over the legitimacy of this election and George Bush. We know that Bush stole the election in 2000. So, I want to just at least raise this point, and the second thing I want to do is to have a healthy discussion and create the political space necessary for that discussion to describe the systemic changes that are necessary so that we, the people, can have confidence in the legitimacy of our elections.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to David Cobb, Green Party presidential candidate for 2004. I want to know if you have talked to the Democratic Party about what they're doing with their money, looking at the report from the Center for Public Integrity they did a day before the election. John Kerry has $51 million left. That is more than any presidential candidate ever had. He has, I think, George Bush had something around $25 million. So, he has about, oh, or $27 million. He has about $17 million more than George Bush. Compare $51 million to what Gore had after 2000. He had something like $3-something million. Center for Public Integrity asked the Kerry campaign what they were going to do with this money. They refused to say. But have you been in communication with them? Have they talked about putting some of this money into recount efforts?

DAVID COBB: No, we haven't had a formal conversation with the Kerry campaign. Frankly, Amy, we have been too busy putting our grassroots effort together on the fly. We did not expect, frankly, in the Green Party, to be the only party – well, with our friends in the Libertarian Party, we didn't expect to be in the process of having to demand the recount, if these allegations had come through. So we're putting together our team on the fly to stand up for the rights of Americans to demand the recount. So, we do know that the $50 million is available. We do know that it would be available for recounts, but so far there's been a deafening silence on the part of the Kerry campaign. I do want to make a distinction here between the leadership of the Democratic Party and the rank and file members of the Democratic Party, the rank and file members of the Democratic Party on this issue seem to be howling with indignation and are -- we're getting words of support and emails and letters of encouragement. I'm not surprised, because the rank and file members of the Democratic Party are infinitely more progressive than the leadership of the Democratic Party or of John Kerry.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that John Kerry simply doesn't want to look like a sore loser and is looking to 2008 and could possibly use these funds towards that?

DAVID COBB: You know, Amy, that conclusion certainly does not escape me, and -- but I don't know why John Kerry is so silent but he is complicit in his silence. And he is certainly complicit in a concession speech which was a downright capitulation. Especially in light of all of the evidence that was already available about voting rights violations that occurred in Ohio. Many people, in fact everybody who was associated with the campaign in Ohio, on the night of the election, was absolutely convinced that there would be at least a recount, and probable litigation. So, we were stunned the next day when Kerry conceded. Why he did so, you know, is speculation that we can all do. If it's true that he conceded and then tried to basically brush aside all of the voting rights violations in some effort to position himself for 2008, I think that that is a profound mistake, and even more than simply a strategic mistake, I think it's shameful. About as shameful as what's happening in Fallujah, by the way.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cobb, are you calling for John Kerry to un-concede?

DAVID COBB: Listen, I think that it's -- I don't want John Kerry to be in the White House. I'd like to be in the White House. I think that the people deserve a peace candidate in the White House. The people of the United States deserve a candidate calling for universal health care and a living wage and end to the prison industrial complex, but the reality is, Amy, it's obvious that I did not win the White House. I'm calling for whoever won the presidential election to be in the White House. We don't know who that is at this point. It stuns me that John Kerry is silent, but it -- I'm proud that the Green Party is standing up.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cobb, I want to thank you for being with us. Again, the Green Party presidential candidate, together with the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, are calling for a recount of the votes in Ohio, Ralph Nader for a recount of the votes in Ohio.

DAVID COBB: Thank you, Amy. If I could, for listeners, if you want to get involved either as a donor or as a volunteer on the recount effort, please go to our website, [url=http:///www.votecobb.org]www.votecobb.org[/url].

AMY GOODMAN: Thanks very much for being with us.

DAVID COBB: My pleasure.

AMY GOODMAN: Again, David Cobb calling for that recount in Ohio, Nader calling for it in New Hampshire.

James, seriously, man. This is a news site. Just as much as any you refer to. How the hell are you being insulted by me posting a story from a site, that you could just as easily have gotten off of any mainstream media's site? Oh so, these News companies that are "well known" and owned by just a few people is the only place I should go looking for news at. Riiighht. You insult yourself when you only go to specific spots for your news and information, as opposed to alternate independent media sources. Your attempting to do what I was mentioning in the last thread, de-rail or attempt to mock the thread creator. Please, just stick to the topic, and discussion at hand instead of deflecting to the site in which the story came from. Give me one thing on truthout.org that has been debunked or is a lie. If you find any on that site, I won't post from it on RM again.

http://www.truthout.org/

If you can't then please, as I stated in the other thread STFU.

I appreciate that you actually replied in part to the thread, I do. But then you had to ruin it at the end, seriously man.

-Back on topic-

I didn't know that was you concede it's all over. Even if fraud is revealed later? Remember the Electoral College hasn't ruled yet. As well, only the media determined who our President is, and they all had different numbers the whole night. So obviously no one actually knew what it was. Then all these thousands more people that voted in some key States. If you were fooled into thinking you lost, when you actually may have won, can nothing be done cause he conceded?

A concession by a political candidate has ZERO legal effect.

--PunkDavid

You getting your news from a site that indicts Republicans as a nazi party, fascists and racists would be the same as me getting a 2nd amendment article from the NRA's website, or worse, a costume guide for Halloween from the KKK's website.

Your beliefs and my respect for your freedom of speech does not transcend the nausea that builds every time I see a site that depicts blacks as ignorant, soldiers as poor, disenfracnhised despots, and conservatives as Nazis.

Neutrality is the backbone of interest aggregation. Just an idea. News is news.



A majority of the news represented in the publications I provided to you as options for a more defined result of "what is news" and "respectability" are canonized not by the few people that run them; they are initiated, and have been initiated, by the masses.

I'm sure you feel that going to your own private Idaho where the left solicits as little thought and objectivity as possible for your news makes you some kind of individual seperate from us dummies out here that read stuff that requires folding and inked hands, but I'd like to point out, the more you alienate yourself from association with a majority source, the less you are taken seriously.



Going to "alternate" media sources is about as sensible as going to an "alternate" means of wiping my ass. If it works, it works.



I wasn't trying to derail. Media sources can be scrutinized. I always say, I'd expect the same if I posted a "news" article from Newsday or Townhall.



k.



Notice she is not a "he". Read the caption carefully.

In other words, you got a deal.




Remember the Gore debacle in 2000? He conceded then changed his end result to get back in the race.



Even if fraud were proven, the Supreme Court would rule who the successor would be. I'm not an expert on election laws. I'm sure google has something.



But the EC is proportional to the popular vote. 2000 was an oddity. Keep your fingers crossed, but don't break them.



Funny, in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EC, when Bush lost the popular vote. Now you're saying that the media ruled it out, but we haven't counted the EC... even if Bush stole the 2000 election.

When you pick a system that works for you, let me know.



It depends, again, on the Supreme Court and the time frame. If nothing's done before Lame Duck is up, no. I'm certain nothing can be done.

i read in the paper a few weeks back that a county in nc was told these electronic voting machines could record a little over 10,000 votes...a county of under 9,000. So they got only one machine...which turned out to only hold a little over 3,000 votes...all those other thousands of votes?? oppesy daisy!!

I realize that everyone is a little frustrated around here due to RM withdrawl, but it doesn't seem that even our most clearheaded members are thinking very clearly today. I'm not sure that you're even arguing the same points with one another.

Here's where we stand on the election/challenges/recounts/concessions. Absent MASSIVE voter fraud in Florida and Ohio, George W. Bush won the popular vote, and no challenge is going to change that fact. HOWEVER, we don't elect our President based on popular vote, so if a challenge in Ohio were successful, John Kerry would win the Electoral Vote, and lose the popular vote, just like Bush did in 2000.

What about Kerry's concession? No effect. As James pointed out, Al Gore conceded in 2000, only to withdraw his concession hours later when it appeared that the results may not have been accurate. But it didn't matter whether he had ever conceded, or who heard him concede, or how long it was before he withdrew that concession. It has NO LEGAL EFFECT.

What does have a legal effect is when the states certify their election results and assign their electors for the electoral college. Several states, including Ohio, have not yet certified their results, and the electors are chosen in early December sometime. But that is not the end of it.

Even as late as the day that the electors present their votes to the House of Representatives in the first week of January, the elction results can be challenged. You all saw F 9/11. All you need is one member of the House and one Member of the Senate to challenge the results. The reason no Senator challenged the vote in 2000 was because Al Gore TOLD THEM NOT TO. It would have caused a Constitutional crisis, and since nobody could have predicted how bad Bush would be as President, it was decided that it would be better for the country if the whole ugly matter were just put to rest.

--PunkDavid

Study lesson for 2008

Conceding 101: Quite relying on MEDIA projections. Don't concede until after all the votes have been counted.

*yawn*

"The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." - Alexander Tyler, Scottish historian

I'm not apathetic by any means. Please don't confuse my unwillingness to patronize the absurd conspiracy theorists that get the majority of their information from liberal web blogs with apathy. Now, like I said, . . . *yawn*

Dizzamn.

I think the true lesson is uniform polling methods on a state level at minimum are something our nation and states have to invest in and invest in right freaking now.

Where is there a conspiracy theory? Do you think E-Voting is 100% accurate and secure? It's obviously not. All the while mounting evidence of tinkering and rigging is apparent, even reported by AP and Reuters, hopefully those aren't liberal sources...Fuckin' waste of my time...

OK, but I fail to see what is absurd about making sure the vote was accurate when so many problems and potential problems have come to light. That you don't have any concern with electronic voting is absurd to me.

My God, you guys act like there aren't problems in any other precinct, district, county or state in the country when it comes to elections (both local, state and national). There is nothing novel here. Do you suggest filing a lawsuit in Bay County Michigan because old Ethel Clemens meant to vote for Kerry but instead voted for Bush because the font size of the ballots wasn't big enough for her to read? How about precinct captains in Cook County Illinois that were blatantly electioneering for Kerry while in the polling places? Should I, along with other disgruntled voters, file a lawsuit to "make sure every vote is counted?"

My point is, you could go through every election in the country with a fine-tooth comb and find problems or irregularities. Does that mean we should automatically call for recounts or additional elections? Of course not. What this represents is a collosal waste of taxpayers' time and money.

No election or vote is 100% accurate or secure. So what do you suggest?

If ATM machines can make a mistake once in a million, my voting machine should do at least as well.

--PunkDavid