Nader - Blackwell I - VII + Conclusion

The following section analyzes the Nader- Blackwell ballot process.

Nader - Blackwell I

Some 2004 election obvservers have argued that Ohio’s Secretary of State Blackwell acted in a partisan manner during the general election, so as to garner for himself copious amounts of media publicity with a view to helping his 2006 governor’s campaigan. As a secondary motive, by virtue of his being co-chair of Bush/Cheney’s ’04 Ohio campaign, he worked in order to help President George W. Bush win the Ohio’s electoral votes.

The undersigned argues that Blackwell operated correctly in the Nader situation. The short answer as to why Blackwell’s actions obeyed the law and helped Ohio’s voters is this:

1) Florida - 36 days
2) Ohio - 14 hours.

In the face of a media zoo, 527's, 3rd party challenges, 1st party challenges, and criminal accusations, Blackwell stood firm and eventually had every level of court prove him right in the Nader lawsuit.

Nader - Blackwell II

On September 28, 2004 about 6:15 p.m. the AP broke with the story that Ohio SOS Blackwell had ruled that Ralph Nader would be removed from the Presidential slate for the 2004 General Election. Already having inundated the public with considerable amounts of rhetoric pertaining to Nader’s status, the various parties would churn out large numbers of Tocqevillian-like lawsuits so as to attain legal victory in their interpretations what constituted the correct presidential ballot.

The September 28th decision occurred after Blackwell had validated only 3,708 signatures, leaving the former consumer advocate 1,292 signatures short of the 5,000 needed to be placed on the ballot. Over a three-week span, beginning back on August 18, local election boards had invalidated 8,009 signatures out of the original 14,473 signatures submitted by Nader's supporters. By September 8, only 6,464 valid signatures remained.

By September 1, the state Democratic party had hired the Kirkland and Ellis law firm to represent it during the normal administrative reviews. Attorney Don McTigue headed a legal team that lined up multiple witnesses, who admitted to signing off on petitions they had not circulated, as well as lending their addresses and names, as Ohio residents, to the forms. Several said they were completely unaware of Nader's existence as a human, who lived on planet earth. McTigue declared to the press-pool on September 1,

“Well, A review of petitons by a handwring writing experts has disclosed about a dozen forged signatures… There is some precedent in Ohio, actually a 1913 supreme Court case, that permits elections officials to invalidate whole elections ballots by the same circulator, where it is shown that there are numerous examples of misrepresentations. We think that we will be able to show that. [Butler County] has knocked out over 90%... Our interest, here, is ensuring that voters have a choice between all legitimate candidates. And by legitamate I mean those who have followed Ohio law to get on the ballot.”

By using the terms ‘forged,’ ‘misrepresentations,’ and illegitimacy in the election war of words, McTigue hopes to link negative emotions in regards to inciting reactions to Nader’s candidacy. Not sure if they would win at the hearings, the Democratic strategy adhered to the usual election laws: verbally tar-and-feather your opponent in order to drive up his negative poll-numbers.

Kevin Zeese, spokesman for Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, answered McTigue’s charges by declaring

“Here you have Ohio registered voters taking the time out to stop and sign to put Nader’s name on the ballot and the Democrats are saying we don’t care what you want, we are going to make sure you don’t have that choice… And neither party of the two major parties wants a candidate on the ballot who favors an end of the war and occupation of Iraq; who favors health care for all; living wage for all; and who is really challenging corporate control of our government.”

Zeese aimed to implant into the public consciousness the idea that Democrats refuse to let the voters make an honest choice for POTUS. Zeese’s strategy was the reverse of the Democratic one.

Nader - Blackwell III

McTigue spun on September 15th, the day before the hearings,

“What we will be proving at the hearing is that on many of these petitions there is false information provided regarding the circulator. That is something the boards would not catch. This is a problem of his [i.e., Nader’s] own making. He used paid circulators, and paid circulators are notorious for these kind of mistakes.”

Again the use of negative words such as ‘false,’ ‘problem,’ ‘notorious,’ and ‘mistake.’ Entirely appropos in their defeat would be the Democratic defeat in Ohio because the paid employees from ACT, Soros’ minions, and other Democratic 527’s would register less voters than would the Rove-Mehlman directed volunteers.

Zeese rejoindered to the Democratic comments,

“They knew what they were signing for. The views of the voters should come first. If voters want Ralph Nader and Peter Green on the ballot, that should be allowed… You’re seeing both Repub-licans and Democrats, two wings of the coroporate party, trying to keep us off the ballot.”

Attempting to shift the vocus to the Democratic thievery as well as to placing Republican, as opposed to national, interests first, the Nader camp decried the subversion tactics of the two major parties

Nader - Blackwell IV

On the day of the hearings, September the sixteenth, the Democrats under the suspices of lawyer Andrew Clubock characterized them as follows,

“Every citizen of Ohio should be shocked and outraged by what’s gone on. Democrats , Republicans, Nader supporterss, and Ralph Nader himself should all agree that elections in this country have got to be fair and free from fraud."

Hoping to associated in the public’s mind not only the parallel ideas of freedom and fairness with the Democratic party, but also the the ideas of crookery and desperateness, Clubock feigned innocence at what the hearings produced in regards to the activities of JSM, inc.

When asked if the signed petitions would be withdrawn, Kevin Zeese’s response to Clubock’s accusations was,

Absolutely not. We deserve to be on the ballot. The voters deserve to have a choice. Democrats should start competing.

Zeese again advocated the issue of Democratic cheating and their attempts at voter suppression.
In testimony at the hearings, the SoS discovered that for twenty dollars Jill Lane of Dayton signed the petition in place of her Calfironia cousin Michael Jones. She stated,

“He said, ‘well beforehand if you don’t mind, would you sign the bottom so we can turn them in, because we’re not allowed to sign that part. I did asked him if it was all right. He said ‘yeah cousin, all the years I been comin’, you know…”

Partially aware of her cousin’s doubtful request, Lane expressed doubt about the legality of her cousin’s actions. She did, however, sign the petition upon her cousin’s assurances of legality.

Democratic attorney Clubok further analyzed the first day of testimony in the following manner,

“I think anyone who witnessed it or heard it would be stunned, shocked, outraged that people from out of state would come in here and try to subvet the elections process by comitting various fraud. You heard about falseification. You heard about deception.”

Again the Democrats hope in the battle of words to link in the public consciousness the corruption of Nader and his minions by using such terms as “stunned, shocked, outraged,” “subvert,” “fraud,” and “falsification.”

Nader Attorney Daniel Hillson responded that no fraud was linked unto Nader’s campaign,

“You heard every single witness say not only were they not associated with Ralph Nader, they don’t even know who he is. What we’ve proven so far, is that we have one family in Dayton Ohio, that basically committed election fraud. There has been no evidence that any of these individuals acted on behalf of the Ralph Nader campaign. In fact election testimony directly stated they did not. They don’t even know who Ralph Nader is."

Seeming to realize that the proverbial hand-writing was on the wall in respect to achieving victory in the fradu-hearings, Nader’s campaign planned to separate itself from any fraud accusations.

Nader - Blackwell V

Finally, on Tuesday the 28th, Gretchen Quinn, elections counsel for Blackwell's office, ruled after four days of testimony in the Secretary's offices, that an additional 2,756 signatures were invalid. Thus Blackwell approved of the invalidation of 10,765 pro-Nader signatures .Nader spokesman, Kevin Zeese, claimed that the elections boards had wrongly invalidated about 1,300 of the 8,009 signatures. Nader and his supporters planned to appeal to the Supreme Court. JSM, inc., the company with which Nader had signed a contract to collect the signatures, could not be reached at its Florida phone listing. Nader and his attorneys had previously agreed to toss out 400 signatures when it became apparent that a California employee of JSM, inc., had improperly collected them.

Ohio Republicans projected an air of un-concern about the whole affair. Jason Mauk, Ohio GOP spokesman, stated that the party remained unconcerned about the entire case. Ohio's BC '04 spokesman Kevin Madden declared

"Our campaign is focused on building our grass-roots organization and getting the president's positive message out to the people of Ohio."

He laid no claim to any knowledge about the hearing and declined to comment on the difference that Nader's presence might have on the ballot.

Democrats called the ruling a fair one and proclaimed that Nader's petitioners were out-of-bounds. Dan Trevas, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, described the whole issue as moot. He said,

"it's a question we'll never know the answer to because Ralph Nader chose to break the law in an attempt to get on the ballot... [We] started getting calls from our folks at county fairs and in the streets of Ohio that this activity looked sus picious. The more we dug, the more it looked rotten."

Having achieved the legal victory they desired, Democrats endeavored to turn off voters in their emotions and intellects as regards Ralph Nader since he still remained on some 36 state ballots.

Filing a false signature is a prosecutable felony in Ohio as is when an out-of-state persons works as a petition/signature filer in Ohio. No felony charges were ever filed as a result of this SoS hearing.

Nader - Blackwell VI

Six days after Blackwell’s ruling, Nader and his supporters filed a motion of appeal in the Ohio SC on Tuesday October 4, to get his name placed back onto the Ohio ballot.Nine days after Ohio SOS Blackwell removed Nader from the presiental slate, Nader sued the state on Thurs, October 7 in a U.S. District Court of Appeals. Nader argued that the 1,971 signatures, which Blackwell invalidated because the circulator lived out-of-state, had had their constituional rights violated.On Tuesday October 12, Blackwell decided to contend the lawsuit in court because

"Ohio law requires that circulators of candidate petitions be Ohio voters... That is the law of the state and that will continue to be the law of the state until it is changed."

This latter fact came to light when Democrats had presented valid evidence that the petitioners registered at fraudulent addresses or places where they did not live.

Nader also planned to ask the SC to force county boards of elections to double-check their voter rolls for recently registered voters, who had not only signed Nader's petition but also whose names were left off of election rolls owing to a backlog of newly registering voters. Nader did not deny that the rest of the signatures were invalid but that only the 1,971 should be made valid b/c a circulator's place of residence should not matter.

On Tuesday October 12, 2004 U.S. Judge Edmund Sargus, a Clinton appointee, ruled against Nader in deciding that the fraud outweighed the constitutional issues Nader raised. He wrote,

"Regardless of how the Court would resolve the question of whether a state law requiring circulators to be state residents is constitutional, the fact remains that the signatures would be excluded on the grounds of several forms of fraud on the part of the circulators."

He explained that absent any sign of fraud, especially pointing to the "unclean hands" of Nader's signature organization, he stated that he would gladly rehear the case on constituional grounds.
Sargus’ ruling, handed down just a half-hour after he heard oral arguments in the case, upheld a Sept. 28 decision by Ohio SoS Blackwell removing Nader from the Nov. 2 ballot.

The Democratic attorney, Andrew Clubok citing "rampant fraud" on the part of the Nader organization had asked the court to delay its hearing. They cited a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which said a federal court should not interfere with a pending state case except in unusual or drastic circumstances.

Sargus ruled

"This is a federal election. The hour is late and if this court were to abstain, no federal court would be able to take action."

The judge thus contradicted the latter Democrat petition since to avoid action, would open the door for electoral chaos to enter in.

In 1999 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that a Colorado law requiring petition circulators to be registered voters was unconstitutional. A court majority, however, declined to address whether the Colorado law requiring circulators to be state residents is unconstitutional."In view of the [1999 decision], it appears clear that the requirement of Ohio law that circulators be registered is unconstitutional," Judge Sargus wrote. Thus Sargus made his decision so as to end to the whole mess, however, he expressed a lack of confidence in the constitutionality of his own decision. His decision can be described, then, as oxymorinc. Furthermore, the Dems agreed with and liked Blackwell in hin his interpretations of this case since he upheld Ohio law, however, they would "change" their mind about him later.

Nader - Blackwell VII

On Weds, October 13 Nader appealed the case to the 6th U.S. Circut Court of Appeals, which issued its ruling on Tuesday October 19, stating:

"The state administrative hearing officer found substantial evidence of fraud by the petition circulators which is supported by the evidence."

The three-judge panel also wrote that Nader failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in his case.Nader's spokesman Kevin Zeese stated the final decision rested with Ohio's Supreme Court. Nader's lawyers Kevin Cassidy and Mark A. Brown could not be reached for comment.

On Friday October 22, Nader asked the US Supreme Court to review Ohio's decision to remove him, arguing that a state law requiring people who collect signatures on candidates' petitions be registered voters, violated free speech rights. After hearing Nader’s request, Justice John Paul Stevens sent the matter to the full court.

On Saturday October 23, the Ohio SC rejected the appeal of Ralph Nader in a 6-1 decision. They stated that Nader’s campaign had filed its complaint too late and submitted it to the wrong place. He should have instead made his case earlier to Ohio SoS Blackwell. The court concluded that putting Nader on the ballot "at this late date would endanger Ohio’s election preparations."

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, in a dissenting opinion, stated that a properly certified Nader should be placed onto the Ohio ballot "because his supporters have the right to be heard as much as supporters of the other candidates."

On Tuesday October 26 the US Supreme Court declined to put independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the battleground state of Ohio. The justices denied the request without comment on Tuesday.

Nader had by this point also lost his battle to be placed on the Pennsylvania ballot, thus leaving him on only 34 states (New Mexico and Oregon removed him too).

Nader - Blackwell Conclusions
In the end the Courts upheld Blackwell's allegations of fraud on the part of Nader's workers. Howwever, neither Nader himself nor his campaign ever were aware of the fraud by JSM, inc.
Judge Sargus practically delcared Ohio's circulator's law, which denied out-of-state circulators from collecting signatures, to be unconstitutional. However, the circulators' signatures contained too much fraud to be considered valid.

Therefore, we can conclude the following about the whole Nader v. Blackwell boxing match:

1. Blackwell and the Dems were correct on the observing fraud in the collecting of signatures, though the problem rested with JSM, inc., not Nader.
2. Blackwell somewhat lost as regards his interpretation of Ohio's circulator law.
3. Let there be no doubt that part of this Dem move occurred for purposes of getting power, and that angered the 3rd party candidates.
4. Nader could have filed for write-in status in Ohio but he missed the deadline because he assumed that his lawsuits would win.
5. The generally even-handed consumer advocate Nader errupted in anger at Blackwell by demanding that the SoS resign in disgrace because

"When people are standing in line for four or five hours and they are told they've go to stand in line for another five hours and they leave because they've got to go to work or they got to pick up their child at day care, that's a constitutional crime."

Nader’s allegations of constitutional criminality on the Blackwell’s part were eerily prescient as a prelude to statements made by many both during and after the November 2. Standing in line for a long time, however, is not unconstitutional, since roller coaster rides such as the ones currently operating at Cedar Point Amusement Park in Sandusky, Ohio could not be ridden by anyone at all.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

Governor Polls IV

Date: December 15, 2004
Conducted: Nov 30 - Dec. 5

Source: SoS Blackwell, Market Strategies Inc. of Michigan, Triad Research (Ohio) and The Clevland Plain Dealer and Ken Blackwell's homepage.

Sec of State J. Kenneth Blackwell: 36%
State Auditor Betty Montgomery: 21%
State Attorney General Jim Petro: 18%
Undecided/will not vote in primary: 25%

511 Registered Republicans who voted in 1998 primary, 2002 primary, or both: MOE + 4.4%

Know enough about candidates to make a decision: 21% - NO

Change since (Montgomery poll) one year ago:
SoS Ken Blackwell (23%) +13%
SA Montgomery (32%) -11%
SAG Jim Petro (17%) +1%

Favorable/Unfavorable
SoS Ken Blackwell in Cinncinati: 77% (F)
SA Montgomery in rest of state, excluding Cincy 50%+
AG Jim Petro in Columbus only has 50%+ (F); in Clevland: 50%+ (U)

Don't forget to donate to Ken Blackwell
Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

Governor Polls III

Early Straw Poll: July 26, 2004

Source: The Columbus Dispatch as reported by WCPO TV: ABC 9

1,729 (others)*
972 (R)
+ 706 (D)
= 3,407 Randomly Selected Registered Voters: MOE +2%
Conducted July 14 - 23

Auditor Betty Montgomery (R): 41%
USA Rep Sherrod Brown (D) : 21%

Among the 972 Republicans:

1) SoS Blackwell: 36%
1) SA Montgomery: 36%
3) AG Jim Petro: 29%

Among the 706 Democrats:
State Sen. Eric Fingerhut (Cleveland): 23%
USA Representative Sherrod Brown: 22%

Congressman Ted Strickland,
Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, and
Jerry Springer trailed (but no numerical score was listed).

*Please note that the poll data did not indicate if the same 972 (R)'s and 706 (D)'s were polled repeatedly until 3,407 total phone calls were made or if an 1,729 additional Ohioans, who did not identify their political party, were polled. The Editor chooses the latter

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

Governor Polls II

Early Straw Poll: December 02, 2003

Source: State Auditors Betty Montgomery's Campaign , Tarrance Group (Alexandria, VA), & Cinncinati Enquirer

Surveyed Repulicans: No number given, no MOE

Montgomery: 32%
Ken Blackwell:23%
AG Jim Petro:17%

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

Governor Polls

Early Polls: June 19, 2003

Source: Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings for Republicans:
State Auditor Betty Montgomery ---> 53%/12%,
State Attorney General Jim Petro ---> 42%/19%;
Secretary of State Ken Blackwell ---> 38%/14%.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

updates

To all sections of 'Challengers' -Blackwell, excluding the first, I have added some new material and rearranged other 'old' material.

Just ignore the whole pre-appended, update info at the beginning of each blog entry. Whole-sale changes, as I just wrote, have been made to almost every section. Therefore changes have occured after some of the update dates.

Please be patient as to the general lack of speed as we have yet to enter into any depth as regards 2003, and the most fun of all, the election year debacle of 2004.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell I

Some 2004 election observers have argued that Ohio SoS Blackwell harmed himself for the '06 Ohio governor election with his seemingly irrational, bizarre, and incosistent decisions pertaining to placing "Challengers" in election polling places.

The undersigned argues contrarily that Blackwell acted for the protection of Ohio voters by attempting to reform a defunct, challenger law for the following two reasons:

1) to prevent on election day itself, a chaos beyond that of the Palestinian reaction to Arafat's coffin, and,
2) to prevent Ohio from becoming a post-election fiasco exceeding that of the 36-day, 2000 Bush-Gore Florida drama.

That Blackwell succeeded can be demonstrated by the following statistic:
1) Florida 2000: 36 days
2) Ohio in 2004: 14 hours.

Blackwell's fault, well-intended though it was, occurred because he ignored the chief maxim of politics: never produce major legislation in an election year, the year preceding it, or four days prior to the election proper.

While Blackwell acted within his capacity as member of the executive branch in suspending the law, he erred in his attempt to legislate via litigation on 29-October-2004. Blackwell's action must also be viewed against the backdrop of the Ohio Challenger Law and his Herculean efforts to overcome the Aegean Stable of Politics: entrenched bearacracy. Blackwell experienced first-hand the cumbersome burden of bearacracy at both the state and national level in his attempt to fix Ohio's outdated voting systems.


Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell II.A

On October 29, 2004 after Ohio SoS Blackwell issued an elections memo stating

"I have instructed the Attorney General to offer the following recommendation to the federal courts.. for resolution of these matters now: All challengers of all parties shall be excluded from polling places throughout the state,"

therby banning any challenger from any party observing the election process, all media hell broke loose. With charges of 'disenfranchisement, partisan' from the left, countercharges of 'way to stop those leftist cheaters' from the right, and extremists strongly and bitterly denouncing Blackwell all across the media wires, a late-breaking election firestorm broke loose.

So what really happened, why did Blackwell issue such a decree, and what does the law say? The following will examine the slow winding process of the 'challenger' law from its Civil War inception to its current status.

In short, the law allows any party running candidates in any election, generally just the Republicans and Democrats, to place one 'challenger' apiece into various precincts, wherein the designated persons may, if they sense some sort of fraud taking place, challenge a voter's eligibility. Both parties have historically adhered to this tradition without overproducing the numbers of challengers and challenges.

However, the chance exists that such an action could take place owing to the checkered past of the law. In the beginning the disputed election law did indeed originate in the Jim Crow era, if not slightly before it. Sources thus far have traced the law back to pre-Civil War era, since the lawmakers wrote the law back, when no black Africans could legally vote. The legislators designed the law not against blacks, since they were non-entities anyways, but rather to prohibit any white male (women could not vote and would not for another 60 years), whom poll workers suspected of having African blood in his genes, from casting a ballot. Back then, any election official, working in cahoots with a judge, could object to a suspected African-ancestry voter, thereby keeping them from casting a ballot.

In 1867, five years after Abraham Lincoln had enacted the Emancipation proclamation thereby providing the moral impetus to write and pass the 14th and 15th amendments, the Ohio State Legislature slightly amended the law by tossing out the ancestry objection, only. The remaining part of the law retained its force and remained unchanged for another 87 years.

In 1953 the law recieved the wonkish title of Ohio Revised Code, 3505.20. Since the law received its revision, no lawsuit has ever demonstrated the unconstiutional application of the law in any case whatsoever. The laws denies a 'challenger' the right to touch, speak to, or harass any voter. The law allows any 'challenger' the right to speak to a precinct poll official only. While the two parties have used the law, no challenged voter has ever demonstrated a constitutional misapplication of the law, i.e., the 'challenger' always righly applied the law, even if the accusation turned out to be false, and the proper official ruled for the defendent.

Thus the law as revised prohibited any discrimination against the voters. In 1964 the federal statute pulled even with Ohio's state statute. Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson, along with Republican Senate Majority Leader Everett Dirkson (IL) and 21 of his republican colleagues, passed the 1964 Civil Rights act. The Southern Democtrats along with eight Republicans, including the Republican nominee for president, Senator Barry Goldwater (AZ) voted against the bill's passage.

The latter lost. The Republican party was seriously maimed, because LBJ successfully labeled the Republican Establishment during the '64 campaign as discriminatory for having opposed the Civil Rights Act. In accordance with the law then, the South desegragated its business establishments. South and North were racially united.

However, the law, as twice ammended, possessed gigantic possible trouble-spots for every good that it worked. The next section will examine the law in actuality.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell II.B

In its current form the key parts of Ohio Revised Code 3505.20 read,

"Any person offering to vote may be challenged at the polling place by any challenger, any elector then (sic!) lawfully in the polling place, or by any judge or clerk of elections... If any person is so challenged as unqualified to vote, the presiding judge shall tender the person the following oath: "You do swear or affirm that you will fully and truly answer all of the following questions put to you, touching your place of residence and your qualifications as an elector at this election...

"If a person challenged refuses to answer fully any question put to the person, is unable to answer the questions as they were answered on the registration form by the person under whose name the person offers to vote, refuses to sign the person's name or make the person's mark, or if for any other reason a majority of the judges believes the person is not entitled to vote, the judges shall refuse the person a ballot... The decision of said judges shall be final as to the right of the person challenged to vote at such election."

Section 3505.20 presents a problem, in the realm of, a possibility for chaos, since any challenger, without presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, can object to another registered voter's legal right to vote. Immediately after the challenge, the presiding election officer has the sworn obligation to investigate the suspected voter, under oath too, with a laundry-list of 10 questions about the suspect's residency, citizenship, purpose of visit, age, etc...

Upon the conclusion of the 'trial', the poll workers of that particular precinct and specific building must take a vote upon the eligibility of the 'defendant.' The decision of the poll workers remains final, and should the 'plaintiff' (or 'challenger') win, the 'defendant' possesses no right of appeal.

So who is or can be a challenger: According to Ohio Revised Code 3505.21

"At any primary, special, or general election, any political party supporting candidates to be voted upon at such election and any group of five or more candidates may appoint to any of the polling places in the county or city one person, a qualified elector, who shall serve as challenger for such party or such candidates during the casting of the ballots, and one person, a qualified elector, who shall serve as witness during the counting of the ballots; provided that one such person may be appointed to serve as both challenger and witness."

The latter quote makes sense because the party or parties nominate ambassadors, who serve as 'fairness' observers during the election processes occuring in the various precincts. As a general rule of thumb, this law would keep the number of 'challenger's below 10, since, usually, ten or less parties place candidates onto the ballot. Additionally, 3505.21 allows any group of challengers to appoint one person as their challenger of choice to observe the process.

This process presents a Mack-truck size of a hole for any part wishing to skew, distort, and ruin the state's elections result. A 'challenger' could filibuster all day, then, by challenging every single voter who entered into a precinct. The elections officials must, by force of law, question every single challenged voter. The possible results are almost to chaotic to comprehend. Entire precincts would be paralyzed, thereby ruining election day. Then the precinct would have to issue provisional ballots to all the challenged voters at the soonest possible moment, which more than likely, would take place the next day because the filbuster would outlast people's patience and energy to stay awake. However, by the day after the election, most people are aware of the results are, even if a candidate has failed to win a majority of the Electoral Votes. The voters would be biased in their votes, knowing that their vote either counted more than or less than another citizen's vote, since the rest of the citizens voted unkowingly about the result. One party could very easily de-legitamize the victory of the other party with this parlimentary filibuster tactic. To extrapolate further, this law could destroy the US in its entirety, ruining an entire election.

Ohio had to operate its 2004 voting day not only during an intense, stressful election, but also all-the-while attempting to close this gap, the size of semi-truck . Blackwell attempted to remove the hole from the scene, thereby, seeming to overturn some 150 years of tradition, with his October 29 action.

The next spate of articles, beginning with Florida, 2000, will examine the cases leading up to Blackwell's so-called 'mishandling' of the event.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell - II.C

"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. And I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time,"

said Vice President Al Gore on 12-December-2000. A grateful nation sighed in relief for the ending of the 36-day election debacle of Florida, 2000.

Thus began the desire in each state to avoid the debacle incurred in Florida. In reality only a perfect storm of lawers, lawsuits, corruption, greed, hatred, massive chaos, a close, intense election about far-reaching issues could possibly impact the national election the way that Florida did. That possibility could be avoided if punch-card balloting machines were eliminated.

Blackwell and Ohio vowed to avoid such a path, especially since 70 out of 88 Ohio counties used punchcards, similar to Florida, as their preferred voting system. Blackwell acted almost immediately after Bush's victory at the Ohio Association of Elections Officials (OAEO) summit on January 9, 2001 in Columbus Ohio, wherein he explained to 300 various election officials that changes needed to be made with regards to Ohio's Election's process. He stated

"We can view the 2000 presidential election not as a debacle or a disaster, but as a wonderful learning experience. It has created a great opportunity for us. An opportunity to generate proactive ideas and actions that will make our election system more secure, more modern, and more trustworthy than ever.... The elections system in Ohio has run very smoothly, yet we must take precautions to ensure that we maintain Ohioans’ trust in that system... In turn, we now have an opportunity to learn and to make changes and improvements where necessary."

This election summit provided fertile soil to sow seeds of election-reform, whereby the elected officials could then improve Ohio's election system as well as gain the trust of Ohio's voters. Bush wouldn't be innaugarated until Saturday 20-January-2001.

On January 30, 2001 State Rep Tom Lendrum (R-Huron) in concurrence with SoS Blackwell and House Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) introduced H.B.5, which clarified various ruling about chads, mandated an Election System Study Committee, chaired by the SoS, to prduce reform goals unto the House of Representative by Oct. 1, 2001. All three issued statements looking forward to reforming the state's voting system, so that every Ohioan's vote would be counted.

On February 13, 2001 Blackwell issued a press-release detailing a panel-discussion about making election-reforms, so as to avoid the Florida 2000 fiasco. Blackwell stated

“This past election was full of trying and exhausting moments that caused many to doubt the elections process in our country. Any doubt of this nature must be cut off at the head. Once citizens’ trust in our democratic system begins to erode, that very system loses its legitimacy and ability to function properly.”

Including Blackwell, the panel included elections officials (6), academics (4), community activists (3), and members of the media (2), for a total of 16 panelists. The panel would set about to fix Ohio's election's process so rebuild the citizen's trust in democracy, as well as fortify the legitamacy of elections.

After beginning at 4 p.m. on February 13 at Deer Creek Resort and Conference Center, 22300 State Park Rd., #20, Mt. Sterling, Ohio, the panel would reconvene on February 14 at 8:30 a.m. At 10:15 a.m., panel would discuss currently pending legislation on the federal and state levels. The bills intended to codify election standards and improve voting devices. At 1:30 p.m., Jan Clair, director of the Lake County Board of Elections, will discuss Lake County’s deliberations about changing from lever-voting machines unto either punch cards or electronic touch screen voting devices. A roundtable discussion among panel participants followed Clair's presentations.

The arrived at the following five conclusions:

1) Elections are state business and should remain so. Federal elections administration and mandates are likely to be burdensome and unsuccessful;
2) All counties should use clear, uniform standards and the same type of voting machines;
3) Ohio should move now to update our voting technology. Yet, any change in voting methods should involve all levels of government: local, state, and federal, working as funding partners;
4) The punch card method of voting has an inherent propensity for higher over- and under-voting than other systems currently in use: it allows for too much error and confusion; and,
5) No election system is 100 percent perfect.

Six days later on February 20 Blackwell testified before the House's State Government committee, whereat he summarized the purpose of the legislation, reviewed the recent summit findings, and urged the committee to act immediately upon this starting point so to better the quality of Ohio's elections.

At this point the potential for improvement seemed limitless and future looked rosy for another session of a smooth-running, general elections in 2004.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell III.A

On February 21 Blackwell made public that he intended to compete for another SoS term rather than run for governor. Governor Taft complimented Blackwell on the 26th with the following comment

“I respect Ken’s decision to continue his public service in Ohio as Secretary of State. I was strongly supportive of him as he explored other potential opportunities to serve. As a former Secretary of State, I have a special appreciation for the role this office plays in the governance of Ohio. Now we know that Ohioans can count on a continuation of Ken Blackwell’s effective service in this statewide office.”

The 'other potential opportunities' were governor or quit running. The short press release was very guarded in its tone as Blackwell had been a fierce critic of Taft and even a former compeititor. As future events would show Blackwell's decision proved to be a very fortuitous choice about who was manning the SoS' helm for the next few years.

Then on March 14, the Ohio State House unanimously passed H.B. 5. As per the sponsors' requests, the bill stengthened the hand of the SoS in issuing directives to local Election Boards; clarified the partial hangings of a chad; and founded a Stated Elections Commission. Section 3501.05, which would prove contentious in the 04' election, gave to the SoS the power to ,

"Issue instructions by directives and advisories to members of the boards as to the proper methods of conducting elections; [and,] Prepare rules and instructions for the conduct of elections."

According to the wording of this law, the SoS could by fiat from his office create or remove laws describing how to conduct the state's election's process. This new wording gave to the Secretary a power simlar to the US President's Executive Order.

Blackwell congratulated the house for strengthening Ohio's election process, while also urging

"it is imperative that we undertake these positive efforts to further reinforce our system. I encourage the state senate to swiftly hold hearings and pass this substantial measure toward election reform.”

On May 8 the Ohio State Senate passed a bill similar to the Houses bill. After Blackwell applauded the Senate for quickly passing its version of the bill, he shifted the focus to analyzing the accuracy, reliability, ease of use and public confidence in the punch-card voting system. Should the method fail to meet the required standards, Blackwell recommended that "it should be eliminated." At this early date he was hinting at unreliability of punch-card voting.

*The Governor then signed the bill on May 29, 2001, giving it an effecitve date of August 08. By the stroke of his pen, Governor Taft aggred to create the eleven-member Election System Study Committee composed of state Senators, Representatives, election board officials, members of the public, and headed by SoS Blackwell. More than likely Taft released a press announcement that he had signed it, but the link is broken on his website. Throughout the rest of the year Taft's office never officially released any press announcements as to what was taking place, but this was to be expected since the ball was now firmly in the Secretary's court.

The Committee held its initial meeting on Aug. 28, 2001. The comittee had planned to release its first draft by September 29, but many RINO's balked at Blackwell's desire to require different, and uniform voting systems for those 70 counties that use punch-card ballots. Other members objected by citing the errosion of local control and aired concerns that replacing the punch card system would become unnecessary and expensive. On October 5, the Committee released its initial report one week late. The Dayton Daily News editorial opined aoubt Blackwell "Give him credit for taking on a tough case."

During the heated meetings Blackwell had forcefully stated his posiition, "I think the punch-card system should go tomorrow.'' Jacobson replied "I do not believe we have been given convincing evidence that the punch-card system is flawed." Later on, during an intense debate over removing punch-card ballots, Blackwell characterized Jacobson's arguements as specious, and offered the Senator his Lewis Carroll-autographed copy of "Through the Looking Glass," owing to the Senator's Alice-in-Wonderland type of arguements.

Finally one month after the assigned due date, on October 29, 2001 the comittee released its final watered-down version, whose purpose was to educate the voters who went to the polls. The bill failed to address the issue of eliminating punch card ballots, because Senator Jeff Jacobson (R) opposed such an action. Blackwell had wanted the machines to provide an audit trail in addition to issuing a paper copy of the ballot, so that voter could then double-check for mistakes, with a view to rectifying any errors. Alas, alas, Jacobson's views passed thereby not allowing the voter to right any wrongs. Blaackwell filed a minority report, but to no avail.

As a consolation prize, Representative Lendrum introduced on April 23, 2002, H.B. 566 into the 124th Assembly. The bill was designed to make cosmetic changes to the election system, such as establishing recount procedures, update the voter registry list and establish a permanent five year subcommittee. The bill was substuted into a committee report on November 2, and then never passed the 3rd consideration, which would have freed it from the committee. The Bill never became law.

*Governor Taft's year in Review never mentioned the Secretary's efforts to improve the voting systems in Ohio. Partly because 9/11 took the focus off the 2000 election debacle, thanks to Al Gore, partly because Blackwell is the State's chief election's officer, and partly because nothing much was achieved by Blackwell, no thanks to Senator Jeff Jacobson, there would be no reason to mention Blackwell. Yet if the Governor had wanted he could have pushed to have a system implemented and hurried up the situation. Yet he did nothing and the issue fermented.

Thus ended the state's role in designing any legislation to effectively deal with the problem. In short the state was impotent and Blackwell received from the state a lump of coal in his Christmas stocking. Only the Feds could step in now to fix the problem.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell III.B

Thankfully, the US House had worked on the problem by producing what would eventually receive the wonkish name of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 2001 & 2002. To reach that point of a finely crafted bill, many hours of testimony and bill crafting took place during 2001, with SoS Blackwell spending much of his time travelling to Washington to testify about improvements needed in election reform.

On Wednesday April 25, 2001 Blackwell testified about election reform before the Committee on House Administration. Following Arkansas' SoS Sharon Priest, Blackwell gave a brief 5 - 10 minute presentation about Ohio's state-induced reforms, the estimated costs for reform ($120 million), and who should foot the bill for such action: the feds. He intoned,

First and foremost, elections are a state business, and should remain so... Second, universal standards must be established to assure voters that each ballot will be counted in the same manner within each individual state. My office estimates that it will cost Ohioans 120 million dollars to replace our punch-card machines... While election reform continues to have widespread public support, the resources to implement these costly upgrades are few or nonexistent... Unfortunately, election systems upgrade efforts across the country have been met with the harsh reality of tight budgets and overtaxed citizens.''

After championing state's rights in the sphere of elections, he advocated federal funding and federally mandated standards. He concluded by urging,

"We must not let this issue get swept under the rug. I encourage the members of this committee to facilitate expedient, thoughtful, and effective measures to assisst our state with election reform results."

Wisdom coupled with speed would serve to produce the best bill possible.

A few months later on June 27 Blackwell returned to Foggy Bottom, but this time he crossed the atrium to visit the committee room of the US Senate. He testified about election reform before the Senate committee of Rules and Administration, addressing the relationships between federal funding to states and federal power over states. He warned,

With financial assistance from the federal government, states will be able to make these changes and improvements. But federal funds should not come with federal mandates. The Schumer-McConnell bill recognizes that elections are state business and should remain so. In no uncertain terms, the U.S. Constitution delegates this responsibility to the states. The founders’ wisdom in this matter is just as apparent today as it was centuries ago... I urge you to act quickly, yet cautiously, in a bipartisan manner to assist our states with their election reform efforts. Thank U.

Boldly Blackwell argued for state's rights and a blank check from the federal government to states to use as they pleased. Citing the Senatorial sponsors of the Bill, the US Constitution, and the American Founders, Blackwell attempted to restrain the ever-encroaching power of the Federal Government. He concluded by urging a wise haste, absent of recklessness.

Introduced as H.R. 3295 on Novemer 11, 2001 by Ohio Rep Robert Ney (18th District-R) and 172 co-sponsors, including Ohio Representatives

Paul Gillmore (5th District-R),
Stephenaie Tubbs Jones (11th District-D),
Steven C. Latourette (19th District-R),
Tom Sawyer (14th District),
John Boehner (8th District-R),
Sherrod Brown (13th District-D),
Bob Portman (2nd District-R), and
Patrick J. Tiberi (12th District-R)

the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, referred the bill to the following House Committees: House Administration, Judiciary, Science, Government Reform, and Armed Services. On December 11, 2001 the various committees discharged the bills at at 5:49 (House Administration) and at 5:51 p.m. (the rest).

That same evening Rep Thomas Reynolds (NY- 27th-R) proposed House Resolution 311, which authorized discussion and passage of the bill. The Resolution passed by a roll-call vote 223-193 (22 non-votes). On the next day, December 12, 2001, after a few ammendments were passed and thus added to the bill, the House passed H.R. 3295 at 3:38 p.m. by a roll call vote of 362-63 (9 non-votes). Ohio Representatives Brown (13th-D), Jones (11th -D), Kucinich (D) voted against the bill.

On December 12, 2001, Rep Ney thanked SoS Blackwell in the Congressional Record for his work towards election reform, when Ney stated,

"Mr. Speaker, this bill evolved from a punch card issue into something way beyond that that has teeth, that makes changes, but does it in a responsible way That is why we have the support of local governments: ...Ken Blackwell, a Republican SoS from Ohio."

More than likely this bill would have received passage sooner but, ahh, a small event slowed down the already slow beauracratic process. That event was the now sad and infamous "September 11, 2001," when Usama Bin Laden murdered his own henchmen so as to attack America. Shortly after 9-11-01, the US attacked and destroyed Afghanistan, so one ought to count it a big surprise that this bill ever passed on December 11, 2001.

Continuing his push for election reform, Blackwell informed the January 1, 2002 OAEO summit not only of the previous year's split vote by the Election's Summit over removing the punch-card ballot system and implementing a new type but also of the minority report that he and others submitted. The report recommended fixing the problems surrounding punch-card ballots.

"After informing the commission of the US House's HAVA 2001, he concluded with some sage advice given by Franklin Roosevelt: “To be seen…stand up. To be heard…speak up. To be appre-ciated…shut up.”

Upon concluding his somewhat depressing remarks over the lack of success both in the State of Ohio and Nationally, he ended his speech. At this point, it must be noted that the Ohio state legislature was designing a new bill, and the House's bill had yet to travel the snail-like halls of the senate. Yet Blackwell soldiered on in his quest for new voting machines.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell III.C

updated 1-3 @ 4:55 a.m.

So what does HAVA say and do for the states? It begins by providing 3876,200,000,000 or (3.876.2 billion!!!) dollars in tax-payer subisdized, and federally funded, election's improvement monies to be distributed from 2003 - 2005. Section 103 guarantes each state a minimum of 5 million dollars for elections improvements.

By December 14, 2002, forty-five days after enactment of the bill, the General Services Administration (GSA) established, as mandated by law, a grant program to disperse the appropriate monies into a specifice state fund in each state treasury. In accordance with sections 101, 104 and 254(b) of HAVA 2002, Ohio's chief executive officer determines the spot in the treasury in which to place the money to make initial improvements. In 2003, the governemnt divides up 650 million for all 50 states, distributing the early money by earmarking 325 million for replacing old voting machines and 325 milllion for election administrations. The state may use part of this first influx of cash to to develop a state plan.

HAVA allocates $3,000,000,000 or (3 billion dollars) for distribution by the states, with a 5% match requirement by the states, on a formula basis to be used according to a “State Plan.” The individual state plans would explain how the state will spend any additional monies granted by the federal government. The Bill also created several grant programs to provide funding for accessibility ($100 million over 4 years); technology improvements ($20 million); equipment testing and technology ($10 million); protection and advocacy ($40 million over 4 years); and, student mock elections ($1.2 million over 6 years). Each state will spend a final $5 million on inspiring college students to vote. If needed, Congress will allocate further funds to pay for any shortages of money.

The various sections of HAVA detail that monies will be distributed only if the states provide the following:
(a) provisional voting for those who try to vote in the wrong precinct, or differently from the one in which they registered;
(b) an accurate statewide voter registration database;
(c) fair and nondiscriminatory voting system standards;
(d) identification requirements for voters who register by mail; and,
(e) submitting plans in a timely and deadline-meeting manner.

Ohio's total share of the golden pot at the end of the taxpayer funded rainbow came to $127,000,000 or (127 million) dollars. Ohio would pay an additional $5,000,000 (5 milllion) from its own coffers. The 13 member Elections Commisstion, chaired by SoS Blackwell allocated approximately $109,500,000 or (109.5 million) dollars for improvements to or replacement of the punch-card ballot system machines. The 13 members budgeted 17 million for various line-item expenses. The SoS used $5 million to update the registered voters databases. In 2003, $2.5 million will fund a statewide voter eeucation plan, while in 2004 an additional $2.5 million will fund voter educator programs run by the various county Boards of Elections.

Six months after receiving the first influx of cash from the federal cash-cow, the State must present a plan as to how exactly it plans to spend the money. If the state does not have enough time to implement new voting machines, then it can request a waiver until '06.

In a section that would cause some angst on election day '04, Section 302 explicated on the use of provisional ballots in the general election. The section limited a provisional ballot to casting a vote for federal office-seekers. The law also demanded of the states that a provisional ballot would be handed over to a potential voter if he or she claimed to live in a certain precinct having no record of such a name on said ballots, and received certification from the appropriate elections official in that precinct. Later on the appropriate state personal would have to ratify the provisionalists's vote before that vote could be counted. Congress patted itself on the back and moved on to other laws.


Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell IV.A

Into the Senate swaggered this mighty reforming bill and stopped dead in its tracks thanks to the usual Senate instrasigence, made worse by deadlock. Owing to the 50-50 split in the Senate, Mississippi Senator and Majority Leader Trent Lott compromised with the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, on committee membership.

The result allowed each party to have even membership on the committee roles, with the Repubplicans controlling the chairmanships. This split led to a legislative crawl, which came to a complete stop on 24-May-2001 when the Republican Senator from Virginia, Jim Jeffords, defected from the party and changed his affiliation to independent, thereby giving control of the Senate to the Democrats, 50 - 49. Any pending legislation went on life support that day.

The Senate managed to pass the Bill S.565 on April 11 fully four months after the House. The Bill passed by a 99 -1 vote, with Montanta's Conrad Burns (R) dissenting. The Bill traveled into a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.

That same day Blackwell praised, applauded, and thanked the US Senate for passing a bill authorizing the use of federal monies to improve voting equipment and procedures. Telegraphing his next move, should the bill receive final passage. he curtly stated

"It will provide Ohio with the financial resources necessary for the implementation of substantial election reform in our state. Ohio should eliminate the punch card system as our state’s dominate voting system by the general election in 2004."

Returning back to Columbus Ohio and the State House on April 23, Lendrum and Blackwell introduced and held hearings on H.B. 565, which was a House Bill designed to implement all of the recommendations issued by Elections Commision of H.B. 5 infamy. Notably missing among the recommendations was the changeover from punch-cards ballots to optical scan or electronic voting machines. Encouraging the House to move swiftly on the bill, Blackwell thanked Lendrum for introducing the measure, since "this measure goes one step further in strengthening our state’s elections system."

As the Senate and House debated the final passage of H.R.3295 and S.565, SoS Blackwell stated in an Ocotber 4, 2002 press release

"The federal election reform bill will provide Ohio with the financial resources necessary to continue election reform efforts in our state... These funds will enable Ohio counties to purchase upgraded voting machinery that will make our elections process more reliable, more accurate, and more voter-friendly.”

So, in spite of Ohio's Democratic and RINO opposition, Blackwell received for that which he had asked, a bill that would improve the reliability of Ohio's elections as well as fund new voting machines to replace the Chad's. In the same press release, Rep Ney, chief sponsor of the bill, complemented Blackwell by stating

“If it wasn’t for Ken Blackwell, this bill would not be a reality today... He was the first person in the country to pick up the phone to help secure support for this legislation from election officials across the nation... This is a monumental piece of legislation that will make it easier to vote and
harder to cheat.”

Thus thanks belongs to Blackwell for pushing and networking until the bill got past. Later on, during the planning for Ohio's State Plan for Election Reform, Chet Kalis, staffer for Rep. Ney, revealed just how much HAVA 2002 reflected Blackwell's thoughts on election reform. Kalis stated on April 3, 2003,

Before we made any commitments on how we were going to do this thing, we made the phone call. Because I used to think of Secretary Blackwell, if he says yes, then we went forward; is he says no, then we don't (15.12 - 15.15).

Without Blackwell's workhorse effort, it is a distinct possibility that HAVA 2002 would never have become public law.

But what doest this mean for those Ohio Reps who voted against the bill? Apparently, those who opposed this measure did not care enough to upgrade Ohio's election's systems.

Finally, On October 8, one month before election day, the conference comittee ironed out its disagreements and passed the bill. The House voted 357-48 to pass the newly ammended bill with the Senate voting 92 -2 to pass the bill.

On October 10, 2002 Rep Ney complimented Blackwell's perseverance and help in the Congressional Record, when he stated

"I want to thank the groups whose efforts and support made this possible: the National Associa-tion of Secretaries of State, including our Secretary of State Ken Blackwell of Ohio, who picked up the phone on the first day after the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I got together and said he wanted to be a part of the process to help."

This testimony shows that without the prodding of SoSc Blackwell, not much would have been accomplished in regards to the passage of the Bill. Again, a war against terror, a buildup to a war in Iraq, an election's season and gridlock, slowed a normally slow Senate down to a snail's crawl.

President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on 29-October-2002, a complete 10+ months after the US House passed the bill and some 17-18 months after the House had begun working on crafting the legislation. Soon would begin the voting machine gold-rush. President Bush commented

"This act appropriately respects the primacy of state and local governments in the administration of elections, while helping to ensure the integrity and efficiency of voting processes in federal elections by providing federal government support in that manner."

The President's comment reveals that Blackwell received what he sought: state administration and federal funding of federal elections. Yet, those who invite the Feds, whether by law or money, open a Pandora's box of troubles, because the Fed never decreases in size nor desire for influence.

*Governor Taft said nothing. His press releases did not mention, did not congratulate , and and did not urge that federal be allocated for voting machines. Admittedly it was an election year so Taft was focused on his own reelection and furthermore since he had had zero part in getting the federal legislation past, which took 18 months by the way, he could seem to be grandstanding and raining on Blackwell's parade. Blackwell is the state's chief election's officer but a few words from the governor could indeed push things along faster in Ohio or talked to Ohio's Senators or if he sought a higher office he could have engaged in a little quid pro quo with Ohio's Congressional REpresentatives or Ohio's Senators. But he did nothing and Blackwell was left to push alone. For a second year in a row, Governor Taft's "Year in Review" failed to mention any of Blackwell's accomplishments thus far.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell IV.B

updated 12-5 @ 11.45

In the midst of running for reelection, massaging the House and Senate to make sure a bill was passed, on October, 2002 the ACLU of Ohio sued SoS Blackwell in the US District Court of Northern Columbus. They alledged in their statement that Ohio's punch card voting system violated the rights of the voters and further sought to have the punch cards removed by the November, '04 elction. However since the trial was delayed until Nov. '04, their request proved impossible to fulfill. Thus, the ACLU sued the one man who agreed with them about the possibility for inequity in the use of chads and hanging-chads to determine a political victor.

Having ran for and won a second term as Ohio's SoS on November 7, 2002, Blackwell was installed on January 13, 2003. On January 23, 2003 Blackwell issued an agenda-setting press release for his next four years in office. He stated, with Asisstant SoS Monty Lobb adding the second sentence,

"With the enactment of the Help America Vote Act, we will oversee the implementation of the most significant elections systems overhaul in recent history... [Lobb] “The agency will continue to improve the services available to Ohioans through the upgrading of technology as well as focusing on improved customer-relations management.”

After appearing in front of the Controlling Board on February 10, SoS Blackwell won approval to create an Election Reform Fund, in which to house the 132 million tax-payer paid dollars appropriated by HAVa 2002. The Board was responsible for dispersing HAVA's funds given to the chief executive officer. Further research has revealed that the Controlling Board was created in 1917 as a subsidary of Ohio's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Now-a-days, the Controlling Board has two main functions:

1) to provide legislative oversight pertaining to certain capital and operating expenditures by state agencies; and,
2) has approval authority over various other state fiscal activities. The board, which meets approximately every two weeks, votes opon requests for action that submitted by any and all state agencies.

Seven (7) members sit in the governor-appointed chairs:

a) the Director of Budget and Management, or his or her designee (the President of the Board);
b) the Chairman of the Finance and Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives;
c) the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate;
d) & e) two members of the House appointed by the Speaker of the House; and,
f) & g) two members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate.

The requests acted upon by the Committee are the following: grants waivers of competitive bidding to agencies, when an agency's purchases or leases from a specific vendor exceed the amounts specified in law. It releases appropriations for capital construction projects and approves loans and grants by the Department of Development. It also approves loans and subsidies made by the Department of Education to local school districts as well as the transfer of appropriation authority between line items within a fund in an agency and increases in appropriation authority in some funds.

Blackwell received approval, then, on February 10 to create fund 3AA and appropriation line item 613, i.e., the Election Reform Fund. thus financed he set out to make the governors team

On March 18, 2003 Blackwell announced the formation of a 13-member State Planning Committee by asserting

“We are about to begin the process of making Ohio’s elections system more accurate, reliable and easy to use... The members of the committee will assist me in developing a fair and comprehen-sive roadmap to election reform.”

This roadmap, in adherence to HAVA 2002, would hear testimony, review public statements, and assist Blackwell with the express mandate to develop Ohio’s election reform plan. Eventually this State Plan would garner for Ohio the mandated 132 million dollars for tax-payer reform. The membership was composed of one State Representative, one State Senator, various elections' officials, univeristy professors, and Blackwell himself.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell IV.C

To sum up what has happened, one can say that Ohio SoS Blackwell had spent the better part of two years and two months talking about elections improvements and got nothing for all that effort. Wait a second: Blackwell had used $108,000 to design a series of 2002 election ads informing the citizenry about how to vote: (in a sing-gong voice increase from tenor to alto to suprano) the shin bone is connected to the knee-bone; the knee-bone is connected to the thigh-bone; the thigh-bone is connected to the pelvis; the pelvis is connected to the spine-bone; (end singing abruptly and talk in low voice) and bearacracy has no spine. In short nothing substanital had been accomplished, except to re-word a few laws.

Yet Blackwell surged ever forward.

He established a 28-day, public comment period from March 18 - April 15 to allow for the any Ohio citizen to comment publicly on the matter. He further scheduled two public meetings on Thursday, April 3 and Friday, April 4. Both meetings would begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. with a 1.5 hour lunch break, at

The Vern Riffe State Office Tower;
31st floor, South Hearing Rooms B and C;
77 South High St., Columbus, Ohio.

Should a citizen be unable to attend and thusly utter comments at the meetings, Blackwell provided destinations for them to send snail-mail, write e-mail, visit a website, or make a phone-call.

At Blackwell's designation the committee had a thre-fold purpose: hear expert testimony; review written public statements; and assist the SoS with developing Ohio’s election reform, HAVA-approved, plan.

Blackwell outlined the schedule as follows:

April 3, 2003
9:30 a.m. - 10 a.m.
Introduction, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell
10 a.m. - 11 a.m.
Chet Kalis, Committee on House Administration, United States House of Representatives
11 a.m. - Noon
Doug Lewis, The Election Center, Houston, Texas
Noon - 1:30 p.m.
Lunch
1:30 p.m. - 2 p.m.
Dr. Herb Asher, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The Ohio State University
2 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Delores Blankenship & Luke Russell, AARP
2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Disability Policy Coalition
3:30 p.m. - 4 p.m.
Other Testimony

April 4, 2003
9:30 a.m. - 10 a.m.
Peg Rosenfield, Ohio League of Women Voters
10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Ernest Perry, Columbus Urban League
10:30 a.m. - 11 a.m.
Rita Yarman, Knox County Board of Elections
11 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Jan Clair, Lake County Board of Elections
11:30 a.m. - Noon
Terry Burton, Wood County Board of Elections
Noon - 1:30 p.m.
Lunch
1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Eric Seabrook, Office of the Secretary of State
2:30 p.m. - 3 p.m.
Other Testimony
3 p.m. - 4 p.m.
Committee Discussion

Every political constitency had representatives present: AARP, ADA, Urban League, League of Women Voters, Elections Officials, Academics, politicians, election board officials, and elections council for the SoS.

The third and final scheduled meeting would take place two weeks after the 3rd on April 17 in the Statehouse, Hearing Room 121 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell V.A

On the morning, then of April 3, the first official meeting commenced. The time was 9:45 a.m., 15 miutes late, Senator Mark Mallory (D-Cinncinati) was absent, and Chairman Dana Walch presided.

After Walch welcomed all attendees, she gave a brief introduction, wherein she described the reason for the committee meetings,

"This committee was formed for the purpose of advising Secretary of State Blackwell on how Ohio can best meet the requirements of the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which was signed by President Bush in October... HAVA, was passed to help states replace antiquated voting systems, make the process of voting more accessible to persons with disabilities, better educate voters and officials, and centralize a list of voters in the state." (pgs 4.17 - 5.1)

In short, the committee members were nominated through the good-will of SoS Blackwell, and assisted him in writing Ohio's plan. 255(a) of HAVA 2002:

"The chief State election official shall develop the State plan under this subtitle through a committee of appropriate individuals."

Generally, then, the plan would allow the state to purchase new machines, update registry lists, inform voters, and assist the disabled.

Next, Walch breifly introduced each member, thanked them all for attending, and then turned the floor over to the honorable SoS Blackwell. Wasting no words, Blackwell cut to the heart of the meeting and informed the members,

This is an historic endeavor, and it is an ambitious endeavor, an endeavor that will provide Ohioans with a modern statewide election system where votes can be easily cast, accurately counted, and the whole process can be fairly administered. This new state-of-the-art elections technology will replace outdated voting machinery, a much needed overhaul for elections in the 21st Century (7.4 -7.11).

Hoping to avoid the Florida 2000 fiasco, Blackwell ambitiously planned to modernize Ohio's election system by replacing antiquated punch-card machines with state-of-the-art elections.

Blackwell continued by describing HAVA 2000 as the most sweeping voting legislation since "The Civil Rights Act of 1965." In order to head off any inferiority complex or uncontrolled anger Blackwell noted that the committee's work is major, not minor, especially since the very ambitious goal of the Committee aims to have their entire monumental plan implemented by November 2004. No one man could write the plan.

Igniting their state patriotism and love for hard work Blackwell stated

[This] is a challenge. But Ohio is celebrating its 200th birthday this year, and the prescription for progress in Ohio has always been one of industry, envision and people that have always rose to the occasion to meet challenges they are faced with (8.12 - 8.16).

Blackwell finished with a flourish by letting them know that they have a challenge they must overcome, but they reside in the greatest state of the union that has a fine tradition as a pace-setter and example for America. He concluded by thanking them

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell V.B.

During the April 4 meeting, Blackwell was absent, owing to the fact that he had other business with which to occupy himself. Towards the end of the meeting, Chairman Walch revealed that Blackwell's office would circulate a draft, which would include the testimony of the committee. The committee would analyze the bill at the April 17 meeting. After having spent most of the April 17 meeting commenting upon the bill, the committee realized that it needed another meeting to deal with the draft. Chairwoman Walch agreed to schedule another meeting around the primary election date of May 6.

On May 8, Blackwell issued a brief press bulletin, announcing that in four days on the 12th the committee would hold another meeting, whereat the final draft would be unveiled for public comments. The SoS revealed that the State had received 5 million in initial funding, expected to garner an additional 30 - 35 million once the plan was published, as well as solicited bids from eleven contractors vieing for contract to design a statewide voter registration database

At the final meeting, Chairwoman Walch spoke for the majority of the time, noting also that Mr. Harry Long was absent, owing to the fact that he needed to bring his wife to the hospital. She also put forth the required dates for implementation of the plan, which was to be posted on the SoS website:

1) May 13th began the 30-day period for public comments
2) On June 16 the plan would be submitted to the Election's Assistance Comission
3) On June 2, the SoS would award a contract for the voter registration system.
4) On May 16, they would release the Request For Proposal for the voting systems and would award the bid on June 23.

Sos Blackwell concluded the meeting by saying

"Thank you, Dana and a hearty thank you to each committee member and to all the citizens that assisted in the drafting of the plan. It is a solid plan for a substantial procurement task with a progressive implementation strategy and schedule. I consider it to be a perfecting tool for a highly competent staff and a statewide network of dedicated election professionals. We are prepared, and we will succeed."

Once again everything looked roses for placing better voting machines into the various precints. The committee had worked hard and assissted in some manner with the plan, even recommending, along with Blackwell since his innaugaration as SoS, open absentee balloting, i.e., anybody could vote absentee without needing to give a justifiable reason as to why precisely they would be absent and unable to vote on election day.

On the June 16, Blackwell released the report. Section XIX, part 2 (page 47) related that even though the state of Ohio expected to receive some 161 million tax-payer dollars in matching federal funds, the entire amount for Ohio would not exceed 137 million tax-payer dollars. Blackwell's office would disperse 106 million of the 131 million for not only the installation of new voting machines, but also the updating of older eloctonic machines. Any remaining amount from the 106 million, not used for updating and installation, would fund a voter hotline and, more importantly, a state-wide voter registration drive. Of the remaining 31 million tax-payer dollars, the SoS would appropriate 5 million tax-payer dollars for educating and informing the poll workers of each of Ohio's 88 counties. Another 5 million tax-payer dollars would be appropriated by the SoS for a state-wide voter education program. Things still seemed to go swimmingly in beauracracy land.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell V.C

Having published the state's election plan, Blackwell hosted the annual summer elections' conference on June 17 - 19 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Colombus, Ohio, whereat various elections officials from all of Ohio's 88 counties gathered together so as to imbibe updates on legal, legislative, and administration issues as well as graps opportunities for developing fraternal relations between election professionals from the state and county levels. The core of the conference was HAVA 2002. As a side benefit the officials would first receive education credits for attending. Secondly, SoS Blackwell, after speaking the keynote address on the 17th, returned on the 18th to host the awards luncheon. On the 19th the attendees obtained taxpayer-subsidized door prizes from the state of Ohio and HAVA 2002. Once again, those in power are helped and the taxpayer is screwed.

Continuing to play the bureaucracygame, Blackwell announced on July 8 that the following five companies had cleared the first hurdle in having their proposals selected for eloctrinic voting machines:

1) Diebold Election Systems;
2) Election Systems and Software;
3) Maximus/Hart Intercivic/DFM Associates;
4) Microvote General Corporation/Sosa/Perot Systems/Triad GSI; and
5) Sequoia Voting Systems.

Blackwell set an August 1 deadline for completion of the evaluation process and also announced that County boards of election were given a grace period lasting until September 1 to choose their preferred qualified voting system.

Seventeeen days after announcing the electronic bid machine winners, Blackwell announced on July 25 the conglamerating of seven people who would compose an advisory team vis-a-vis negotiating a contract for purchasing electronic voting machines. Blackwell declared,

"We have assembled a team of nationally renowned experts in the fields of negotiations, technology, law and elections to ensure Ohioans are provided with the most accurate and secure voting machinery available, with the best service, price and warranty available as well. We are at the forefront of a historictransformation of our elections infrastructure. As secretary of state, I am committed to proceed in the most competent, thorough and prudent manner possible."

After the panel of experts would announce its decision on August 1 pertaining to the contract, the elections boards possessed 30 days to decide upon the type of machine best suited to their district.


Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.A

Then on the 23th of July, John Hopkins University threw a wrench into the whole works. JHU professors Adam Stubblefield and Aviel D. Rubin released a study questioning the security capabilities of electronic voting machines. In section 6, the study concluded after examining the C++ code of Dibold's AccuVote-TS 4.3.1 that

"voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in treaceability; administrative functions can be performed by regular voters; and inside threats such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater."

In sections 3 and 4 the reasearchers determined that the "inside threats" can rig the code to cast more votes for one candidate over the other.

* Although later rebuttals pointed out the limits of the study by noting that the JHU review analyzed only one machine written in one code in one way, and many more machines written in many different ways and in different codes do exist, the damage to voting via eloctrinic machines had been done. Even after the Washington Post reveald on August 19 that Rubin had shares in, and sat on the board of one of Diebold's rivals, VoteHere, Inc., the public relations damage took its toll. The study also retained its credibility when Rubin replied that he had not been contacted by the board of VoteHere, Inc., in the two years since he had purchased stocksold all his stock in VoteHere, Inc.; sold all his company stock; resigned from its board; and, asked JHU to review all his outstanding consulting work.

To allow the 7-member panel time to review all the proposals, Blackwell extended the deadline for their report from August 1 to August 15. From this latter date county boards of elections would have 30 days to choose their election's system. On August 21 and 22 Blackwell would hold a special information session for election officials, media and others at the Marriott North in Columbus. Blackwell analyzed the JHU study and the subsequent media storm by stating on July 29

"In response to the avalanche of allegations, counter allegations and subsequent news stories covering the electoral process, I believe it is necessary for me to reaffirm the process of careful checks and balances associated with Ohio elections. This process has always been about qualified people, well-founded procedures and good elections practices.”

“It is exceedingly difficult in Ohio elections to get away with cheating because our process involves so many people and so many checks and balances. In evaluating the security of any voting system we must take into consideration these procedures and the checks and balances that are always present in actual elections."

Confirming the sanctity of Ohio's voting process and endeavouring to quell the insecurities of the Ohio citizens, Blackwell assured the voters that Ohio's voting processes were safe and accurate.

On August 6, Governor Bob Ehrlich of Maryland delayed purchasing 55.6 million dollars of new voting machines from North Canton based, DieBold Technologies based on a new risk assessment of the voting machines. This too stemmed from JHU's study. While Blackwell had given final approval unto three vendors to sell new equipment unto its counties: Diebold; Election Systems and Software Inc. (Omaha, Neb); and Maximus and Hart InterCivic (Austin, Texas), both Sequoia and Microvote Corp. of Indianapolis were disqualified.

* On August 27, news accounts revealed that an August 14 fundraising letter sent out from Diebold's CEO Walden O'Dell invited guests to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser at O'Dell's mansion in Upper Arlington suburban of Columbus, asked for donors to raise $10,000/apeice for a federal election account that would help fund the Republican federal candidates for elective office, and wrote"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The clamor i

Ohio Senate Democratic Leader, Greg DiDonato, charged that "Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room."

* O'Dell responded to Democratic criticism with the remark "I can see it now, but I never imagined that people could say that just because you've got a political favorite that you might commit this treasonous felony atrocity to try to change the outcome of an election. "I wouldn't and couldn't." O'Dell insisted that his letter was speaking about his own personal goals, rather than his company.

Next Sequoia they filed a claim citing bribery by DieBold's CEO. Ohio Court of Claims Judge Fred Shoemaker issued a temporary restraining order against Blackwell, who had planned later in the day to an nounce a final list of vendors qualified to participate in Ohio’s elections upgrade. Blackwell reacted by stating, “While one system opened the door for them to walk through, their concerns apply to all [electronic] systems." However, accepting a subse quent bid from Sequoia, after finalizing the decisions, “would be ultimately detrimental to the public’s confidence in the entire process.” Until the facts in the case have been heard, “I am not going to participate in that sort of sabotage of the system.”

On August 15 Blackwell responded by officially implementing a 15 day delay in approval for selecting a new voting system. He stated

“At the beginning of this process our goal was to offer Ohioans the most accurate and secure voting machinery available, with the best service, price and warranty available as well. Based on our market analysis, we are confident that the price, service and warranty we have negotiated is one of, if not, the best in the nation.”

“However, our initial inquiries into security issues regarding electronic voting devices leave some unanswered questions. As a result, we will put these voting devices through an extensive security assessment and validation process.”

Blackwell then contracted with Science Application International Corporation (San Diego, CA) and InfoSentry (Raleigh, NC) to assessments the overall safety and security of the eletronic machines.

Blackwell expanded on his remarks onn September 3 by stating,

“It is my responsibility to determine which election system vendors offered the taxpayers of the State of Ohio the best value. Judge Shoemaker substituted his judgment for the discretion afforded to me as Ohio’s chief elections officer. His decision flies in the face of the facts and the law. It is an unnecessary assault on the professionalism of my team and our process. The real irreparable harm is allowing Sequoia to have a second bite at the apple.”

Hearkening back to H.B. 5, Blackwell strongly opposed the Judge's interference, since Judicial activism tharted the letter and spirit of that law. Blackwell had removed Sequoia from consideration because it failed to provide a “low-cost and best value” voting system proposal during the negotiating process. According to the agency’s issued request for proposal, “the secretary of state reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted in response to this request.” Judge Shoemaker thwarted Ohio Law.


Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.B

ON September 10th Blackwell split the difference and added Sequoia to the list at the same time that his office was in the process of appealing Judge Shoemaker's decision.

“The implementation of election reform in Ohio is far too important to be sidetracked by mounting litigation and legal appeals. It is time to move forward as we continue with the process of providing Ohioans with voting equipment that is more accurate, more reliable and easier to use.”

“From the beginning of this process our goal was to offer Ohioans the most accurate and secure voting machinery available, with the best service, price and warranty available as well. Based on our market analysis, we are confident that the price, service and warranty we have negotiated is one of, if not, the best in the nation.”

Echoing former statements about the value of the new contract (saving $33 million), Blackwell sidestepped the Sequoia legal hurdle in order to implement the voting systems into the various counties. The prices for the voting machines and FAQ support to placed into each one of Ohio's 11,614 precincts (and 48,000+ workers) ranged from $2,896.68 (ES&S iVotronic) to $5,499 (Diebold Elections' Systems AccuVote ES&S Model 100). The prices also included a five year warranty.

Having previously aimed to implement the new electronic voting systems by the March, 2004 primary elections, Blackwell sounded hesitant on that day when he analyzed the short timeframe available to implement the machines and educate the workers. He stated

“The number of counties involved in a March election systems upgrade is entirely dependent on our security review and the resources available from the federal government. While vendor negotiations were ongoing, it was not possible to develop an implementation priority list without total cost figures. Now that we have concluded our negotiations, we can begin coordination with
county boards of elections and develop a priority list.”

Any voter reformer could only remember the problems overcome thus far and realize with trepidation that more than likely the security review and federal resources would be slow in forthcoming. Whether state beuracracy, federal beuracracy, contracting parties, interested parties, or frivolous lawsuits would further delay the nonsense, one did not know. Yet, ever energetic, Blackwell pushed on to reach the date.

On September 30, Blackwell announced that another change required fixing, although this time the error was a conflict-of-interest on the part of SAIC (San Diego), which was one of the companies, formerly contracted to perform security reviews on the machines. During a routine procedure, designed to vet out self-serving parties, SAIC revealed to Blackwell's office that its venture capital subsidiary has committed $5 million for investment in a venture capital fund currently holding a 12 percent interest in Hart Intercivic. Hart is an Ohio HAVA qualified vendor. While SAIC’s subsidiary is a passive investor in the venture capital fund, therefore having no role in Hart's management, operations, or investments, SAIC's fully-diluted ownership interest of less than 2 percent of Hart Intercivic (with a net worth more than 250 million dollars) disqualifies SAIC from assisting in the security inquiries.

Blackwell's office then qualified Detroit-based Compuware corporation to perform the security reviews. The review process examined the computer's source code, scrutinized the potential for hacking into the machines' hard drives, and sought to know if each voting machine had points of failure . The status of InfoSentry (Raleigh, NC) remained the same. It had helped qualify vendors and would now assess the companies claims about their respective machines. Onsite examinations, both at the company warehouses and in the polling places would test the functionality and durability of HAVA-qualified electronic voting systems by using and abusing the machines in the environmental conditions common to the use, storage, and transport of such equipment.

Testing would take six weeks, so results would be available in mid-November or later.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.C

* Surprising in bureucratic affairs, the $175,000.00, taxpayer-financed report was released on schedule: two weeks after the six-week review process, on December 2. Two comprehensive examinations from Compuware and InfoSENTRY demonstrated that many security weaknesses were present in the machines. Trumping even the John Hopkins' University study, the examinations provided the most extensive cache of information pertaining to the security of electronic voting machines

Referring to the 57 potential security risks discovered in each voter system Blackwell stated,

“Today’s release of information provides voters with a check list of problems found and a road map for corrections. In order to maintain strong public confidence in our elections systems, voters must be assured that the security risks uncovered in our reviews have been addressed and resolved.”

After Blackwell divided the road map into 13 high-potential risks, 11 medium-potential risks, and 33 low-potential security risks, he demanded that the four contracted companies improve their computer source code, end the potential for hacking, and fix points of failure specific to each voting machine.

Blackwell expected accountability for implementing the changes by seeking documentation of such changes from the voting machine vendor. He summarized his position by stating,

"I will not place these voting devices before Ohio’s voters until identified risks are corrected and system security is bolstered. Fortunately, all of the documented risks will be expeditiously corrected by each of our voting machine manufacturers. When Ohioans begin casting ballots on these electronic devices they will do so with the knowledge that the integrity of their voting system has been maintained.”

Blackwell would only allow Ohio voters to use the electronic voting machines after InfoSENTRY and Compuware had engaged in additional testing and the four contracted compaines sought recertification on the federal and state level.

* On December 2 Blackwell stated that he would apply for a federally mandated waiver, which would allow for a delay. Ohio would have, then, until 2006 as opposed to the 2004 General Election to implement fully the new voting machines. The permit was approved on December 19.

These further delays of additional testing would, not-so-suprisingly, slow the implementation of the machines from March, 2004 unto the special election held in August, '04. The various county board of elections had until January 15 to select their preferred voting machine.

Please e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.