'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first-hand the cumbersome burden of bearacracy at both the state and national level in his attempt to fix Ohio's outdated voting systems.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.

'Challengers' - Blackwell VI.C (continued)

At the year's close (2003) a look back on the previous year's activity showed that Governor Bob Taft uttered not one official word of either support or criticism for Blackwell's efforts. Not a single press release from the governor's office made any mention whatsoever of the efforts of Ohio's SoS. Taft never even acknowledged any of Blackwell's activities.

* Admittedly, this was the year of invading Iraq and the President's tax-cuts had not yet taken full effect thereby stimulating the economy out of recession and into recovery. As a consequence Ohio, at this time, was running budget deficits, losing jobs, and feeling the effects of the Clinton recession, which had occurred when the tech bubble burst. Taft made the budget worse with his tax increase on gasoline, increase in the state sales tax, and a tax of non-essential services. Blackwell characterized Taft and the Legislature's actions as "Ohio is headed head first into an economic death spiral"

* The presidential campaign was already up and running with Howard Dean exploding onto the scene by criticizing President Bush's Iraq War policy, even in spite of the fall of Bahgdad and the capture of Saddam Hussein. Kerry was shifting in the wind and the rest of the democrats looked to be doing badly. The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries were just around the corner.

* Yet Taft clamped his trap set and never even thanked Blackwell for any of his work for better voting machines. He may, however, have felt emboldened at his re-election to the governor's office and thereby decided to focus on his agenda rather than the SoS's, and admittedly Blackwell is the state's chief election's officer and so he must complete the work. Taft's publication "year in review" again failed to mention any work done by SoS Blackwell.

* Perhaps more could have been accomplished if the governor had uttered any word of support. None of Governor Taft's last four State of the State address from 2001 - 2005 ever made even the slightest mention of Secretary Blackwell's efforts. There was not one word breathed at all.

* At the national level, besides Representative Bob Ney no Congressional Representative nor Ohio Senator publicly acted to help Secretary Blackwell. Admittedly they serve their consituencies and deal with national and international issues, and Blackwell deals with the local state-wide issues, but they could have issued a press statement in favor of Blackwell. Instead they just passively supported Rep. Ney's bill. Very few if any ever uttered a single word of support. They only needed to say some word. Just one. Any.

* The storm clouds were black, the thunder could be heard, and lightning flashes seen within the clouds. All around it was deathly calm and even the animals had taken cover. The humidity made every pore feel clogged and the lungs had to really work at taking a breath. It felt suffocating, very suffocating. It was a prarie storm and a doozy of one at that...

* Yet a lonely figure still strides across the cornfields, just doin' his chores.

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

"Challengers' - Blackwell VII.A - The Storm Breaks

* Starred parargraphs are updates *

On January 15 the counties submitted unto the secretary their choice for eloctronic voting machine. Lucas County (Toledo) and 8 others missed the deadline. Then, between January 15 and Feb 9 Sequoia dropped out of machine provision, since it was unable to negotiate any contract with the SoS' office. Pending State Controlling Board approval the three remaining companines on Feb 9 were Diebold, ES&S, and Maximus/Heart Intercivic/DFM associates. In addition to e-voting machines Diebold and ES&S also offered an optical scan machine.

Restating the machine cost, warranty protection, and training setup that was previously mentioned (see VI.B), Blackwell noted on February 9 two new salient facts:
1) 133 million taxpayer dollars had been appropriated to the State of Ohio, &
2) the four Ohio counties, Champaign, Clark, Darke and Licking, which had selected Sequoia's machines as their vote recorder of choice, had to rechoose from the other three vendors. under the state-directed implementation process.

In an odd closing note, Blackwell's press release noted that while Sequoia was no longer competing in Ohio, it would "implement Secretary Blackwell’s requested security upgrades in systems it offers to other states."

No new voting machines were installed over the next couple of months due to State Senate bickering, State House infighting, and State Controller Board delaying.

* The fighting began just days after Blackwell signed contracts with the three firms when on Feb 17th, election reform foe, Sen. Jeff Jacobson (R., Vandalia), joined forces with Sen. Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo) in urging the State Controlling Board not to release any state or federal HAVA 2002 funds for the machines. Jacobson's not so wise statement was "The law contemplated an extension to 2006. There’s absolutely no justification for rushing to get it wrong." He provided no evidence for his thesis. Fedor likewise asked rhetorically "When you put your vote into that electronic touch screen, how do you know your vote is really counted? When was the last time your computer crashed?" Thus did she link the unique code of voting machines with the code for Microsoft's Window Operating System.

Blackwell prophetically replied

"Ohio is in for a very close presidential race. The folks, who advocate delay, own the problem. This is nothing to be playing petty politics with."

* Blackwell responded on Feb 18th that he could, if he so chose install precinct-count optical-scan devices should the Controlling Board disapprove of his funding request on March 8.

* "I've already been empowered with that authority. This is nothing to be playing petty politics with. This is a serious, serious matter. We need to get out of the punch-card system. There are some legislators that are motivated exclusively by the desire to stop reform. Ohio is in for a very close presidential race, [and] the punch-card system is more inclined to disenfranchise lower-income and minority voters."

* Nevetheless in spite of indications that the Controlling and Jacobson would continue to be recalcitrant, Blackwell went ahead and submitted his plan unto the Controlling Board on Feb. 19. The plan called for e-voting machines in the 25 counties by Nov. 2004 and the rest of the 69 counties would have their machines installed by the Nov. 2005.

* Fedor and Jacobson continued the verbal assault when Fedor sunk to the level of personal insult . She said "I do not believe we are moving in the right direction with [Blackwell's] plan. I question his ability right now." Not only was Blackwell wrong, then, but he was also stupid.

Then on February 25 the Toledo Blade, a frequent media foe of Blackwell, editorially sided with the SoS on the implementation of new voting machines. They wrote that the two bogus claims were that the system could be hacked via the Internet and that paper receipts were necessary for proof of a correct vote. They opined

"Virtually any type of voting system devised by humans can be corrupted by humans, so little is to be gained in a never-ending search for a fool-proof method. Proper voting procedures, painstakingly applied by bipartisan teams of election workers who police each other, have long been the key to fair elections in Ohio. We already have such laws on the books, and there is no reason they cannot be updated to accommodate all the exigencies of electronic voting.

The Blade further advocated that paper receipts would allow corrupt political operatives to buy votes, and, additionally, the printers of the receipts could run out of ink & paper at bad times, thereby leading to long lines and extra expenses.

Next the legislature got involved when the Senate Finance Committee established a joint, bipartisan House-Senate, 10 member legislative committee on late Friday Evening, Feb 27 with the mandate to look into the security concerns and the need for a verifiable paper trail. Claiming that Blackwell had somehow slipped 5.8 million dollars for new voting machines past the 124th General Assembly, Jacobson called for some accounting since no one had asked for new punch card machines.

* Whisps of retribution made their presence known when it turned out that Blackwell and his office had been investigating the fund-rasing tactics of Speaker of the House, Larry Householder, and his chief fundraiser-Kyle Sisk.

* Blackwell responded to the Wormtounge-esque tactics of White and Householder on Saturday, Feb. 28 with the statement

"The proposed delay would virtually eliminate the possibility of any deployment of new voting machines in 2004. With Ohio slated by both national parties as a battleground state, the possibility of a close (presidential) election with punch cards as the state's primary voting device invites a Florida-like calamity... As we have gone to great lengths to include the legislature in this process, it seems reasonable to request your assistance to aid us in clarifying your intentions"

*After warning of dire consequences for the Nov. 2004 election should a paper-trail be adobpted, Blackwell pointed out that the Emperor was not wearing any clothes, since only 2 out of the General Assembly's 132 lawmakers showed up at a Feb 19 briefing session.

Knowing that Jacobson was blowing smoke up the voters you-know-what, Blackwell, citing the Election Reform Fund line items in Gov. Taft's budget, continued

"Big decisions, big plans, big designs were always shared with the legislature. I found it particularly interesting that a member of the Senate Finance Committee would, in fact, say he had not a clue that this issue was before this committee. Now whose fault is that? Our process has been very, very transparent. Either these legislators are making decision with their heads in the sand or they have a very selective memory, [having] a memory gap... Some might have snoozed."

Knowing whereof he spoke Blackwell was referring back to Aug - Oct of 2001 when Jacobson had killed any attempts at reforming the State's voting machines. Jacobson might have forgotten about their struggle, but more than likely he was grandstanding, acting very Janus-like.

* Seeing that they were losing on that issue the opponents changed tactics and criticized the 15.3 million dollar media contract givent to the New York Firm Burson-Meller. This firm delivered the message for the new $20 dollar bill rollout, the U.S. Census, and the U.S. Postal Service unto to the 9 media markets, the 7.2 million registeredvoters and the five different voting systems. Their criticism centered on the fact that Blackwell,as a future governor's candidate, was giving his name and face to a two-year voting campaign at the tax-payer dollars.

On March 8 knowing that his measure would go down to defeat Blackwell still submitted four requests to Ohio's Controlling Board, a subcommittee of the Office of Management & Budget, for release of the HAVA 2002 money from the Election Reform Fund. This request was in line with the mandated law for the establishment of a seperate fund, which in this case was budget line item 050-613, to implement voting machine improvements.

Meanwhile at the national level, Kerry cameback to dominate in Iowa and New Hampshire and he proceeded to steamroll his way to victory in almost all the rest of the primaries. Governor Dean won Vermont's delegates, Senator Edwards's won North Carolina's delegates, and General Clark won Oklahoma's delegates. By mid-February and early March the Democratic nominating process was all over and Kerry had the nomination sowed up, except for Ohio's Dennis Kucinich who insisted on running and finishing near the bottom in almost every single county.

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

'Challengers' - Blackwell VII.B

Knowing that the odds were stacked against him Blackwell brought out the big guns by sending to the Controlling Board a March 3 letter signed by the sponsors of HAVA 2002: Rep Bob Ney (R), Rep Steny Hoyner (D), Senator Mitch MConnell (R), and Christopher Dodd (D).

These sponsors argued in their letter

"Not only are such [voter-verified paper record] proposals premature, but they would undermine essential HAVA provisions, such as the disability and language minority access requirements and could result in more, rather than less, voter disenfranchiement and error... [T]he propoasals mandating a voter-verified paper record would essentially take the most advance generations of election technologies and systems available and reduce them to little more than ballot printers. The current proposals would do nothing to ensure greater trust in vote tabulations, but would be guaranteed to impose steep costs on States and localities and introduce new complications into the voting process.

So a bipartisan commission in a very intense and divided election year sets aside their party differences and explains that the action currently being cosidered by both the Ohio Legislature and the Controlling Board would disenfranchise minorities and the handicapped, increase the cost for taxpayers, make the e-voting machines nothing more than printers, and provide not one stitch more of security.

* Yet the task of overcoming misinformation accepted by so many would be huge, especially since Ohio's Senate President Doug White and Ballot Security Chairman Randy Gardner had publicly expressed their doubts about Blackwell's haste. With such china-shop egos as Democractic Senator Bob Hagan, who refused to deal with any of Blackwell's 'minions' over that large request, the money was prevented from being sent.

* Then on March 23rd Blackwell sent out a missive to the delaying counties and told them to make a decision by Tues the 31st at 10:00 a.m. or it would be made for them.

* On April 8, however, the "Ballot Security Commission decided in a non-binding 7-1 vote (Chairman & Senator Randall Gardner, R-Bowling Green) decided to decline the 122 million dollars set aside for purchasing e-voting machines. The committee demanded voter-verified paper receipts

* Dr. Dan Tokaji, assisstant professor at OSU's Moritz College of Law, advocated as the lone voice in the wilderness,

"The state of Ohio is presently in violation of the equal-protection clause and Voting Rights Act. It's incredible that the state of Ohio is dragging its feet now for four years and will continue to disenfranchise voters. There are clearly voting systems that are better than the hanging chad punch-card, but none of those problems would be solved with the voter-verifiable paper trail. Some people have become so myopically focused on the paper trail they are ignoring the procedural problems which are much more likely."

* Yet drag their feet they did, preferring the chaos of the hanging chad to newer and better voting machines.

* Blackwell's response to the whole catastrophe on April 9 was

It's moving forward. Folks who should have started paying attention 18 months ago, started paying attention 18 days ago."

* Ten days later on the 19th Blackwell made another appeal to the Controlling Board to release the money.

* The end was in sight and the machines were almost ready to be installed. Suddenly the 125th Senate signed H.B. 262 on April 28. This House Bill, formerly introduced on Aug 14, 2003 (approved by the House on 1/21/04 by a 59 - 38 vote), took a broad elections bill and made it define what precisely a voter-verified paper trail was. The bill also gave fund control to the Controlling Board. Grandstanding Senators voted for the bill by a margin of 93 - 3. The turning point came ,according the Akron Beacon Journal's March 5th edition, sometime in Febrary when Senators Fedor and Kimberly Zurz won over House Majority Whip Jeff Jacobson to their bill.

*What formerly had been a blank check for the SoS, (see H.B. 5 from the 124th Assembly) and slightly lowered his authority. For one the Senate defined the voter-verified paper trail as

"a physical paper printout on which the voter's ballot choices, as registered by a direct recording electronic voting machine, are recorded. The voter shall be permitted to visually or audibly inspect the contents of the physical paper printout."

*The Bill also moved funds from one controlled by the Controlling Board to special election funds set up by the HAVA 2002 legislation. Hence, some 27,500,000 tax-payer dollars would be moved from Fund 3AA to 3AR and nearly $80,000,000 would move from 3AA to 3AS and an additional 27 million would be distributed for voter-education programs and poll-worker training funds. With regard to the afore-mentioned voter-education program the Senate voted to cut the 15.3 million dollars down to 5 million dollars.

* On May 3 the Controlling Board approved a $38 million dollar request for implementation of the voting machines. Rather amazingly Pinnochio-nosed Senator Bill Harris (R-Ashland)managed to describe with a straight face, what was the aim of the legislature as "It was never the intent of the legislature to install or delay this issue."

* On May 8 Governor Taft signed Jim Carmichael's (R-Wooster) H.B. 262, which more less gave a political spanking to SoS Blackwell. The press release claims that Bills would go into effect 90 days hence, but the 124th legislature's website claimed that the Bill became law immediately. So one of the group is being disingenuous, but neither cares because the attempt is to run down SoS Blackwell. Since this bill was a Trojan Horse gift, the e-machines would prove to be impossible to implement since none of the contrancted machines had such capabilities.

* Earlier a 109 page Speaker Householder memo revealed that Speaker Householder's staff would have a two-pronged strategy:
1) Householder would spend some 8.5 million to repell Blackwell's initiative, which was attempting to end Gov. Taft's and the Republican Legislature's sale's tax increse.
2) The aides of Householder would attempt to drive up Blackwell's negatives with adds and denuciations.
Blackwell responded to Taft, Householder, and Bennett with a fundraising letter and phone interviews in which he said,

"Given your obvious rancor, all attempts by you to play the grand conciliator is not only useless, but disingenuous in the extreme. After playing around the edges for months and years, your true spots have finally come to light. Your 'stab in the back' comment is final proof you have chosen a path for the party which does not include me. I also remember your attack on me last September [2003]. At least you are consistent!"

* With such friends as Bennett, Taft, and Householder, who needs enemies?

* In a phone interview Blackwell described the then struggle in the following manner:

"I'm engaged in a struggle for the heart and soul of the party. [Bennett] take[s] the Republican Party down the path of high taxes and big government and runaway spending."

* Things looked gloomy for the Aragorn Blackwell.

Please email the Editor-in-Chief with any questions.

Victory Wednesdays

Look who's at #28!!

PoliPunit's Website

Two Congressional races will be decided in run-offs in Louisiana on Saturday. The GOP stands an excellent chance of picking up both these seats, dominating Louisiana’s House delegation 6-1, and striking fear into the hearts of House and Senate Democrats from other red states. Help make it happen with a small donation to the campaign of Republican candidate Charles Boustany.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to donate to an important Republican campaign.

If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays by e-mailing Polipundit at
wictory@blogsforbush.com.

I’ll add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll. I’ll also send you a reminder e-mail every Wednesday, explaining which candidate to support that day.
Here’s the list of some of the blogs currently participating in Wictory Wednesdays:
1. Small Town Veteran

2. Imaginary Conversations and Random Thoughts

3. sisu

4. Confederate America

5. I am Right

6. The Urban Grind

7. Reagan Country

8. Breaking News At Ten

9. Ace of Trump

10. Right on Red

11. Jereemy Kissel

12. Six Meat Buffet

13. Drink this...

14. Alamo Nation

15. JPerspective.Com

16. Avoiding Evil

17. Cao's Blog

18. Peace for Our Time

19. Chuck's Daily Blog

20. Planet Parmasan

21. Something to Cry About

22. The Permanent Revolution

23. mu?si?cal?i?ty

24. BIRD

25. Urth:The Drowned Land

26. Ben's World

27. Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

28. Blogs For Blackwell

29. The Black Republican

30. Dagney's Rant

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