'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.