affidavits - Center for Range Voting

71tl.S. #ous’eof fRepree’entatibe$
QLommittee on tf;le jhbirimp
‘PIBfaerfington, B& 20515-6226
Qh P&utbrtb Aintf, &ongrti#
January 28,2005
Mr. Chris Swecker
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
93 5 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Dear Mr. Swecker:
I am in receipt of your letter concerning potential election fraud in Hocking County
(enclosed). I very much appreciate your willingness to open an investigation into election
irregularities in the Ohio presidential election. However, at this time, I believe it is incumbent
upon the Justice Department to not only provide a more complete and thorough response to the
concerns I have raised, but to engage in a more comprehensive investigation of these matters. In
particular, I am requesting that you investigate the very serious allegations of vote tampering and
fraud in Clermont County,’and also more fully respond to the numerous concerns regarding
Triad, many of which have arisen since you conducted your preliminary inquiry.
Clermont Countv Vote TamDering
According to a story just released by Raw Story: based on a series of signed affidavits
(enclosed), we have also received strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud in
Clermont County, Ohio, which, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, was one of three counties
that made the difference in President Bush’s victory over Senator Kerry in Ohio in 2004?
‘Larisa Alexandrovna, Ohio recount volunteers allege electoral tampering, legal
violations andpossiblepaud, THE RAW STORY , Jan. 26,2005, available at
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=7.
2Larisa Alexandrovna, Ohio recount volunteers allege electoral tampering, legal
violations andpossible fraud, THE RAW STORY , Jan. 26,2005, available at
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=7.
‘Carl Weiser, Presidential vote pattern same as 2000, THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER , Jan.
24,2005, at 2B.
Mr. Chris Swecker
Page Two
January 28,2005
Several volunteers who observed the recount in Clermont County, Ohio, prepared
affidavits alleging serious tampering, violations of state and federal law, and possible fraud.
They assert that some ballots clearly marked for Kerry/Edwards were counted for Bush/Cheney.
Specifically, during the Dec. 14,2004 hand recount, volunteers noticed stickers covering the
Kerry/Edwards oval, whereas the Bush/Cheney oval was “colored in.” Beneath the stickers, the
Kerry/Edwards oval was selected. These opt&an ballots were then fed into the machines after
the hand recount, and counted for Bush/Cheney.
Stephen Spraley, a Clinton County Democrat observer, saw the stickers on at least ten
opti-scan ballots. Mr. Spraley brought this issue to the attention at one of the meetings with the
Board of Elections, and “a Republican board member said the stickers were put on election
night.” However, Clermont’s Democratic Party Chief O ’Donnell “said she knew nothing about
the stickers,” according to Mr. Spraley.
Another observer, Bob Drake, corroborates Mr. Spraley ’s allegations. “One person
offered that [the stickers] must have been placed on the ballots by someone at the precinct on
Election Day, and that no one could be responsible for that . . . . Everyone, including the
Executive Director Danny Bare, denied having ever seen them before or having any knowledge
of them,” Mr. Drake said. Jeannine Tater, a witness for the elections, corroborates the above
events in her affidavit.
During the meeting, according to Mr. Spraley, Mr. Drake, Ms. Tater, and other witnesses,
the ballots with stickers were counted for Bush/Cheney, even though the Kerry/Edwards oval
was clearly marked underneath. Several Clermont Board of Election employees, who wished to
remain anonymous, confirmed that there were stickers placed on both the tabulators and the
ballots. The same employees said that the stickers did cover the oval next to Kerry/Edwards.
This evidence of vote tempering supported by attached affidavits would appear to violate
numerous provisions of federal law. The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 0 1973, provides for
criminal penalties for any person who, in any election for federal office, “knowingly and willfully
deprives, defrauds, or attempts to defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially
conducted election process, by . . . the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are
known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in
which the election is held.” Section 1974 requires the retention and preservation of all voting
records and papers for a period of 22 months from the date of a federal election and makes it a
felony for any person to “willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter” any such record?
40hio law has a mirror provision which requires that all ballots be “carefully preserved”
for 22 months.
Mr. Chris Swecker
Page Three
January 28,2005
In this current context, several citizens of Clermont County appear to have been deprived
of their voting rights. Ballots clearly marked for Kerry/Edwards appear to have been fraudulently
obscured by stickers and counted as votes for Bush/Cheney. Given the seriousness of these
allegations, I urge your office to investigate this violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Triad
Subsequent to my initial letter to you, Mr. Barbian, the Ohio Field Representative of
Triad GSI, admitted to altering tabulating software in Hocking, Lorain, Muskingum, Clark,
Harrison and Guernsey counties as well.’ Todd Rapp, President of Triad, also has confirmed that
these sorts of changes are standard procedure for his company.6 It is particularly important to
note that during an interview, film maker Lynda Byrket asked Barbian, “you were just trying to
help them so that they wouldn’t have to do a full recount of the county, to try to avoid that? ’
Mr. Barbian answered, “Right.” At the hearing, Barbian noted that he had “provided [other
counties] reports so they could review the information on their own.“’
We have received several additional reports of machine irregularities involving several
other counties serviced by Triad,’including a report that Triad was able to alter election software
by remote access:
.
In Union County, the hard drive on the vote tabulation machine, a Triad machine, had
failed after the election and had been replaced. The old hard drive was returned to the
Union County Board of Elections in response to a subpoena.
.
The Directors of the Board of Elections in both Fulton and Henry County stated that the
Triad company had reprogrammed the computer by remote dial-up to count only the
presidential votes prior to the start of the recount .9
‘Interview of Michael Barbian by Lynda Byrket, available at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404X.shtml.
6Preliminary Transcript, Footage of Hocking County Board Meeting, Dec. 20,2004, on
file with the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff.
‘Id.
‘Yost v. National Voting Rights Institute, No. C2-04-1139 (SD. Ohio) (decl. of Lynne
Serpe).
‘Statement of Green Party County Coordinator, Henry County Recount, available at
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_repo~s/co~ties~e~.php
Mr. Chris Swecker
Page Four
January 28,2005
.
In Monroe County, the 3% hand-count failed to match the machine count twice.
Subsequent runs on that machine did not match each other nor the hand count. The
Monroe County Board of Elections summoned a repairman from Triad to bring a new
machine and the recount was suspended and reconvened for the following day.
.
In Harrison County, a representative of the Triad company reprogrammed and retested the
tabulator machine and software prior to the start of the recount. The Harrison County
tabulating computer is connected to a second computer which is linked to the Secretary of
State’s Office in Columbus. ”
It therefore appears that Triad and its employees provided “cheat sheets” to those
counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each
candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count.
In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. This
would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law - to randomly ascertain if the vote counting
apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not, to conduct a full hand recount. Such a
course of conduct would appear to violate numerous provisions of federal and state law as
detailed in my previous letter to you.
Given the seriousness of these allegations, I believe it is imperative that your office
expand their investigation as well as brief me and my Judiciary Committee staff on your findings.
I look forward to hearing from you by February 3,2005, if at all possible. Please reply through
Perry Apelbaum or Ted Kalo of my Judiciary Committee staff, 2 142 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 205 15 (tel: 202-225-6504; fax: 202-225-4423).
Thank you for taking this matter so seriously and I look forward to working with you in
the future.
Enclosures
“The Harrison County Board of Elections kept voted ballots and unused ballots in a room
open to direct public access. The Board placed voted ballots in unsealed transfer cases stored in
an old wooden cabinet that, at one point, was said to be lockable and, at another point, was said
to be unlockable.
U.S. Deuartment of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D. C. 20535-0001
January 12, 2005
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Conyers:
This letter is in response to your letter dated
December 15, 2004, to the Special Agent in Charge of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's (FBI'S) Cincinnati, Ohio Field Office
and Attorney Larry E. Beal, Hocking County, Ohio Prosecutor.
In
your letter, you requested an investigation regarding information
you received regarding possible election tampering in Ohio during
Your letter was subsequently
the recent presidential election.
forwarded to the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division for reply.
Upon receipt of your letter, the FBI's Cincinnati Field
Office conducted a thorough inquiry of the information you
provided in your letter, which included interviews with officials
from the Hocking County Board of Elections, including Sherole L.
Eaton; other local and state election and law enforcement
The results of this
officials; and, employees of Triad GSI.
inquiry were also reported to and reviewed by the Department of
Justice (DOJ), Public Integrity Section, Elections Crime Branch
(USAO) for the Southern
and the United States Attorney's Office
Based on this inquiry, neither the DOJ, the
District of Ohio.
USA0 for the Southern District of Ohio, the FBI, nor their local
and state counterparts, found any credible evidence that anyone
engaged in any conduct which violated federal election laws.
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
.
I understand your concerns regarding this matter, and I
appreci ate your prompt referral of this information to the SAC of
I hope
the FBI .'s Cincinnati Field Office for appropriate action.
If
you
this response adequately answers all of your concerns.
have any further information or questions regarding this matter,
please contact myself or the Assistant Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs, Eleni P. Kalisch.
Sincerely yours,
Chrg&&
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
cc:
Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
2
AFFlDAVlT
cL
-c
wlQTyREcwNT
c
mE
so
lE
lun
M
EtJYm
oN 2a4
2. My nme ir cs;tc@cn
was &
x
t o vohuvrc
i
M. Spaby
, t tide pi t 185 Jafvs tme, Sptin@oro, Ohio. 1
fi trxt he CM D e t n w r Par
a@
t k ic3 P Recount Cocudinator
f&rCIcrmont Coumy on Muifoftk Prc&knM Eke&m ofZtXM. I been veuy
invdvodindrc:~oCDctaocraGyand~nowfimcwxnrcdtoftheri~af
evm AmctWm Citizen of tk United States of America to have their vote
cnunted,
5.
3
AFFIDAVIT
POTENTIAL FRAUD AND COVER-UP IN UNION TOWNSflU’ E,
CLERMONT CCXIZVTY, OEUO IN COHNECTION WITH TILE 01UO
2004 ELEC730~ RECOUNT & CERTlXICATIUN
I _ I, Jzat~ninc Tacer, after being duly coutioned and worn, state that the
following is true based upon my pertsunal knowledge.
2. My n;rme in Jeannine Chetie ‘L’ater. I reside at 17552 Van Buren
Strct~& Huntington BN&, California. Z em currently m~loyed. 1
hold an MBA in mketinf: received in 1996, km Cdiftia State
University, at Lung Beach I ah Ml a CLAD Sin& subject
Teaching Cr&tM in Business l-!ducation issued in 200 1, is& by
the state of Caliibmia. I hold a BS in Businusr: Adminrstraiiorl
re.ceived in 1977, from the Univmity of Southern California.
California.
3. On December 14 - 20,2004, I witnessed a vote I-ccount for the couuty
of Clcrmont, Ohio. Clcrmont CiJurlly used a ballot system whqc
voters blackened preqxint~ circlee next to the name of the cand&c
they selected.
Union Townshlp Macbinc Scan uf Ballots;
4. I’he following ATI? The numbera were provided to me by Maureen
McCarthy aa the total vat= cast fm three precmcts in Cletmont
Ccwnty 2004 &&I1 :
Union Townshq~ E:
Bethel Village A:
1) I 90 total votes CBS1
‘I’ate Township A:
387 total votes cut
4 12 tot01 voted wit
5. During the Green Pal1y 2004 Ohio Recount, I was a wxnrg;~ CKI &alf
of losing mwlicbte Kmy. ‘The tloiu-d
of Elccrim~s machine gcauzd
100% of the ballots cast &I president. During tile handling of ballots
that were being f&l U~wgh the tabulating machine to check tie totals
against t)le; official vote cou.nt$. T obse.ivcd t&u the stack of ballots fclr
Union TOwnship W.S &out 50% larger l.km the slack fm ReThe
Village A. Raqed IJpDII the “votes cast ”nuulbet~ above, 1b.c Unioil
Townstip stac;k slwuld bc approxitnatcly thr~ times 21~ luge u
Bethel village A.
6. M3umcm McCarthy, the information systems counry envltiyct,
assisthg h hr? rwm.nt, scanned tha hitllots in the UNO~ TowilshipE
ballot bcq the number of ballots W&XI 678. McC:arthy said th;dl: the
phIWe "VOteS CaSt"inthCofficial fjords refers torheact&n
mbe
r
orvates cast.
Assistant Director for the Board of Electioq disagree&
she said that %otes chat” rcf&ed to the qmkr of ballots cwt and n,ot
votes cm. 'l'his makes a diff ’
~e for a two-page ballot, whcrc: the
mmber of ballot pages is twice the number of votes. Jones said there
~8s a second ballot box containing a oJle-page referendum on a
zotig issue for the Union To-hip; she said that the total ofthe two
boxes ww 1,196 ballots, with 678 page one ballota and 5 12 page kwo
ballt~~.This means thti 166 votms did not cast page IWO b&a
8, Da1 Bare, clifcm~ of the Clenmmt County Board of Elzclio~,lls,
refi~scn tn explain, saying he will not hand count9. In a later conversation, McCarthy said that ‘+Total” number an the
NOV 2,2004 Abstmct Keporr equakd the number of balllt pages cast
and not number of voters. 1 was shown o second ballot box by Jones
and McCartbry; they told II.IC &at the ballot box comined fhe second
page of the ballot
10. Bare explained that only in Union To~hip ’s case did the uumbcr of
ballot pages exceed number of votcx%, Since only Union Township b
out of afl 19 1 precincts had a 2- page ballot. Director Rare cxpla&ed
this WXYI~A~Y csccumxi because this precinct, and only this precinct,
l&l a 3 column j&&c r~pding rezoning, which took almost a
whole l-s&xl pqgt. JItiS ~cerncd strange to rile, because I would have
7. b&y Jones,
Page2 of8
an ini.riative would be for a whole township, which would
be comprised of multiple precurcb.
11, Bare agreed that tie total number of ballot pages included the pages
from the fi,m ballot box, which included the presidrnlial election rmd
most issueg, and the ballots corn the sccad box, for the second p-ay,a,
wilh lhe three-partigmph ~otig issue. D;~I went QII to explain sklct!
only 678 vote6 were east for president, and the other 5 12 ballots were
for the zcming initintive, the Sum of tlkcsse nut&m equals Lhc 1,190
“total VO~CS cd ’shown on the clcction II&&K abs~ct. HC i&&d tlLnt
my question was irrclcvant and said it was dme to go on.
thought that
When I uu done with timessing the recount for the drry, I looked at
the Election h’i& Ab~lr~t for Union ‘1 ownship E in Clarmont
t ;omry on the I.ntcmat. The a’bsm.ct report can bc v&wed at
h ttp://www xlermontelec tions_or~rlf/rl~tion2004/Aesid~~Vic&esident.pdf. chated on clcction night, Abstract for Cl-t
CITIFY indicates Union Township E total votes were 1,190. It
indicated $78 VOWS wwc cam for hh and 378 fix Kerry.
12. Appart&ly. Kathy Jones, a ~kmcwatic Party Deputy Director,
misinfbrmed HIM 88 tti WI& the “tntal voter ” figure in the offlcisl
records represthlls. 1 do riot know why a Democrat would have told.
me this. The frJllowing morning, Dtctnti 16,2004, Kathy Jones
a list of problem precincts. I asked her why Uriicxl
Township E was not on the list. Katlly stated it was not a problem
ske: it balanced. I rc6pfided that 1 still had questions and was not
was preparing
satisfied with the explanatm~ Dire&r Dan Bare walked up to mc
and bcreamwl at me -- about 4 inches from my k&t, “If you can not
conduct yourself properly aud sup bothering my st& about that
iesuc, you will not he permitted to 6Qy.” I stated, Y am calm, no1
scream& md 1 have questions that are unresolved ”Director Bare
reiterated that, ifI akti sly more questions about ‘Township E, I was
Out. Since I was the only pcrsw CUrrently at the recount representing
Kerry, I stopped inquiring about the Township and decided to save my
Page 3 of 8
qxcstions for the Board of Directors meeting et 2:OO PM tltial
altcrnoon.
Preeidential Race Ballots included Kdpb Nader:
14.Btcause it seemed that having tie name of Ralph Nadm cm the
Clermont Cwnty absentee btilots even though he WAS 1101 a valid
candidate would tend to coIlfuse voters and cause some voters to vote
for Nader instead of Keuy while under the mistaken
i~mpwssbn that a
Ntijcr vntr would be counted, I hquircd as TO why Nader ’sname
remained on the btiot after he was no longer a valid candidate l%r
Resident. Direc~ar Bare infozmed Green Patty witnesses Rob Drake,
Eric, Tina, and me that he had attempted everything possible to
remme Ritlph Nader from the ballot. Bare cltitr.ted he ~8s told by the
priat&% (Dayton ~a1101 Prin1m.g) that it was too Iate to relnove Na&y
tioni the ballot. At first he said that it was too 1st~ to print new ballots
because the absentee ballot mailing deadline w3s +proaching. I
understmd that in some, If rloc many, other counties, this pmE)larn w&
resolved by mailing absentee ballots with Nader ’s name on
the ball.ot
(and appropriate instructions that hc was not a car&date) and
reptintine F.lect.i6n l)ay ballots with N&r ’sname deleted. &r~ htm
mid he ws CO~CXX
II~
that the county ‘wauld have no b&k for the
election. We thou&r that leaving Nader ’s name on theballot ~8s less
of a problem- ” He continued tod-r&t: then slips that were included
with wh abscntcc ballot that infurmcd votcm th3t a vote for Nader
would not be umnted. Similar ~~otices were posted in each vating
badh. Further, poll worktr~ ~6te instructed to “leteveryone krlow
that a Nader vote would not count, ”A workor at the Iloard of
Ek&ms told us tbar Clernmrrt County was “frost in line it the
printing cornpuny, and Dan didn ’t wanttr, lnse that place in line. ”&qchanges to the ballot would result in b&g moved back in lint and
would cause a dsl=y in printing; even dthc printing had been delayed,
voters still would have received their ballots prior to the elec tlon _
Page 4 of K
Stickers:
15.011~ of 111e o~@nal witnf9se~ to the recount, a &n-y wiume mned
Strve, discovered white oval-shaped stictis on some of the ballots
during the 3% tid count. I persorlally observed these stickers duhg
recount. Tlxse stickers WMB used to alter v~tea 011 tie
op-scan ballot sheets. For exmplc, a Knry vote w* co~Mw1 with a
the ma&iIlc
stictir, and cwed TO a Bush v-m. Sttv~aJ ballots were alterexl in
this rnannti. Whtsn questioned, all of Ihe Board ofElections
m~$uyees indicated that they did n& use stickers on Election Day to
c‘co~ec~’ ballots. They Wso did not provide cr~crs to v~tcts.~
According to Llan Hare, “If a voter made a r&take on a ballot, the
b&t was rctumed to the prctict judge and a uew ballof was issued;
UT, to three ballots arc permitted per voter. WC did DOT use stickers
to
mismarked hallow.“. Eric, a Oreen Party wimess, requested
and ~3s ~fii& ptiEision to take pictutes of stickers on the ballots.
When questioneil, all ofhe emplqaes from the BWYI csf Elections
said they bad “never seen the stickers” ad had a.0 idea where they
cmcct
tam fionz All cc&rmed tbar su&rs were & used on Et434~1
Day. However, all af the wituwxs obscrvcd thaw the same unusuallyshaped oval stickers wme used lo l&cl buttons on all four tabulatips
machines- The stickers were clearly km the Board of Elcctinna.
Despite the &eration of the ballfit.., all ballots on which stickers were
used to change the vote were counted. None wcrc rejected by tic
tibulating machines as ovewotes. IT the band count categorired thcsc
ballolu as ovr;rvote2r %and they were fed through lha SUIUXX as is, thcrc
would have been a discrepancy in the hand count between the hund
count nnfi r.h.hr iabulator count, potentially causing a 100% band
reccnmt under the Blaclwell ele&m ftiount guidelines. Obviously,
the UfX does not want a lOOO/u hand rwunt.
26,Bare offered a dif%rent expllin;ili0n of the stickered ballots when
qiJe&ioned by ll& Both at the Board of F!lections n~~cl&g un
Page5of8
December 16. ‘I’here, he said tit years ago, they used to use the
sticker method of conectirlg “spoiled ”uote.., i.e., ballots that were
misread by the scanner clue to erasures or &ray mks that muld not
be adequanzly removed with an eraser. He said tbuy then went t.o the
“duplicate ballut ”method. In all caacs, there was one Democrat and
me Kepublican present. With the dupkcate ballot system, d&ion
offic~~1.s cleatly label the duplicate card as a duplicate and the original
as the migimil. But WC fomd out late that duplicate car& are IJ&
only for damaged btiots, “ItiC &een P&y requcticd a citation ro ihe
authotity for use of stickers to alter vota. The l3oard (&or Bare)
indicated it believed the authority for use of duplicate ballots covered
the USC of stickers. The ballots lhat were found with stickers were not
acconlpanicd by any docunrcutaticm indicating WhICSSiIIg af a
Democmr z+nd a Republic, so, in. my opinion, this fact puts the
explwation given in doubt.
Rmdomness of precintt sekction:
17.0bservers wcrc told by the Clerrnont County Board of Elections that a
ran&m selection of precin&q was not used. R&her, the stilest
thirteen precinc& were chasen, and one of the largt~ p&ncts ww
ad&d to reach the 3% for rht hand count- “This will provide fewer
crrofs on the IPCW& ”acxordii to one ofthe Board of Elections
members. Kequcsta to use a random method to select the precinct
chosen for the 3% hand count were rejected by Dan Bare arid
subsequently hy the Board of EIcrriaas when the request was made at
tic December 16 meeting.
Ballot Boxes
and Keys;
18. When we tivcJ for the recount the b&lot boxes ww not sealed, llor
did the doors to the Board of Elections offices IMXA Ihe security
criteria for ballot boxes. They each hacl a V~KY small master key lock.
The keys were not fat” a security lock, nor
Page 6 of8
WRE they printedwith t.hc
WOI& “do lrnt copy.” Locks fir all ballot boxes were identically
keyed. There were at least 2 keys tr, these boxes. Whea Dan Bare
eked fix a ballot box key, Becky said sht had a key. I saw the other
hallot lock box key left lying on table close Lo Ihe rlour in f?ont of the
scrumin~ room I repcat the key to the ballot box wils ruqyardcd,
lying on a table. Rnh D&e, the Grcet~ P~~IY wimess raid it was there
all day.
19, One employee off&d anti&r employee her lock box kc-y. IIoweveq
the other cmploycc said th;aI she did not need the key aincs she had
found the other key.
Vote Certifkatlon: December l&ZOO4
20. During the Board of Elections board meeting to certify the recount,
the BOE membae were not tilling to give us a r~~~&le chance. J;
had tried to speak, lnzt it WBS Ilever my turn. Rob Drake (a Green Party
witness) made a l.ong statenwnt. 1 raised my hand, but was unrible LO
speak, The had bogtd tnember then said, “anyone want to speak? I
move to certi& the votes. ” The moderator did not break between hsr
statements. I wm MilrU~~ my hand as she said “I move to certirjl the
votes.” Another bnarrl member said “I second.” It was over and 1 djd
not get a chance b speak on behalf of’ Kerry.
Recount December 17.2004:
21.Mtiough
w were told
by Dan Bare on December 16,2004 to return
the next morning at 890 AM and we would have 3 remount g~:aups
looking at unmuured absentee ballots, disqualified provisional ballors
and precincr/Folling
books, when we arrived
as kuttic&d
the next
morn& we were told events would IW commence until 9~00 AM.
At about 10 AM we were told to rdurk~ at 1 :OO PM and 1 em would
look at protisionJ, absentee and precinct books af a time. Bare told us
this was because Hare needed 3 Dcmxrat and Republican for each
Pagr 7 of 6
team ‘learns were to include the 2 BOE crnployec~ and 1.
representative frnul each party ’s political uzana_
Final Day 01 Recuuat: Dee 20,204
ZZ.Stephen Spraley and I arrivti at ahout IO:24 and were talking in
Steve’s ccv. Danny Bare walked up tn SWVC’S W. Danrly told US WC
wcrc suthorized to look at poll books only, not the voe siRnat_
books. Bare said the rcaqon sre could not review the sigoature poll
bwks was that the letier ti,oru Mr. McXiguc did not speti fic;tJly tlsk
for voter si@n sheets. Bare also told us tmly 1 Pusan from each
canditi?~ tenem was permitted to view the poll book. Bare c&&d
furthe his exnployce’s n&&d Christn~ tixne and they must gcar-uy
for another election in February.
Dated Januxy L5,2OOS, at
L!&nwx -
Canada
Page 8 of 8
British Colun&ia,
UN
ITED STATES
HOU$P OF REP~~SENTATTVES
.I UDICIARY C‘t~MMfTTEE
1. I, Carolyn Mu, &r being firs-~ duly caution4 and mm-n, stati that the
Mlowing is true based LQXNJ my own acrsm~l knorvledger
My ~W,P is Carolyn Beati. I mids at 6929 Lynnfield Court, Cincinnati., Ohio. 1
am a srlf-cmploycd attorney licensed to practice law in the Stztc of Ohio. I hold
nn undcrmaduarc dcprcc from Bryn Mawr C~llcp;e, a titer’s in Business
Administration, wirh a lrlajor in finance, from the Utuve.r%rty nf lsm
ciCm
ir
&actuntn College of Business Mmhistration nnd a his Doctor degree f?om thy
Salmrm P. Chase Collepe of Lau-. Northcrn K&u&y tiuy~rtity. My
prof&ioaaI tipcricnce’includes eight yenr~ BY ilp ~~ucitie, thtn prin+aI, ofa
Washington. DC - based law firm md seni.or hanker m a Wa~hingtna, DC-based
tm
lm
nvc
i
kban tha served laq& gowe,y+nrnc~~t-related ciicnrs. I have. ameq
other things, rqraented srvcral fcdcral govcrnmemt agem& irl, desicuiqq and
atrying wt wb of billions of d&us of gavemmcnt credit and rez4 estate nssets,
ccmscl ta the issuers in bi.ll,ions of dollarrr of corporate Dua~lre ruld Swuritie~
mu&tins with govcmmcnr and Wall Strcn ilsrucn and undem+tets, cot~r~scl or
~tmsultnnt with mpect to govemtnwnl. .WSE-member fba arkI indcpadcnt
prkblic acwrtinp au&s_ finnncinl ndvisbr (as mu employso of FHA’s lead
financial advisor) for the Department of Housing and Urban t)ev&ptnrnt and il:-
3
,. A
hausc c~ur& ia the monsement of w&ion r&ted to rm &ht-year-10%
Federal l&e Cltims ctA MSC and n dx-your-lang Court of Federal Claims case
qpinst the government for breach af contrwct, bath of which~:uses wme dr.criSA
1arpAy in myt'm
lci
s favor and arc currently unclcr r~ppeal.. During the cturse of
my CZ.WET, I halrc hnrl rxpcricnce in many contexts w11h white-o&r crime, fraud
4thin gov~ert sod the priMe stir and the cover-up of qbsstiofiable
activities by govcmmenr ul’iici& and ~UVC~~WCI~~ contractors. I doe have
ex~cricnccin the aras ofsubpoena end discovery of digital documenlz, hirinp 01
federel Conlnictdf for i&rnl&>n. tschnolob~-rclatcd work, ctfli
con
s
of interest
in eprescntation af the govemment md “scrutrbil~” of? fkderal &abases. Parr of
my fcrrrner emgloyr;r ?I work with the eovemment m~~lvcd finMtial sofMue
design and nntjnnJ GIS-mapping of~linanciol LLSWLJ and moae flaws on B
cen.sus-Mock basis.
3. I was appalled an the second nighr before rhe election whm 1 turned on tit
lefevision md touud thm WY one, but all. three mtmrk afiliates in C’inciqnatr
were covering a Bush campaign rally bcine held at the stadium, oppaTMllly RS (I
news itrm, for Over nn hour. I nlled the Jkrry c;nrrlpign headq~iirkrs b
&orakp.laq be~rsc J quesrione4 urhnh.er this is iha v+q the public drwaves should
be UWI~ and whtthcrr the notoriously Rep&l&n television ,%ttions ~ISICI hcen pai(i
1
U. 1 am a mgidmd indepmdm~ My firsr in&vemtnt in the 2004 Ptmidential
c.~ecthn ccxuisted of pm bono volunteer a~lorrq S-W& with the Election
Protection CoalitiorI at inn&ciQ Cincinnati polls. I waf a vuluntcer at tour
precincts looutd in a riuyle vatinp plan* at a bible callego in the Chw-the-Rhine
noi&horhootl of Cincinnati, Ohio, in Hamill~n County. Bmsnl @XI my
nbscrvotions,, rnw~ of rhe voters ia these I)recinccf consist4 of whi~a voters who
WCK &dfnLq, teachers nnd employees ot the bible ~llrgc nnd largely African
Amrric~l vuters whn lived in the neighborhood. Borne ofwhom snilJ tiq x~tc
votinjJ i-or rhc fim tiJx.
C%TI-IC~P~ compltirs t,hat one of the four precincts had fewer votir~g
machinca than the other, r~ault~ng in long Lines for voting in tb$t pxincl
and questionsocnong vawrs whether tl~y cotlId vote at mxhinek ~:t up
for p&ncb olhcr than their own,
m~firaion mong vokm, particularly during rush bow when Thr: lint
extcnkd outside rbc gsm in which ti vnting machines and precinct
tablus were Incated, ~ZI to which lines corresponded ELI thc3r prop
precincllr. some voters havbg stood in Qe wroug lim and been TOM they
WCTC oat rcgkrercd,
VOWS ~4~0 left withaut vaiing bec~~~se rhcy wete tuld they were INN
mglsttzd, even t.huugh dq cithcr hod kn red- at &a same address
for yeam OK had registered aI gec-oumhe-vote rallies that iall hrld st tha
Departrneu~ d Children and Families or public malls,
WEIT who left WirhlJut voting be~ausc Joey wrc not It&d an the poll list
because they lucl mQvcd sirux rhe last clrxtion (or, in soni@ CQW, rincc
tbr 18.31 day to ngistt~ Lo vatc before UE clccticm) witin the zajnc coutiy
hti To a dilTW%r precinct and had not nt&kci the Dow-d ofE;ktjons of
lkausc tic Election Protcotion vcrluntecrs knew of the court d
ine
m chr effect
a provisional ba
llar
vvtd in MI incorrect precinct would not be counted, we
rclatcd this jr&don as best we could 14 vutcr~ ~tnn~ the precincts 30 that
they would ~mne tell us if they were offered provisional ballots. In at least one
case, a voter who WIZJ q-cd to vote a provisional b&r ~CC~LW the vetcr wm llot
list& in the poll. hook had stcxd in the wrong tint pnd W‘BS registered to WY im
tha r;wlc voting place in a diK~nt precinct. I s;ati see hew, ifno Blcctinn
Prmtiti’on volunterls had k thaw IL) explain the problem. voters could have
voted pd~ionalbdots that n~uld not havt been counted when rhcr wcut to the
correct pfilling place but stood in UK vrwlfi line. It was not clear to me lhat poll
workera usttionti with vnter.~ who wecz uot in Ihe poll ~_NNI~Y uwc a&ii
whether the votprs ww in 11~ cocrcct precinct line.
that
6. Some time 8%~ Elcetian DP~, in following news reports on the lntemct Ed
rwdinp cmnil ntassaggcs fhm the EMion Protection Coalition mcrnhers, 1
bec2unc awat
i
tht the Green
Party had .suwsded in raisiq n~oncy fm and filiw
a successfii pcliliO0 fi3r an cletion recount in Ohio. T Was awse on lhc nigh1 of
Election bay that exit pollc predicted Ohio would ga for K- and why 1 wrtkc
IIF the next day, Ihc DG
ti
rep&s said that Ohio had gme fm Bush.. I was
a+tical. hav& tin statistics and Galculus (in&Ming st8nciat-d &&lion
.analysis) 91 business school and understood, generally, statisticaI sampling
&14~tiyues and the value of polls, p.srricularly e& polls. 1 h3u.l f.uoved to
Citicimti in early 2003 and registered indqendant with an address in what I
hhvc been told is the zip c&r thnt cnntribut~ more money to George W;. Bush
than any in the cauntrv othu thzu~ the Upper Easy Side of New York. Fhcrc ~0s
a surprising omaunt of support for IGzq in this neighborh.ood, and I WZIS novor,
ever mntscted by t)lr! Republican Parry or my Bush Supporter. 1 was contacted
repeatedly &the Kerry campnip, which sppezxrecl lo me to have spau.t WIW
money in the area than the Bush UUI~.&~IL
7. I got an end id same point calling for voIuulwr3 for the cecmm in ecveral
statq including &IO. I wan$ onto a hot-linkad web&c and siped up to
volunteer forthe mmvn~ In tlamilten Collnv- whcrc I live Recsuse I was the
only attorney voluntacr for the Cobb/La%IuEhc Green Party recount obwrvcr
c.ontingcnt in my redon arid rbe Policy of the Hamilton County Board of
Elections WAS not to allow talking nr the taking of zclcphanc cnllr iu Lhe voti
recount rooms, 1 d&ded to rcxG in the waiting room of the Marnil~on C:aunly
6wd of Ele~tians dllring the recount 40 Ihat I ~~ou1.d bu wdable for qucd.ior~
b-am other counties. I KM admitted as ~1 ~count ob,serve.r rvith a “Clnhb letter,”
meaning that T wa* pro&led with a let~r: rigmA by David Cobb, stating rhat I
WL~ an autbtizod_qwsntrrtivc of lkkl COMJ ia the recorstl~ En& 1osin.p
andid& (i.e.. Cobb, LaMarcbe and I&TV) was pet-m&cd ~nc recount ubcrvcr
for tach counting stattion, or Board of Elections nrountcr. I resume the same
.._..
u_.#.
worker fmally cnlkd the main BoM clr Fl~tions numbs \yhcrc P VscnMvu confinnc<l thal the ~uung
man rhould bc gim o ~c
w
ihtd
bnkk
3
number of observers was pdned for the REpublican Pam_ Thrrc ~89 a room
for the 3% band recount and il mom for running the .mme punch crud ballots thd
wcrc subject to rhe: hnnd =OUIII through llrc voti~ tabulator. T h&ve there
were two observer ‘stations” h that room. In additim lu tbc Orem A’arty
obscrven, there ume 3 few Kerry observe and Rush observew. The county
coordinator for the Green Par&, Pammcla Futc~, lold me tla that wwc few
1 .&Izc.he ~bservcrs in the rqion due IO i.ssws b&ng te do with obtaining
orig,inally executed La.&zhe letters. T Meve the recount stinted on Tuesday,
Jkxmb~~ 14,201)4 I: vm at Hamilton Coune for the full 5rst duy of rhe
recount. Very Lx+ isws zunaq and I am nwa~e of no incgutities cncountsrtd
during rhc recount, &hcq$~ I, pcmnally, bclicvA thar dre xar~du~aurss &the 3%
11snd recount catnblished bg the guidrlinrs issue4 by the Ohio Sccrmt~ry of State
war uot perfazl. Jl wkx3 cxplailred to UII b) ltlc Direcrot of the RoMd of Elcctiorrs
that prccinck wert: selected fbr Lkc rlilldom rewlrnt by sraning with precincr 1 ad
selecting every thirty-third precinct. A more p&&i random sc~cctio~~ would he,
in my opinion+ to choose the first pVrinc1 r3nclomly (by drnwing nun&crs from n
hnq for example) and then Talrr every thim third precinct thereafter, thus making
it immssiblc to predict in ndvmnce of the recount whM precincts would be
Ncctcd. It ~85 my opinion that in theory, if tb.e Board of Elections knm at the
time of the election thsr there could be SI 3% lmd fF8YN?Ik and that the t’wt nnd
every thlny-third precinct there- me&ad would ba used to rlect precincts,
atiy mnnipulatirm of t&e vote could be conwntmted in other prccirrcts. On chc
other band, ifthc first X)KC~~IC~ w=e r.1~1 Kim uttil the recount s~ticd: nn vote
rrzonipalation could have talon place with &e KVZMEP (hwr it would rmt he
detcctcd in the hand recount, ‘I& only other issue 1 can rcsall in Hamilton
County w the fact that one Doatd of Electionr rccuuclter uu inspecting IRK
punclr~arcl balluti so quickly tbr hanging and preps* chads that the abscrvcr felt
he or she could not msaningfi~lly 6bServc tile accuracy of thsl wunter’s work.
BUI Ulill was only CI~ of a number af bal lti mspcction .cit&na, and there. wcrc nr,
orhcr obsewer complarnts in thy rrrgard.
8. While 1 attended the Hatnilton Clnunty Iccount, 1 meivd a ssr,i,~ of calls fram
recount ahsmen~ in Clermonl County. ‘I& first queslioa had tc) do with what
cp,~stirurc~ b “random” 3cJcctim for purposes oftic 3’S hand rccouat. C%ecn
Party obse;en*m related to rnc that the 3% hand recount precirlcb had beev
sclcxrted in Clmnnt Cuulbty by taking the 3% smellcst precinctrr, plus ons
precinct that would take the mfal over 3 96. The c;rrllcr explained that the rr;baorl
gival by ‘Board uUSctians (“BCW-“j sWTfnr this schction method is thut i,t
wo:lld rewlr: in %wcr pmblcms.” I told thy c.~llet that the pin1 af a 3% r&m&m
s&&ion ww to obti 1 rcp=xznrativc luur~ylr of prrcinctft throughout the c~u.r@
and ee.lrxtin~ the smallest piacts way CrrtAnly not ZI method calculated LU
Dbtain a representaGvc sunpIe> particularly in lighi of the prediction thnt the
sm&llest preeirkts would IMW %w~?t’ pbkms ” 7%~ cailer. R math rr?ncbcr,
wd with my aSPe=mmt and at somr point lold me the Chcen Party obsam-ts
had mked tint nd&ticrnal random precincts be added to or suhdtuti fbr the
originally selsIml prC&cts ti as co grs 8 mom rq.WSanxative sample. llle
During the 3 % hand
xcourrf Srcvc Sp & y,nhscting for the Dcmoctnls.
SBW EII optical Scan ballot that had the Kerry “bubble ” covered
up with n
white sticker tht size ofth,c hubblc and tho Bush
“bubble
blackcnr?c,
”
ns
ballat had been counted as a Bush volt Once this ballot ww disco~ m I.
they looked for, and found. more
hallot~ w iths & kmover rhe Kerry
“bubble. ” Bob said
YOU cx+ulrl r& when you held the ballot up try the light
ad looked on theback that the Kerry bubble was black 1lnAcr the .tiick.cT.
(b) W hen.asked fir an explantiion of rhe tiickers, BOE staff had pmfeslred
ignorsnceE b=, they said rhq knew ~athin$ about the IJSK d stickers.
Then recount observe= foti more stickers on the tabulating
m achine,
itidica~ @to
, the m(a Jepm to the G reatParty tibccnrrrrsj, that the: srickcn
had been W I gcruxal u$r.. IMing the course of discussions #tKIuI Lhe
nirka mthe
. story gra&~sllly r; Lq$d and BOE sraft ’ad m iti
thrt the
stockers bad been UFICA tn “5~ ”ballors for Bush th moriginally had been
vated for Keny and erased. I M S skeptical of this explannation hccnust- in
my r4inEn nbon~ Ohio eler;lion luw 1 had lta m cdthat inRlructinns to
voters for op ti dKi3.n hall0t3 were that iftba v& r124& Y m istalre, the
W I.CT WY% to turn in the inccvrcctly- mar
ked ballot and get n new one, antI
could do thar up WI a total of three or four ballots. I knew that vorcrg are
rui & encra~+crs to change their ballots, 5~ if they were to aax B
m istaken hlnckeniug oPa bubble, they wou ld have tobavs brought 811
era..r w ith than,or borrowed one.
Cc.) There we= also dIscovered ballots ~hcre the Kerry ‘%uWY w s
blackened as ~41 tis tlu? “Inrbblc”for a w rite-in v&e ,and rhc na~c
“Kerry or
” “?LxyKdwards WW”J w irten in OTJ the wrik, in lint. It was
expl & cclIU m c t& tthis sk m edto have happenccd yrlleti rie & ‘Ed \4srds
appeared imm tdiarelyabove Ux w rite-rn line. In other nmdq the
, vol;er
had tried to VOIC for K .w ryt w ice,just to make sure, or thought &wause the
w& -t &line IWS right below the Keq/Edwards line rhat the voter who
w ished to sel mcr KezrylFrlwnrdn mhnuld darkrn tbc bubble xxi write in the
~IIJIC. Any bnJJor SO m arked,acc. & ingto Bull, mm9 tiented a an
“o\~no~ Tarher
”
than a vntc for K~ny
.
Bob ?uud hc thnufiht that where
tht! SUIII~ thing happened w itfi Bush balluts (i.e., Rwh W IS bltickcded
AN 0 writ &nin), the bJLot wa6 fu m edUI a vo tr Far Bwh ,but that m ay
have been speculation an his pnrt - I never heard tic ~pos$b,ility raised
again.
‘There wus a discussion of these issues w ithmembers of the BOE ,I W IS
told, and one
m ember
had propoced Thor the BOE bow-d vck M to how the
Pfax m entionedqucstrannble ballots should be treated for pm ’porcsof the
hand recount Thai m anber could nut get any orhrr m emberto wnd his
mntinn,so the bnerd tefu.sEd to VOW nn the ienu: It was de&&j; then (I
know WI. by whom) chat the altered (i c , atkkered) ballot would k
counted for hand reaaunt tabulation purpms as vote for BIuh, which
Irxant that lhc hand aunt automatically would m3tch Ritz cabulatot count
OS to these ballots. 1 told Bob that [ thought tic bnllars a? the very Iwt
should. bc treated M rlvctvot.cs, sinr;e both Bush aud Kerr)- had. been
blackened. If they bad bten mated as uvmotes in the hand recount, the
tabulator would atill have tbuntcd them m Bush votes and chc hand count
and tabulator couu.t WKWM not IKWP matched, rr~rlltin~ in tin raecxssity f&r
a 100% hru~d recouI11.
(e) The members of rhe BGE were scheduled to vote to ccrri@ the recount 011
Dcccmbcr I6 at s hurl mecliry schtilr;d for 2:UOPM, despite the issues
tie Mcnunt obscpvcrq had raised mnd despik The f&t that ths yequested
uncauntcd absentee ballots, uncuuuted provisional ballPir anci poJl
aiglatorc books had SO fnr been refused to ullb.qv~s.
4, The suond day of the rccoun& Weclncsday. 1 stayed home to take calls and bc
close to my ccsruyutcs, where I could cammunicnte witn various ~CUNU~L
partSpants in dif%rent counties, Gnco the Htlmifton Gun& rc~arult was
ptucetiiag with few apparent problems.
Later tit day I suggested that T mrght
he more wcful in Clcrmont County on Thursday so tbnt J c&cl luk to
partieipnntg in peon and decide what i.0 do dx~ut the qxmning bcwmi nrm to
certify the rcu~unt on Thursday. So I went to the Clumont County BOli to help
on Deccm.ber 16, I submiticd a “Cobb Lemr ”and was adnlincd withour incident.
As tho count prwgxcsacd, it bne appa~c1~1 ltrat Ditector “IJanny ”Bare was
determined to certify the recount at the board mnting come I-MI or high w&r.
HE wm very clear iu telling us that he imended to sr?nd his tiout on C&&as
tick in the very neat future. He emphatlized thti hG would anend lo thy reco~nf
rqmts but “could not guarantee* that anyrhiry would bo achieved with& a short
period of time., give the holiday Ychedules and olhrr work his staff had to do Ho
said he would non di_uu~ providing poll hooks, uncounted absentee ball- and
uncounted pravisional. MM .5 u&l thr? !~;md recount was cumplcrc, although. &hbwas no indication that ha would nol Provide these other documen.& in a=&ance
with the Secfitiq of State ’sp?mnnt guid&in.es after The bsnd coml( U,QIS
compktc.
10. The Gmwn Party nbsewas tnld me they kvantod to take same action. to f-stall
thr prcmanur certification of the recount so 1 auggcstcd that they submit B lcttcr
of dcmnd co the both at t& upcclrrring board ruscting at 2:OO on Rerembc- 16
I&WC the rccmrnt vma c&&d. I said I would draft a letter with their help. They
instrucwd mc t6 include tha following cl~uwnds and. protests in the lctt~~!. which
thq intended to pccscm prior tcr the recount cettificatioa vote;
(a) a demand f&r diAosurefiwn each brmrd menkt. publicly. wht
knowledge he or she hd about tlrc rstickers di.acovcred 011 ballots iu tic
(dl in tie event rhc board vntrxl to treat the h;rrrd muunt ballots dcu;ribcd in
the immrdiate1.y preced.ing paragraph in a manner tin ‘rir~ &B mart11
with the tabuktor MIUI~~ of such ballots, a protest by lb Grceu, P+~fly of
such nction Ott the gmunds that it would lead to the false ~aficl~~?$ua Uuv
no irrwuia&ies cxistcd thtitjudicd u 100% hand recount in accordance
with the Secmtary of State ’s guidelines and a demand fii I INY!/ir mcnunt
of the vtXe9 of Clelmont County;
{e) I.n tie absence nf a 100?! bond recount and a complcrion. ofrhrc review of
0th dowment.9 requested u put of LIW mxmnr (i r: : rhc poll hooks, Lutz
unccmnkd abwr~d hd.b.s and the uncounted prwrsional ballots), a
ehallcnge by the Gcen Ytiy to the premature ccflifition of the
Clcrmonl Cuuuly 2003 election recount;
(f) in rhf event nf no 100% mount. a dclnand fi?r a hand recount of a larmr
srnnpli~~g of precincts that wclc mo.re mpmammtivti nQ the contiilituency of
the county and an override by rh.c brml nf the decisiun by JJa my&UC.
%-actor of the BE, not to occommodatc this rcquq
fg) in the evelIt of no substitution 6f precincts as rcqumed in (0, a ~Mlcnee
to the randomness of rha selccrcd prcch=ts undct tbtt @ clinsa issued hy
the Samtary of State:
(h) a xsbtement of tic Orem Party ’srequest for edditiowl documents and a
chalk
@ to the c,ertifkaGonofthe2004 vote on the ernunds thal tic
Ecount w snot eompk kauw tire WUI no 100% hanll ttcounr Bnd
rhc following had not bras p~~irkd for rcasonablc review by the (;recn
Pw witnesses:
I9
pdliinp books for all preckts
uncountd W jmtcd) absentee ballots
(lii1
uncounted (mjm%d) p~~vlsional ballots (which should
include tbe nzwnc and Pddnxs of each prdcio m voter)
l
topther with an explantion in each case m tn the nz:a<fln far
the rcjertion:
7
(i) a rcqtlest a~ citizens far names, addrestm, &lephone n~&r?i and tides or
job duti,es of all cmplopes, cmtnrctorst ullicials, hard muutre~ md
otkrx playing a role ia rhc process of counting. recounting, systms
certification and other rrJatths affecting rht intcg15ty nF& 2004 clccrion
in CIlenr ul\t County and a list of any conflia of interest that fhq might
hnve with reapust to the role played by rhem and onli~ minutes and bfhQr
public i&rmntion as to the proceeding of the Tuesday, December 14
board meeting and Tlnlursdcsy, JSxambcr t 6 board mwtir~g- ’
11. I plqzved the Ohio 2004 CobhlHadnerik Recount Prcsntition at 290 PM BoaA
of l3xtions Meeting as nquestcd, signed hy Elob Drake aq witaeas. Jinn FTe.rald
as Clemaont ( irrunty Recount Cnorriina~or and Cindy hrir as Green Psrty
Regional Cuardi@or. Bob Dmkc was chosen to present it at the board meeting
on bchnlf of dm Green Party witncrvcs before i.hr crMicadon vutc by the board.
w&h he did. WC provided copies ta cnch hoard member. the Director and
Depuq Djrector, each Kerry, Budl: and Gre,en Pm \+iti~sc~ who antinded the
,mc&ngT, tb~. CinAmati En@rer npurtLr and the New York ETJCS otringer, Al
Salvuto, all of whom altmcled tha p&an of the board meeting pn;ocrlinp and
Ian-lu&rg tic certlftcation ofthc rceount and anyone else who n&cd for a copy.
I Z. At tic 2:OO board meeting, which started late (l think because they had r\ot
completed feeding the recoum ballms through the tabulatol; but in any case
bocnusc ROE S&~WXG working in Ihe roam ~:cr&drlg the t&ul,athg f~~.hina}.,
the KKIM was crowded. A board member amned Priscilla was chairing the
m&g. P&Ma asked each person i.n, the room tcr int~&ce hirnwlf or hcrmlf.
which aeh arm&e did. Bob T&&e requested the bar, which rrqucst was
grant& and he *ad ths C&W Party demand lmcr, n copy nf &ich is included
with this affdnvit. When he had completed reading the en& letter, a Democratic
wprrxcn,tative who had jm drivca In ,fiom Columh~l~ made a statement merally
objecting to the botud’s ce&fkntion process. TIM board listtnad and then went
thy.& the itc-ms 011 our lifit Much of the meett:ng wes pedal
Tha
highlights of g~~arcst i&test to us wre*
(a) The bn& mkcd bnny Rart for an explanation of the ticker@ of
ballots. He mostly launched into a dFtai1cd RIXXU~T of how hey “wed LO ”
dc-lrl with “9poiledk &e r damaged) bllots. He said with E R.epuhlican an.rJ
nemoczat both present, they labeled the tIma@ ballot “wiginal” and
created B ~BW bzLI101 with IhE IQWE x~~Cing6, l&ding it “dupljratc” and
then had the Republican and Democrat sign each b&t. whar I tiouJ&,t
hc wpg s+na, although he was rambling and not wry CIW, was that they
had substituxsl tbc “sticker”1~1:1hoJ of alter-91~ the original ballot for the
8
duplicatr! proeadllrr. 1 don ’! knowwilnt thal has tu da with thr? ballots in
question, because they were not balbts that were damaged in rho tahul~or
aad thcrc mre no Rqublicnn anzi l3smor;rat signatuxs on the stickacd
ballots disc-d during ~IK rccuunl. The board mernm wpre
conducting the mocking al this point and we YQZ only observing, SQ theTo
wa9 no opporh.uGry for obstrvus to pin down Danny on this point. I do
remember the boanj ey,p!tisly asking Danny wbcthcr he bellerr*i &al lbc
use of sriakm was a permissible procedure to usu and he said yes. his
inteqwctatian of Ohio law wu that it was OIL Board mcmlxrs saern4 LU
accept his c@nion,
(b) Prisc~lls went wound tlw table and asked each bo& ~WI&EK t6 share
whd he nr she knrul ~HWI~ IJIC stickoxin~ of ballots
All qftbr ho&
members profksmd tb know nothing about ir.
(c) The lx~rd said rcqucsts for affiliations uf board
members and employecv
of the ROE would be provided to the Oreen Pany nr d l&r date. At the
imud ’s cxprcsrr rfgucsi, Danny iyye4 to provide the rcqucsLc4l poll
books. rejected abscnccc ball& and rejected provisional hallow.
(d) ‘Thcrr: WZM a discussion wf the issue nf rcmbti~ of Na&r ’sJUWC from the
ballots, and a d&ussion ensued dwiru2 which board mrmbers shared their
rccolltctians of what had happened in rhw process of get&g absentco
ballots priatrd. 1 was IIOK much i.nurestcd in this i.swx? and ,W dlicl not
I l&b partic.ularI~- intently. obssrvitig only that what GE busnl said was
backing up Danny &u-c’spmious .statemsnts ID obsemcrs that rhe?~ had
beat no time cd rcprinl Ihc: ballots toremnve hwl~: ‘s~.azr~e. The question
w-4 the: did IIUI ph@AIy emu the name oft’ the ballots after they wcrc
printed was not raised.
(e‘, I think it u-as &SC gaing thmugh the ibns on our demand letter liw. the
hnnti returned to thr business as stct fctrtb in the meeting agendn nlthocq&
I m3y h~3ve the order wrong on that. Ultimately, the
despite our objections,
bo& voteri to 0crtiFy
the mmmt
We left the. meeting shonjv sftcr the certification U’BS cr~m.pl&d and went out
the Inbb~~ whcrl: rtportcrs were intcrvi,cwi~ various members of the
obsemer teams. We waited for tic meeting to md to talk to I~anny Bare about
into
what WLS on tic agenda for Ue rwwnt the next day (Friday). HE came out and
emphasized he WAS going to coopcratc but hnd limited employCca wveil~.hlr
becmsc they had vacadons scheduled ti next week and there was other pressing
BOE business for th+xn IO 6ttr~R to This sccmed atalnous to me. The cireeu
Pmty observers asked when tbcy should comr ‘back co resume WtititieB the next
day, and he ~irl”8:UO am. ”
13. I did not return to Clcrmont County fix the remainder of the recount. In later
cxchangcs w1t.b Tti Herald, I learned thar they h;ld IX& nn progress ia gerting
rhc pd book. tejated provisional hallows and rrje&d absentee ballots_ The
group appeared somewhat dejected. filling that thm appmd to be no rcmcdy
3
December 16. There, he said tit yeara ago, they used 10 use the
sticker method of correcting “spoi.l.ed” votes, i.e., ballots that were
misread by the scanner due to erasures OT stray marks that could not
be adequately rumoveil with an B~GT. HC said they then WGZL~ to the
“duplicate ballot ” method,
Ln all cases, there was one Lkmoc,rat and
one Republican pr~ent, Mh the duplicate ballot system, election
officials clearly label the duplicate card as a duplicate and the originA
as the CmginaL But we fiund out later that duplicate cards are us&
only f‘or damaged ballots, The Green Parry requested a citation to the
authority folr USC of stickers M allxzr votes. The Board (,and/cu Bare]
indicated it believed the authority for IMX of duplicate ballots covticd
the use of tickers. The ballots thaw were found with stickers were not
accompanied by any documentation indicating witne~ssing of a
Democrat and a Republiczm, so, in my opinion, this fact puls lhe
explanation @vcn in doubt.
Randomness of precinct selection:
17.Observers were told by the Clermont County B~~sc! of fi:lections tit a
random selecti o~~r&ncts was not used. Rnthcr. the smallest
thjrteen precti were chosen,
xnd nne of the larger prc.cincts wcu
added to rmch the 3% for the hand taunt. ‘This will provide fewer
czrors on Qe recount, ”accordii to one of the Board of ElootiQns
members. Requests
00 use a random m&hod to select the precincts
chosen for the 3% hand count WCTG rcjcctcd by Dan Bare and
subsequently by tic Board oflG@hns when the request was made at
the December 16 meehng.
Ballot Boxa and Keys:
18. When
wc Prrive~I for the rcwunt the balla boxes were not se&d, nc~r
did tie doors to tl~ Board of E lections offices meet the stiurity
criteria for ballot boxes, They each [lad a very small mp~ster key lack.
The keys were not fbr a stctity lock, norwere they printed with the
Page 6 of 8
for xhnt we perceived was rm. incomplctc rccouni with unaddrtsvsd prubl,cms.
We looked out f~‘or; newspaper stories the next day about the recount but did not.
LMU of any stories reporting incgulvitics in any of the rwt~~ntq b&g I;onducteJ
in auf r&on.
14, .Aficr the Clcrmnnt County recount ccrt&acion, I was in t&phonc cmd cmnil
G~;CII~IZIPII;I with B&c Od&nfield, Green Party mcuunt coordinator fo? Warren,
county. Be&ha said her tcgrn was hating tmuhle getting uccesg to poIl books,
rcjccted pmvisional lmllors and rejected absentes ballats. Bdhc shared her
preliminary sports with me and told me Rme of the prahletns, in&ding some
sirtiilar problems tn those encountered in C~~OUI County. Arnon~ orher things:
1 hclievr: it WAR Rdhc v&n told me that the %uxIom* ~l~~,on of 3% hnnd
tccount counties had been done by ding traIlor boxes out of rhe safe unti! thq
had enough hallots to reach the 3K requimmm. Bethe said the AOE! stafF in
War~n. County had indicated remunt obzzrvers would bc gvcn the poll tik.5
and rejecled ballots, but later, 1 think a&r soa di~en..qsio~lh I& ~I&CII plncc yriih
yommne from the $t~reiq of State ’sOffice, the wuests were daied on the
grom& that the Rcounr guuideliw fssucd by the Sewtary of State werr
‘optional ” and notmandatory Bcthe said the iscue was to bc decided by the
Warrcm (‘nnnty pm=.lfior, who ultimately ruled that access would be grgrantcd,
hut not until probably the fi~t wk in, January. h&r, B&be mt an email asking
why and how C. Ellen ClonxlalIy (obscure candidate for Supreme Court Justice)
received more votes than Km in Warcn County-28,4/U b 16.054..
Attested this 25 ”dav of January, 2005.
_... -
.
BE OBEFK
#&#6ryRpLIm.&nt6lmQhf6
My 130mmiskion expires an:- n, coo
10