>Because of that film and after attending the hearings, I volunteered to be
>an official witness of the Election 2004 Recount. I have no special skills
>in either politics or vote recounts but in an effort to get to the truth
>behind serious doubts regarding our free and fair election, extra hands were
>needed and I resolved to make a small difference by merely participating in
>the election vote recount. I had a very different Christmas season that year
>and it had a lot to do with the odd coincidence of my living in Columbus,
>the capital city of Ohio where the swing vote happened.
>
>My assignment was in Ashland County, Ohio, about halfway between Columbus
>and Cleveland. Because of obstructionist delays by Ohio's Secretary of
>State, Ken Blackwell, who is also the Co-chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign
>in Ohio, we weren't able to get a recount done before the electoral vote was
>cast, but the recount proceeded anyway.
>
>Many people were needed on a moment's notice in the midst of already crowded
>holiday time. To be frank, I wasn't at all ready for such a job, and I knew
>it. Yet, the goal was to have each county's recount witnessed. I was told to
>watch the process and that anything I observed would be valuable
>information.
>
>I resolved to do my best, overcoming basic hesitations. I didn't have enough
>time to study the Ohio Recount Law so that I would know all the right
>questions to ask and I didn't really want to confront officious
>personalities should I spot an error in the count. Yet, I couldn't seem to
>get over seeing those long lines and then hearing hours of sworn
>testimony .as in, under oath to God and country. at public meetings about
>peoples electronic vote inexplicably switching from Gore to Bush and other
>frighteningly unacceptable irregularities on election day.
>
>What I did want to do was bake a few cookies before my son got home from
>college on Christmas break. I wanted to rest from three trips out of town,
>for work, in the last two weeks. I wanted, at least, to put the Christmas
>tree upright in its stand. In Franklin County, though, we'd just seen too
>much to be able to sip our eggnog in peace without this last effort. After
>the recount was done, it might be possible to put our feet up with a small
>amount of honor.
>
>Ours is the county, located in the capital of the swing-state, yet it is
>also the place where the real story about problems in our election never got
>told. News teams were conspicuously absent from all those public hearings.
>Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, is on record as saying: " There were no
>problems in Ohio, whatsoever, beyond the usual election gaffes that happen
>in any election." This quote was circulated among the media, yet voters who
>lost their right to vote were not quoted. Disenfranchisement is a
>soft-sounding word, yet it is a horrific reality. What it means is that, by
>underhanded means, people were denied the right to vote.
>
>I don't blame people in the other 49 states for not getting what we, in
>Ohio, mean when we say Voter Fraud or Disenfranchisement. How could they
>know any better without some serious research? Yet, as I heard a Nebraska
>Democrat speak on a national news show to Ohio citizens: "Get over it. Our
>candidate lost. Don't be sore losers." I wanted to respond...... "May God
>help you if this group chooses your state to be the next swing state because
>they've researched your subtle, sometimes outdated state election laws,
>found all the right gray areas, studied densities of population,
>gerrymandered your districts, and put one of their own in charge of the
>"free and fair" elections in your state."
>
>After a small confidence speech to myself, I pulled myself together, put on
>some warm boots and found my way to the Board of Elections in Ashland
>County. This recount would now be used to collect the data necessary to take
>the next step in understanding what went wrong. Exit poll confusion,
>something that all election specialists look at in every other election
>around the world, were said by this administration to actually, in this
>case, not really mean that much.
>
>* * *
>
>Jimmy Carter, our former president, who has become an election specialist,
>working through the Carter Center, did not oversee our election because his
>suggestions after 2000, asked for by the administration in a "show" of good
>faith, were not taken seriously. Prior to the 2004 election, he said that it
>"is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in
>any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have
>prided ourselves on setting global examples for pure democracy. With reforms
>unlikely at this stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to
>focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious practices in Florida."
>
>We now have placed this intense scrutiny on the suspicious activity in Ohio.
>Though we couldn't do it before the electoral vote to actually make a
>difference to the outcome, we can now, at the very least, gain deeper
>insight into discrepancies.
>
>In a recount, each candidate is entitled to send its own representative to
>oversee the process. I represented Cobb for the Green Party, another woman
>represented Badnarik, an Independent, and there were representatives from
>the Democrats and Republicans who showed up promptly for the 9am start. Also
>present were equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats from their Board of
>Elections and the staff from Ashland County who actually handled the ballots
>and fed them through the tabulation machine. Ms. Madhu Sing, a field
>representative for Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell was sent as an
>extra observer to this particular county.
>
>A presidential election recount is a dread moment for any Board of
>Elections, a real bother and something that makes them vulnerable to outside
>eyes and possible criticism. As we all gathered for the day to begin, people
>were polite, yet tension hovered in the air, shown by tight smiles, crossed
>arms and serious attitudes.
>
>The first question asked was about how they would take a random sampling of
>their precincts and the answer was that they had already figured out which
>precincts represented a typical random sampling. Since typical and random
>are opposing terms, this was not a random sample.
>
>My report is posted on-line with the Green Party at
www.votecobb.org, so
>here I'll just tell you of a few of my experiences and observations. I
>witnessed the Opti-Scan system of voting in Ashland County, which is similar
>to taking a multiple choice test where you fill in the correct circle with a
>number 2 pencil. Counting these ballots is done on a tabulation machine,
>scanning for areas marked by pencil. Erasures are a problem, since some
>pencil lead always remains embedded in the paper.
>
>I learned what is meant by an overvote. It means that the intention of the
>voter isn't clear from whatever marks they put on their ballot. In a
>recount, the task is to try to make sure that ballots have not been thrown
>out without extra attention given to trying to ascertain the true intention
>of said voter. Marking an opti-scan ballot in pen rather than pencil, even
>if everything is filled in correctly, throws your vote out. All overvotes
>are re-examined in a recount.
>
>The witness, me, spends a lot of time pointing at, but not touching certain
>ballots that appear to be clear as to the intention of the voter. Our chairs
>were on wheels, which meant we were like racecars that gun their engines at
>the appropriate moment and take off. But in our case we would lurch forward
>a few feet, to notice if, indeed, the offending ballot was credibly wrong,
>only to back up again a few minutes later and watch some more. Touching the
>cast ballots is absolutely forbidden.
>
>The method of storing the cast ballots after the election, until they are
>destroyed, has strict rules. They must be under lock and key at all times. I
>observed the cubicles along the side of the room from which the staff was
>getting each precinct's cast ballots. Stacked on top of the cubicles were
>snacks, mugs and cleaning products. I also scanned the rest of the room,
>about the size of a two-person office, or maybe three or four work cubicles,
>not huge.
>
>There was a table with a vinyl tablecloth, used for the recount. I also
>noticed a coat rack, fridge and microwave in the room. Since this looked a
>whole lot like a lunchroom, I asked if storing them in here was following
>the rule of being kept under lock and key. I was told that the door to the
>room had a lock on it, was kept locked when not in use and that the outer
>door to all the offices had a lock on it, as well.
>
>"How many people are in and out of here each day," I asked? "Just us, and we
>are all trustworthy," I was told. This is not a satisfying answer. What
>about cleaning crew, electricians, visiting family?
>
>* * *
>
>Recounts are about collecting objective data, but people come with
>personalities. I believe my quiet demeanor was a little bit of a problem for
>Ms. Singh. Not being very chatty, I sat in my office chair-on-wheels, paying
>attention, taking notes and puzzling over the presence of this field
>representative of the Secretary of State. She intermittently asked me where
>I would be witnessing the next day. I always said that I didn't know yet.
>She interested me and I began to understand her role better towards the end
>of the day.
>
>Our assigned schedule changed at lunch, which broke a half an hour early,
>after some whispering in the hall, between Ms. Singh and members of the
>board. These meetings in the hall went on, from time to time, all day, out
>of the range of the official witnesses to the recount. When we returned from
>our lunch recess, the recount continued with no clue as to why we had
>adjourned early and not come back early as well. Why the extra time? Secrets
>intrigue me.
>
>We began to notice that the overvotes written in ink were now being put
>aside in a separate box from everything else. By the end of the day, about
>4pm, we were told that during lunch, Ms. Sing had spoken to the Secretary of
>State and received permission to put the votes written in ink back into the
>count. This recovered a few votes for each party. She told us that our
>Democrat fellow observer had quietly asked her if these votes might be
>considered as being clear as to intent of the voter, so she spoke about this
>at lunchtime, by phone, with Mr. Blackwell. She repeated, over and over:
>"Now you can see that he is a truly fair overseer of the election."
>
>I asked another question. "Did you also ask for a judgement about the
>overvotes where both a circle was filled in and the same name was written at
>the bottom?" These far outnumbered the ink overvotes. This was ignored. I
>was reminded that the role of the witness is to oversee the recount, not to
>impede it in any way. So I said clearly, in front of everyone: "I'd like to
>state, for the record, that I'd like the Secretary of State to consider
>those as well." Nothing more was said. In a future recount, I would have
>someone make a note of the number of overvotes in this category since they
>were vastly more significant in number. I still wonder why it was all so
>secret, the question, the phone call and the pulling aside of the ink votes.
>I wonder why my clear question did not even receive a response.
>
>After Ms. Singh's announcement, it was assumed that we had come to the end
>and we were given the results of the recount. The recount added a total of
>64 votes back into the vote count for this county, about 40 for Bush, 20 for
>Kerry and some others. I asked, for the third time to see the polling books,
>which is the right of the witness, under the law. I had asked by phone if I
>could come in the day before or early that morning to view the polling books
>and was told no, so this was the only time left. It stretched people's good
>graces, though, and I was yelled at by a member of their Board of Elections.
>I was told that I wouldn't know what to do with the information. "That's
>OK," I said. "This is what I'm supposed to do," which required another
>meeting in the hall.
>
>With suppressed anger, workers brought out the books, precinct by precinct.
>My fellow witness for Badnarik and I, in an effort to speed things up, began
>recording our notes, each taking different precincts, of the numbers of
>ballots sent, votes cast, spoiled votes and provisional ballots. At this
>point, the same unsettled woman expressed great rage toward me. "This is
>ridiculous! You don't know what you're doing and were not even prepared for
>this! You are wasting everyone's time and just scribbling in your notebook!"
>
>Realizing that it was imperative now that I speak with equilibrium in order
>to get on with things, I stood up slowly, spoke the name of the precinct
>just recorded and rattled off each number accurately. Then I said: "I know
>this is a pain in the ass and I have no desire to make it any more difficult
>than is necessary, but this is my job and I intend to do it. I can either
>come back tomorrow or go on as quickly as I can this afternoon until I've
>recorded what I need." This was met with silence, but it eased a bit of the
>tension. It was clear that no one wanted to come back the next day, so my
>partner and I proceeded.
>
>About an hour later, we were finally done. With my coat on and clutching my
>notebook, I was first in line as we filed out, past the board of election,
>etc., to go home, yet I made it my business to shake each person's hand and
>to thank them. People rose as I approached them. One Democrat on the board
>told me he knew I was only doing the job I had come to do. Ms Singh remained
>seated.
>
>On the whole, I liked the people in this county. They reminded me of my own
>neighbors and family, with broad mid-western faces and a desire for the
>system to work. We rely on the wheels of justice to turn in the direction of
>truth.
>
>What strikes me now as still important is that three of Jimmy Carter's main
>points about election reform continue to remain big problems in Ohio.
>
>1. We allow our Secretary of State, with strong party responsibilities to
>oversee the election.
>
>2. We do not have a single voting procedure with a paper trail, which, in
>the case of electronic voting, would be a ballot printout.
>
>3. We have not outlawed the practices that led to long lines at the polls.
>
>The best proof available for voter disenfranchisement in Ohio, in the eyes
>of the law, has to do with those long lines that are in practically every
>clip of Linda Byrket's film, VIDEO THE VOTE. Its footage covers precincts
>all over the city of Columbus, Ohio, where there was incredible confusion
>within the polls. It shows people standing under umbrellas or dripping wet,
>wearing garbage bags for protection from the rain. I participated in that
>film and it stuns me to this day how that one fateful action has spawned my
>re-engagement with the political future of our country. It was difficult, at
>first, to be on the front lines of a new battle that seemed to just fall
>into my lap, but I now feel blessed to know that average citizens really can
>make a difference. At the end of the film are three words: Let's fix this.
>I'm now on that path.
>
>John Conyers, Democratic congressman from Michigan, led a committee to
>ascertain What Went Wrong in Ohio. His report to Congress, now part of the
>Congressional Record, has also been published as a book with the same name.
>The film is part of that record as well.
>
>Mid-terms are now upon us. The drumbeat has begun. Even for a middle-aged
>person, like me, with another life beyond politics, staying awake now, is
>necessary. My actions do count. I cannot just sit back for any election
>anymore. This is my country, my president, and my vote.
>
>
