quote: A Note On The Presidential Election in Ohio
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich
The 2004 presidential election was determined by the results of Ohio. The unofficial result, as reported on November 3, had George Bush with approximately 136,000 more votes than John Kerry. Senator Kerry conceded the election to President Bush. He also said every vote would be counted. I have been vigilant in monitoring Ohio's election in 2004. Attorneys from my party closely monitored the election before and during election day. While there were some incidents of voter intimidation noted by the attorneys, most if not all cases were resolved at the scene because of quick action by challengers, witnesses, the Kerry campaign, and volunteers from other campaigns including my own.
The unofficial count gave Ohio to George Bush by approximately 136,000 votes. The official count by county Boards of Election will begin on Saturday, November 13, 2004. It is due at the Secretary of State's office by December 1. The Secretary of State must certify the election by December 3.
During this interim period, attorneys from both political parties, and those representing me, will be watching the procedures by county Boards of Elections carefully. Among the most important issues to note is the counting of the overvotes. Overvotes occur when more than one candidate is indicated on the punch card. Another issue relates to whether all properly cast provisional ballots will be counted.
My constituents have also brought other issues to my attention. In an effort to provide appropriate government oversight, I am reviewing every issue and bringing them to the attention of attorneys, congressional authorities, party officials, or Boards of Elections, as appropriate. I want to assure my constituents and others who have contacted me with their concerns, that I am paying c lose attention to this important period of time between the initial results and the official vote tabulation and will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action where supported by facts.
Serious problems surfaced in this election that must be addressed at the state and national level. Some were inefficiencies in handling the massive turn out. No citizen should have to wait for hours to vote, or worry whether their vote was actually counted.
Glitches in electronic voting in the Columbus area should move all legislatures to demand paper receipts for voting machines. Without such a paper trail, no true recount can ever be done. Note that no Diebold electronic voting machines were employed in Ohio.
Clear efforts at voter suppression and intimidation were well handled by the courts and election officials. Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. Attempts to subvert our right to fair elections must be investigated and prosecuted when possible.
With passion running so high in this country and specter of Florida 2000 still hanging over the presidential voting process, it is important to gather hard evidence prior to disputing the legitimacy of the election.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 needs to be refined. Arduous voter identification rules unfairly penalize the poor, lead to a violation of rights and defeat the intent of the act.
The official tabulation of votes for Ohio will begin on Saturday and will include four categories not reflected in the unofficial count: provisional ballots, late absentee ballots, overseas military and overseas civilian.
If the difference between George Bush and John Kerry is less than one quarter of one percent after the official tally is completed (about 16,000 votes) an automatic recount occurs under Ohio law.
If the margin is greater than one quarter of one percent, a candidate can request a recount at an expense to the candidate of $10 per precinct. Because there are approximately 12,000 precincts in Ohio, the recount would cost about $120,000, before legal fees. A recount would entail a visual inspection of every punch card ballot.
I believe we must pursue every lead which raises questions about the integrity of the electoral process. Our work may not change the outcome, but it will demonstrate that beyond our commitment to our candidates, we have a higher commitment to our democracy.
Leaving aside the partisan nature of the article, if things are as Mr. Kucinich says they are, this article seems perfectly reasonable to me and fully in line with the law. It seems like some conservatives I've read treat a desire to make sure every vote is counted as if it were some dirty trick by the Dems, but really, what's wrong with both sides making sure every vote has been given a chance to be counted and no dirty tricks have been played?
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate the levelheadedness of this article.
I'm glad that there weren't huge problems with the voting process in Ohio. Sounds like, by and large, it was handled well.
I would certainly support Kerry's bid for a recount if he opted for it. Part of me wishes he hadn't conceded so soon, although part of me is grateful that the election didn't get dragged out in legal brawls over recounts. The media's insistence on a final resolution, however, seemed to have an inordinate amount of influence on November 3rd's decision, and I find myself resenting that.
Could Kerry have simply waited until the official vote count was completed? Why is it that he conceded before the official count was in?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? If, for some reason, a recount shows that Kerry won, what then? Anyone who has insight into that question, your input would be appreciated.
As a Democrat, I think it would be great if Kerry somehow managed to win, and I do definitely believe all the votes should be counted and each party satisfied that nothing was done to hide or change votes, but objectively, it would be terrible for the country as a whole and his presidency would never really be legitimate in many people's eyes.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like some conservatives I've read treat a desire to make sure every vote is counted as if it were some dirty trick by the Dems, but really, what's wrong with both sides making sure every vote has been given a chance to be counted and no dirty tricks have been played?
Nothing. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking legal steps to ensure that voting occurs according to the enacted legislation at the time of the election.
But of course, that's "intimidation" to some liberal commentators, isn't it?
posted
Dag, I agree that many people blew the intimidation thing way out of proportion, but there were some pretty clear, albeit limited, instances of it happening too. Considering what some people saw as the history of the Republican party on this and the fact that there was a very limited time period to work in, can you think of a better way than to do a lot of preparatory dooming and glooming and making a big hullaballoo about cases where it's possible that it did happpen?
Saying that all the Republicans did was make sure that people voted according to the current laws ignores the admittedly relatively small number cases where voter intimidation did occur and the likelihood that this number would likely have been significantly higher had there not been such scrutiny.
Ideally, I don't agree with this method of countering probable dirty tricks, but I don't know what else would have been effective and in this case I think that the harm prevented far outweighs the harm caused.
edit: Which is not to say that people who were tying to push the message that all Republicans are out to scare all vulnerable Democratic voters away are were following this logic or that they were behaving at all responsibly. There's plenty of muck from this election (and I'd imagine from pretty much every election we've ever had) to go around.
posted
I acknowledged the article was partisan, Dagonee, and I also said "what's wrong with both sides making sure every vote has been given a chance to be counted and no dirty tricks have been played?", so while I appreciate your desire to make sure everyone understands that dirty tricks, etc., happen on both sides, and that some accusations of 'dirty tricks' might be overblown overreaction, I don't see that your comment gives much insight into my question.
I appreciate that you're annoyed because you think I'm making some kind of jab at conservatives, and that I posted this article to make a kind of backhanded insult to conservatives, but that wasn't my intent. My intent is to use the article as a springboard into exploration of why a recount in Ohio might be 'wrong' to some conservatives, since just from casually listening, conservative media seems to be taking issue with the recount, and what might happen if the recount comes out in Kerry's favour.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that all the Republicans did was make sure that people voted according to the current laws...
Good thing I didn't say this, then. What I did say was that attempts to ensure that only properly registered voters voted and complied with election law were improperly denounced by some liberal commentators. Non-intimidating steps specifically authorized by statute were decried in the press and challenged in courts by raising the specter of intimidation.
People crying intimidation lost a lot of credibility by doing so when it wasn't present.
quote:I appreciate that you're annoyed because you think I'm making some kind of jab at conservatives, and that I posted this article to make a kind of backhanded insult to conservatives, but that wasn't my intent. My intent is to use the article as a springboard into exploration of why a recount in Ohio might be 'wrong' to some conservatives, since just from casually listening, conservative media seems to be taking issue with the recount, and what might happen if the recount comes out in Kerry's favour.
I directly answered your question. There's nothing wrong with ensuring every vote is counted. However, there have been comments made by liberals that suggest this goal is incompatible with ensuring only properly registered people vote. I was reiterating that these goals are complementary, not in conflict.
posted
You just did it again. These attempts were not just about trying to make sure only properly registered voters were in place. They were also about voter intimidation. Some of the people who were put in these places were specifically trying to scare people away from voting under the guide of enforicing registration guidelines. Some of the lead up to election day involved, among other things, in some places announcements by republicans that if you tried to vote and had any involvement with the criminal justice system, really bad thigns would happen to you, inlcuding having your children taken away.
And I don't really think that it's unreasonable to suspect that people who planned this intended the polls monitors to have an implicit intimidation effect as well as doing standards checking. Having someone from the hostile party checking your papers is quite probably a scary thing for many voters. I don't that it's unreasonable to doubt the claim that the Republicans only had good intentions or that their actions didn't have foreseeable intimidation effects.
edit: The thing I think you've glossing over is that the liberal commentators that you're referencing would be unlikely to be concerned about ensuring that only properly registered voters got to vote if this was done by people other than representatives of the Repubican party. As far I as read/heard, they weren't complaining that it's unfair to enforce registration guidelines, but that they were suspicious of the Republican party being the ones doing it. I don't think that this is an unreasonable concern and I think that the added scrutiny reigned in a lot of potential abuses that the Republican party and their representatives would turn a blind eye to or even provide clandestine support for.
quote:Having someone from the hostile party checking your papers is quite probably a scary thing for many voters.
Good thing they wore "I'm with Evil" t-shirts so the voters would know they were from a hostile party as opposed to a regular election worker.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, If the Republicans sponsored a respectible non-partisan group to monitor the registration standards during this election, there would not have been anywhere near as much outcry. There was no complaints about the voter registration checkign that already goes on as part of the process. The complaints were about the probable intimidation that the Republican representatives might get up to. The acceptable tactics were the things that allowed the bad ones. It gave the people who were going to try to scare voters away a justification for being there that wouldn't have otherwise had. In some cases, the people who were supposed to be there for the acceptable purpose did engage in voter intimidation. You're saying that they shouldn't complain about what these people were likely to do because they had a valid pretext for being there. I don't see how this isn't a legitimate concern.
kat, In areas of vulnerable traditionally Democratic voters, the presence of Republican election monitors at polling sites was publicized before the election. People were told that there were going to be members of the Republican party checking their papers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Publicized by whom? Mailers were sent out to individuals by the Republican with a big eye that said "We're watching you.", or, it was reported in the general media that Republicans were planning an having people there to check IDs?
If it's the second, then your argument is not with the people checking ID (which happens in many states and precints, including mine), but with the presentation of that as a hostile act.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the Republicans sponsored a respectible non-partisan group to monitor the registration standards during this election, there would not have been anywhere near as much outcry. There was no complaints about the voter registration checkign that already goes on as part of the process. The complaints were about the probable intimidation that the Republican representatives might get up to. The acceptable tactics were the things that allowed the bad ones. It gave the people who were going to try to scare voters away a justification for being there that wouldn't have otherwise had. In some cases, the people who were supposed to be there for the acceptable purpose did engage in voter intimidation. You're saying that they shouldn't complain about what these people were likely to do because they had a valid pretext for being there. I don't see how this isn't a legitimate concern.
I'm saying that the fear of intimidation existed in large part because of people raising the fear of intimidation. You can't use the fruits of fear-mongering to justify the fear-mongering.
The actions of the people conducting the "voter registration checking that already goes on as part of the process" were what was being guarded against, since it was clear that improper registration had occurred.
posted
See, now I tihnk we're running into disagreement over the facts.
Here's what I think happened. The Republicans made a public concerted effort to increase the number of their representatives checking registrations at polling stations, something thatthey are legally entitled to have. There was an outcry over this because many people were concerned that many of these people would engage in voter intimidation (as well as some people trying check it because they thought the Democrats would benefit from looser registration verification). In Philadelphia, at least, not only did this voter intimidation happen in some cases, but there were Republican PR campaigns prior to election day specifically directed at Black voters, in some cases just to let them know that Republican representatives would be at the polls checkign their papers, but in a few cases threatening punishments for people who weren't properly registered or lying about what ID would be acceptable (they said only driver's licenses).
Which of these facts do you dispute?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is always the chance that with the recount Bush's lead will increase. Even though I voted for Kerry, I'm not going to spend a moment holding my breath on this one.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:there were Republican PR campaigns prior to election day specifically directed at Black voters, in some cases just to let them know that Republican representatives would be at the polls checkign their papers, but in a few cases threatening punishments for people who weren't properly registered or lying about what ID would be acceptable (they said only driver's licenses).
This one.
Where was the PR campaign?
Unless there was direct mailings to people informaing them of ID checkings and possible punishments, then that PR campaign was conducted through the media. They are then responsible for the fear-mongering.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's what I think happened. The Republicans made a public concerted effort to increase the number of their representatives checking registrations at polling stations, something that they are legally entitled to have. There was an outcry over this because many people were concerned that many of these people would engage in voter intimidation (as well as some people trying check it because they thought the Democrats would benefit from looser registration verification).
I agree. And the facts so far support my contention – fear of intimidation is introduced into the process by the Democrats (or they’re supporters) at this point.
quote:In Philadelphia, at least, not only did this voter intimidation happen in some cases, but there were Republican PR campaigns prior to election day specifically directed at Black voters, in some cases just to let them know that Republican representatives would be at the polls checkign their papers,
Again, no intimidation present.
quote:but in a few cases threatening punishments for people who weren't properly registered or lying about what ID would be acceptable (they said only driver's licenses).
This is intimidation (or fraud). And it’s extremely limited in scope (we’ve gone from nationwide to Philadelphia to “some cases.”)
posted
If memory serves, the accusation is that some people called some other people over the phone and gave them misinformation.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm talking about some cases in Philly because I have almost direct knowledge (I know people who worked at some of the polls where things happened and the local news reported some of the more egregious intances of intimidation) of them happening. The cases I know about from Ohio and Florida are only by secondhand from word of mouth and vauge news reports and I haven't really spent any time looking into them. I was using the Philly stuff as examples of the more general case.
The content of the criticisms that I was aware of have been borne out by what actually happened, although on a much smaller scale than people were making out. There were in fact clear cases (and a host of less provable ones) of voter intimidation by the official representatives of the Republican party. The intimidating effects of their PR campaigns are more of a gray area, but certainly enough to provoke completely legal expressions of distrust and concern. I think that it's reasonable to suggest that one factors for why there weren't all that many clear cases of intimidation was because of the increased scrutiny fueled by the vocal protests over the situation.
And, as a riposte, notice how we've gone from talking about how people were unjustifiably complaining about a legitimate thing that the Republicans were doing to talking about how the thing they were complaining about didn't happen all that much. It's clear that some of the people who you were previously saying were being put in place to check registrations in fact had a much less ethical purpose and that it was the one that the people you were criticizing said they were concerned about. If you agree that what they were saying would happen did happen, then I think you're complaint moves to them making a bigger deal out of it than they did, which I agreed to with my first post and also pointed out what purpose I thought making an exaggerated case served.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to think that you should have to present your birth certificate, or some form of citizenship, when you register to vote in the first place...
Posts: 11 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Florida, you present your driver's license and they check and make sure you're eligible to vote. Or my county did, anyway.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, as a riposte, notice how we've gone from talking about how people were unjustifiably complaining about a legitimate thing that the Republicans were doing to talking about how the thing they were complaining about didn't happen all that much. It's clear that some of the people who you were previously saying were being put in place to check registrations in fact had a much less ethical purpose and that it was the one that the people you were criticizing said they were concerned about. If you agree that what they were saying would happen did happen, then I think you're complaint moves to them making a bigger deal out of it than they did, which I agreed to with my first post and also pointed out what purpose I thought making an exaggerated case served.
No. You're still conflating the two things. I'm talking about specific accusations that the mere presence of the poll observers was intimidation, both here on this board and in several op-eds.
I'm not saying what they were complaining about didn't happen, nor have I ever said that. I'm saying that the presence of such things happening does not justify calling the poll observers an attempt at "intimidation."
posted
I didn't get that the presence of people watching the polls was de facto intimidation. As I said, I really doubt that if the Republicans sponsored a respected non-partisan group to do the poll watching that there would have been many people making any fuss. Do you disagree with this? The complaint seemed to me more that they were Republicans doing so and I've tried to show both how these Republicans did engage in clear cut voter intimidation and how a case could be made for their well-publicized presence also had intimidation effects.
I think I'm getting more of what you're saying now, which is that if the Republicans were unobstrusively doing this and then people made a big deal out of it, that's where the intimidation factor came in. I don't think that this addresses the increased straight voter intimidation that would go along with more Republicans being at the polls would likely cause nor the fact that the Republicans publicized their poll watchers in a way that was targeted at the very populations that were most likely to be intimidated (although they were also arguably the populations who also had the most improper registrations too).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems like some conservatives I've read treat a desire to make sure every vote is counted as if it were some dirty trick by the Dems, but really, what's wrong with both sides making sure every vote has been given a chance to be counted and no dirty tricks have been played?
Golly gee, it couldn't be the implicit accusation that the conservatives somehow don't want all of the votes to be counted.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What I did say was that attempts to ensure that only properly registered voters voted and complied with election law were improperly denounced by some liberal commentators. Non-intimidating steps specifically authorized by statute were decried in the press and challenged in courts by raising the specter of intimidation.
