Blackwell and Poll Books...WTF?

[CantGetFooledAgain]

Can someone confirm or refute for me that, in the Ohio recount, J. Kenneth Blackwell has forbidden access to all of the poll books that record the names of the voters who showed up to cast votes?

Is this, as I have heard, a clear violation of Federal election law, and constitutes prima facie evidence of fraud?

If so, why have the media not been all over this? What more does it take? Shouldn't a clear and unambiguous violation of law such as this immediately trigger an FBI investigation?

Shouldn't these poll books be subpoenaed immediately?

What am I missing here?

[aquart]

1. Probably, if there were law in Ohio.

But there ain't.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

2. But this is a Federal violation! n/t

[aquart]

4. Ah, well, if Federal law still existed.......

But it doesn't, does it?

[tridim]

9. However gawd help you if you sell glass pipes and you're a Democrat

named Tommy Chong. Being a Bush Pioneer buys you complete immunity from federal law, it's exactly like a payoff to the Mafia.

[KansDem]

21. It IS the mafia...The "Mesquite Mafia"

This boy's seen too many episodes of "Dallas..."

[berniew1]

26. He locked down vote log books because recounters were finding fraud

They had found evidence of fraud in Perry, Greene, Lucas, etc. counties, so Blackwell took the log books away from recounters to prevent them documenting it. But this is clearly illegal action. I don't understand why people in ohio haven't had him indicted; and why they have allowed him to get away with so many illegal actions???

[Igel]

17. Violation of which federal law? n/t

[CantGetFooledAgain]

19. I don't know, I've only heard this

That's why I'm asking. Want to get clarification on the legal issues here.

[Higans]

32. This Fedral Law Right here:

Taken from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

There are several important considerations you should be aware of with respect to this matter. First, this course of conduct would appear to violate several provisions of federal law, in addition to the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. 42 U.S.C. §1973 provides for criminal penalties against 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." 42 U.S.C. § 1974 also requires the retention and preservation, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of a federal election, of all voting records and papers and makes it a felony for any person to "willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter" any such record. Further, any tampering with ballots and/or election machinery would violate the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote and have their votes properly counted, as guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pierre de Fermat]

16. Which, if true, is why...

Blackwells actions are not prima facie evidence of fraud.

[New Earth]

3. yes it is all true

and why the media isn't covering it is beyond me, as well as the FBI....

oh wait...gotta remind myself who 'controls' both.

[zann725]

11. Agreed! When Conyers said he requested FBI investigation...

I thought, oh well...there goes the case!
And the witnesses!

Did anyone see the History Channel story last night on how Nazi SS were hired by U.S. Gov't. after WWII to work Intelligence in CIA for us? And this was during the "brighter" days of our Democracy?! :crazy:

[mod mom]

5. Conyers group does not have subpoena power

this is why we have to keep fighting them: they are crooks and they think they are above the law! Do you reallly think if this rumsfeld scandal happened under Clinton, he would be still be around? Two sets of standards , one evil and one not.

[Junkdrawer]

6. You're talking about New Blackwell (the state formerly known as Ohio)...

and in New Blackwell, J. Kenneth "Katherine" Blackwell writes the laws as he goes along.

[Higans]

33. Don't let him erase this one:

Taken from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

There are several important considerations you should be aware of with respect to this matter. First, this course of conduct would appear to violate several provisions of federal law, in addition to the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. 42 U.S.C. §1973 provides for criminal penalties against 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." 42 U.S.C. § 1974 also requires the retention and preservation, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of a federal election, of all voting records and papers and makes it a felony for any person to "willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter" any such record. Further, any tampering with ballots and/or election machinery would violate the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote and have their votes properly counted, as guaranteed by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[enough]

7. Glad to see this brought up again.

This has seemed to me one of the most flagrant outrages of the whole situation.

As any poll-worker will tell you, those poll books are the holy writ of the democratic process.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

12. Yes, thank you.

I feel the same way.

[wtmusic]

8. Contribute to Arnebeck's fund

"We have estimated that the suit will cost at least $200,000 to pursue.
This includes filing fees already spent, deposition costs and attorneys'
fees and expenses. If you are interested in ensuring that the
opportunities presented by this lawsuit are fully explored, please make a donation to 'Ohio Election Litigation Fund' and mail it to Cliff Arnebeck, Esq.,1351 King Avenue, 1st Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43212, along with your email address. Any money donated to the fund will be held in trust and be used only for the purposes of this law suit. We will provide each and every donor with regular email updates regarding the progress of the lawsuit. There is no contribution too small and we thank you for your participation in this effort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=175942

We can't drop the ball on this.

[mod mom]

10. *well locked down Greene Cty and had books pulled

from Katrina' hands, which was above the law. Why can't we find someone to prosecute them?

[sabra]

14. I was wondering that same thing especially after reading

this article:

<<SNIP>>
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1103279495222530.xml

Democrats challenge Householder's victory Householder
Speaker elected county auditor by a hair

Columbus -Democrats filed a lawsuit to overturn House Speaker Larry Householder's election as Perry County auditor, saying they discovered a string of peculiar voting irregularities that cast doubt on his victory.

In at least 11 of the county's 46 precincts, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of people who signed the voting books on Election Day, according to the lawsuit. It cites cases where 359 votes were cast by people whose signatures were never verified, as election law requires.

Researchers for Columbus attorney Michael Kolman, who filed the lawsuit, provided copies of the signature books. When matched against official vote tallies from the Board of Elections, they showed discrepancies between the number of votes cast and number of signatures.

<</SNIP>>

[Igel]

18. Remember that these are allegations.

Unless we've decided that one side should have no chance to defend itself if it's on the opposing side or that all accusations must be true because we think the accusers are on our side, we get to be suspicious, but also suspend judgment.

Nobody wants to accuse Arnebeck et al. of distorting the facts. But lawsuits are not a search for truth, they're a search for victory. We assume that given a level playing field in which each side mounts an optimal defense that the truth comes out. But basing anything on the allegations in a suit is, well, ...

[Straight Shooter]

29. "lawsuits are not a search for truth"

Excuse me. Very often lawsuits are in fact precisely a search for truth, and in finding the truth, the "victory," as you phrased it, goes to the proper party.

Furthermore, allegations in a suit, especially a suit as public as this one, leaves all parties open to charges if those allegations prove untrue.

There is never a level playing field. Never. That sure as hell didn't stop David from going up against Goliath. Same situation here, except it's a lot of little people going up against big corporations, who have the most to lose when bush, blackwell, rove, et al., are revealed as fraudsters.

[Truman01]

15. This was discussed in an earlier post........ there was a reason

given that "satisfied" the law but I don't remember what it is. Does anyone remember the earlier post?

TC

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmknapp]

22. Think about it

Would we want random Rethugs pawing over the ballots before the recount is done?

But now it is done, so let the examination and FOIA flood begin.

The records that I'd like to see, from Franklin County Ohio, are the individual files from the 2800=odd memory cartridges from the Danaher electronic voting machines.

Testimony at the public BOE hearing last Tuesday from a Green Party observer revealed that many of these files contain no vote, that is, the machines they were associated with were never used on election day. Therefore, the machine allocations released by the BOE are inaccurate as to the number of machines actually used in each precinct. The imbalance of machines between city and suburbs may be greater than already acknowledged.

The data from these files should be an excellent indicator of troubles on election day.

[roseBudd]

36. Blackwell justified locking down poll books because "canvassing" was

still occuring due to the recount.

[demodonkey]

23. Not true. Recount workers DID see pollbooks in most OH counties...

In counties where I worked there was no problem, and in one case they even had the pollbooks and sign-in record for the 3 percent hand count precincts already lying out on a table waiting to be checked when we got there (which, of course, raises the issue of whether or not those precincts were "random" samples, but at least the pollbooks were there.)

The workers in various counties spent differing amounts of time on the pollbooks (or were allowed differing amounts of time.) Most observers at least tried to match the number of voters on the count to the number in the books, at least for a sample of the precincts. Am not sure that any county's observers were able to check every signature in every book in a whole county (a HUGE job, if it were to be done).

Word is that SOME counties refused to show pollbooks or were reluctant about it, just as some counties were very cooperative overall and some were pretty nasty.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

24. Thanks for your response. I guess I was misinformed...

But to really make a difference in terms of proving fraud (which is my main concern)it would be necessary to have unfettered access to those books for a significant length of time. Ideally, they would all be photographed and those photographs posted on a public Internet server.

The next step would be to choose a sample, put the names in a database, cross-check them with publicly available records, and perform statistical analysis to determine a few things:

1. Does the number of signatures at each precinct match up to the number of votes reported from that precinct?

2. Are all of these people valid, current, and eligible voters?

3. Are any people who are known to have voted NOT shown in the poll book for their precinct?

4. Finally, are the reported vote counts from that precinct statistically likely to have come from these voters?

I just don't see any way to prove fraud without taking these steps. Conversely, I feel that if fraud occured, these steps should reliably reveal it. This is why I am so concerned about access to this information. If the information in these books is public, then it should be available to any who request it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demodonkey]

27. You're Welcome... yes problem is time, and access to the materials...

a BOE staffer has to physically be present and show the pollbooks to an observer (which it does make sense that outsiders can't really have "unfettered" access, because somebody could come in to "look" and actually TAMPER!) And many BOE offices are understaffed and can't afford to spare a person to show the materials for more than a limited time. I don't know about the costs and any other concerns with doing the photographs of the books as you suggest...

#1 The Ohio recount observers DID make a sincere effort to do this (at least in a sample of precincts) wherever they could. Honestly we tried hard to do this, we really did. (BTW books will match up to official number of VOTERS, not to votes, because some people choose not to vote for every office, even President.)

#2 Going over each name, checking for validity, etc -- VERY time consuming, even for a small sample. If there are several hundred thousand voters in a county this could literally take days or even weeks to cover them all. Would need a "street sheet" list of registered voters before going in to do this, but that is the easy part...

I don't know how you would verify #3 unless the person voted absentee and did not come out in the pollbook. Other than verifying this somewhat through the total numbers; the number of voters "signed in" in the pollbooks absolutely should match exactly with the official number of voters who voted. But it would be hard or impossible to verify this for a any single individual.

#4 You could not 100% "verify" this, but you would have to go looking through past voting patterns, registration, current social climate in the community... any number of factors could affect this and it would always be a judgment call. However this is probably your strongest indicator of possible fraud or even honest mistakes in ballot layout, etc.

Polling info IS supposed to be public. You are supposed to get access upon reasonable request (FOIA, etc.) subject to reasonable restrictions -- and that is where Blackwell and his ilk can screw around, by defining what is "reasonable"!!

[emcguffie]

28. I think it's Ohio's

I could be wrong, but I think it is Ohio law that says so. And Blackwell tried to wiggle around it by declaring that those books were no longer "public records". The way the statute is worded, he has to let the public see the public records, or it is prima facie evidence of election fraud. So they are no longer public records! Simple.

[New Earth]

30. i need to kick this thread

the title cracks me up - it's been running through my head all day making me laugh.


yes, i am a wierdo :(

[CantGetFooledAgain]

31. Thank you Faye, I'm glad to have given you a laugh

:toast:

[New Earth]

34. hehe it is funny though

:toast:

[phillipw]

35. Is there no one who knows for sure whats been locked down and locked up?