Reply #6: Well, that "humidity thing" , it was pretty serious... (Rec# 5) [View All]

[autorank]

The humidity crisis.

Then it happened: the “humidity” crisis. For pure drama, it could not have occurred at a more dramatic point in the vote tabulation. Of Clermont County’s 191 precincts, 100 had been counted. Then the Board of Elections announced that excessive humidity had caused ballots to swell, making them difficult to count. As a result, there would be a delay in the count. At this point, the election was dead even statistically, at 50% for each candidate. The 91 precincts in Clermont represented about 12% of the remaining vote. When the crisis was resolved, the 50-50% tie changed into a 52% to 48% victory for Schmidt.


Schmidt celebrates her victory election night.

In the period between the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 2000 Presidential election, this series of events would have attracted little attention. The “spoilage” issue was there every four years, but the problem was largely ignored. But starting with 2000 and continuing through the 2004 election, it became obvious that black Americans were no longer alone in losing their right to vote and have it counted. What better place to demonstrate this than Clermont County and the Ohio 2nd Congressional District, with its negligible black population in the both populous and rural regions.

Unanswered questions about the humidity crisis.

While the humidity crisis delayed vote counting at a key time, local media barely covered the event. Board of Election officials stated that ballots had acquired sufficient humidity in 91 out of 191 precincts to require a delay in the vote count. They pointed out that their optical scan tabulator was slowed by the humidity of the ballots. Few details were offered on that process. The Cincinnati Post and all the major television outlets, save one, the Enquirer, were silent on the issue. Ironically, the only coverage of the humidity issue on besides the Enquirer and a local television station was in National Review Online, the traditional conservative magazine’s online service which mentioned the humidity.

The NBC affiliate, Channel 5, said, “The drama of a close race lasted late into the night. Schmidt led by less than one percent with 88 % of the precincts in. But she must have felt secure in knowing that the only uncounted precincts were in Clermont County, her home.” (Updated 1:13 pm EDT, August 3, 2005). We hear about “the drama of a close race” lasting into the night, but nothing about what caused the drama. The cause was the ballots taking on humidity. MSNBC, fed by the Cincinnati affiliate, treated the climax of the race like a sporting event: “With the home-field advantage, Schmidt dominated 58 % to 42 % in Clermont (16,162 votes to 11,689) and Warren counties (7,556 votes to 5,420).” There was mention of the sudden stoppage of vote tabulation when the race was at 50-50% at 10:40 pm.

Only Howard Wilkinson of the Enquirer implied questions. He began his August 2, 2005, analysis by saying, “The apparent win by Republican Jean Schmidt in Tuesday’s 2nd Congressional District election was in no way shocking, but the fact that Democrat Paul Hackett made it a very close election is nothing short of astounding.” Given the announcement of the final count by the time this was written, the use of “apparent win” might lead some to think Mr. Wilkinson has paid attention to the history of the 2004 Presidential election in Southwestern Ohio.

Wilkinson followed up on August 4, 2005, with an article headlined “ Clermont: Humid heat hurt count, not plotting.” He opened with, “Humidity held an edge over conspiracy in explaining a glitch in counting Tuesday night’s 2nd Congressional District returns in Clermont County.” He reported questions that had been raised on political blogs. He also spoke to Clermont Board of Elections official and Democrat Kathy Jones, who said that the humidity “simply slowed the process of running the ballots through the readers.” Senior Ohio Democratic official Michael Culp was quoted as saying, “It was apparently just a matter of paper ballots getting damp in the humidity.” The door was left slightly ajar when he reminded readers that Schmidt’s primary victory in Clermont County of 705 votes had multiplied overnight by 380% to a “corrected” 2,667 vote Clermont margin.

The Board of Elections explained the problem to the Associated Press on election night: “Tim Rudd says the ballots pick up moisture when it gets hot, making it tougher for the optical scan machines to sort and count.”

Questions not asked about the vote count stoppage.

The sudden stoppage of vote tabulation in Clermont was reminiscent of nearby Warren County’s Board of Elections citizen-media lockout during vote counting in 2004, which county officials claimed to be the result of a Homeland Security alert. There was no alert.

Was humidity the reason the optical scanning machine count stopped in Clermont, or was there some “intelligent design?” Humidity can impact the ability of optical scan counting machines to process paper ballots. It is not frequently reported and there are clear instructions providing easy remedies (e.g. air condition polling and tabulation facilities). The state of Louisiana made its 2003 RFP for voting machines contingent on tolerating a 98% humidity rate, for example. Air conditioning is reported to be widely available in Clermont County, as are dehumidifiers.

Why were 91 precincts impacted while 100 others were not in the same County?

Information about the locations of the humidity-impacted districts is unavailable. Was each of the 91 precincts without air conditioning? That would be a 48% rate of precincts exposed to conditions that the Board had to know could create problems. For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable. Certainly, they knew that humidity could be an issue. Just days before the special election there were extensive reports of a serious heat and humidity wave in the Cincinnati area. The regions largest newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer had been talking about the heat and humidity days before the election. Surely humidity on Election Day should have been taken into account.

Was there a one-to-one match between precincts with “humidified” ballots and precincts without air conditioning?

If so, why were nearly half of the precincts exposed to humidification? And if this is not so, if some of the 91 precincts with ballot problems due to humidity had air conditioning and some did not, how does the Board explain humidity problems in precincts with air conditioning?

Was Clermont the only part of the 2nd District that was affected by humidity that day and if so, why?

Clermont used optical scan paper ballots. Five other counties used punch card paper ballots, which have a similar or greater vulnerability to expansion or distortion due to humidity. There were no reports of problems in those five counties related to humidity. What is the critical variable that makes Clermont ballots vulnerable to distortion due to excessive moisture? Were precincts all air conditioned in the five counties that used punch card paper ballots? Was there something like an intense thermal inversion going on above the 91 precincts in Clermont County?

Why did the Board of Elections allow precincts to operate that lacked sufficient air conditioning to prevent humidity?

These questions need to be answered given the prior questions raised and documented about Clermont. The Board of Elections operates all year round. There is sufficient time to study manuals, attend vendor-sponsored retreats, and talk to nearby officials. Nearly half of the Clermont precincts had humidified ballots. A failure rate of nearly 50% is totally unacceptable performance for an election and offers the most unflattering commentary on those who are supposed to run it efficiently.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm