The Center for Cooperative Research
U:     P:    
Not registered yet? Register here
 
Search
 
Current timeline only
Advanced Search


Main Menu
Home 
History Engine Sub-Menu
Timelines 
Entities 
Forum 
Miscellaneous Sub-Menu
Donate 
Links 
End of Main Menu

Volunteers Needed!
Submit a timeline entry
Donate: If you think this site is important, please help us out financially. We need your help!
Email updates
 



  View mode (info):
  Ordering (info):
  Time period (info):

Key Events

Key events

State

Florida (1)
Georgia (0)
Indiana (0)
Nebraska (0)
Nevada (2)
New Mexico (0)
New Hampshire (0)
North Carolina (1)
Ohio (26)
Other (0)

Election themes

Diebold (0)
Optically scanned votes (0)
Electronic voting (4)
Voter intimidation (1)
Long lines (4)
Irregularities (6)
Exit polls (0)
Legal action (4)
Recounts (0)
Absentee votes (0)
Resource allocation (3)
Resource allocation (0)
Click here to join: Suggest changes to existing data, add new data to the website, or compile your own timeline. More Info >>

 

Investigation into the 2004 US Election: Key events

 
  

Project: Investigation into the 2004 US Election

Export to XML Printer Friendly View Email to a Friend Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size


July 17, 2004-October 12, 2004

       According to OpenSecrets.org, Sproul & Associates—a political consulting firm run by 32-year-old Nathan Sproul, a former Christian Coalition activist and one-time director of the Arizona Republican Party—receives $812,864 from the Republican National Committee to do voter outreach and $736,665 for political consulting. [OpenSecrets.org; San Francisco Chronicle, 10/28/2004] During the months preceding the election, the firm is accused of instructing its workers to register only Republican voters, and in one case actually destroying registrations forms filled out by Democrats. The alleged activities reportedly occur in Nevada (See October 12, 2004), Oregon (See Early September 2004, (October 2004), and (October 12, 2004)), Pennsylvania (See Before September 6, 2004, October 19, 2004 and October 19, 2004) and West Virginia (See Before August 20, 2004). The company—which operates under several names, including Voters Outreach of America, America Votes and Project America Votes—denies these charges. [San Jose Mercury News, 10/14/2004]
          

(October 2004)

       According to Ohio's voter registration database, the level of registered voters in Perry County is a remarkably high 91 percent. A substantial number of these voters, however, appear never to have voted and “have no signatures on file.” The database also indicates that 3,100 voters registered on the exact same day, November 8, 1977—despite there being no federal elections during that year. [Source: Letter from US House Judiciary Democrats to Kenneth Blackwell, 12/2/2004]
          

October 12, 2004

       Thieves break into Lucas County Democratic headquarters in Toledo, Ohio and remove computers that contain sensitive campaign information like candidates' schedules; financial information; phone numbers of party members, candidates, donors, and volunteers; and emails from the party's office manager discussing campaign strategy. Computers belonging to Lucas County Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak and to a Texas attorney—who has been working with the Kerry/Edwards presidential campaign to ensure election security—are also stolen. Commenting on the impact of the break-in, party spokesman Jerry Chabler tells the Toledo Blade: “This puts us behind the eight ball. This can affect our entire get-out-the-vote operation.” Chabler also tells the newspaper that it was apparent the burglars “knew what they wanted.” The burglars left two other computers containing less sensitive information and ignored other items that would have likely been taken if the burglary had been driven my monetary interest. Ohio Democratic spokesperson Dan Trevas says that the political importance of Lucas County cannot be overstated. “It's a major Democratic county in a swing area, surrounded by Republican and moderates,” he explains. “A lot of votes come out of northwest Ohio.” For some reason the building's alarm system did not detect the break-in. [Toledo Blade, 10/13/2004]
          

October 12, 2004

       In Nevada, Eric Russell, a former employee of the Republican-funded political consulting firm, Sproul & Associates, claims in a signed affidavit that the company's employees were paid to register only Republicans. His former employer told him to ask prospective voters, “Who would you vote for in the next election?” Only people who indicated they would vote for President Bush were to be registered, he says. When Russell refused to follow instructions and registered both Democrats and Republicans, his employer docked his pay. Russell also says that he witnessed his supervisor take out eight to ten Democratic registration forms from a pile and destroy them—a felony in some states. He added that hundreds, if not thousands, of forms were destroyed. “I personally witnessed my supervisor at VOA, together with her personal assistant, destroy completed registration forms that VOA employees had collected” he explains. [CBS News 10/14/2004; The Las Vegas Review-Journal 10/14/2004; The San Jose Mercury News, 10/14/2004; KGW News and The Associated Press, 1/13/2004] “We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant, and he ripped them up right in front of us.” [CNN, 10/14/2004] “All of the destroyed registration forms were for registrants who indicated their party preference as ‘Democrat.’” [The San Jose Mercury News, 10/14/2004] Russell's account is supported by another of the firm's former employees, Tyrone Mrasak, who tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal that workers were encouraged to register 18 Republican voters per day. He says that they were permitted to finish the day at anytime after meeting this quota and would still be paid for eight hours of work. “We didn't get credit for forms we brought back marked Democrat,” he explains. He also recounts how he would often loiter in front of homeless shelters and give homeless people cigarettes in exchange for registering as Republicans. “As long as they have an address, they can register,” Mrasak says. “If they were looking to bum a cigarette I'd say, ‘I'll trade you a cigarette if you sign this.’” [The Las Vegas Review-Journal 10/14/2004] These charges are adamantly denied by the Republican National Committee, which provides the San Jose Mercury News with affidavits from two other employees of the firm claiming that no voter-registration forms had been destroyed. [The San Jose Mercury News, 10/14/2004] The firm also denies that its employees were instructed to destroy forms, but does not dispute that they were encouraged to register more Republicans than Democrats. [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/28/2004] Republican consultant Paul Senseman says that Sproul is “very professional, very mission-oriented,” adding, “He's somebody that gets things done.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/28/2004]
          

October 28, 2004

       In Ohio, the Lake County Board of Elections issues a notice warning that some of the county's newly registered voters have received phony letters claiming that the recipients may have been registered illegally and consequently may not be eligible to vote in the November 2004 elections. The unsigned fake letter, dated October 22 and printed on stationary that looks similar to that of the board, reads: “[I]ndependent efforts by the NAACP, America Coming Together, John Kerry for President and the Capri Cafaro for Congress campaigns have been illegally registering people to vote and apply for absentee ballots.... If you have been registered by any of these entities then you may run the risk of being illegally registered to vote. Please be advised that if you were registered in this capacity, that you will not be able to vote until the next election.” [source: Phony Lake County Board of Elections Letters, 10/22/2004; The Washington Post, 10/31/2004; News 5 [Ohio], 10/28/2004]
          

October 29, 2004

       In Cincinnati, Donald and Marian Spencer, elderly African American civil rights activists, go to federal district court to challenge the 1953 Ohio law that permits poll watchers to challenge voters (See 4:00pm October 22, 2004). Critics of the law say it is rooted in a blatantly racist 1886 statute that emerged after the Civil War. The couple is supported in their case by the Democrats. The couple complains that most of the Republican challengers will be deployed in the heavily black precincts in the Cincinnati area in order to suppress minority voters. [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004; Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/1/2004] David Maume, a sociologist from the University of Cincinnati, testifies that demographic data show a disproportionate number of Republican challengers would be sent to precincts that are predominantly Africa-American. Maume further explains that perhaps as many as 77 percent of black voters would encounter a challenger on Election Day, compared with 25 percent of white voters. There is “a clear correlation between a voting population that is black and the placement of Republican challengers,” Maume concludes. [Cleveland Enquirer, 10/30/2004] The court resumes hearing on the case Sunday evening (See Evening, October 31, 2004). [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004]
          

1:24 am November 1, 2004

       In Cincinnati, US District Judge Susan J. Dlott rules on a case brought by Donald and Marian Spencer (See Evening, October 31, 2004), in which the couple challenged the GOP's plan to deploy challengers to polling sites in Hamilton County (See 4:00pm October 22, 2004). Dlott, appointed by Clinton in 1994, rules against the Republican plan, noting that there is no need to have challengers since Ohio already requires the presence of election judges at precincts in order to avoid voter fraud. “Under Ohio law, each polling place is staffed by four election judges, no more than two of whom can be from a single party,” the Los Angeles Times explains. “One of the four is appointed by each county election board to be the presiding judge, who can rule on challenges to a voter's qualifications.” Dlott warns in her 18-page decision that the Republican plan, if permitted, could cause “chaos, delay, intimidation and pandemonium inside the polls and in the lines outside the door.” She notes “that 14 percent of new voters in a majority white location will face a challenger ... but 97 percent of new voters in a majority African American voting location will see such a challenger.” Dlott says also that the law permitting challengers does not sufficiently protect citizens' fundamental right to vote. [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004; Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/2/2004; Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/1/2004; Columbus Dispatch, 11/1/2004] Dlott ruling is very similar to another one that is delivered a few hours later in a similar case in Akron (See Early morning, November 1, 2004). Commenting on the two rulings, two election law experts, professor Edward Foley of Ohio State University Law School in Columbus and Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, both tell the Los Angeles Times that they consider it significant that the two judges have provided similar rationales for their rulings. “It is quite striking that the reasoning of both judges is the same and they echo one another,” Foley says. [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004]
          

November 1, 2004

       In Franklin County, electronic voting machines are delivered to polling places in Columbus and its suburbs. But they are unevenly distributed, with more machines being placed per registered voter in the higher-income areas than lower-income areas. [The Free Press, 12/16/2004] According to the Columbus Dispatch, the manager of election operations, a Democrat, recommended the placement of machines. [Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/2004] At the end of the day, County Elections Director Matthew Damschroder, a Republican, reportedly orders workers to deliver another 99 voting machines, which were held in reserve in case there was a serious accident or a problem with a truckload, to the inner city precincts where long lines are expected. But only 44 of the reserve machines are delivered. Four machines are delivered the next day (See (Morning) November 2, 2004), 29 machines are “are delivered by the close of polls,” and 22 are left in a warehouse (See Morning-early afternoon, November 2, 2004). [Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/2004]
Uneven distribution - In past elections, the county has aimed to have one machine for every 100 voters, with the maximum being 125 voters per machine. This formula assumes that the average voter will take roughly 5 minutes to cast his or her ballot. 200 voters per machine is considered the absolute maximum. [The Free Press, 12/16/2004; Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/2004]
After the elections, statistics will reveal that the voter-to-machine ratio was higher in Columbus than in its surrounding suburbs where the income level is higher. (See Morning-early afternoon, November 2, 2004)
Analysis by Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips - According to a signed affidavit by Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips, who holds a PhD in geomorphology from the University of Oregon, the uneven distribution of machines “cost[s] John Kerry 17,000 votes.” His conclusion is based on statistical analysis of Franklin County's election results which shows that wards with greater than 300 registered voters per machine had a lower voter turnout than wards with fewer than 300 registered voters per machine. Since areas with a lower density of machine placement were predominantly in Democratic Columbus inner-city precincts and since these precincts experienced lower than usual voter turnout, the implication is that many voters who would have voted for Kerry did not vote because of long lines. [Source: Affidavit, Richard Phillips, 12/10/2004]

          

Early morning, November 1, 2004

       In Akron, Ohio, US District Judge John R. Adams rules on a case brought by local residents (See Late October 2004), challenging the Republicans' plan to station challengers at polling sites in 65 Ohio counties (See 4:00pm October 22, 2004). Adams, appointed by Bush in 2002, rules against the GOP plan. In his decision he notes that Ohio already requires the presence of election judges at precincts in order to avoid voter fraud and that there is therefore no need to place challengers at the polls. “Under Ohio law, each polling place is staffed by four election judges, no more than two of whom can be from a single party,” the Los Angeles Times explains. “One of the four is appointed by each county election board to be the presiding judge, who can rule on challenges to a voter's qualifications.” Judge Adams also expresses concern that “random challenges or challenges without cause advanced by members of any political party ... could result in retaliatory ‘tit for tat’ challenges at the polling places.” Furthermore, he argues, “If challenges are made with any frequency, the resultant distraction and delay could give rise to chaos and a level of voter frustration that would turn qualified electors away from the polls” Finally, Adams also says that the law permitting challengers does not adequately protect a citizen's fundamental right to vote. [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004] Adams ruling is very similar to another one that was delivered just a few hours ago in a similar case in Cleveland (See 1:24 am November 1, 2004). Commenting on the two rulings, two election law experts, professor Edward Foley of Ohio State University Law School in Columbus and Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, both tell the Los Angeles Times that they consider it significant that the two judges have provided similar rationales for their rulings. “It is quite striking that the reasoning of both judges is the same and they echo one another,” Foley says. [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004]
          

November 2, 2004

       The Associated Press reports: “By the close of polls across the country, despite heavy turnout and hints of a vote-counting saga dead ahead, there were only scattered reports of equipment trouble and human error at the voting stations. And none were major.” [Associated Press, 03/11/2004]
          

November 2, 2004

       Voters in 68 of Ohio's 88 counties, or roughly 73 percent of the electorate, use punch-card ballots to cast their votes. In the counties that use electronic voting systems, 0.8 percent of the votes cast do not register a vote for president whereas in counties that use punch-card ballots, the figure is 1.9 percent, or 76,068 ballots. [Dayton Daily News, 11/21/2004] According to some groups who later dispute the election results, the punch-card ballots that fail to register a vote for the president do register votes for the other offices. [Guardian, 12/1/2004]
          

November 2, 2004

       4,438 (Early reports say 4,530 votes) votes are lost in North Carolina's Carteret County because officials believed the computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it actually could. The officials claimed that the voting system's manufacturer, UniLect Corp., had said that each of the storage unit could hold 10,500 votes when in actuality, the limit was 3,005. [The News and Observer, 11/17/2004; Associated Press, 11/4/2004; Journal Gazette, 11/13/2004] According to the North Carolina News and Observer, “Most of the votes lost were by registered Republicans.” [The News and Observer, 11/17/2004]
          

November 2, 2004

       A dozen precincts in the southwest part of Merced County, Ohio experience problems with electronic voting machines that were purchased in 2001 from UniLect Corp. Machine malfunctions in these precincts are compounded by problems with the paper ballots that are used as a back-up. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/9/2004] All of the precincts experiencing these problems have a Democratic majority. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/9/2004] Some of the problems that voters experience include:
20 to 30 of the machines need to be recalibrated when votes intended for one candidate are instead counted for another. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]

About twelve machines freeze up and have to be restarted. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]

In the precincts of Hermitage, Farrell, Wheatland, West Middlesex, Shenango Township and Sharon, some machines never operate or offer only black screens while others display the ballot backwards, requiring the voter to start with the last page of the ballot and work towards the beginning. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]

In polling places where the machines are inoperable, election officials have to provide a back-up supply of paper ballots. But the county only has an emergency stock of 2,000 paper ballots, and as a result they have to print “a couple thousand more.” [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]
But this creates new problems. Some of the paper ballots are missing candidates' names and in some precincts there are complaints that poll workers require people to sign their paper ballots. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/9/2004] Additionally, critics later note that the failure to have had enough paper ballots on hand may have disenfranchised voters. Some people who left the polls when voting was not possible may not have returned to vote when the new supply of paper ballots arrived. [Vindicator, 11/6/2004]
At the Farrell municipal building, where 289 people are known to have voted, the voting machines record only 51 votes for president—48 votes for John Kerry and 3 for George W. Bush. Missing presidential votes are a problem in other precincts as well, as the county reports a few days later that 51,818 people cast ballots but only 47,768 of those included a vote for president. [Vindicator, 11/6/2004]
About a month later, the total undervote in Mercer County is determined to have been 7.29 percent. Typically, candidates will challenge results when the undervote exceeds 2 percent . [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/9/2004]
For some races machines tabulated negative 25 million votes. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]

Finally, there is at least one incident involving the harassment of voters. Challengers from both the Democratic and Republican parties assigned to Warren 2E are ordered to leave the polling station after precinct judges say they are being disruptive. [Vindicator, 11/3/2004]

          

November 2, 2004

       Polls in Akron, Ohio experience long lines, “especially in the city's predominantly African-American wards.” The county elections director, Bryan C. Williams, tells the Akron Beacon Journal, “We had lines and waits everywhere in the morning, mainly between 6:30am and 9am.” He says the longest wait reported to him was 95 minutes. [Akron Beacon Journal, 12/11/2004] The long lines might have been avoided had there not been major cuts to the number of precincts in Summit County in 2001 (See August 2001) and 2003 (See 2003). Most of those reductions took place in Akron where there is a significant Democratic majority. According to the Akron Beacon Journal, the city's importance to Democrats is significant—“Enough to change Summit County from blue to red.” The paper explains: “John Kerry won Summit County by 38,000 votes, according to official returns. Take Akron's votes out of the totals, and President Bush would have won the county by 423 votes.” [Akron Beacon Journal, 12/11/2004]
          

November 2, 2004

       The Election Protection Coalition, an umbrella group of volunteer poll monitors that is operating a telephone hotline, says it has received reports of problems with electronic voting machines from nearly 1,100 voters across the US. [Associated Press, 11/02/2004]
          

(1:00am) November 2, 2004

       The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a ruling made by a federal district court the previous day (See Evening, October 31, 2004) which had barred Republicans from challenging voters at the polls (See 4:00pm October 22, 2004). The appeals court is presided by three judges, two of which were appointed by Republican presidents—Judge John M. Rogers, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002, and Senior Judge James L. Ryan, who was appointed by President Reagan in 1985. Judge Rogers writes in the court's decision: “Longer lines may, of course, result from delays and confusion when one side in a political controversy employs” challenges “more vigorously than in previous elections,” but “such a possibility does not amount to the severe burden upon the right to vote” that would justify a court order. Appeals Court Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., a 1995 appointee of President Clinton, disagrees. In his dissenting opinion, he says that under the Republican plan, “partisan challengers for the first time since the civil rights era seek to target precincts that have a majority African American population and without any legal standards or restrictions, challenge the voter qualifications of people as they stand waiting to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” He adds: “In this case, we anticipate the arrival of hundreds of Republican lawyers to challenge voter registration at the polls. Behind them will be hundreds of Democrat lawyers to challenge these challengers' challenges. This is a recipe for confusion and chaos.” [Los Angeles Times, 11/2/2004]
          

Morning-early afternoon, November 2, 2004

       In some heavily democratic Columbus, Ohio precincts, people wait 2-7 hours in long lines to cast their votes because of a shortage of voting machines. Machines delivered the previous day were distributed unevenly throughout the county, with a greater concentration (machine to registered voter) being placed in the higher-income suburbs (See November 1, 2004). 51 machines remain in a warehouse (See Afternoon November 2, 2004). [Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/2004; The Free Press, 12/16/2004] After the elections, statistics show that the voter-to-machine ratio was higher in Columbus than in its surrounding suburbs where income levels are higher. In the affluent Republican stronghold of Upper Arlington not one of its 34 precincts had a voting machine which cast more than 200 votes. Only one machine, in ward 6F, came close to the maximum. It was used by 194 voters. However, in the Democratic city of Columbus, there were 34 polling machines which logged on more than 200 votes per machine and 42 machines that were over 190 votes per machine. In another words, in Columbus, 17 percent of the city's machines were operating at 90-100 percent over the optimum capacity while in Upper Arlington the figure was 3 percent. The high voter ratios in Columbus were due to a combination of increased voter participation and fewer voting machines. In Columbus, despite increased voter registration in the city, 139, or 29 percent, of the 472 precincts had fewer machines than in the 2000 presidential election. In some precincts, the number of machines was reduced by as many as five. This contrasted sharply with Upper Arlington, where only two precincts had fewer machines. In one of those precincts, voter registration had declined by 25 percent. [Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/2004; The Free Press, 12/16/2004]
          

After 7:30pm, November 2, 2004

       In Lebanon, Ohio, Warren County officials close the county administration building to the public where the vote is being tallied. The lockdown—the only one to occur in the state—is a result of a decision that was made during a closed-door meeting the previous week (See October 28, 2004). Warren County Emergency Services Director Frank Young had recommended the increased security because of information received from the US Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/5/2004] An FBI agent reportedly said that Warren County ranked a “10” on a terrorism scale of 1 to 10. The threat was said to be of domestic origins. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/10/2004] But these claims are later challenged when officials from the FBI and DHS say that they were not aware of any such threats. Media organizations protest the lockdown, arguing that the officials are violating the law and the public's rights. “The media should have been permitted into the area where there was counting,” Enquirer attorney Jack Greiner complains. “This is a process that should be done in complete transparency and it wasn't.” In other Ohio counties, such as Butler County, people are permitted to observe ballot checkers through a window. In past elections, the Warren County commissioners' room was open to the public so they could observe the process. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/5/2004; Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/3/2004] The news director at WCPO-TV, Bob Morford, says he's suspicious of the decision to close the building to the public. I've “never seen anything like it,” he says. “Frankly, we consider that a red herring.... That's something that's put up when you don't know what else to put up to keep us out.” [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/5/2004] Additionally, election officials fail to set up an area with telephones for the media as they were supposed to. When reporters attempt to enter the building, they are refused, although they are later permitted into the building's lobby located two floors below the elections office. The Associated Press, which has reporters at every Ohio board of elections site, says that Warren County is the only county to implement such tight restrictions. County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel claims that having reporters and photographers around could interfere with the vote count. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/5/2004] It is later explained that these restrictions were also due to homeland security concerns. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 11/10/2004]
          

November 3, 2004

       In Ohio's Cuyahoga County, some Cleveland precincts with large African-American populations, report an extraordinarily high number of votes for third party candidates even though few voters in these precincts have voted for these candidates in the past. For instance, in precinct 4F in the 4th Ward, where voting took place at Benedictine High School, there are 290 votes for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 215 for Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. And in precinct 4N, where voting occurred at the same location, the tally was 318 for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 163 for Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik. Yet in the previous presidential election, a total of only 8 votes were cast by those two precincts for all independent candidates combined. City Councilman Kenneth Johnson, who has represented the 4th Ward since 1980, tells Juan Gonzales of the New York Daily News: “That's terrible, I can't believe it. It's obviously a malfunction with the machines.” Similar results appear in other Cleveland precincts, including the 8th Ward's G and I precinct at Cory United Methodist Church. In G, there were 51 votes for Badnarik and in I, there were 27 votes cast for Peroutka. However in 2000, third party candidates received only 9 votes from these precincts. [Source: Letter from US House Judiciary Democrats to Kenneth Blackwell, 12/2/2004; New York Daily News , 11/30/2004] It is later suggested that the problems were caused by voters in one precinct using machines intended for another. According to Katie Daley, an observer for the Democratic Party, voters waited in a single line between adjacent precincts and entered the voting booths as they became available, without regard to precinct assignment. [Associated Press, 12/10/2004] Reporter Juan Gonzales suggests that the votes cast for the third party candidates may have been meant for John Kerry: “In virtually all those precincts, Kerry's vote was lower than Al Gore's in 2000, even though there was a record turnout in the black community this time, and even though blacks voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.” [New York Daily News , 11/30/2004]
          

November 3, 2004

       In Montgomery County, two precincts—one in Kettering and another in Washington Twp.—report extraordinarily high numbers of ballots cast with no presidential vote. The two precincts, both of which used punch-card ballots, had undercounts of more than 25 percent, far exceeding the county's overall undercount of 2 percent. Undercount rates were 75 percent higher in the precincts that voted for John Kerry. Of the 231 precincts that went to Kerry, 2.8 percent of the ballots cast lacked a vote for the president. In the 354 precincts that supported President Bush, the figure was 1.6 percent. (But there were some exceptions. In fact, seven of the 10 precincts with the highest rate of undercounted presidential ballots went to Bush. For example, the highest undercount rate in Montgomery County occurred in precinct Washington X, a Bush stronghold, with 27.5 percent of the 611 ballots cast lacking a vote for president.) Larry J. Sabato, a political scientist from the University of Virginia, tells the Dayton Daily News that the extremely high rate of undercounts indicates that something went wrong. “It is very difficult to believe that a quarter of the people would not vote for president, especially in a year like this,” he says. “If I were the election officers in those areas I would be doing some very extensive checks of those machines.” But the presiding judge of Washington X, Shirley Wightman, tells the Dayton Daily News that her precinct reported no problems. [Dayton Daily News, 11/18/2004]
          

November 5, 2004

       In Ohio, Matthew Damschroder, director of Franklin County Board of Elections, reports that an error with its electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in Precinct 1B in Gahanna where only 638 voters were known to have cast ballots. The actual tally of Bush votes was 365. [Associated Press, 11/05/2004; Associated Press, 11/06/2004; The Columbus Dispatch, 11/5/2004] Franklin is the only Ohio county where the older-style touchscreen voting system manufactured by Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242 is used. [Associated Press, 11/05/2004]
          


Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under the Creative Commons License below:

Creative Commons License Home |  About this Site |  Development |  Donate |  Contact Us
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use