OpEdNews - Page 3 of Article: How the last presidential election awoke me from an unsound sleep

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,

1 | 2 | 3 | 4