When I dedicated myself fulltime to fighting fraud in Georgia in 2005, I approached the ACLU about supporting my challenge to receive copies of the ‘ballots’ from the 159 counties to which I did an open records request. Aside from all 159 counties denying me access to the ballots because at the time and still now they are Diebold machine generated CD copies of a PCMCIA card that hold both the Microsoft Database that holds the ballot records, but also Diebold software and for this reason, the SOS office of Georgia said releasing the software compromised terrorist acts. In essence, they labeled me a potential terrorist for asking for a copy of the county’s ballots, which in my mind belonged to me as a voting citizen of the state.
The ACLU denied helping me because in a nutshell their attorneys had concluded that Georgia, by virtue of Lever machines, had redefined the Georgia State Election Code to define a ballot as a process that a machine can execute that produces a ballot. That definition was the precedent which allowed Diebold electronic voting to be seen as legally viable statewide. I will never forgive the ACLU for abandoning me at a time I was challenging the very root of democracy, honest elections.
Lever Machines, DREs and Optiscans which change the ballot from being a physical object like a sheet a paper with a mark on it, to being a process that produces something that acts as the new ballot. In all 3 cases the Lever Machine, DRE and Optiscan adds one additional step to the chain of custody (See below), and that step is a crucial step because it is a step that allows the chain of custody to be broken between the voter, the voter’s intent being transferred to the ballot, the ballot ending up in the ballot box and the ballot being counted accurately. To paint a picture with steps, let me outline what I mean.
PAPER BALLOTS (at poll location)
1. Voter transfers voter intent by pencil or pen to paper ballot
2. Ballot put physically in ballot box
3. Poll close, and citizens open ballot box and participate in counting the ballots
RESULT: Unbroken chain of custody between voters and vote counting
DRE, Optiscan or Lever Machines
1. Voter transfers voter intent by machine to “Process”,
2. “process” transfers vote to paper ballot or electronic copy of ballot.
3. Copy of Ballot (electronic or paper) counted (electronically or manually)
4. Polls close and county elections officials (not citizens) count the votes.
RESULT: #1 Citizens taken out of the loop in terms of counting the actual ballots, but left to count the results of the process. #2 Citizens not given access to ballots election night but some timeframe after the election concludes and numbers announced that they can be supervised to count the votes. #3 Extra step adds multiple opportunities within that step to break the chain of custody between the voter, voter intent, intent on ballot and ballot in secure locked ballot box.
Why LEVER Machines are the Historical Enemy of Election Integrity?
Lever machines, because they were seemingly so simple and even somewhat mechanical, were seen as benign servants of the voter to record voter intent. I would argue, that this insertion of a machine (electronic or mechanical) was the beginning of our historical abandoning of the sanctity of ‘unbroken chain of custody’ as the machine introduced a process that we cannot verify chain of custody.
With emphasis, I would submit a practical candidate who suffered enormously from the use of lever machines. Paul Harmon, a Licking County Ohio candidate for Domestic Relations Judge, lost his election by 189 votes but found that the undervote (40%) had actually won his race and he launched a lawsuit that went to the Ohio Supreme Court but was ultimately defeated. He felt it was fishy that the undervote won his race.
In investigating his case, he discovered the lever machines had been filed down to prevent democratic votes from appearing on the ballot.
From a transcript of his speech May 7th, Ohio Teach-In Sponsored by Case Ohio
“There were 5 candidates for domestic relations court judge, none of the candidates won. Undervotes won in a landslide. (audience laughing)
UNBELIEVABLE, UNBELIEVABLE
Of the candidates, I finished 2nd by 189 votes….”
After the election, Paul naturally wanted to inspect the machine that recorded voter intent on the punchcard and found this:
“They," [Licking county election officials], "locked the doors and the press was there in the hallways and they voted unanimously not to let me look at the Votematics machines, which frankly surprised me.
And I said well, I’m not going to be able to tell much by looking at the punchcards and see how how they intended to vote.” – Paul Harmon
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
