posted on May 16, 2001 11:01:04 AM
No matter how you look at it, this stinks of opportunity to juggle voting in favor of a preferred candidate.
"PENSACOLA -- One of the best-kept secrets in Florida's disputed 2000 presidential election is that thousands of ballots that ultimately counted were never even filled out by voters. With no outside scrutiny, county officials on Election Day made new copies of at least 10,000 mismarked or torn absentee ballots that the counting machines initially couldn't read. More than 2,400 absentee ballots were duplicated in Escambia County alone -- about 11 percent of all absentee votes cast in that county. Among the 10,000 ballots duplicated statewide were untold numbers of ballots that machines couldn't read but that election officials said showed "clear intent" in the presidential race or other contests. By duplicating those ballots to make them machine-readable, officials saved many from being thrown out in a presidential race decided by just 537 votes. This systematic effort -- blessed by Florida law but never raised in the pitched election-recount fight -- challenges the successful GOP courtroom argument that without clear standards, humans should not be looking forvoter intent where machines couldn't find any. In fact, election workers did just that -- and long before a recount fight made each ballot a legal battleground. Ironically, the process helped the candidate who would later argue so vehemently against manual recounts -- George W. Bush.
"An Orlando Sentinel analysis of the absentee -duplicating process across Florida found it was concentrated in the 26 counties with the same optical-scan voting technology state lawmakers decided last week to require statewide. With tabulating machines based in polling places, the system gives voters a second chance to correct ballot mistakes on the spot. All but a handful of the ballots saved by election workers in those 26 counties were absentee ballots -- a category of votes that Bush dominated by a near 2-to-1 margin. But because the duplicating process is so loosely documented, county workers can't say how many of the rescued votes were in the presidential race and how many were in other races. "This is a startling and important development," said Kendall Coffey, a leading recount lawyer for Democrat Al Gore. Coffey said he had not heard of any widespread duplications being done to save flawed ballots. Though he agreed it surely helped Bush, he didn't condemn it. The counties did, albeit selectively, stick to the principle of "count every vote," he said. But on a different level, Coffey said, such a vote-salvaging effort was basically what the Florida Supreme Court ordered on Dec. 8, when it told counties to look at uncounted ballots and tally those showing "clear intent." Coffey contends that knowing about the duplication of rejected ballots surely would have bolstered Democratic arguments to keep the hand counts going. The fact was, hardly anyone knew. "I never heard this was going on until now," Coffey said. Of course, the state court order never played out because the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it the next day and ultimately ruled that such a recount would deny equal protection to all voters. Justices cited a lack of uniform statewide standards as a main reason to shut the hand count down.
"Bush recount lawyer Barry Richard discounted the importance of knowing about the duplicated absentees last week, saying it would have had little impact on judges deciding vote cases. He too, was unaware it had been done. Still, even had it been known, "I think the same legal result would have occurred," Richard said. Duplicating ballots is perfectly legal. State rules have always required that duplicates be made for unreadable ballots. A Volusia County vote fraud case reaffirmed the practice. In a 1996 sheriff's race, Gus Beckstrom filed a suit challenging his 1,100-vote loss to Sheriff Bob Vogel. Beckstrom argued that fraud and negligence occurred in counting more than 27,000 absentee ballots -- many of which were marked over again by election officials because they were illegible to computer scanners. The state Supreme Court ruled that no fraud was involved, and said Vogel
deserved to win. But the case drove home the point that county officials cannot alter the original ballot to save it -- they must create a duplicate ballot instead. The reason officials in most of the 26 counties with precinct tabulators gave for duplicating so many absentees is that they wanted mail-in ballots to be counted as carefully and fairly as those cast in polling places. The voting machines in these precincts are designed to immediately reject unreadable ballots so voters can fix them. But absentee voters aren't around to make corrections when officials find mistakes on Election Day. To make matters worse for absentee ballots, they arrive folded and stuffed into envelopes. The folds sometimes cause ballots to get caught in counting equipment. So counting machines might turn them into accordions. Or, like some in Orange, they were mangled into puzzle pieces for workers to put back together and duplicate. Still, they get counted. However, in many cases, absentees were in good shape physically, but badly mismarked by voters. Some voted for too many candidates in a race -- a clear "overvote"-- or made no marks at all -- a clear "undervote." Even duplicated, such ballots could not be counted. But an overvote ballot where two ovals were marked but one of those was erased would usually pass the "intent" test with officials. So they would create the duplicate ballot with only one oval filled,and it would be fed through the machine and counted as avote. If the ballot was too marginal for election workers to make the call, it would be passed on to the canvassing board. "The absentees are scrutinized to make sure every vote counts," Walton County Elections Supervisor Melissa Beasley said. "It's a very lengthy process."
"In Florida, Republicans mounted an aggressive absentee-ballot effort and targeted voters with personal appeals from Gov. Jeb Bush and other GOP luminaries. State
Republican Party Chairman Al Cardenas boasted at one time that the GOP held at least a 100,000-ballot advantage in requested absentees over Democrats. And these tedious ballot-salvaging expeditions occurred almost exclusively within that pool of mostly Republican voters. So the Election Night vote-saving effort was surely adding to Bush's eventual lead at the same moment TV networks were declaring and retracting winners in Florida's razor-thin race. Given that, Democratic leaders still maintain they would not have mounted challenges to
throw out these salvaged absentees, had they known they existed. "Whether it favors one candidate or not, every vote should count," said state Democratic Party Chairman Bob Poe.
"The whole question in all of this was always fairness anyway."
"Even within the 26 counties that made the extra effort to salvage absentee votes, standards and procedures varied. Orange County officials rarely looked for voter intent in the absentee pile. They only did it in cases when a single candidate was picked at the top of the ballot and again as a write-in candidate. But while such "write-in overvotes" were salvaged in Orange, Columbia County officials refused to accept them -- even though state law says they are valid votes. Seminole and Alachua County looked at all overvotes and duplicated those with clear intent. But exactly what amounted to "intent" on Election Night differed from one county to the next. Sometimes the contradictions came within a single county. In Escambia,standards for what counted as a vote differed between absentees and votes cast at polling places. Absentee ballots that contained write-in overvotes were duplicated and counted.Identical ballots from precinct polling places were also reviewed by election workers -- but these were thrown out as overvotes. Among those rejected ballots from Escambia precincts were 118 legally valid votes for Gore and 49 for Bush, a Sentinel examination found. Counting these ballots would have trimmed 69 votes from Bush's 537-vote margin of victory. Escambia Election Supervisor Bonnie Jones said the double -standard for write-in overvotes was adopted because names of the qualified write-in candidates are posted in polling places. Absentee voters who wouldn't see those postings are at a disadvantage, said Jones, a longtime Democrat now registered with no party affiliation. Like other counties that
duplicated ballots, Escambia officials can't say how many went to a particular candidate, or even a particular contest on the ballot. Whatever the number, the votes certainly
benefited Bush, who won Escambia's absentees by a three-to-one margin. Escambia's "duplicating team" of more than a dozen poll workers went to great lengths -- working until 2 a.m. -- to make sure their absentee voters got a second or third look to have a mistaken ballot corrected and duplicated. But the same election officials opted not to program their precinct voting machines to give voters a second chance. They decided it would cause long lines and cost them too many extra ballots -- valued at 23 cents apiece. Finding exactly how many votes were saved in the ballot-duplicating efforts and checking the accuracy of the process would be a massive undertaking. An inspection would have to match up thousands of original ballots, which are voided and set aside, with their corresponding duplicates, which are mixed in with the rest of the votes. In Bay County, where 1,478 absentee ballots were duplicated,
that difficult job would be even harder. Election officials there sealed the original ballots in envelopes and refuse to open them now. So one of the best kept secrets of Election Day 2000 may just stay that way." --Orlando Sentinel, May 7, 2001
[ edited by krs on May 16, 2001 11:03 AM ]
posted on May 16, 2001 11:14:15 AM
"USA Today goes front and long with its second weigh-in as part of the Florida election media recount project it undertook with The Miami Herald and a bunch of other newspapers, focusing this time on the impact of hand inspecting "overvote" ballots that were tossed by counting machines because they contained votes for two presidential candidates. The paper's findings: 1) George Bush would have defeated Al Gore if the overvotes had been included in a hand examination for voter intent under the two most widely used standards; 2) Gore would have won under the two least used; 3) But if all clearly legally disqualifiable overvotes --such as those cast on Palm Beach's "butterfly" ballot or by those voters trying to vote separately for a vice-presidential candidate--had been considered, Gore would have won by between 15,000 and 25,000. The paper's headline concludes: "FLORIDA VOTER ERRORS COST GORE THE ELECTION." --Slate, 5/11/01
posted on May 16, 2001 01:29:26 PM
krs I know you are fixated on this but really it is flogging a dead horse for even those of us who who agree with you.
Let's look to all the interesting questions in the future like how he will steal the election (if we have them) in 2004 - or will we be in a stste of emergency and not have them? Technically we have been in a state of emergency that was declared in the Nixon administration and was never rescinded.
posted on May 16, 2001 01:34:50 PM
In the first place, gravid, I am not fixated on 'this' or on anything, and in the second place I'll thank you not to continue to presume that your lectures are appreciated or heeded.
Now, if you care to begin to post to the topic, please do so.
posted on May 16, 2001 01:50:44 PM
I think this is a Dead Horse that should be beaten and re-beaten.
The USA just experienced the most bizarre election in it's history---and to insure that voter's rights are taken more seriously by making sure that ballots are readable by all and that every single vote is treated equally somebody better keep that whip flying..
This only came to light because it was a close election----if previous elections were scutinized the way this one was in Florida there would be a farmyard full of dead horses.
Well---I am off to VOTE in a few minutes.. Provincial election in British Columbia.
Paper ballot, Pencil, mark your choice with a X. They'll be HAND COUNTED tonight---no Exit Polls allowed as it against the law.
[ edited by Zazzie on May 16, 2001 01:51 PM ]
posted on May 16, 2001 03:02:34 PM*I* think that it's very relevant! There is absolutely no reason to sweep it under the rug, simply because people get tired of hearing about it. This is AMPLE EVIDENCE to call for an IMPEACHMENT and REMOVAL of George Bush from the office of the White House … and not a moment too soon!
" … but really it is flogging a dead horse for even those of us who who agree with you."
How long did the American Revolution last? There were a lot of quitters in George Washington's army at Valley Forge and elsewhere. Many of the soldiers were just citizens and had farms and families to attend to. What's your excuse for not being patriotic enough to right this wrong??
This article pointed out by KRS finally clears up the confusion and doubt that the Republicans want in place to stop the surge of patriotism to overthrow this monster! It is high-time to get mad, to get angry, and to do something about it! And it won't get done by trying to forget about voters being wrongly screwed over in this last election. If you don't want to think about it (lost voting rights), then go move to another country where you don't have to worry about voting for your government! In the meantime, the rest of us want to get the word out that Gore was the rightful winner of the last election and should be installed in the White House IMMEDIATELY!
posted on May 16, 2001 05:43:23 PM
This HAS to be brought up again, and again so that no one can ever say "Oh! I had forgotten how dirty that election was...Like the Holocaust...Many say "Enough, already", except those, such as myself, who lost 95% of their family. There are things which are meant to always be remembered; like little girls, kidnapped, raped and killed...like so many! so many things...
Thank you for this latest enlightenment, Ken....
********
Gosh Shosh!
About Me
[ edited by Shoshanah on May 16, 2001 05:44 PM ]
posted on May 16, 2001 05:48:57 PM
"..blessed by Florida law..."
Uh, Jethro, er, Jeb, any comments???
Although it's obvious to anybody that's been on this planet for more than 20 minutes what went on with this Florida fiasco, I sure hope this little "family situation" is being looked into...I expect that the truth will come out some day and they will be made accountable.
Since KRS is so fond of quoting The Onion, some folks might want to read that article for themselves.
gravid: Where's your list of suggestions? A problem without an answer is an objection, not a possible solution. You want to do the right thing, then let's think about it together.
First, people need to wake and find out that they CAN make a difference! Before that happens, they need to get energiuzed. And that happens when they get angry. And people get most angry when something is stolen from them and they feel violated. So, the question is, have you bothered to send this article to anyone else today?
Spread the news! Rile people up! Get them angry about being cheated! That's the least that we can do! Have you done that yet? Who have you gotten angry at what happened to us just this week? Where's your results? GO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
You'd be surprized at just how many Americans do feel violated, cheated, and helpless to do something. Make your voice heard and they may realize that they are not powerless! Get them angry, and they may decide to help you to wake others up! Pull the damned fire alarm on these criminals who stole our election!
When you've done this, come back and see what else we've managed to come up with.
posted on May 16, 2001 10:56:47 PM
Properly elected or not (I guess some will never believe the many recounts until Gore wins) The elections results and fiasco are not considered to be impeachable offenses. Unless it were determined that Bush (W) had a part in voter fraud of some sort, then what you describe is NOT impeachable. Just do a little research into the subject, it's pretty enlightening.
posted on May 17, 2001 07:56:43 AM
From the article...
"In Bay County, where 1,478 absentee ballots were duplicated, that difficult job would be even harder. Election officials there sealed the original ballots in envelopes and refuse to open them now."
This is very disturbing to me. Since when are election officials allowed to control the examination of ballots once the election results have been certified?
I can think of no valid reason for denying the public access to these ballots. Since they bear no identification with a particular individual it isn't a matter of privacy when voting.
And, regardless of what the ballots might reveal, the act of not opening them to independent public examination certainly casts further suspicion on the election process (in an election already bound to be remembered as one of the most suspicious in our history).
posted on May 17, 2001 08:28:12 AM
They are waiting for a court order as is their duty to do so after an election has been certified. If opened to "the public", there would be too much chance for post-election vote tampering by interested parties.
posted on May 17, 2001 08:59:37 AM"The elections results and fiasco are not considered to be impeachable offenses." -jlpiece-
You got that backwards, I think. Blowjobs in the White House is not an impeachable offence and simple and unproveable accusations of lying to the public and finagling under oath are not Impeachable offences as we've just seen.
But getting elected by proveable massive ballot-box stuffing and proven ballot-tamperings has a certain ring of qualification to the "High Crimes and Misdemenors" standard in the US Constitution and may even amount to a Treasonable offence. I think that there is a very good case here for it and it ought to go well past the President and into the rest of the GOP and prosecute the guilty individuls all the way to the top.
posted on May 17, 2001 09:37:00 AM"Blowjobs in the White House is not an impeachable offence and simple and unproveable accusations of lying to the public and finagling under oath are not Impeachable offences as we've just seen."-borillar
No kidding. In case you forgot, Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury - that is a felony, and that is an impeachable offense, and that is why Clinton was impeached.
"getting elected by proveable massive ballot-box stuffing and proven ballot-tamperings has a certain ring of qualification to the "High Crimes and Misdemenors" standard in the US Constitution and may even amount to a Treasonable offence."-borillar
On that we agree. If it comes out that W was guilty of something like that, he should be sitting on McVeigh's lap while Al Gore pulls the switch. I just don't think that is the case here. Not because I think W is some great guy or that the repooplicans are beyond that sort of act, but because I thinks it's just another tired attempt by the democraps to discredit the elections.
posted on May 17, 2001 11:43:58 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong---but from the news I received up here--Clinton was NOT impeached. Otherwise he would not have still been President at election time---Gore would have been.
posted on May 17, 2001 01:58:34 PM
Inpeachment is just bringing the matter to be tried the same as being charged in a court of law. Just as being charged does not always result in conviction there has been an impeachment in the past that did not result in a conviction.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:05:15 PM
So Clinton was brought up for Impeachment---but was NOT IMPEACHED unlike what jlpiece stated.
[ edited by Zazzie on May 17, 2001 02:05 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2001 04:26:37 AM
But not correctly corrected.
Impeachment can mean either or both the accusation of offenses which can bring removal or it can mean the actual removal. By the definition of the word both Zazzie and Toke are correct.
1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct
posted on May 18, 2001 10:43:26 AMkenny, you must realize that dictionaries define worldwide use of a word - hence the many definitions. However, in our country's government, according to our founding documents, impeachment only means "to have charges brought against you by the House of Representatives."
Being removed is called just that - being removed. Sorry, no fancy words for that one. So, kenny and zazzie, consider both of yourselves corrected.
posted on May 18, 2001 02:11:45 PM
If something isn't done to fix all the presidential election problems - we will be forced to go through this every 120 years!
posted on May 18, 2001 02:59:12 PM"No kidding. In case you forgot, Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury - that is a felony, and that is an impeachable offense, and that is why Clinton was impeached."-jlpeice-
HUH?
A trial to determine if Impeachment is valid equates to Impeachment? The process of Impeaching someone is Impeachment itself?
As far as a Treasonable Offence goes, it would be nice but extremely difficult to prove. Yet, I'd much rather have everyone believe that Bush is a Traitor for selling us out to the big corporations - something our founding fathers did not see coming; otherwise, the definition of Treason would have been expanded.
posted on May 18, 2001 03:17:07 PM"A trial to determine if Impeachment is valid equates to Impeachment? The process of Impeaching someone is Impeachment itself?"-borillar
It amazes me that as serious of an event as it was when Clinton was impeached, after all, only one other President in our country's history has been impeached - why do people not realize the guy was impeached?
Clinton was impeached Clinton was impeached Clinton was impeached
Why is that so difficult for some to understand? Being impeached, and being removed from office are two totally different things. 2 Presidents have been impeached (Clinton and Johnson) 1 president has resigned (Nixon) and NO presidents (that's 0) have been removed from office.
Why does my 9 year old nephew understand the difference, and so few adults seem to?
posted on May 18, 2001 04:03:33 PM
IMPEACHMENT: formal accusation by a legislature against a public official, to remove that official from office. The term loosely includes both the bringing of charges, or articles, and the trial that may follow. Impeachment developed in England in the 14th cent. In the U.S. the House of Representatives (see Congress) can bring articles of impeachment against federal officials, including the president. Trial is by the Senate, which must convict by a two-thirds margin of the members present. There have been 16 federal impeachments and 7 convictions. Andrew Johnson (1868) and Bill Clinton (1998–99) are the only presidents to have been impeached; both were acquitted by the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned (1974) the presidency before the House could bring charges against him.
..................