Full article in “Scoop” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htmThe Veteran Of Fallujah Defeated By OH's Humidity
Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 10:54 pm
Opinion: autorank
DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
DEMOCRAT HACKETT LOSES A SQUEAKER IN
OHIO’S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
THE NEW VOTING RIGHTS STRUGGLE 2004-2005autorankDemocraticUnderground.Com
2004 Elections Results and Discussion Forum
ATLANTA, August 6 - Thousands of people marched down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive on Saturday to mark the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, in an event organized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and attended by lawmakers and celebrities, including Stevie Wonder, Willie Nelson and Harry Belafonte. New York Times, August 7, 2005The historic celebration of the Voting Rights Act occurred in a mood the Times described as “more cautionary than celebratory.” As they marched, participants knew that the Republican-dominated House and Senate were showing reluctance to fully renew the act.
The old and new voting right struggles merge.Many marchers also knew that they are involved in a new voting rights struggle, one that involves blacks, whites, and any citizen voting for Democratic candidates. The struggle came into clear focus in Florida 2000 but in truth has been carried forth ever since the full implementation of the Voting Rights Act. While the act pushed forward the voting franchise to all Americans regardless of race, it was not able to ensure that all votes would be counted, particularly in predominantly black precincts, due to “spoilage” – ballots that are not marked clearly enough to be counted.
<snip>
Florida 2000 also introduced a new level of state intervention to impede voting rights. The famous Florida “felon purge” effort was initiated by Governor Jeb Bush and his then Secretary of State and Florida Bush Presidential Campaign Chairman Katherine Harris. This purge, conducted with ChoicePoint software, resulted in the disenfranchisement of at least 50,000 black Floridians who were legitimately eligible to vote.
<snip>
Ohio’s 2004 Presidential election represented the latest phase of the voting rights struggle, combining both racial discrimination and the new voting rights issue, the possibility of election fraud through the manipulation of voting and tabulation machines and software, as well as partisan access to communication systems for reporting tallies to central processors.
An unlikely focus for the new voting rights struggle in a “safe” district.The 2005 Hackett-Schmidt contest for Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District took place in the midst of ongoing concerns about the 2004 Presidential election. Ohio was ground zero for Election Day irregularities, controversies, and charges of election fraud.
<snip>
Southwestern Ohio, home of the 2nd district, is solid Republican territory, with a dream demographic for the party
<snip>
This is the district that had elected Republicans to Congress in all of the15 previous elections. Rep. Rob Portman won his most recent election with a 70% popular vote. The Democratic challenger, Charles Sanders, had tried four times to beat Portman and never once came close.
Something changed in the summer of 2004 in the 2nd district.
Hackett emerges as a threat.The Democratic Party started out with little hope of winning, yet the race became competitive. Charles Sanders had never topped 28% in four tries against Portman. This election was different, with the Republicans absent the benefit of incumbency. As a veteran Cincinnati Enquirer reporter said prophetically on May 26, the Democrats saw “a faint crack of light through a door that may not open again for many years if they do not field the strongest possible candidate.”
<snip>
Hackett is married with three young children, a successful lawyer, and a former active duty Marine. As a member of the Marine reserve, he volunteered to serve in Iraq and did so with distinction.
He’s a graduate of an Ohio law school, has a concealed weapon carry permit, and uses his Harley Davidson to travel to political events. Well over six feet tall and in good shape, he has what they call “a commanding presence.”
The Republican circular firing squad and primary.Hackett’s opponent, Jean Schmidt, is a long-time Republican officeholder. She was a member of the Ohio Assembly from 2000 to 2004 and elected in that year to the State Senate. She was seen as a supporter of the amazingly unpopular Governor Taft (17% approval rating) and a loyal Republican. Married and a native of the area, she has held an impressive array of public service positions over the years. One of these positions is the President of the Cincinnati Right to Life Corporations.
<snip>
Hackett runs a strong campaign.<snip>
He referred to Schmidt as a “rubber stamp” Republican. He called Republican supporters of the war “chicken hawks” and he was harshly critical of President Bush. Just before the election, Hackett said of Bush, “I don’t like the son of a bitch who lives in the White House but I’ll put my life on the line for him.”
<snip>
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.
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.<snip>
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.
<snip>
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.
Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%, with Hackett winning in only those with less than 200 votes counted.A review of precinct level results by TruthIsAll on DemocraticUnderground reveals this interesting trend. This data is preliminary and more detail needs to be obtained from the Clermont Board of Elections. However, the trend observed for Clermont makes little sense on the face of it.
Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts with fewer than 187 votes, but lost ALL of the largest 54 precincts (those with more than 187 votes each). This is reflected in the following graph produced by DemocraticUnderground poster TruthIsAll on of the first election fraud analysts to notice anomalies in Clermont County.
Graph: Hackett won 38 of 191 Clermont precincts but lost ALL of the 54 largest
The following percentages help elaborate the graph above.
Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:
46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes
These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?
A question can be raised about the difference between turnout (the votes cast) and the actual size of the precinct, which may or may not be a reflection of votes cast.
The following graph, also produced by TruthIsAll, answers the question. As he said while commenting on this data on 8/5/05: “The regression line has zero slope. Voters turned out at a fairly constant rate across precincts. So turnout wasn't a factor in explaining why the Schmidt vote percentage increased as precinct size increased.”
Graph: No Correlation between Precinct Registration and Voter Turnout
Voter turnout in the larger precincts in Clermont County matches that in the overall 2nd.
Hackett sweeps rural, lower-income areas, while Schmidt takes those wealthier, more populous. On the face of it, this is odd. The demographical blue-red maps for the 2004 election showed a positive correlation between population density and Democratic (Kerry) votes. Yet in the 2nd District of Ohio in 2005, the exact opposite was true. Hackett dominated the least populated areas of the district, while Schmidt prevailed in the more populated areas.
<snip>
Note that there is a sharp distinction between Hackett’s winning counties, which are all low population density and rural, and Schmidt’s winning counties, which are more dense and typically suburban. The difference in voters’ choices also shows up for income level. In Hackett’s four winning counties, median family income averages $31,818; in Schmidt’s counties, it averages $49,434. Median family income and population per square mile correlate positively, with each distinguishing Hackett from Schmidt counties.
There is another distinction between Hackett and Schmidt counties. Clermont and Warren Counties, both carried by Schmidt 58% to 42%, were involved in highly contentious 2004 election controversies. The Warren security alert was either a lie on the part of their Board of Elections or a collective delusion. The FBI flatly denies any alert. Clermont County did not distinguish itself during the recount, displaying inconsistent practices, secrecy, and general rudeness to the recount teams. In addition, both Warren and Clermont showed highly questionable registration patterns for the 2004 election. The Hackett counties were not mired in any major controversy during the 2004 election or recount.
Recent history, just nine months ago, explains the context of the Hackett “loss.” Even the majority of commentators who have ignored the humidity crisis must admit that this part of the state has a recent history that raises red flags about fair elections. In 2004, Southwestern Ohio provided Bush with a significant victory, one that nearly matched his victory margin for the state.
<snip>
Is there enough evidence to doubt the results of the Ohio 2nd Congressional district election?
Yes, just the preliminary data and evidence raise some significant questions.
The process of questioning elections in the United States is a difficult one, because debate is often choked off in the corporate media. The numerous problems in Ohio raised by the Conyers Committee were ignored by corporate media. The detailed examination and exposition of security and other problems with voting machines, tabulators, and networking has been ongoing since at least Florida 2000. It receives little if any corporate media attention. The process of voter suppression through multiple methods was and is still ignored.
Florida 2000 saw the deliberate purging of 50,000 voters from the rolls with a software program that the vendor warned would do just this. The state proceeded anyway and the expected result occurred. It cost Al Gore the presidency. Despite the fact that this occurred and is well known, the argument that the 2000 election was literally stolen is not mentioned in “polite company.” When the State of Florida settled the suit by the NAACP on voting rights problems in Florida 2000, they agreed in essence that Florida had kept legitimate voters from exercising their most basic right as a citizen. There was barely a whimper from the press. This is just Florida 2000.
In the case of the 2nd Congressional District in Ohio, the history is even more detailed. Ohio was targeted for Republican “optimization” well before the election. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell’s actions were consistent up to, on, and after Election Day. The overall Ohio record will not be reviewed here, but it voluminous and detailed, supported by strong evidence. For those interested, see work by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman.
The record of Clermont and Warren Counties during the 2004 election has also been examined at length. It is a very sorry record. The delusional or deliberate lockout of observers and the media in Warren County is a disgrace. There were no consequences for this action despite the outrageous nature of the behavior by the Warren County Board (which supposedly was “balanced,” with an equal number of Republican and Democratic members). The extraordinary increases in registration that defied statistical logic in Clermont and other parts of District 2 are cause for concern, particularly since Bush’s victory margin in Ohio nearly matched his victory margin in Southwestern Ohio. The eyewitness descriptions of the Clermont Board’s lack of cooperation and inconsistent standards displayed during the recount are very troubling.
Clermont and Warren County election history of just nine months ago is highly relevant, because Hackett lost the race by losing badly in those two areas; 56% to 42% in Clermont and 58% to 42% in the “security alert”-challenged Warren County.
The absence of questions and further investigation of this election would represent the sloppiest type of thinking and analysis and show no respect for the notion of clean and fair elections.
In addition to the history of problems just nine months ago, there are some real questions raised in the material presented here. How is it that in Clermont, Hackett won 38 of the smallest 137 precincts of and 0% of the 54 largest precincts? This fails an initial reasonableness test and calls out for further investigation. The humidity crisis that occurred in Clermont as the race was dead even raises questions. Did the closeness of the race surprise someone? Was it time to say “Let’s stop the process and rethink things here – maybe we’ll actually lose”? We are still waiting for time-stamped data on which of the 100 precincts were counted prior to the humidity crisis and which after. We can assume the larger voting precincts were counted after the crisis, because Schmidt’s total in the last 12% of the total vote represented by the humidity-impacted ballots in the 91 precincts changed a dead even contest into one that Hackett lost by four points with all the gains made in the county’s largest precincts. Does that pass the reasonableness test?
What was the overall trend in Clermont County where Hackett took such a beating? Looking at tax levy issues, in November 2004, there were 9 tax levies on the ballot. Six failed and three passed. In 2005, there were two tax levies, both of which passed by comfortable total yes votes of 57%. In the case of Bethel, a 2004 56-44% vote against a levy was reversed with a for the tax levy of 59-41% (figures rounded). This data needs more analysis but the 2005 tax levy results favoring an increase do not represent a Republican trend in that area. Even that section of Warren County that is a part of the 2nd District showed a change on levy ballot issues. In November 2004, a tax levy for the Franklin City Schools was rejected 45% for to 55% against. The August 2005 saw a 10% reversal with the school tax levy carried by 56% for and 44% against. Harlan Township, a distinctly rural part of Warren County passed its school levy 70% to 30%.
Aside from the vote counting irregularities, other questions remain. Democrats typically do poorly in rural areas. A city-based attorney who supports the right to choose and refuses to support gay bashing legislation, who calls the President a “chicken hawk” and a “son of a bitch,” this candidate, Paul Hackett, carried the four most rural counties in District 2 by an average 59% to 41% margin. Yet this candidate failed in the more populous areas, where he would be expected to do better.
Questions have been raised about 2004 irregularities in the 2nd District. They have never been properly investigated or answered. Questions exist now. Will they be investigated? We do not know, but voices are being raised in the Ohio election fraud community that merit listening.
One criticism of those who question elections with solid but incomplete evidence (the type necessary to get a trial in court) is: You have not offered proof of election fraud. This is the very worst type of sophistry. Of course you cannot prove election fraud when you are at the questioning stage. The real issue is: Are there enough questions raised to warrant a complete, detailed look at this election? The answer for the 2nd Congressional District in Ohio is clearly yes.
Race is an unseen but vital character in the drama of Ohio’s 2nd District election.There is little doubt that the results of the 2nd District Special Election have Republican strategists up late at night trying to understand what happened. Republicans rely on one simple outcome in their elections, winning a substantial majority of the white vote. In the last three Presidential Elections, blacks have given Clinton, Gore and Kerry majorities of 84%, 90%, and 88%. Asians reversed a trend prior to 1996 and gave Democrats 43%, 54% and 56% in the last three elections. While there is controversy over the Hispanic share in 2004, the last three Presidential elections show majorities of 72%, 67%, and 58% for the Democrats. Analyzing the 2002 results, Steve Sailer of the Republican leaning United Press International stated it bluntly about the 2002 victories, “Whites, not Latinos, win for GOP.” In fact, white voters are critical to “keeping the lid on” key Democratic constituencies. Poor whites broke slightly for Bush in 2000 as did white union members. White women favored Bush in 2000 and 2004.
The 2nd District in Ohio is a must win for Republicans. Whites represent over 95% of the district population in every county except Hamilton, where the number is 70%. In addition, there is low public sector employment and high a management and service occupation group. The closest thing to an urban area is that portion of suburban Hamilton County within the district. The districts suburbs, prosperous exurbs, small towns, and rural areas adjoining Kentucky are a dream demographic for the Republican Party. This explains 15 straight victories in the election for Congress and only one Democrat serving since 1968 (through a special election).
What happened? A strong candidate who took positions which frighten most national Democratic leaders won heavily in rural District 2 and ran well in suburban Hamilton County. He lost the election in Warren and Clermont, two counties with highly questionable election activities as recently as November, 2004. He lost the election amidst a unique humidity crisis in a contiguous district where all of the other counties used paper ballots (punch card, optical scan). None of them reported any humidity problems. Clermont only noticed their problems last in the count and less than half of their precincts were “dampened’ enough to “slow” the count. Remarkable.
Voting rights and the fight against election fraud are now a national issue involving all races.The accuracy of the 2nd District special election will not be known for some time, if it is ever fully investigated. Ohio’s 2004 Presidential recount and the State of Ohio’s effort to block access to public records which might lead to the discovery of fraud do not offer much hope. However, it is vital to note that this election was very close and lost at the very last minute. It was run in a district that is almost entirely white and, by history, Republican. And it ended with another election oddity so common since 2000, the Republican “last minute surge” from behind to win it in a squeaker. Now all parties are involved. It is no longer dumping minority ballots through “spoilage” in areas rarely covered by the media. It is no longer voter suppression in liberal urban centers with large black populations. Voting rights and the investigation of election fraud should now be centered on the loss of a very close election; in a heavily white and Republican district; amidst questionable activities by election officials; and, in an area known for these questionable activities just nine months earlier.
January 6, 2005 Voting Rights advocates assemble at Lafayette Park and march to Capitol Hill outside the Senate office building in support of Sen. Boxer, D, CA challenging the Ohio delegations electoral votes.
We all have an interest in making every election fully transparent and verifiable. We all have an interest in the ability to fully investigate suspected election fraud without being marginalized by the corporate media and secure comfortable national politicians of both parties. We all have a right to vote and have our vote counted accurately.
The Voting Rights Act is up for renewal. It is now time for all Americans to wake up and understand that there is only one voting rights movement. It includes Americans of all races. It holds the key to our renewal as a democracy.
END
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
