Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner issued a short, unambiguous and to-the-point directive [PDF] last night, to all 56 counties in Ohio still employing unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting machines, that they must make a paper ballot available at the polling place to any voter who wishes to vote on one.
Brava!
Her directive even goes so far as to require those paper ballots actually be counted “on election night as part of the unofficial canvass.”
Brava again! The requirement to actually count those paper ballots before unofficial results are release to the public and media is a key component that has been missing from the various federal legislative efforts, including Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-NJ) latest bill as currently drafted, as well as his previous one (HR811), that would begin to put paper back into the polling place.
Every state in the country should follow suit! As well, we recommend that, at the very least, Brunner issue a further directive that signs shall be conspicuously and clearly posted in each polling place to inform voters of their right to vote on paper, if they wish. Better still, a directive that requires every voter to be asked by voting officials, before they vote, if they wish to vote on paper. We have previously recommended such a “paper or plastic?” requirement for any jurisdiction in America that still allows for the use of horrible DRE systems (including those with or without a useless, so-called “paper trail”).
Until then, Democracy advocates in the Buckeye state will need to launch an important, and potentially expensive (but crucial), education campaign to inform voters of their right to vote on paper!
With the very good general news from Brunner, let’s hope she soon realizes the underlying reasons for serious concerns about, and the great dangers of, not counting and posting precinct voting results at the precinct, before they are sent back to county headquarters for central tabulation.
Brunner’s recent independent testing of Ohio’s e-voting systems (known as EVEREST) led her to recommend the abolishment of all DRE systems in the state, although she did not issue a binding directive to that end. At the same time, her recommendation to ban precinct-based counting, in favor of central-based counting, has drawn a great deal of criticism from Election Integrity advocates. Rightly so, in our opinion, even if she came to her recommendation through well-meaning advice from some of the folks who advised on the study, including computer security experts, and election officials of the sort who would be inappropriately entrusted with complete control over that dangerously centralized counting process.
(You can read our direct challenges to Brunner on that point, and her explanations for the decision, in our recent exclusive interview with her, just after the release of EVEREST.)
One quick note to Mark Niquette and Columbus Dispatch concerning their coverage of this issue in this morning’s paper…
The anti-democracy advocate, otherwise known as Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections and president of the Ohio Association of Election Officials, is quoted in Niquette’s Dispatch story, for supposed “balance” in the article. Damshroder is characterized as opposing Brunner’s new paper ballot requirement although his county — like every other county in Ohio — already uses such paper ballots for absentee and provisional voters. He claims, however, that there is not enough time before the March primaries to implement Brunner’s directive requiring sufficient paper ballots be printed and made available at the polling lace for anybody who wishes one.
While we disagree with Damshroder’s point, it’s fair enough to include it. But balance should similarly be offered by any reporter using the voting machine company-friendly, Republican Damschroder as a source, by informing readers that he inappropriately accepted a $10,000 “donation” from a Diebold lobbyist on behalf of the Ohio Republican party just days before the 2004 Presidential Election. That wholly inappropriate behavior by an election official earned him a 30-day suspension without pay. Though it was little more than slap on the wrist, given his actions, it’s notable that the punishment was issued by the previous, crooked Republican administration.
When reporting on voting machine-related issues, such clear conflicts of interests should properly be noted by any media outlet who uses Damschroder as a source on these matters. Better yet, find a legitimate source — who hasn’t broken the law — to quote instead.
It is important to note that Ohio state law requires overvote protection on all voting machines used in the state. Federal law requires either overvote protection in the polling place or a public education program about what overvoting is and how to keep from doing it.
So, the central count optical scan machines used by nearly every county will have to have overvote protection (they actually should already have that by state law) in order to count all of those paper ballots. Or they all need to be counted without the use of machines, i.e. hand counted.
However, while hand-counting gets you around state law it does not get the counties around the federal law.
Ken Blackwell said that??? Oh, I forgot…he’s gone…
John #1 –
After some research I found the Ohio state law that I mentioned. It actually does not say what I was told it said.
3506.10 Requirements for approval or certification of voting machines.
No voting machine shall be approved by the board of voting machine examiners or certified by the secretary of state, or be purchased, rented, or otherwise acquired, or used, except when specifically allowed for experimental use, as provided in section 3506.04 of the Revised Code, unless it fulfills the following requirements:
[…]
(C ) It shall preclude each elector from voting for any candidate or upon any question for whom or upon which the elector is not entitled to vote, from voting for more persons for any office than the elector is entitled to vote for, and from voting for any candidates for the same office or upon any question more than once.
“Voting machines” is defined in that law:
(3506.01): “‘Voting machines’ means mechanical or electronic equipment for the direct recording and tabulation of votes.”
The overvote requirement is for DRE voting machines but does not apply to central count. So, it appears, that federal law is the only law that applies and that says either you provide overvote protection or an educational program to educate the voters on how not to overvote.
Good news to start the New Year! If you live in Ohio, you can vote on a paper ballot, and the State says it must be counted.
The tide is turning. The election integrity advocates are scoring more and more victories. Keep the pressure on, and democracy may be restored in the USA.
John,
This is incorrect in Ohio. We already have absentee (anyone can get an absentee ballot) which are all central count paper ballots.
As far as this Directive goes, DRE precincts already require paper ballot for provisional, and these have no federal do-hickey procedure. Trust me, there are no real laws regarding voting.
For example, federal law is crystal clear about how to keep and secure ballots used in federal races. In 2004, the majority of these punch cards were thrown out after 60 days as unvoted ballots, even though federal law is very clear.
No one is in trouble or even token gesture scolded.
So, what are YOU going to do if Ohio say flaunts NVRA law (they are), or this federal HAVA overvote thingy? Nada. You can even be convicted in Ohio of rigging a recount, and you’ll get no jailtime and it comes off your record.
Even good old Mike Hackett the original obstructer of the 2004 recount only has to do 45 hrs of community service. Heck I know people who have been caught speeding or driving to work on suspended license that did more time. Hackett was fined less than 1% of the money his company looted from Franklin County.
John #3
I like your candor and would like to see more of it in the EI movement.
The mouth pieces for the movement are in general contemptuous of the American process which courts utilize in order to decide what a statute says.
These clueless types seem to think that because they can form words with their lips they must be saying the right thing.
But the cloddish interpretation of Holt and other non-law, as well as the interpretation actual law in the form of statutes, begins with the text itself. It does not begin with what some goof ball says it says, as you indicate you discovered regarding the Ohio statute you discuss above in your post.
Again, I appreciate your candor. We need more of that in the EI movement. Much more. Or it will simply remain the yadda yadda yadda movement (see enlightened post #5) IMO.
None #5
Brad agrees with you in principle in his headline post of this thread where he says “it was little more than slap on the wrist”, referring to “punishment” for yet another EO (election official).
In reality we are talking about the absence of accountability which sooner than later translates into the absence of democracy.
Instead of calling it paper or plastic shouldn’t we be calling it paper or vapor?