Hot News!
• Bearman Cartoon: Freestore Foodbank Blogger Challenge
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Lobbyists Hack Your Elections: The OEJC Calls for Voting Systems Recall, Return, and Refund, Part I (2007)•Trickle Down Justice (2007)
•Coming this week: Buy Nothing Day! (and Boycott MTV) (2007)
•Updates on the BOE “Situation” (2007)
•UC Student Groups March to President Nancy Zimpher (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Sunday, August 12, 2007
And then The Enquirer jumps on the story over a year later…
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Back in June, 2006, we ran this item, featuring some letters to The Enquirer about Carl Weiser. On June 12, 2006, in response to Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone about Ohio voting irregularities in 2004, Editor and Publisher wrote an item that quoted Weiser, who said, “The folks who know Ohio elections best checked into it and found there was no conspiracy.” At the time, The Beacon was talking extensively with Dr. Bob Fitrakis (who we consider an “expert” in this field), so we wondered what “folks” Weiser contacted. No response was given to our inquiries.
Then, in yesterday’s Politics Extra blog, the very same Carl Weiser posted this item, which is quite extraordinary if you consider his quote to E&P:
The groups behind the lawsuit say they have uncovered evidence of possible tampering in Clermont County, a traditionally Republican-leaning county where Bush won easily.
For example: oval-shaped stickers were inexplicably found on at least 10 ballots in Clermont County, for several several state and local races as well as president and the same-sex marriage ballot issue.
The tiny white stickers would have blocked an optical scanner from counting a vote for the pencil mark that’s visible below. Two of those ballots from Pierce Township were preserved and observed by Enquirer reporters Thursday.
Brian Green, an elections attorney at Brunner’s office, confirmed that the stickered presidential ballot – which negated a vote for Kerry – is perplexing and that the Bush oval above it clearly has a darker, wider pencil mark. None of the other ovals marked on the two-page ballot are as dark or outside the oval to the same extent.
Clermont County elections officials said they no longer use stickers to remake spoiled or mismarked ballots. The county has since purchased newer optical scanners that would not count stickered ballots.
Clermont County Board of Elections Director Mike Keeley, who became director in March 2006, said he is unaware of anyone misusing stickers during the 2004 election. The county’s newer optical scanning equipment would not count votes if stickers were placed on ballots today, he said.
“That would show as an invalid ballot,” he said Thursday. “That was old equipment, old procedures, old process.”
The county’s former Board of Elections director, Daniel Bare, did not return phone calls for comment, but Bob Drake of Anderson Township, a mathematical education professor at the University of Cincinnati, signed a sworn affidavit saying Bare and other county election workers acknowledged stickers were used to cover stray marks on ballots during the 2004 election.
In an interview with The Enquirer, Drake said he and others “noticed some ballots had stickers completely covering (a) Kerry vote. A different shade of pencil where the Bush bubble was filled in. ... There should’ve been an investigation. There was criminal activity.”
The Beacon first interviewed Bob Drake in September of 2006:
So it’s interesting to see The Enquirer get on the right side of this issue after such a long time ignoring details, refusing to answer simple questions, and so forth. Obviously, Cincinnati’s very own Bob Drake was not one of the “folks” Carl Weiser had “checked with” when he got interviewed by E&P, but now, a year later, they are acting like they are on to something.
Just remember that we’ve been making them aware of this story the whole time. They only have jumped on now that the 2006 elections are over and their stories can have no impact on anything whatsoever.
Click the image to your right to see a full size scan of the picture in question, hosted from this article at Looking Glass News.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
12 Aug 2007 at 10:57 am | #
Dean - I think you nailed it with that last sentence - the Enquirer covers the story when it is least likely to help voters make an informed decision in an election.
Manipulation of the news to benefit certain parties.
And, how can all these people operating BOE’s remain in their jobs when violated a court order, or at best, failed to comply.
No investigation?
There doesn’t need to be one - if they have proven they can’t or won’t perform their duties - they shouldn’t have jobs.
12 Aug 2007 at 11:25 am | #
Good that you qualified in quotes the claim that Bob Fitrakis is an “expert” in the field. Though he may have been on top of some, even many of the facts as were a lot of others, and that’s appreciated as is your reporting on the issue, he inevitably weaves in his conclusions, alway finding an opportunity to blame Democrats. He does this constantly and should be considered in the same category and just as biased as any FOX network reporter. In fact he could have a good future on FOX.
12 Aug 2007 at 12:28 pm | #
cincysue, Bob Fitrakis is an experienced international election observer. Fitrakis co wrote and edited the report for El Salvador’s 1994 election. He knows what to look for and anyone could see there were major problems.
Can you name anyone that uncovered more facts or did more investigating into the 2004 election in Ohio?
Sadly there weren’t many people investigating anything though there were clearly some major problems.
Fitrakis’ work was the basis for the Conyers report and RFK’s article in Rolling Stone. I know Bob and he only blames the Democrats for rolling over and not doing anything about it. He’s very clear that he blames Ken Blackwell and the GOP, but the Democrats allowed it to happen.
Kerry was told of many of the problems before he conceded. The Green Party got the recount going and it was Fitrakis, Wasserman, Phillips and Cliff Arnebeck that got the court order to protect the ballots/evidence.
I don’t expect we’ll see any prosecutions regarding the illegal destruction of the evidence, but there should be. The Democrats promised every vote would be counted and then they failed to make sure they were. I wish that wasn’t true.
Can anybody be critical of the Democratic Party without being called a Republican tool that should be on FOX?
It looks like another case of “Warrantless Surrender”.
12 Aug 2007 at 04:09 pm | #
Gotta agree with Justin on this one....
15 Aug 2007 at 08:32 pm | #
Dean & Justin, I looked into some of the claims of Bob Fitsrakis & RFK and they don’t check out. These guys are partisans trying to rally their base and it worked in 2006. RFK & Fits staked much importance on the so-called down-ticket & anti-gay marriage amendment anomalies in Republican precincts. But after reading the left-wing e-mag Salon, I went and checked the vote tally record at OH Sec. of State web site and the exact same anomaly appears in heavy Dem precincts like Lincoln Heights and OTR but in reverse. So no matter how many times you recite that these guys are experts in the field with no dog in the fight, the fact is they are highly partisan operatives trying to rally their base by calling their opponents cheaters. (A very effective tactic: nothing energizes people more than saying somebody is cheating them) But with that said, I think we can all work together to improve elections. [But the irony may be that the sticker scam you mention above can probably be best avoided in the future by computer touch screen voting. And everybody loves computer touch-screen voting, right? (wink,wink)]
15 Aug 2007 at 11:34 pm | #
Trey, you seem to be mostly focused on just one issue. It’s been a while since I read about that one and would really have to go back and look at that particular issue.
Fitrakis really isn’t a partisan, he’s a Green and wasn’t a big fan of Kerry’s. He got concerned when he saw all kinds of red flags that he was trained to look for as an experienced international election observer.
RFK works on environmental justice issues which I see as non-partisan issues. He actually works with a lot of farmers in the heartland which aren’t Democratic strongholds. I don’t see him being involved in the Democratic Party. I’ve read some of his books and seen him speak on TV and if anything he’s been critical of the Democrats, but clearly Bush has a horrible record on the environment going all the way back to Texas.
How do you explain the fake level 10 Homeland security alert and up to 8 hour lines in only the African American districts for example?
There’s a pattern of red flags and having private partisan companies secretly counting our ballots is just one of the problems. Fitrakis took sworn affidavits from huge numbers of people that described all kinds of problems. Then John Conyers held Congressional hearings that found massive and unprecedented disenfranchisement of African Americans.
I didn’t vote for Kerry and this isn’t about putting him in office, this is about making sure our elections are clean, fair and that the American people can have faith in our electoral process in the future.
There was enough compelling evidence for a judge to order that the ballots be protected and look how many were destroyed. Many were destroyed before the regular 22 months that the law says you normally have to wait.
There were also convictions because of many illegalities that happened during the recount. The recount wasn’t led by the Democrats even though they were well aware of the many different problems and they promised every vote would be counted.
How do you explain the huge discrepancy between the exit polls? These are the most accurate polls in the world. And why has Carl Wiser refused to answer a simple question about what “expert” said there was no conspiracy? Now he runs a story about it after we covered this stuff in September and nobody’s talking about it much anymore. There are a lot of unanswered questions and if you think that people wouldn’t try to steal an election in the most powerful nation in the world, you’re naive.
If you’re really interested in having a serious debate about it I can probably arrange something or possibly put you in touch with Fitrakis. He’s a very likeable guy and could probably answer your questions better than I can at the moment.
16 Aug 2007 at 01:26 pm | #
Justin , I went to the freepress web site and saw at least 3 mentions of the “down-ticket, anti-gay marriage anomaly” in the last month alone by Paddy Shaffer, Bob Fitsrakis & Wasserman, and Dr. Richard Hayes. This is the only charge that I know of that can be privately investigated by a layman and it doesn’t check out. If they are willing to lie on this, why believe them on other stuff? I really can’t investigate the charges of excessively long lines in black precincts, now can I? I have to rely on these so called neutrals you seem to think are above partisanship who just happened to lie from time to time. I, in fact tried to cantact Ron Baiman, who is involved with freepress, after he issued a fierce challenge for anyone to explain how the above mentioned anomaly could be explained by anything but vote switching. He wouldn’t respond after many contact attempts.
So RFK dislikes both the GOP and the Dems equally cause he says so. Well thats good enough for me. You Greens aren’t fooling anyone with your no-dog in the fight talk
16 Aug 2007 at 02:49 pm | #
Trey, just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them liars. I told you I would try to get you in contact with them or perhaps try to set up a debate on it. Would you like to do that or just anonymously call them names?
There are documentaries, sworn affidavits and a Congressional report as well that you can look at. This stuff has been pretty well documented if you’re interested in learning more.
It’s no secret we don’t like Bush (who does?)and if you’ve been reading this blog you should know I don’t like Kerry at all either. This isn’t about getting Kerry in office it’s about talking about the many problems we’ve been seeing with our elections so we can fix them. What do you think they would have to gain from lying about this?
These people have good reputations. We brought Bob Fitrakis down here twice and it’s a shame you didn’t come to ask him yourself. We might be able to get him to come down here once again.
This isn’t a partisan issue. You don’t have an opinion on the fake level 10 Homeland Security alert that the FBI was unaware of?
How about all the destroyed evidence and the fact that a court found enough compelling evidence to order that the ballots be protected and yet they were still illegally destroyed in so many counties?
Don’t forget that there were convictions because of illegalities in the recount. There are a lot of issues you’ve refused to address. If you are interested in a real discussion fine, but if you’re going to just call people names this conversation is over.
17 Aug 2007 at 09:42 am | #
I heard about this controversy the same way most heard about it: the RFK article in Rolling Stone which just happened to appear in the summer of 2006 in a politically liberal mag whose main readers are the largest non-voting bloc in the US(youth). And I said above, nothing motivates people more than the belief someone is cheating them. People will engage in the most dangerous of fighting if they think someone cheated them (even if the underlying amount is trivial). In short:RFK & co. massaged the facts to get out the vote.
Will we need to sell tickets for this or will the audience be allowed in first come-first serve? Give me the e-mail address of one of these guys and I’ll contact him (doubt they’ll answer)or better yet have them do a back and forth with critics and supporters the way we’re doing it: on the Beacon blog (surprise, surprise the so-called freepress.org doesn’t allow comments or blog debate)
It is somewhat disturbing that some ballots were destroyed (or so I hear). But if one steps down from the smart-sounding theory that we should conserve our ballots for long periods of time to the actual practicality of doing so, it seems less disturbing. Wouldn’t they need some heavy security so that they aren’t tampered with? Can you be sure that the sticker-switch reported above wasn’t done just recently to make it look like the Republicans were cheating? Keeping something stored and secure for over two years is easier said than done. Do you honestly think it would have been easier to do the sticker switch in the hustle and bustle of election day rather than the nonchalance of so-called secure storage for the past 22 months?
17 Aug 2007 at 12:12 pm | #
Trey, it was written about in Rolling Stone because it was an important story. It was also written about in the Conyers report for the same reason. We need to clean up our elections, what’s wrong with saying that? Why can’t we get international election observers here?
We’ve had two elections in a row where the exit polls weren’t close to the recorded results and were beyond the margin of error. That alone is a red flag for any country as we saw with the Ukrainian elections. There are many other problems that should be a cause for concern.
Nobody will be paying to watch you debate anyone. Why don’t you come up with your questions or statements and I will try to find the answers or responses.
Yes, many were illegally destroyed before the normal 22 months that they legally have to wait and then many more were destroyed after a court order to protect them went out.
They saved the ballots from 2000 because it was contested and they should’ve saved them from 2004 as the court ordered. They did the recount soon after the election.
17 Aug 2007 at 02:51 pm | #
Haven’t you been paying attention, as I’ve been saying how come heavily Democratic precincts like Lincoln Heights & OTR have the same so-called vote anomalies (only reverse) as the heavily Republican precincts have but somehow the anomaly in the Republican precinct means there was vote-switching? Go research this at OH SEC. Of State vote record site and see for yourself. If you are really interested, I’ll explain the so-called anomaly and the evidence against it if you want.
17 Aug 2007 at 05:15 pm | #
Trey, what about all the other problems I’ve described? Doesn’t any of it concern you at all?
18 Aug 2007 at 01:37 pm | #
Justin, you told me to come up with a question to ask your expert freinds and I did. I’m sorry if my opening in #11: “haven’t you been paying attention” was a bit sarcastic but as someone whose been blogging awhile, you know how hard it is to avoid being sarcastic from time to time.
Anyways, as I said, I looked into this topic pretty closely and am pretty much aware of all the complaints brought forward (I guess more so then you since you claimed above not to even know about the “down-ticket judge anomaly"). But to be honest, most of the complaints, like the excessively long lines at black precincts, would not show up by an examination of the ballots. The “down-ticket judges” anomaly and the anti-gay marriage amendment anomaly was supposedly the statistical proof that there was some actual vote-swithching going on in heavy Republican precincts. But as I said, the same anomaly shows up in heavy Dem precincts and shows the anomaly to be bogus. Again, if you want me to show you the simple method of checking this, I will. And you can show me one of your evidences too, if you want
18 Aug 2007 at 04:11 pm | #
Trey, I didn’t say I didn’t know about it, I said it had been a while since I read about it and I would have to go back and look at it again to have an indepth discussion about it. They call it the Connally anomaly. Have you read the Conyers report?
Does any of the other problems I’ve described to you concern you?