Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 2 (Thursday, January 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H84-H128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES--JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HELD
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 (HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES--JANUARY 6, 2005)

At 1:02 p.m., the Sergeant at Arms, Wilson Livingood, announced the
Vice President and the Senate of the United States.
The Senate entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, headed
by the Vice President and the Secretary of the Senate, the Members and
officers of the House rising to receive them.
The Vice President took his seat as the Presiding Officer of the
joint convention of the two Houses, the Speaker of the House occupying
the chair on his left.
The joint session was called to order by the Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Mr. Speaker and Members of Congress, pursuant to
the Constitution and laws of the United States, the Senate and House of
Representatives are meeting in joint session to verify the certificates
and count the votes of the electors of the several States for President
and Vice President of the United States.
After ascertainment has been had that the certificates are authentic
and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the
votes cast by the electors of the several States.
The tellers on the part of the two Houses will please take their
places at the Clerk's desk.
The tellers, Mr. Lott and Mr. Johnson on the part of the Senate, and
Mr. Ney and Mr. Larson of Connecticut on the part of the House, took
their places at the desk.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the tellers will dispense with
reading formal portions of the certificates.
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. After ascertaining that certificates are regular
in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the
electors for each State, beginning with Alabama.
Senator LOTT (one of the tellers). Mr. President, the certificate of
the electoral vote of the State of Alabama seems to be regular in form
and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the
State of Texas received 9 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the
State of Wyoming received 9 votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY (one of the tellers). Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Alaska seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of
Texas received 3 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of
Wyoming received 3 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON (one of the tellers). Mr. President, the certificate
of the electoral vote of the State of Arizona seems to be regular in
form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the
State of Texas received 10 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the
State of Wyoming received 10 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut (one of the tellers). Mr. President, the
certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Arkansas seems to be
regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W.
Bush of the State of Texas received 6 votes for President and Dick
Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 6 votes for Vice President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of California seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 55 votes for President and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 55 votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of Colorado seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 9
votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 9
votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the great State of Connecticut seems to be regular in
form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 7 votes for President and John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 7 votes for Vice
President.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

January 6, 2005--On Page H 84 under COUNTING ELECTORAL VOTES--
JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE HELD PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 (HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES--JANUARY 6, 2005) the following appeared: received
9 votes for Vice President. Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, great
State of Connecticut received 7 votes for Vice President.

The online version should be corrected to read: received 9 votes
for Vice President. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President,
great State of Connecticut. received 7 votes for Vice President.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Delaware seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 3 votes for President and John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 3 votes for Vice
President.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

The online version should be corrected to read: Senator
JOHNSON..received 3 votes.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the District of Columbia seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 3 votes for President and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 3 votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 27
votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 27
votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of Georgia seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
15 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
15 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Hawaii seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 4 votes for President and John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 4 votes for Vice
President.

[[Page H85]]

Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of Idaho seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 4
votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 4
votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of Illinois seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 21 votes for President and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 21 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of Indiana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
11 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
11 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Iowa seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of
Texas received 7 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of
Wyoming received 7 votes for Vice President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of Kansas seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 6
votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 6
votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
8 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
8 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of Louisiana seems to be regular in form and authentic,
and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas
received 9 votes for President and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming
received 9 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Maine seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 4 votes for President and John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 4 votes for Vice
President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of Maryland seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 10 votes for President and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 10 votes for Vice President.

{time} 1315

Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 12 votes for President, and John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 12 votes for Vice
President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of Michigan seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 17 votes for President, and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 17 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Minnesota seems to be regular in form
and authentic, and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts received 9 votes for President, that John
Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 1 vote for President,
and John Edwards of the State of North Carolina received 10 votes for
Vice President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of Mississippi seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
6 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
6 votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of Missouri seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 11
votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
11 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of Montana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
3 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received
3 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of Nebraska seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of
Texas received 5 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of
Wyoming received 5 votes for Vice President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of Nevada seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 5
votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming received 5
votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of New Hampshire seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 4 votes for President, and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 4 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of New Jersey seems to be regular in form and authentic,
and it appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 15 votes for President, and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 15 votes for Vice President.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. President, the certificate of the
electoral vote of the State of New Mexico seems to be regular in form
and authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the
State of Texas received 5 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the
State of Wyoming received 5 votes for Vice President.
Senator LOTT. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of
the State of New York seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it
appears therefrom that John F. Kerry of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts received 31 votes for President, and John Edwards of the
State of North Carolina received 31 votes for Vice President.
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
State of North Carolina seems to be regular in form and authentic, and
it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received
15 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming
received 15 votes for Vice President.
Senator JOHNSON. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote
of the State of North Dakota seems to be regular in form and authentic,
and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas
received 3 votes for President, and Dick Cheney of the State of Wyoming
received 3 votes for Vice President
Mr. NEY. Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the
well-known and great State of Ohio seems to be regular in form and
authentic, and it appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of
Texas received 20 votes for President and Dick Cheney from the from the
State of Wyoming received 20 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio
rise?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Vice President, I seek to object to the
electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not,
under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and have a signed
objection, and I do have a Senator.

[[Page H86]]

The VICE PRESIDENT. Has the Senator signed the objection?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Vice President, the Senator has signed the
objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT. An objection presented in writing and signed by
both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of
title 3, United States Code.
The Clerk will report the objection.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:

We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United
States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes
of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under
all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones,
Representative, State of Ohio.
Barbara Boxer,
Senator, State of California.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further objections to the certificate
from the State of Ohio?
The Chair hears none.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The two Houses will withdraw from joint session.
Each House will deliberate separately on the pending objection and
report its decision back to the joint session.
The Senate will now retire to its Chamber.
The Senate retired to its Chamber.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 and section
17 of title 3, the United States Code, when two Houses withdraw from
the joint session to count the electoral vote for separate
consideration of objection, a Representative may speak to the objection
for 5 minutes and not more than once. Debate shall not exceed 2 hours,
after which the Chair will put the question, ``Shall the objection be
agreed to?''
The Clerk will report the objection made in the joint session.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:

The SPEAKER. The Chair will endeavor to alternate recognition between
Members speaking in support of the objection and Members speaking in
opposition to the objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for 5
minutes.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and
Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California, have objected to the counting
of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they
were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
I, thank God, have a Senator joining me in this objection, and I
appreciate Senator Boxer's willingness to listen to the plight of
hundreds, and even thousands of Ohio voters, that for a variety of
reasons were denied the right to vote.

{time} 1330

Unfortunately, objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only
immediate avenue to bring these issues to light. While some have called
our cause foolish, I can assure you that my parents, Mary and Andrew
Tubbs, did not raise any fools. They raised a lawyer, they raised a
former judge, they raised a prosecutor; and thank God they live to see
me serve as a Member of the House of Representatives.
I am duty bound to follow the law and apply the law to the facts as I
find them, and it is on behalf of those millions of Americans who
believe in and value our democratic process and the right to vote that
I put forth this objection today. If they are willing to stand at polls
for countless hours in the rain, as many did in Ohio, then I should
surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress.
This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of
overturning the victory of the President; but it is a necessary,
timely, and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most
precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to
put the Nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election nor to
provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow Members of
Congress. I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a
body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election
irregularities. I raise this objection to debate the process and
protect the integrity of the true will of the people.
Again, I thank Senator Boxer.
There are serious allegations in two lawsuits pending in Ohio that
debate the constitutionality of the denial of provisional ballots to
voters: One, the Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth
Blackwell and Ohio's vote recount, Yost v. David Cobb, et al. These
legitimate questions brought forward by the lawsuits, which go to the
core of our voting and democratic process, should be resolved before
Ohio's electoral votes are certified.
Moreover, as you are aware, advancing legislative initiatives is more
challenging when you are in the minority party in the Congress.
However, this challenge is multiplied when you are in the minority in
the House of Representatives because of the House rules compared to the
Senate rules.
Voting irregularities were an issue after the 2000 Presidential
election when the House initiatives relating to election reform were
not considered. Therefore, in order to prevent our voices from being
kept silent, it is imperative that we object to the counting of Ohio's
electoral votes.
What happened in Ohio in Cuyahoga County. There are just over 1
million registered voters in Cuyahoga County which, of course, includes
my congressional district. Registration increased approximately 10
percent. The beauty of the 2004 election was that more people were
fully prepared to exercise their right to vote; however, on election
day, hundreds and even thousands of individuals went to the voting
polls and were denied the opportunity. In my own county where citizen
volunteers put forth a Herculean effort to register, educate, mobilize
and protect, there were long lines, 4- to 5-hour waits.
Election Protection Coalition testified that more than half of the
complaints about long lines they received came from Columbus and
Cleveland where a huge proportion of the State's Democratic voters
live. One entire polling place in Cuyahoga County had to shut down at
9:25 a.m. on election day because there were no working machines. On
provisional balloting, Cuyahoga County had over-all provisional ballot
rejection of 32 percent. Rejection rates for provisional ballots in
African American precincts and wards in Cleveland averaged 37 percent
and in some as high as 51 percent.
Significant flaws in registration process and procedures. Initial
research identified at least 600 individuals purged from the Cuyahoga
County voting rolls without a due process. Cuyahoga County analysis of
10,900 voter applications showed that almost 3,000 were never entered;
address updates received but never updated; mistakes in entering
addresses.
I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to be heard, and I raise the
objection on behalf of the electors of the State of Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5
minutes.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on one recent, crisp autumn morning
in Boston, one tired-looking Presidential hopeful took the stage in
front of a large crowd of loyal, yet disappointed, faces to say the
following words: ``It is now clear that even when all the provisional
ballots are counted, which they will be, and which they were, there
won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And,
therefore, we cannot win this election.'' And so John Kerry conceded
the Presidency to George W. Bush with grace and dignity.
Apparently such admirable qualities do not apply to certain extreme
elements of Senator Kerry's own party. For if they did, surely this
House would not be standing here today bogged down in this frivolous
debate.
Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the aisle, a handful of Members
will step forward and claim that they are here to contest an election
of this Nation. They will claim that there was fraud

[[Page H87]]

and that the result was invalid. Americans, do not be deceived. Their
intentions in this whole process are merely to sow doubts and undermine
public confidence in the electoral system itself. Their challenges to
the legitimacy of this election are no more than another exercise in
their party's primary strategy, to obstruct, to divide, and to destroy.
In other words, their objection is a front for their lack of ideas.
With absolutely no credible agenda for America, these Democrats have
opted to try and change the past rather than work for a better future
Mr. Speaker, we just welcomed a new year and began a new Congress.
Republicans are ready and eager to ask the questions and prompt the
debate that will produce results for America. We want to talk about
ways to reduce health care costs for families and debate ways to create
more jobs for Americans. We are ready to discuss how to strengthen our
schools to better educate our children.
But apparently some Democrats only want to gripe about counts,
recounts, and recounts of recounts. So eager are they to abandon their
job as public servants, they have cast themselves in the role of
Michael Moore, concocting wild conspiracy theories to distract the
American public. Such aspiring fantasy authors should note the facts
before they let the ink dry on this tall tale.
For example, the request for an Ohio recount has already been
fulfilled, and it verified what we already knew, what Senator John
Kerry knew the first day, that President Bush won Ohio by nearly
120,000 votes, an overwhelming and comfortable margin. Indeed, George
W. Bush is the first Presidential candidate to win the majority of the
popular vote since 1988. And, Mr. Speaker, every single major editorial
board of every newspaper in Ohio has called this effort a sham.
Eighty-eight separate bipartisan election boards from every county in
Ohio, even Cuyahoga, have verified and vouched for the integrity of the
results. Are we to believe that the hundreds of Democrats who sit on
these boards were actively working against their own party and their
own Presidential candidate? No local, county, or State election
officials in Ohio are contesting this election. Not one. The
overwhelming majority of Ohioans are not contesting this election, so
why should politicians in Washington?
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that these Democrats have resorted to such
baseless and meritless tactics to begin the 109th Congress. And it is a
shame that they have placed their partisan war, disclaimed by their own
candidate above what is best for the country and to use the great State
of Ohio as their vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and
colleague from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today on this
issue. I think this is, in all the years I have been in politics, one
of the most base, outrageous acts to take place. The Democratic State
chairman in our State has not challenged, to my knowledge, the count or
the outcome in any county. His name is Denny White. The Democratic
chairman of no county that I know of has challenged either the count or
the outcome in any county. The Democratic board of election members
have not challenged the count or the outcome in any county.
This should be voted down.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart on this issue. In all of
the years that I have been in public service, I think this is one of
the most base, outrageous acts to take place.
Ohio's State Democratic Chairman, whose name is Denny White, has not,
to the best of my knowledge, challenged the count or outcome of this
election.
No Ohio Democratic County Chairman has challenged the count or
outcome of this election in any county.
No Ohio Democratic Board of Election member has challenged the count
or outcome of this election in any county.
The people of the State of Ohio are not challenging the results of
the election. The challenges we are hearing today are politically
motivated by partisan politicians. They are casting aspersions on the
bipartisan electing officials within the State of Ohio. This is unfair
and wrong to do to those hardworking, dedicated officials.
All of the major newspapers in Ohio have editorialized against this
despicable action taken by the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to work together in a
bipartisan fashion. My constituents ask me why we don't work together
more often. What we are seeing here today, two days after being sworn
in, is why we don't see more comity in the House. this action is
setting the wrong tone for the beginning of the 109th Congress.
This debate today is not going to change the result of the election,
but it will poison the atmosphere of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, this challenge should be overwhelmingly defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional
Record the staff report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic
staff entitled, ``Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio.''

Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio

executive summary

Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on
the House Judiciary Committee, asked the Democratic staff to
conduct an investigation into irregularities reported in the
Ohio presidential election and to prepare a Status Report
concerning the same prior to the Joint Meeting of Congress
scheduled for January 6, 2005, to receive and consider the
votes of the electoral college for president. The following
Report includes a brief chronology of the events; summarizes
the relevant background law; provides detailed findings
(including factual findings and legal analysis); and
describes various recommendations for acting on this Report
going forward.
We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in
the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a
significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these
irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousands of votes
and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it
can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004,
were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone
federal requirements and constitutional standards.
This report, therefore, makes three recommendations: (1)
consistent with the requirements of the United States
Constitution concerning the counting of electoral votes by
Congress and Federal law implementing these requirements,
there are ample grounds for challenging the electors from the
State of Ohio; (2) Congress should engage in further hearings
into the widespread irregularities reported in Ohio; we
believe the problems are serious enough to warrant the
appointment of a joint select Committee of the House and
Senate to investigate and report back to the Members; and (3)
Congress needs to enact election reform to restore our
people's trust in our democracy. These changes should include
putting in place more specific federal protections for
federal elections, particularly in the areas of audit
capability for electronic voting machines and casting and
counting of provisional ballots, as well as other needed
changes to federal and state election laws.
With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that
there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and
anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were
caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much
of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the
co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
First, in the run up to election day, the following actions
by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials
disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens,
predominantly minority and Democratic voters:
The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented
long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of
thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters.
This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post
reported that in Franklin County, ``27 of the 30 wards with
the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for
Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven
wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for
Kerry.'' Among other things, the conscious failure to
provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio
Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to
``provide adequate facilities at each polling place for
conducting the election.''
Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots
resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds,
of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and
Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from
past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no
evidence that a broader construction would have led to any
significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do
so in other states.
Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter
registration applications based on paper weight may have
resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in
time for the 2004 election.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in
preelection ``caging'' tactics, selectively targeting 35,000
predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative
impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit

[[Page H88]]

found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation
of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from
targeting minority voters for poll challenges.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands
of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and
Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of
legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became
discouraged the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions
were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican
officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican
Party, admitted the challenges ``can't help but create chaos,
longer lines and frustration.''
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested
absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis
from being able to receive provisional ballots likely
disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr.
Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.
Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained
anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands
of votes that have yet to be accounted for:
There were widespread instances of intimidation and
misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and
the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to
institute a single investigation into these many serious
allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty
under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.
We learned of improper purging and other registration
errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens
of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter
Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone
over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a
result of official registration errors.
There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast
for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be
inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two
precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of
over 25% each--accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood
in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for
president.
There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities
in other counties throughout the state: (i) In Mahoning
county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown
number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County
locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI
warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI
states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting
records of Perry county show significantly more votes than
voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than
voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one
ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded
Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received
more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential
candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker
error may have led to little known third party candidates
receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had
ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas;
(vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and
highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the
precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes
were recorded for President Bush.
Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous
irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting
and completing the recount that disenfranchised thousands of
voters and call the entire recount procedure into question
(as of this date the recount is still not complete):
Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent
standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in
the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In
Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the
ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards
significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of
24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest
proportion in the state.
Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the
recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of
both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses.
We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in
violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not
randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did
not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine
counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for
irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store
ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented
witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects
of the recount.
The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted
that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in
numerous counties to provide ``cheat sheets'' to those
counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election
officials how many votes they should find for each candidate,
and how many over and under votes they should calculate to
match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing
a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

Chronology of Events

The Lead Up to the 2004 Ohio Presidential Election In
Ohio--In the days leading up to election day 2004, a
consensus appeared to have emerged among observers that the
state of Ohio would be one of the battleground states that
would decide who would be elected the Forty-fourth President
of the United States. Both the Democratic and Republican
Presidential campaigns, as well as outside groups, had spent
considerable time and resources to win the state, but the day
before the election, the Democratic candidate, Senator John
Kerry, appeared to have the edge. The Democratic Party also
had vastly outperformed its Republican counterparts in
registering voters in this key state.
Election Day--Numerous irregularities were reported
throughout Ohio. In particular, in predominately Democratic
and African-American areas, the voting process was chaotic,
taxing and ultimately fruitless for many. The repeated and
suspicious challenges of voter eligibility and a lack of
inadequate number of voting machines in these areas worked in
concert to slow voting to a crawl, with voting lines as long
as ten hours. Voters reported bizarre ``glitches'' in voting
machines where votes for Senator Kerry were registered as
votes for the President. The counting process was similarly
chaotic and suspect.
The Aftermath--On November 5, after receiving preliminary
reports of election irregularities in the 2004 General
Election, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Member
of the House Judiciary Committee, and 14 Members of Congress
wrote to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
request an investigation of such irregularities.
On November 22, at the request of the GAO, the House
Judiciary Committee Democratic staff met with GAO officials.
In this meeting, GAO officials advised that, on its own
authority, the GAO was prepared to move forward with a wide
ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections.
GAO officials also advised Judiciary staff that they would be
unable to examine each and every specific election complaint,
but would look at some such complaints as exemplars of
broader deficiencies.
At the same time, the offices of Democratic Staff and of
Democratic Judiciary Committee Members were deluged with e-
mails and complaints about the election. While such
complaints are still being processed, close to 100,000 such
complaints were received. As of this writing, the Judiciary
Democratic office alone is receiving approximately 4,000 such
e-mails a day. More than half of these complaints were from
one state: Ohio. The Election Protection Coalition has
testified that it received more complaints on election day
concerning irregularities in Ohio than any other state.
On December 2, 2004, Members of the Judiciary Committee
wrote to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell that these
complaints appear collectively to constitute a troubled
portrait of a one-two punch that may well have altered and
suppressed votes, particularly minority and Democratic votes.
The Members posed 36 questions to Secretary Blackwell about a
combination of official actions and corresponding actions by
non-official persons, whether in concert or not, worked hand-
in-glove to depress the vote among constituencies deemed by
Republican campaign officials to be disadvantageous.
Through his spokesman, Secretary Blackwell assured the
public and the press that he would be happy ``to fill in the
blanks'' for the Committee and asserted that many questions
were easily answered. In fact, Secretary Blackwell belatedly
replied to the letter with a refusal to answer any of the
questions. Ranking Member Conyers wrote back to Blackwell the
same day requesting that he remain true to his promise to
answer the questions. Congressman Conyers has yet to receive
a reply.
At the same time, officials from the Green Party and
Libertarian Party have been investigating allegations of
voter disenfranchisement in Ohio and other states.
Eventually, the Presidential Candidates for those parties,
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, filed requests for recounts
to all 88 Ohio Counties. However, it appears their efforts
too are being stonewalled and thwarted by nonstandard and
highly selective recounts, unnecessary delays, and blatant
deviations from long accepted Ohio law and procedure.
Recently, Senator Kerry, a party to the recount action,
joined the Green Party and Libertarian Party in requesting
immediate action to halt these irregularities and potential
fraud in the recount. The recount is still pending before the
federal court, yet to be counted.
In addition, a challenge has been filed to the Ohio results
asserting, to a level of sworn proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Senator Kerry, not President Bush, was the actual
victor of the Presidential race in Ohio. Kenneth Blackwell is
adamantly refusing to answer any questions under oath in
regard to election irregularities or results. He is
apparently counting upon Congress accepting the votes of the
electors and, as an immediate consequence, the Ohio Supreme
Court dismissing the citizens' election contest.
Committee Members and other interested Members have gone to
substantial lengths to ascertain the facts of this matter.
The investigation by Congressman Conyers and the Democratic
staff of the House Judiciary Committee into the
irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential election has
also included the following efforts:
On November 5, 2004, Representatives Conyers, Nadler, and
Wexler wrote to the GAO

[[Page H89]]

Comptroller David M. Walker requesting an investigation of
the voting machines and technologies used in the 2004
election;
On November 8, 2004, Representatives Conyers, Nadler,
Wexler, Scott, Watt, and Holt wrote to GAO Comptroller Walker
requesting that additional concerns surrounding the voting
machines and technologies used in the 2004 election be
investigated;
On November 15, 2004, Representatives Lee, Filner, Olver,
and Meeks joined in the request for a GAO investigation;
On November 29, 2004, Representatives Weiner, Schakowsky,
Farr, Sanders, and Cummings joined in the request for a GAO
investigation;
On December 2-3, 2004, Congressman Conyers and other
Judiciary Democratic Members wrote to Ohio Secretary of State
J. Kenneth Blackwell concerning Ohio election irregularities;
On December 3, 2004, Representative Woolsey joined in the
request for a GAO investigation;
On December 3, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to Warren
Mitofsky of Mitofsky International requesting the release of
exit poll raw data from the 2004 presidential election as
such data may evidence instances of voting irregularities;
On December 8, 2004 in Washington, D.C., Congressman
Conyers hosted a forum on voting irregularities in Ohio;
On December 13, 2004 Congressman Conyers hosted a second
forum on voting irregularities in Ohio in Columbus, Ohio;
On December 13, 2004 Congressman Conyers and other Members
wrote to Ohio Governor, Bob Taft, Speaker of Ohio State
House, Larry Householder, and President of Ohio State Senate,
Doug White, requesting a delay of the meeting of Ohio's
presidential electors;
On December 14, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to Ohio
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell in regards to the
Secretary's refusal to cooperate with the Judiciary
Democratic Members investigating election irregularities in
Ohio;
On December 15, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to FBI
Special Agent in Charge, Kevin R. Brock and Hocking County,
Ohio Prosecutor, Larry Beal, requesting an investigation into
alleged Ohio election problems;
On December 21, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to Ohio
candidates requesting that they report any incidences of
irregularities or deviations from accepted law or practices
during the recount in Ohio;
On December 21, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to several
major media outlets requesting the exit poll raw data from
the 2004 presidential election;
On December 22, 2004, Congressman Conyers wrote to Triad
GSI President Brett Rapp and Triad GSI Ohio Field
Representative Michael Barbian, Jr. regarding the voting
machine company's involvement in the Presidential election
and Ohio recount and allegations that it intentionally or
negligently acted to prevent validly cast ballots in the
presidential election from being counted;
On December 23, 2004, as a follow-up letter to the December
22 letter, Congressman Conyers wrote to Triad's President
Rapp and Ohio Field Representative Barbian upon learning that
Triad had remote access to tabulating computers controlled by
the Board of Elections; and
On January 3, 2004, federal and Ohio state lawmakers joined
Reverend Jesse Jackson in Columbus, Ohio for a rally calling
attention to the need for national election reform and the
January 6th joint session of Congress where election results
will be certified.
Citizen groups have played a substantial role in acquiring
relevant information. Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections
in Ohio has organized hearings that have provided valuable
leads for this report. We have been contacted by thousands of
concerned citizens: they want a full and fair count of all of
the votes and confidence in the electoral system, and they
find both of these to be sorely lacking in this election.
Many have investigated these matters themselves and have made
considerable sacrifices to do so.
The events surrounding the Presidential election in Ohio
must be viewed in two important contexts. First, there is the
2000 Election debacle in Florida. In that election, advocates
for a full and fair count were asked to ``move on'' after
Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to then-Governor
George W. Bush. Months later, it was found that a full and
fair count would have resulted in Gore, not Bush, being
elected the Forty-third President of the United States.
Subsequent investigations also uncovered rampant
disenfranchisement in Florida, particularly of African-
American voters.
Second, as events have unfolded in Ohio, telling events
have taken place within the United States, in the State of
Washington, and across the globe, in the Ukraine. In
Washington State, after the Republican Gubernatorial
Candidate, Dino Rossi, declared victory after a partial
recount, it was later found--after a full and fair recount--
that the Democratic candidate, Christine Gregoire, was the
victor. While national and state Republican leaders in Ohio
have derided attempts to ascertain the Ohio Presidential
election result and resolve the questions described herein,
after the Washington recount, Mr. Rossi has now asked for a
re-vote in the State of Washington, saying it is needed for
the election to be ``legitimate.''
In the Ukraine, after the apparent defeat of the opposition
leader, Viktor Yushchenko, in that nation's Presidential
election, amid allegations of fraud and public protests, a
new election was held, and Yushchenko won by a significant
margin. In fact, in the first, seemingly flawed election,
Yushchenko appeared to lose by three percentage points.
However, he won by eight percentage points in the subsequent
revote. United States officials called the original vote rife
with ``fraud and abuse,'' largely relying on anecdotal
evidence and deviations between exit polls and reported
results.
A simple lesson may be drawn from these two contexts:
elections are imperfect. They are subject to manipulation and
mistake. It is, therefore, critical that elections be
investigated and audited to assure the accuracy of results.
As Senator Kerry's attorney recently noted, only with
uniformity in the procedures for such an investigation and
audit ``can the integrity of the entire electoral process and
the election of Bush-Cheney warrant the public trust.''
Regardless of the outcome of the election, and that outcome
cannot be certain as long as legitimate questions remain and
valid ballots are being counted, it is imperative that we
examine any and all factors that may have led to voting
irregularities and any failure of votes to be properly
counted.

Relevant Background Law

A. Federal Constitutional Law Safeguards
The right to vote is our most cherished democratic right
and, as such, is strongly protected under the Constitution.
Both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th
Amendment operate to protect our citizens' right to vote for
the candidate of their choice.
In the seminal voting rights case of Reynolds v. Sims, the
Supreme Court held that ``the right to vote freely for the
candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic
society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the
heart of representative government.'' The Court observed
that, ``undeniably the Constitution of the United States
protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in
state as well as in federal elections. A consistent line
of decisions by this Court in cases involving attempts to
deny or restrict the right of suffrage has made this
indelibly clear. It has been repeatedly recognized that
all qualified voters have a constitutionally protected
right to vote, . . . and to have their votes counted.''
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Reynolds and its progeny require that votes that
are cast must actually be counted. The Equal Protection
Clause also requires that all methods the ``legislature has
prescribed'' to preserve the right to vote be effected, not
thwarted.
Courts have held that the Due Process Clause implemented in
the context of voting rights requires ``fundamental
fairness''--the idea that the state official cannot conduct
an election or apply vote-counting procedures that are so
flawed as to amount to a denial of voters' rights to have
their voices heard and their votes count. As a result, under
the Constitution, citizens have a fundamental right to vote
and to have their vote counted by way of election procedures
that are fundamentally fair. Where ``organic failures in a
state or local election process threaten to work patent and
fundamental unfairness, a . . . claim lies for a violation of
substantive due process.''
Importantly, protections for the right to vote extend to
and include the right to a full and fair recounting of those
votes. A recount is fundamental to ensure a full and
effective counting of all votes. Ohio courts have held that
``[a] recount . . . is the only fair and equitable procedure
to ensure the correct tally of all the votes.'' As the
Oklahoma Supreme Court recently emphasized, ``[a] timely
recount is an integral part of an election.'' The West
Virginia Supreme Court, construing a recount statute similar
to Ohio's recount provisions, stressed the importance of an
election recount to the fairness and integrity of the
election itself. Indeed, courts in states which provide a
statutory right to a recount uniformly have held that an
election cannot be deemed over and final until a recount
provided under state law has been completed.
B. Federal Statutory Election Safeguards
There are numerous federal statutes that protect the right
to vote. First and foremost, the Voting Rights Act prohibits
any person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise,
from:
(1) failing or refusing to permit any qualified person from
voting in . . . federal elections;
(2) refusing to count the vote of a qualified person; or
(3) intimidating any one attempting to vote or any one who
is assisting a person in voting.
In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 provides criminal
penalties for violations of civil rights, including
interference with the right to vote. Specifically, section
245 of title 18 makes it a crime for any person who ``by
force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or
interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or
interfere with any person because he is or has been, or in
order to intimidate such person or any other person or any
class of persons from voting or qualifying to vote. . . .''.
In 1993, Congress enacted the National Voter Registration
Act (NVRA), which requires that, for federal elections,
states establish fair and expeditious procedures so that
eligible citizens may register to vote. Pursuant to the NVRA,
section 1974a of title 42 makes it a crime for any person to
willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or

[[Page H90]]

alter any voting records, including those having to do with
voter registration.
After the widespread problems that occurred in the November
2000 election, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), thereby creating a new federal agency with election
administration responsibilities, setting requirements for
voting and voter-registration systems and certain other
aspects of election administration, and providing federal
funding. Perhaps the central requirement of HAVA was that,
beginning January 1, 2004, any voter not listed as registered
must be offered and permitted to cast a provisional ballot.
HAVA included a variety of additional new requirements,
including a provision that beginning January 1, 2004
(extendable to 2006), states using voter registration must
employ computerized, statewide voter registration systems
that are accurately maintained.
C. Ohio Election Safeguards
Ohio has enacted numerous provisions designed to protect
the integrity of the voting and tabulation process.
1. The Right to Vote in Ohio
Under the Ohio Constitution, ``Every citizen of the United
States, of the age of eighteen years, who has been a resident
of the state, county, township, or ward, such time as may be
provided by law, and has been registered to vote for thirty
days, has the qualifications of an elector, and is entitled
to vote at all elections.'' This includes the right to vote
directly for Presidential electors. The protection of this
right is placed squarely on the Secretary of State, who has
the affirmative duty to ``investigate the administration of
election laws, frauds, and irregularities in elections in any
county, and report violations of election laws to the
attorney general or prosecuting attorney, or both, for
prosecution.'' To complete this task, the legislature has
given the Secretary the power to ``issue subpoenas, summon
witnesses, compel the production of books, papers, records
and other evidence.''
Many specific provisions in the Ohio Revised Code help
protect one's right to vote:
Polls must be open from 6:30 in the morning until 7:30 at
night, and everyone in line at that time must be allowed to
vote.
Loitering around the polling place is barred, and no one
may ``hinder or delay'' a voter from reaching the polls or
casting a vote.
Alteration or destruction of ballots, machinery or election
records is prohibited.
Illegal voting is a felony.
Those who cannot mark their own ballot due to illiteracy or
disability are entitled to assistance.
Election officials who do not enforce these provisions are
criminally liable.
2. Declaring Results
Ohio law requires that, before the Secretary of State can
declare the initial results of the Presidential election in
Ohio, each of the 88 county boards of elections (``county
boards'') must (1) canvass the results in the county, (2)
certify abstracts of those results, and (3) send the
certified abstracts to the Secretary of State.'' Only after
the Secretary of State receives the certified abstracts from
the county boards is the Secretary able to canvass the
abstracts to ``determine and declare'' the initial results of
the Presidential election in Ohio.
Under Ohio law, the Secretary of State is required to fix
the calendar by which the state's Presidential election
results initially are declared and by which a recount of
those initial results can occur. Specifically, the Secretary
is to set the date by which Ohio's 88 county boards must
complete their canvass of election returns and send the
certified abstracts of the results to the Secretary. Any
statutorily mandated recount of the votes cast in Ohio for
President cannot occur before the Secretary declares the
initial results.
3. Security of Ballots and Machinery
In addition, Ohio law prohibits election machinery from
being serviced, modified, or altered in any way subsequent to
an election, unless it is done so in the presence of the full
board of elections and other observers. Any handling of
ballots for a subsequent recount must be done in the presence
of the entire Board and any qualified witnesses. Containers
in which ballots are kept may not be opened before all of the
required participants in are attendance. The Ohio Revised
Code defines a ballot as ``the official election presentation
of offices and candidates . . . and the means by which votes
are recorded.'' Therefore, for purposes of Ohio law,
electronic records stored in the Board of Election computers
are to be considered ``ballots.''
Further, any modification of the election machinery may
only be done after full notice to the Secretary of State. The
Ohio Code and related regulations require that after the
state certifies a voting system, changes that affect ``(a)
the method of recording voter intent; (b) voter privacy; (c)
retention of the vote; or (d) the communication of voting
records,'' must be done only after full notice to the
Secretary of State.
Secretary Blackwell's own directive, coupled with Ohio
Revised Code Sec. 3505.32, prohibits any handling of these
ballots without bipartisan witnesses present. That section of
the code provides that during a period of official
canvassing, all interaction with ballots must be ``in the
presence of all of the members of the board and any other
persons who are entitled to witness the official canvass.''
In this election, the Ohio Secretary of State has issued
orders that election officials were to treat all election
materials as if the State were in a period of canvassing,''
and that, ``teams of one Democrat and one Republican must be
present with ballots at all times of processing.''
In addition to these provisions imposing duties on the
Board of Elections, there are numerous criminal sanctions for
tampering with votes and the machines that tabulate them:
``No person shall tamper or attempt to tamper with, deface
impair the use of, destroy or otherwise injure in any manner
any voting machine . . . No person shall tamper or attempt to
tamper with, deface, impair the use of, destroy or otherwise
change or injure in any manner any marking device, automatic
tabulating equipment or any appurtenances or accessories
thereof.''
``No person shall-destroy any property used in the conduct
of elections.
``No person, from the time ballots are cast or voted until
the time has expired for using them in a recount or as
evidence in a contest of election, shall unlawfully destroy
or attempt to destroy the ballots, or permit such ballots or
a ballot box or pollbook used at an election to be destroyed;
or destroy, falsify, mark, or write in a name on any such
ballot that has been voted.
``No person, from the time ballots are cast or counted
until the time has expired for using them as evidence in a
recount or contest of election, shall willfully and with
fraudulent intent make any mark or alteration on any ballot;
or inscribe, write, or cause to be inscribed or written in or
upon a registration form or list, pollbook, tally sheet, or
list, lawfully made or kept at an election, or in or upon a
book or paper purporting to be such, or upon an election
return, or upon a book or paper containing such return the
name of a person not entitled to vote at such election or not
voting thereat, or a fictitious name, or, within such time,
wrongfully change, alter, erase, or tamper with a name, word,
or figure contained in such pollbook, tally sheet, list,
book, or paper; or falsify, mark, or write thereon with
intent to defeat, hinder, or prevent a fair expression of the
will of the people at such election.
All of these are fifth degree felonies.
4. The Law of Recounts and Contests
The Secretary of State's declaration of the initial results
of a Presidential election in Ohio is not final. Under Ohio
law, a recount of the initial results is required where the
margin of victory is one-fourth of one percent or less, or
where a candidate who is not declared elected applies for a
recount within five days of the Secretary of State declaring
the results of the election and remits the required bond. In
either instance, the Secretary of State ``shall make an
amended declaration of the results'' of the Presidential
election after a full and complete recount of the initial
results throughout the state is completed. Therefore, the
Ohio legislature has determined that, in certain statutorily-
defined circumstances, the Secretary's final declaration of
the results of a Presidential election in Ohio shall not
occur prior to a full and complete recount of the initial
results.
Once the recount applications have been filed, all affected
county boards must notify the applicant and all others who
received votes in the election of the time, method and place
at which the recount will take place, such notice to be no
later than five days prior to the start of the recounts.
Nothing in Ohio law prohibits the notices from being mailed
prior to the certification of results. The recount must be
held no later than ten days after the day the recount
application is filed or after the day the Secretary of State
declares the results of the election.
At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the Board
of Elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in
attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the
ballots to be recounted and shall recount them. Each
candidate may ``attend and witness the recount and may
have any person whom the candidate designates attend and
witness the recount.
Due to a directive issued by Secretary Blackwell, the
recount does not automatically require a hand count of every
vote cast in the election. Each county board of elections
randomly takes a sample representing at least 3% of the votes
cast and compares the machine count to a hand count. If there
is a discrepancy, the entire county must be hand counted. If
there is no discrepancy, the remainder of ballots may be
recounted by machine.
D. Determination of Ohio's Electoral College Votes
Ohio and federal law intersect with regard to the issue of
determining the extent to which Ohio's electoral votes are
counted towards the election of the president through the
electoral college. The 12th Amendment sets forth the
requirements for casting electoral votes and counting those
votes in Congress. The electors are required to meet, cast
and certify their ballots and transmit them to the Vice
President in his or her capacity as President of the Senate.
In addition, the Electoral Count Act requires that the
results be transmitted to the secretary of state of each
state, the Archivist of the United States, and the federal
judge in the district in which the electors met. Upon receipt
of the ballots at a time designated by statute, the
``President of the Senate shall, in the

[[Page H91]]

presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
Congress has specified that all controversies regarding the
appointment of electors should be resolved six days prior to
the meeting of electors (on December 7, 2004, for purposes of
this year's presidential election) in order for a state's
electors to be binding on Congress when Congress meets on
January 6, 2005, to declare the results of the 2004 election.
Specifically, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5 provides, in pertinent part:
``If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior
to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its
final determination of any controversy or contest concerning
the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State,
by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such
determination shall have been made at least six days before
the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such
determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said
day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting
of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the
counting of the electoral votes as provided in the
Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is
concerned.''
The joint session of the Senate and House is held on
January, unless Congress determines otherwise, of the year
following the presidential election at 1:00 p.m. No debate is
allowed during the joint session. The President of the Senate
opens the electoral vote certificates in alphabetical order
from each state, passes them to four tellers (required by
statute to be appointed two from each House) who announce the
results. The votes are then counted and those results
announced by the President of the Senate. The candidates for
President and Vice President receiving a majority of the
electoral votes, currently set at 270 of 538, are declared to
have been ``elected President and Vice President of the
States.''
Section 15 of title 3, United States Code, provides that,
when the results from each of the states are announced, that
``the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if
any.'' Any objection must be presented in writing and
``signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House
of Representatives before the same shall be received.'' The
objection must ``state clearly and concisely, and without
argument, the ground thereof.'' When an objection has been
properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each
body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each
body meets separately to consider the objection. ``No votes .
. . from any other State shall be acted upon until the
[pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of.''
Section 17 of title 3 limits debate on the objections in
each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak
more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the
Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection;
otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.
Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for
objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The law
suggests that an objection may be made on the grounds that
(1) a vote was not ``regularly given'' by the challenged
elector(s); (2) the elector(s) was not ``lawfully certified''
under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been
presented to Congress from the same State. Section 15 of
title 3 specifically provides:
``[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall
have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has
been lawfully certified . . . from which but one return has
been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses
concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree
that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by
electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more
than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a
State shall have been received by the President of the
Senate, those votes, and those only shall be counted which
shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown
. . . to have been appointed.''
Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting
the requirements of the Act has been made against an entire
slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members
of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the
electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no
Senator joined in the objection, and, therefore, the
objection was not ``received.'' In addition, there was no
determination whether the objection constituted an
appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State has
not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to
conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection--if
endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of
Representatives--should be debated by each body separately
until ``disposed of''.

Detailed Findings

A. Pre-Election
1. Machine Allocations--Why were there such long lines in
Democratic leaning areas but not Republican leaning
areas?

Facts

One of the critical reforms of HAVA was federal funding for
states to acquire new and updated voting machines, and to
fairly allocate the machines. Under HAVA, the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) provides payments to States to
help them meet the uniform and nondiscriminatory election
technology and administration requirements in title III of
the law.'' In 2004, the EAC processed a payment of
$32,562,331 for fiscal year 2003 and $58,430,186 for fiscal
year 2004 for a total of $90,992,517. There is no information
publicly available describing what, if any, Ohio HAVA funds
were used and for what those funds were used. Nor are we
aware how such funds were allocated within the state of Ohio
and between counties.
There was a wide discrepancy between the availability of
voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas
as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas.
Even on election day, urban areas were hard pressed to
receive the critical machines to respond to the ever
lengthening lines. According to a Washington Post
investigation, ``in Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, and on
college campuses, election officials allocated far too few
voting machines to busy precincts, with the result that
voters stood on line as long as 10 hours--many leaving
without voting.'' Moreover, the Election Protection Coalition
testified that more than half of the complaints about long
lines they received ``came from Columbus and Cleveland where
a huge proportion of the state's Democratic voters live.''
Based upon various sources including complaints, sworn
testimony, and communications with Ohio election officials,
we have identified credible concerns regarding the allocation
of machines on election day:

Franklin County

A New York Times investigation revealed that Franklin
County election officials reduced the number of electronic
voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them
to the suburbs. ``They used a formula based not on the number
of registered voters, but on past turnout in each precinct
and on the number of so-called active voters--a smaller
universe. . . . In the Columbus area, the result was that
suburban precincts that supported Mr. Bush tended to have
more machines per registered voter than center city precincts
that supported Mr. Kerry.''
The Washington Post also found that in voter-rich Franklin
County, which encompasses the state capital of Columbus,
election officials decided to make do with 2,866 machines,
even though their analysis showed that the county needed
5,000 machines.
The Franklin County Board of Elections reported 81 voting
machines were never placed on election day, and Board
Director Matt Damschroder admitted that another 77 machines
malfunctioned on Election Day.'' However, a county purchasing
official who was on the line with Ward Moving and Storage
Company, documented only 2,741 voting machines delivered
through the November 2 election day.'' While Franklin
County's records reveal that they had 2,866 ``machines
available'' on election day. This would mean that the even
larger number of at least 125 machines remained unused on
Election Day. Mr. Damschroder misinformed a federal court on
Election Day when he testified the county had no additional
voting machines; this testimony was in connection with a
Voting Rights Act lawsuit brought by the state Democratic
Party that alleged minority precincts were intentionally
deprived of machines.
After the election the Washington Post also reported that
in Franklin County, ``27 of the 30 wards with the most
machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At
the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with
the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry.''
At seven of the eight polling places in Franklin County, a
heavily populated urban community, there were only three
voting machines per location; but there had been five
machines at these locations during the 2004 primary.
According to the presiding judge at one polling site
located at the Columbus Model Neighborhood facility at 1393
E. Broad St., there had been five machines during the 2004
primary. Moreover, at Douglas Elementary School, there had
been four machines during the spring primary.
We have received additional information of hardship caused
by the misallocation of machines based on emails and other
transmissions, with waits of 4-5 hours or more being the
order of the day. For example, we have learned of four hour
waits at Precincts 35B and C in Columbus; seven hours waits
for one voting machine per thousand voters, where the
adjacent precinct had one station for 184 voters.''
Additionally, it appears that in a number of locations,
polling places were moved from large locations, such as gyms,
where voters could comfortably wait inside to vote, to
smaller locations where voters were required to wait in the
rain.''
Dr. Bob Fitrakis testified before the House Judiciary panel
that Franklin County Board of Elections Chair, Bill Anthony,
said that a truckload of 75 voting machines were held back on
election day while people waited 5 to 6 hours to vote.
Over 102,000 new voters were registered in Franklin County.
A majority of them were African Americans. ``And so,'' said
State Senator Ray Miller, ``only logic would say, we need
more machines, particularly in the black community.''
Rev. William Moss testified that there were ``unprecedented
long lines'' and noted that Secretary of State Blackwell did
not provide sufficient numbers of voting machines to
accommodate the augmented electorate in Columbus.

[[Page H92]]

Knox County

At Kenyon College, a surge of late registrations promised a
record vote. Nevertheless, Knox County officials allocated
two machines, just as in past elections. Voter Matthew Segal,
a student at Kenyon College, testified before the House
Judiciary panel about conditions that amounted to voter
disenfranchisement in Gambier, Ohio.'' The Gambier polling
place had two machines for a population of 1,300 people,
though nearby counties had one machine for every 100 people.
He noted that voters were ``compelled to stand outside in the
rain, through a hot gymnasium in crowded, narrow hallways,
making voting extremely uncomfortable.'' According to his
testimony, ``many voters became overheated and hungry'' and
had to leave the long lines to eat. ``One girl actually
fainted and was forced to leave the line,'' he said. ``Many
others suffered headaches due to claustrophobic conditions
and noise.''
In contrast, at nearby Mt. Vernon Nazarene University,
which is considered more Republican leaning, there were ample
voting machines and no lines.

Other

The NAACP testified that approximately ``thirty precincts
did not have curbside voting machines for seniors and
disabled voters.''
One entire polling place in Cuyahoga County had to ``shut
down'' at 9:25 a.m. on Election Day because there were no
working machines.
We received an affidavit from Rhonda J. Frazier, a former
employee of Secretary Blackwell, describing several
irregularities concerning the use of HAVA money and the
acquisition of election machinery by the state. She states
that Secretary Blackwell's office failed to comply with the
requirements of the voting reform grant that required all of
the voting machines in Ohio to be inventoried and tagged for
security reasons. Ms. Frazier also asserts that she ``was
routinely told to violate the bidded contracts to order
supplies from other companies for all 17 Secretary of State
offices throughout the State which were cheaper vendors,
leaving a cash surplus differential in the budget'' and that,
when she inquired as to where the money differential was
going, she was essentially told that this was not her concern
and that she should not inquire about where that money went.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Through intent or negligence, massive errors that led to
long lines were made in the distribution and allocations of
voting machines. The Washington Post reports that in Columbus
alone, the misallocation of machines reduced the number of
voters by up to 15,000 votes. Given what we have learned in
our hearings, this is likely conservative estimate, and
statewide, the shortage of machines could have resulted in
the loss of hundreds of thousands of votes. The vast majority
of this lost vote caused by lengthy lines in the midst of
adverse weather was concentrated in urban, minority and
Democratic leaning areas. As a result, this misallocation
appears to be of the pivotal factors concerning the vote and
outcome in the entire election in Ohio.
On its face, the misallocation, shorting, and failure to
timely deliver working machines would appear to violate a
number of legal requirements.
First, it would seem to constitute a violation of the
Voting Rights Act and the constitutional safeguards of Equal
Protection and Due Process, particularly given the racial
disparities involved. Denying voters the means to vote in a
reasonable and fair manner is no different than preventing
them from voting outright.
Second, the failure to provide enough voting machinery
violates both Ohio's Constitution, that provides all eligible
adults the right to vote, and the Ohio Revised Code which
requires the Boards of Elections to provide ``for each
precinct a polling place and provide adequate facilities at
each polling place for conducting the election.'' Further,
``the board shall provide a sufficient number of screened
or curtained voting compartments to which electors may
retire and conveniently mark their ballots.''
These conclusions regarding Ohio legal violations are
supported by several precedents, as well as common sense:
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
found such a serious threat to the voting right that it took
the highly unorthodox step of ordering that those individuals
waiting in line for longer than two hours receive paper
ballots or some other mechanism.
There is specific precedence for a legal violation due the
fact that, under Ohio law in 1956, the courts were forced to
intervene to enforce the then-applicable requirement of one
machine per 100 voters. The court was highly critical of the
previous practice of requiring only one machine for 800
voters or two for 1,400. Nearly 50 years later, we are
unfortunately back to the antiquated practice of effectively
disenfranchising those who are unable to spend an entire day
voting.
Evidence suggests that the Board of Elections'
misallocation of machines went beyond urban/suburban
discrepancies to specifically target Democratic areas. In
particular, within the less urban county of Knox, the more
Democratic leaning precincts near Kenyon College were
massively shorted; the more Republican leaning precincts near
Mt. Vernon Nazarene University were not.
Third, it appears that a series of more localized legal
violations have not been investigated. These include Mr.
Damschroder's contradictory statements regarding the number
and availability of machines on election day in Franklin
County raise the possibility of perjury. The affidavit
submitted by Rhonda Frazier would also appear to demonstrate
a prima facie violation of the Help America Vote Act.
Fourth, Secretary of State Blackwell's failure to initiate
any investigation into this pivotal irregularity (which
perhaps borders on fraud), notwithstanding his clear
statutory duty to do so under Ohio Revised Code section
3501.05, represents a clear violation of Ohio law. The
Secretary of State's most important obligation under the Ohio
Constitution is to protect the right of every Ohio citizen
who is eligible to vote and invesigate any and all
irregularities concerning the same. Mr. Blackwell's failure
to obey Ohio law on this point constitutes a clear instance
where Ohio election law has been abrogated.

2. Cutting Back on the Right to Provisional Ballots

Facts

In a decision that Ohio Governor Bob Taft believed could
affect over 100,000 voters, on September 17, 2004, Secretary
Blackwell issued a directive restricting the ability of
voters to use provisional ballots. The Election Protection
Coalition testified that the narrow provisional ballot
directive led to thousands of ballots from validly registered
voters being thrown out because election officials with
limited resources never told many of the voters in their
jurisdictions where to cast a ballot on Election Day. While
the Help America Vote Act provided that voters whose names do
not appear on poll books are to sign affidavits certifying
that they are in the correct jurisdiction and to be given
provisional ballots, Secretary Blackwell considerably
narrowed the definition of ``jurisdiction'' to mean
``precinct.'' Alleging that allowing voters to use
provisional ballots outside their own precincts would be ``a
recipe for Election Day chaos,'' Secretary Blackwell required
such ballots to be cast in the actual precincts of voters
otherwise they would be discarded entirely. Mr. Blackwell's
rationalization appears to have ignored the fact that in
prior elections, Ohio was able to grant far broader rights to
provisional ballots, and that other states that permitted
voters to cast them from anywhere within their county did not
face the chaos he feared.
Because of Secretary Blackwell's restrictive order, the
Sandusky County Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit to
overturn it. The plaintiff's basis for the suit was that the
order was discriminatory because lower-income people were
more likely to move and, thus, appear at the wrong precinct.
Furthermore, the order would have disenfranchised first-
time voters, many of whom would not know where to vote.
In his rulings in favor of the plaintiffs and against
Secretary Blackwell, U.S. District Judge James Carr held that
the blame lay squarely on Secretary Blackwell. The court was
forced to issue two rulings ordering Secretary Blackwell to
issue HAVA-compliant directives. Secretary Blackwell abided
by neither judgment and instead proceeded with directives
that would disenfranchise Ohio voters.
With respect to the speed of the case, the court noted that
its urgency was the result of Secretary Blackwell failing to
issue provisional voting guidelines for almost two years
after the enactment of HAVA: ``The exigencies requiring the
relief being ordered herein are due to the failure of the
defendant to fulfill his duty not only to this Court, as its
injunction directed him to do, but more importantly, to his
failure to do his duty as Secretary of State to ensure that
the election laws are upheld and enforced. . . . The primary
cause of the exigency is the defendant's failure to have
issued Directive 2004-33 relating to provisional voting for
nearly twenty-three months after HAVA's enactment. . . .
Blackwell has never explained why he waited so long to do
anything to bring Ohio's provisional election procedures into
line with federal law.''
The court then turned its attention to the substance of
Secretary Blackwell's original and amended directives. In
these directives, ``Blackwell described not a single
provision of federal law generally, much less HAVA in
particular. . . . By failing to discuss HAVA, on the one
hand, and describing only outmoded, no longer applicable
procedures on the other, Blackwell . . . left Ohio's election
officials more confused than they would have been if the
directive had not issued.'' In addition, because the amended
directive did not clearly state that persons who might not be
eligible to vote must be informed of their right to vote
provisionally, the court held that ``Blackwell's proposed
directive would disenfranchise all such individuals.'' The
court believed that, by seeming to deprive voters and county
election officials of valuable information regarding HAVA and
provisional ballots, ``Blackwell apparently seeks to
accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in
Florida in 2000.'' Ultimately, the court was forced to
require the Secretary, within a tight deadline, to issue
specific guidelines pertaining to provisional ballots.

[[Page H93]]

Instead of complying with this federal court order,
Secretary Blackwell entirely disregarded the ruling and
questioned the motives of the judge. He referred to Judge
Carr as ``a liberal judge . . . who wants to be co-secretary
of state.'' At a speech before the Loveland Area Chamber of
Commerce in Clermont County, Secretary Blackwell compared
himself to Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the
apostle Paul on the grounds that he would rather go to jail--
as they did--than issue an order he believed was illegal. He
also claimed his office could not speak with Judge Carr about
the case because the Judge was in Florida; Blackwell later
admitted he did not mean the Judge actually was in Florida.
Additionally, a journalist reported seeing Judge Carr in his
chambers the day the ruling was issued. Secretary Blackwell
appealed the judge's decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which overturned the lower court decision and
authorized Mr. Blackwell's more restrictive legal
interpretation.
While Blackwell cited an October 12 resolution by the
Election Assistance Commission as authority for his decision,
EAC Chairman DeForest Soaries asked Blackwell in writing not
to say that the resolution endorsed the Blackwell order.
Chairman Soaries further stated that Secretary Blackwell was
the only secretary of state who actually misread the EAC's
ruling. The EAC did not ``agree that a person in the wrong
precinct shouldn't be given a provisional ballot. . . . The
purpose of provisional ballots is to not turn anyone away
from the polls. . . . We want as many votes to count as
possible.''
Many of Ohio's county boards of elections also disagreed
with Blackwell's interpretation of the law and with his
motivations. Franklin County Board Chairman William Anthony
stated, ``For him to come out with that decision so close to
Election Day . . . I'm suspect of his motivations.'' The
Director of the Franklin County Board also disagreed with
Blackwell and asserted that its precincts would have voters
who insist they are in the correct precinct sign affidavits
and submit provisional ballots. Cuyahoga County directed
people to the right precincts but still accepted provisional
ballots from anyone who insisted on voting. Cuyahoga County
Board Chairman Bob Bennett, who also chairs the Ohio
Republican Party, issued a statement saying the Board would
not deny ballots to voters who wanted them: ``The Cuyahoga
County Board of Elections will not turn voters away. . . . We
are simply trying to avoid confrontation at the ballot box
over the validity of each ballot. Those decisions will be
made by the board of elections according to state law.''
In response, Mr. Blackwell's spokesperson threatened such
election officials with removal from their positions.
In Hamilton County, election officials implemented Mr.
Blackwell's directive and refused to count provisional
ballots cast at the correct polling place even if they were
cast at the wrong table in that polling place. Some polling
places contained multiple precincts that were located at
different tables. As a result, 1,110 provisional ballots were
deemed invalid because people voted in the wrong precinct. In
about 40 percent of these cases, voters found the correct
polling places, which contained multiple precincts, but
workers directed them to the wrong table. In other areas,
precinct workers refused to give any voter a provisional
ballot. Also, in at least one precinct, election judges told
voters that they may validly cast their ballot in any
precinct, leading to any number of disqualified provisional
ballots. Similarly, in Stark County, the Election Board
rejected provisional ballots cast at the wrong precinct in
the right polling place. In earlier elections, a vote cast in
Stark County in the wrong precinct at the proper polling
location was counted.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict the use of provisional
ballots is one of the most critical in the election and could
well have resulted in disenfranchisement of tens of thousands
of voters. In a single polling place in Hamilton County,
denying provisional ballots if a voter showed up at the wrong
precinct cost more than 1,100 votes.
Although Mr. Blackwell's narrow interpretation was
ultimately upheld by the Sixth Circuit, this was not until
after a lower court found: ``The Proposed Directive fails in
many details to comply with HAVA by not instructing Ohio's
election workers about their duties under HAVA. Among the
crucial, but omitted details are: the mandatory obligation to
inform voters of the right to vote provisionally and the duty
to provide provisional ballots to all persons covered by the
statute, and not just to persons whose names are not on the
rolls.''
In our judgment, Mr. Blackwell's restrictive interpretation
violates the spirit, if not the letter, of HAVA. The decision
seems particularly unjust given that Ohio had not experienced
any notable difficulties giving provisional ballots on a
broader basis in past elections, and other states which
adopted broader constructions did not report the chaos and
confusion that Mr. Blackwell claimed to be the rationale for
his decision.

3. Cutting Back on the Right of Citizens To Register To Vote

Facts

On September 7, 2004, Secretary Blackwell issued a
directive to county boards of elections mandating rejection
of voter registration forms based on their paper weight.
Specifically, he instructed the boards to reject voter
registration forms not ``printed on white, uncoated paper of
not less than 80 lb. text weight.'' Then the counties were
instructed to follow a confusing procedure, treating the
voter registration forms not on this minimum paperweight as
an application for a new registration form. Mr. Blackwell's
issuance of this directive less than one month before Ohio's
voter registration deadline resulted in confusion and chaos
among the counties:
The Lake County Board of Elections Director, Jan Clair, who
happens to be a Republican, stated that the weight order
would ``create more confusion than the paper's worth. . . .
It's the weight of the vote I'm concerned about on Nov. 2--
that's the important thing.''
The Mahoning County Board of Elections Director, Michael
Sciortino, said mailing high weight registration paper to
voters was not a priority and might occur after the election
because of how it might confuse voters.
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Director, Michael
Vu, said his Board would rather not comply with the weight
order and asked state lawmakers to address it. Secretary
Blackwell gave permission for the Board to accept
registration forms that were printed in newsprint in the
Cleveland Plain Dealer.''' As Director Vu pointed out, his
office does not ``have a micrometer at each desk to check the
weight of the paper.''
Other counties such as Madison County followed Mr.
Blackwell's ruling and indicated that they sent letters and
new forms to voters.
The Franklin County Board of Elections was unlikely to
comply with the weight directive, largely because it does not
keep track of the weight of such forms.
The Lorain County Board of Elections accepted voter
registration on any weight of paper.
The Montgomery County Board of Elections said the paper
weight order was frustrating their ability to process
registrations. They attempted to comply by mailing a new form
to potential voters who sent forms of incorrect weight, but a
processing backlog of 4,000 forms prevented them from sending
new forms by the October 4 deadline, such that some voters
could have been disenfranchised. Steve Harsman, the Deputy
Director of the Board, says ``there is just no reason to use
80-pound paper.''
Finally, Secretary Blackwell was not following his own
order. An Ohio lawyer, John Stopa, noted that voter
registration forms obtained at Blackwell's office were
printed on 60-pound paper. An election board official stated
he obtained 70-pound weight forms from Blackwell's office.
After several weeks of pressure from voting rights
advocates, such as the League of Women Voters of Ohio and
People for the American Way, Secretary Blackwell reversed his
directive on September 28, 2004. Even his new order, however,
was not drafted clearly enough. He did not withdraw the first
directive, and the New York Times found the second directive
to be ``worded so inartfully that it could create confusion.
As a matter of fact, the Delaware County Board of Elections
posted a notice on its website stating it could not accept
its own Voter Registration Forms and directed voters to
request a new one by calling a number.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Secretary Blackwell's directive to reject registration
applications based on paper weight, even though eventually
rescinded, undoubtedly had a negative impact on registration
figures. During the time period the directive was in place,
it likely resulted in an untold number of voters not being
registered in time for the 2004 election. In addition, even
after the directive was reconsidered, it was done so in a
confusing manner. For example, the directive continued to be
posted on the Ohio Secretary of State's website, and at least
one county, Delaware County, continued to post the directive
on its website as well.
Mr. Blackwell's initial directive appears to be
inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act, which
put safeguards in place to ease voter registration, not
impede it. There is perhaps no more certain indication of the
disenfranchisement bias Secretary of State Blackwell brought
to his job than this controversial ruling, which was widely
reviled even by Republicans.

4. Targeting New Minority Voter Registrants--Caging

Facts

The Ohio Republican Party attempted to engage in
``caging,'' whereby it sent registered letters to newly
registered voters in minority and urban areas, and then
sought to challenge 35,000 individuals who refused to sign
for the letters or the mail otherwise came back as
undeliverable (this includes voters who were homeless,
serving abroad, or simply did not want to sign for something
concerning the Republican Party). Mark Weaver, an attorney
for the Ohio Republican Party, acknowledged the Party used
this technique. During a hearing before the Summit County
Board of Elections, a challenger admitted that she had no
knowledge to substantiate her claim that the voters she was
challenging were out of compliance with Ohio's election law:
Ms. Barbara MILLER (Republican Challenger): That was my
impression that these items that I signed were for people
whose mail had been undeliverable for several times, and that
they did not live at the residence.

[[Page H94]]

Mr. Russell PRY (Member, Summit County Board of Elections):
Did you personally send any mail to Ms. Herrold?
Ms. MILLER: No, I did not.
Mr. PRY: Have you seen any mail that was returned to Ms.
Herrold?
Ms. MILLER: No, I have not.
Mr. PRY: Do you have any personal knowledge as we stand
here today that Ms. Herrold does not live at the address at
238 30th Street Northwest?
Ms. MILLER: Only that which was my impression; that their
mail had not been able to be delivered.
Mr. PRY: And who gave you that impression?
Ms. MILLER: Attorney Jim Simon.
Mr. PRY: And what did--
Ms. MILLER: He's an officer of the party.
Mr. PRY: An officer of which party?
Ms. MILLER: Republican party.
Mr. PRY: Where did you complete this challenge form at?
Ms. MILLER: My home.
Mr. PRY: What did Mr. Simon tell you with respect to Ms.
Herrold's residence?
Ms. MILLER: That the mail had come back undeliverable
several times from that residence.
Mr. PRY: And you never saw the returned mail?
Ms. MILLER: No, I did not.
Mr. PRY: Now, you've indicated that you signed this based
on some personal knowledge.
Mr. HUTCHINSON: (Joseph F. Hutchinson, Jr. Summit County
Board of Elections) No.
Mr. ARSHINKOFF: (Alex R. Arshinkoff, Summit County Board of
Elections) Reason to believe. It says, ``I have reason to
believe.'' It says it on the form.
Mr. JONES: It says, ``I hereby declare under penalty of
election falsification, that the statements above are true as
I verily believe.''
Mr. ARSHINKOFF: It says here, ``I have reason to believe.''
Mr. HUTCHINSON: It says what it says.
Mr. ARSHINKOFF: You want her indicted, get her indicted.
Mr. PRY: That may be where it goes next.
Among other things, the Republican Party arranged for the
Sandusky County sheriff to visit the residences of 67 voters
with wrong or non-existent addresses.
The caging tactics were so problematic that a federal
district court in New Jersey and a panel of the Third Circuit
found that the Republican Party was egregiously in violation
of the 1982 and 1987 decrees that barred the party from
targeting minority voters for challenges at the polls. They
found sufficient evidence that the Ohio Republican Party and
the RNC conspired to be ``disruptive'' in minority-majority
districts and enjoined the party from using the list. The
Third Circuit granted a hearing en banc and therefore
stayed the order and vacated the opinion.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
found the same activities to violate the Due Process Clause
of the Constitution. Most importantly, notice of the
Republican-intended challenge and subsequent hearing was sent
to the 35,000 voters far too late to be of any use to the
challengee. In fact, the notice was sent so late, that many
did not receive it before the election at all, and the court
found that ineffective notice must have been the intent:
``The Defendants' intended timing and manner of sending
notice is not reasonably calculated to apprise Plaintiff
Voters of the hearing regarding the challenge to their
registrations, nor to give the them opportunity to present
their objections, as demonstrated by the individual
situations of Plaintiffs Miller and Haddix . . . it seems
that Defendants intend to send the notice to an address which
has already been demonstrated to be faulty.''
The court also found that the challenge statute in general
was not narrowly tailored enough justify the ``severe''
burden on voters. While the state's interest in preventing
fraudulent voting was compelling, there were other ways to do
that besides allowing partisan groups to arbitrarily
challenge voters.

Analysis

Although the ``caging'' tactics targeting 35,000 new voters
by the Ohio Republican Party were eventually struck down, it
is likely they had a negative impact on the inclination of
minorities to vote, although, it is difficult to develop a
specific estimate.
The caging tactics were clearly both discriminatory and
illegal. All three district court cases ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs, finding the challenges to be politically and
racially charged, and burdening the fundamental right to
vote. As one court stated, ``This Court recognizes that the
right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights.
Potential voter intimidation would severely burden the right
to vote. Therefore, the character and magnitude of
Plaintiffs' asserted injury is substantial.'' It went on to
note that the right to vote is paramount to any interest in
challenging other people: ``. . . Plaintiff's right to cast
votes on election day is a fundamental right. The
challengers, however, do not have a fundamental right to
challenge other voters. These decisions correctly overturned
these caging and challenging activities because they violated
the right to equal protection, due process, and Ohioans'
fundamental right to vote.
Ralph Neas, President of the People for the American Way
Foundation, emphasized the seriousness of these tactics when
he testified that ``the 35,000 people that were threatened
with being challenged. That's not the spirit of democracy;
that's the spirit of suppression. [The Republican Party] did
everything to minimize the vote in the urban areas and to
engage in voter suppression, and I hope the hearings really
emphasize this. I think that prosecution is something that
should be considered with respect to what happened in Ohio.''

5. Targeting Minority and Urban Voters for Legal Challenges

Facts

The Ohio Republican Party, which Secretary Blackwell helped
lead as Chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio, engaged in
a massive campaign to challenge minority voters at the polls.
The Republican Party lined up poll challengers for 30 of
Ohio's 88 counties, and the vast majority were focused in
minority and urban areas. In addition to intimidating
minority voters, this scheme helped lead to increased delays
and longer waits in voting lines in these areas. This was a
particularly damaging outcome on a day of severe adverse
weather in Ohio. As a federal court looking at these issues
concluded: if challenges are made with any frequency, the
resultant distraction and delay could give rise to chaos
and a level of voter frustration that would turn qualified
electors away from the polls.
Three separate courts issued opinions expressing serious
concerns with Ohio's voter challenge processes. At the state
level, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge John O'Donnell
found that Secretary Blackwell exceeded his authority in
issuing a directive that let each political party have
multiple challengers at each polling place. While the
Democratic Party registered only one challenger per polling
place, the Republican Party had registered one challenger for
each precinct (there are multiple precincts in many polling
places). Judge O'Donnell found the directive to be
``unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconscionable,
coming four days after the deadline for partisan challengers
to register with their county boards of elections.'' An
attorney with the Ohio Attorney General's office, Jeffrey
Hastings, admitted to Judge O'Donnell that Secretary
Blackwell had changed his mind in first limiting challengers
to one per polling place and then, after the October 22
challenger registration deadline, allowing multiple
challengers.
Two federal district court judges also found the challenge
procedure to be problematic and tantamount to voter
disenfranchisement. In one lawsuit, the plaintiffs were
Donald and Marian Spencer, an elderly African-American couple
who alleged the challenge statute harkened back to Jim Crow
disenfranchisement. In her opinion rejecting the GOP
challenger system, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott
wrote that ``there exists an enormous risk of chaos, delay,
intimidation and pandemonium inside the polls and in the
lines out the door.'' In the other district court case,
Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee, et.
al. v. Blackwell, Judge John R. Adams noted the risk that
``the integrity of the election may be irreparably harmed.''
``If challenges are made with any frequency,'' he wrote,
``the resultant distraction and delay could give rise to
chaos and a level of voter frustration that would turn
qualified electors away from the polls.''
Judge Dlott also noted the racial disparity inherent in
challenges, citing that only 14% of new voters in white areas
would face challenges while up to 97% of new voters in black
areas would face them. The Chair of the Hamilton County Board
of Elections, Timothy Burke, was an official defendant in the
lawsuit but testified the use of the challenges was
unprecedented. Chairman Burke stated that the Republican
Party had planned for challengers at 251 of Hamilton County's
1013 precincts; 250 of the challenged precincts have
significant black populations.
Both federal courts blocking the use of challengers
highlighted that challengers were not needed because Ohio law
already safeguarded elections from voter fraud by the use of
election judges. In particular, Ohio law mandates that four
election judges staff each polling place and provides that
the presiding judge of each group can make decisions
regarding voter qualifications.
Although Secretary Blackwell reversed his position and
issued a statement on October 29, 2004, excluding challengers
from polling places, his position became less relevant when
Jim Petro, Ohio's Attorney General, argued in favor of the
challenges taking place and said the Secretary's new
statement was unlawful. Seeing the irony in these conflicting
opinions, Judge Dlott asked ``how can the average election
official or inexperienced challenger be expected to
understand the challenge process if the two top election
officials cannot?''
These two lower court rulings did not stand. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the two lower court
opinions on a 2-1 vote. The Supreme Court of the United
States denied the applications to vacate the 6th Circuit's
stays of the lower court rulings. While troubled about the
``undoubtedly serious'' accusation of voter intimidation,
Justice John Paul Stevens said the full Court could not
consider the case because there was insufficient time to
properly review the filings and submissions.

Analysis

The decision by the Ohio Republican Party to utilize
thousands of partisan challengers in the voting booths
undoubtedly had an intimidating and negative impact on
minority voters. While it is difficult to estimate how many
voters were disenfranchised by the

[[Page H95]]

challenger program, given the adverse weather conditions and
the lack of trained pollworkers, the disruptions caused by
challengers could easily have reduced minority turnout by
tens of thousands of voters, if not more. It is noteworthy
that these disruptions were predicted by Republican
officials: ``Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican
Party, acknowledged, `[the challenges] won't be resolved
until [Election Day], when all of these people are trying to
vote. It can't help but create chaos, longer lines and
frustration.' He reiterated that `challengers at the polls]
were bound to slow things down.' '' This will lead to long
lines.
While the program of challenging voters was ultimately
upheld, after a series of back and forth decisions, clearly
this is an issue which harkens back to the ``Jim Crow'' era.
As U.S. District Court Judge John R. Adams wrote in his
Summit County opinion: ``In light of these extraordinary
circumstances, and the contentious nature of the imminent
election, the Court cannot and must not turn a blind eye to
the substantial likelihood that significant harm will result
not only to voters, but also to the voting process itself, if
appointed challengers are permitted at the polls on November
2. . . . The presence of appointed challengers at the polls
could significantly impede the electoral process, and
infringe on the rights of qualified voters.''
As a result, the Ohio challenger system deserves
reconsideration by the legislature or further judicial
appeal.

6. Denying Absentee Voters Who Never Got Their Ballots the Right to a
Provisional Ballot

Facts

Secretary Blackwell also issued a ruling preventing the
issuance of provisional ballots for voters who requested
absentee ballots, even if they failed to receive them by the
official deadline or did not receive them at all. Despite the
fact that these errors occurred on the part of the Ohio
government and not the voters, Secretary Blackwell determined
they should not receive provisional ballots at the polls.
A lawsuit filed by a college student, Sara White, who never
received her absentee ballot and was denied a provisional
one, led to a ruling that other similar voters must be
issued provisional ballots. The court ordered Lucas County
to start providing provisional ballots, and directed
Secretary Blackwell to advise all Boards of Elections of
the same within 30 minutes. The legal ruling overturning
Mr. Blackwell's restrictive ruling on absentee ballots
came late in the afternoon, and as a result, many voters
intending to vote that day were prevented from doing so.

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent those voters who
requested absentee ballots, but did not receive them on a
timely basis, from being able to vote, also likely
disenfranchised many voters, particularly seniors who were
turned away from the polls before the decision was known.
The federal court found that Mr. Blackwell's decision
clearly violated HAVA: ``HAVA is clear; that all those who
appear at a polling place and assert their eligibility to
vote irrespective of the fact that their eligibility may be
subject to question by the people at the polling place or by
the Board of Elections, shall be issued a provisional
ballot.'' In addition, this restrictive directive also likely
constituted violations of Article S, Section 1 of the Ohio
Constitution, granting every Ohio citizen the right to vote
if he or she is otherwise qualified.

7. Denying Access to the News Media

Facts

Secretary Blackwell also sought to prevent the news media
and exit poll takers from locating themselves within 100 feet
of polling places. This would have been the first time in
thirty years in which reporters were prevented from
monitoring polls. Media organizations challenged the barrier,
leading to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
ruling that struck down Secretary Blackwell's decision. In
its opinion, the court noted that ``democracies die behind
closed doors'' and found that the district court's ruling had
``interpreted and applied the statute overly broadly in such
a way that the statute would be violative of the first
amendment''.

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent news media and exit
polls from interviewing Ohio citizens after they voted
constitutes a clear violation of the First Amendment's
guarantee that state conduct shall not abridge ``freedom . .
. of the press.'' His decision also likely violated Ohio's
own Constitution that provides: ``Every citizen may freely
speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects,
being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law
shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech,
or of the press.'' His decision does not appear to have had
any negative impact on the vote, but potentially made it more
difficult for the media to uncover voting irregularities,
discrepancies, and disenfranchisement.
B. Election Day

1. County-Specific Issues

Warren County--Counting in Secret Because of a Terrorist Threat?

Facts

On election night, Warren County, a traditional Republican
stronghold, locked down its administration building and
barred reporters from observing the counting. When that
decision was questioned, County officials claimed they were
responding to a terrorist threat that ranked a ``10'' on a
scale of 1 to 10, and that this information was received from
an FBI agent. Despite repeated requests, County officials
have declined to name that agent, however, and the FBI has
stated that it had no information about a terror threat in
Warren County.
Warren County officials have given conflicting accounts of
when the decision was made to lock down the building. While
the County Commissioner has stated that the decision to lock
down the building was made during an October 28 closed-door
meeting, e-mailed memos--dated October 25 and 26--indicate
that preparations for the lockdown were already underway.
Statements also describe how ballots were left unguarded
and unprotected in a warehouse on Election Day, and they were
hastily moved after county officials received complaints.
It is important to view the lockdown in the context of the
aberrant results in Warren County. An analyst who has
received all the vote data for 2000 and 2004 by precinct in
several Ohio counties did a detailed analysis of the greatest
increase in votes for President Bush by precinct, and the
Bush-Kerry margin in Warren County. The analyst revealed that
Warren County first did a lockdown to count the votes, then
apparently did another lockdown to recount the votes later,
resulting in an even greater Bush margin and very unusual new
patterns.
Moreover, in the 2000 Presidential election, the Democratic
Presidential candidate, Al Gore, stopped running television
commercials and pulled resources out of Ohio weeks before the
election. He won 28% of the vote in Warren County 223 In
2004, the Democratic Presidential candidate, John Kerry,
fiercely contested Ohio and independent groups also put
considerable resources into getting out the Democratic vote.
Moreover, unlike in 2000, independent candidate Ralph Nader
was not on the Ohio ballot in 2004. Yet, the tallies reflect
John Kerry receiving exactly the same percentage, 28 percent,
in Warren County as Gore received.
In support of his assertion that there was no wrongdoing in
Warren County, Secretary Blackwell has referred to a
Democratic election observer in Warren County, Jeff Ruppert,
who has said he observed nothing inappropriate at the County
administration building. While we have no reason to doubt Mr.
Ruppert's truthful account of what he actually observed, a
complete review of his statements shows numerous problems at
the building. At the outset, Mr. Ruppert acknowledges that he
was subject to the lockout and had to present identification
to even be admitted to the building. Once he gained
admission, Mr. Ruppert said he did ``have concerns over how
provisional ballots were handled at polling places--which he
said seemed to be inconsistent.'' He also points to a number
of areas he observed that were centers of activity (ballots
being transferred from vehicles, precinct captains
accompanying ballots in elevators, and ballots being stored),
but it clearly would have been impossible for Mr. Ruppert to
observe all of these activities at the same time. Finally,
considering that he left before the ballot count was
completed, it is inaccurate to state with certainty that
there were no problems in Warren County.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Given the total lack of explanation by Mr. Blackwell or
Warren County officials, it is not implausible to assume that
someone is hiding something. We do not know whether what
happened is simply a miscommunication or mix up, where an
election official misunderstood an FBI directive. If that
were the case, it would seem to be an easy matter to dispel
the confusion surrounding this episode. Given that no such
explanation has been forthcoming and given the statistical
anomalies in the Warren County results, it is impossible to
rule out the possibility that some sort of manipulation of
the tallies occurred on election night in the locked down
facility. The disclosure that the decision to lock down the
facility the Thursday before the election, rather than on
election day would suggest the lockdown was a political
decision, not a true security risk. If that was the case, it
would be a violation of the constitutional guarantees of
equal protection and due process, the Voting Rights Act, and
Ohio right to vote. We believe it is the statutory duty for
the Secretary of State to investigate irregularities of this
nature.

Mahoning County--Innumerable Flipped Votes and Extra Votes

Facts

We have received numerous reports of transfers of votes for
Senator Kerry to votes for President Bush. Specifically, in
Youngstown, the Washington Post reported that their
investigation revealed 25 electronic machines transferred an
unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column. Jeanne
White, a veteran voter and manager at the Buckeye Review, an
African American newspaper, stepped into the booth, pushed
the button for Kerry--and watched her vote jump to the Bush
column. ``I saw what happened; I started screaming: `They're
cheating again and they're starting early!' '' The Election
Protection Coalition also confirmed

[[Page H96]]

these voting ``glitches'' noting that a ``voter reported
`Every time I tried to vote for the Democratic Party
Presidential vote the machine went blank. I had to keep
trying, it took 5 times.' ''
The voting machine in Youngstown experienced what election
officials called ``calibration problems.'' Thomas McCabe,
Deputy Director of the Mahoning County Board of Elections,
stated that the problem ``happens every election'' and
``[i]t's something we have to live with and we can fix it.''
There is also information, still being investigated, that
in several precincts, there were more votes counted by
machine than signatures in poll books (which includes
absentee voters). This would mean that more people voted by
machine at a precinct than actually appeared at that
location. For example, in CMP 4C Precinct, there were 279
signatures and 280 machine votes. In BLV 1 Precinct, there
were 396 signatures but 398 machine votes. In AUS 12
Precinct, there were 372 signatures but 376 machine votes. In
POT 1 Precinct, there were 479 signatures but 482 machine
votes, and in YGN 6F Precinct, there were 270 signatures but
273 machine votes. It would appear from these numbers that
the machines counted more votes than voters.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Evidence strongly suggests many individuals voting in
Mahoning County for Senator Kerry had their votes recorded
for President Bush. Due to lack of cooperation from Secretary
of State Blackwell, we have not been able to ascertain the
number of votes that were impacted or whether the machines
malfunctioned due to intentional manipulation or error. This
determination would help us determine if the Voting Rights
Act was also violated. Ascertaining the precise cause and
culprit could help ensure that the error does not occur in
the future. Secretary of State Blackwell's apparent failure
to initiate any investigation into this serious computer
error would seem inconsistent with his statutory duty to
review these matters.

Butler County--The Strange Case of the Downballot Candidate
Outperforming the Presidential Candidate

In Butler County, a Democratic candidate for State Supreme
Court, C. Ellen Connally, received 59,532 votes. In contrast,
the Kerry-Edwards ticket received only 54,185 votes, 5,000
less than the State Supreme Court candidate. Additionally,
the victorious Republican candidate for State Supreme Court
received approximately 40,000 less votes than the Bush-Cheney
ticket. Further, Connally received 10,000 or more votes in
excess of Kerry's total number of votes in five counties and
5,000 more votes in excess of Kerry's total in ten others.
According to media reports of Ohio judicial races,
Republican judicial candidates were ``awash in cash,'' with
more than $1.4 million in campaign funding, as well as
additional independent expenditures made by the Ohio Chamber
of Commerce.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

It appears implausible that 5,000 voters waited in line to
cast votes for an underfunded Democratic Supreme Court
candidate and then declined to cast a vote for the most well-
funded Democratic Presidential campaign in history. We have
been able to ascertain no answer to the question of how an
underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate could
receive such a disproportionately large number of votes in
Butler County over the Kerry Edwards ticket. This raises the
possibility that thousands votes for Senator Kerry were lost,
either through manipulation or mistake. The loss of these
votes would likely violate constitutional protections of
equal protection and due process; if manipulation is
involved, that would also violate the Voting Rights Act and
Ohio election law. This anomaly calls for an investigation,
which Mr. Blackwell has failed to initiate.

Cuyahoga County--Palm Beach County for Pat Buchanan-Redux?

Facts

It has been well documented that a flawed Palm Beach County
ballot design in the 2000 Florida Presidential election may
well have cost Al Gore thousands of votes, by misrecording
such votes as votes for Pat Buchanan. A similar problem may
well have occurred in Cleveland in 2004.
Precincts in Cleveland have reported an incredibly high
number of votes for third party candidates who have
historically received only a handful of votes from these
urban areas. For example, precinct 4F in the 4th Ward cast
290 votes for Kerry, 21 for Bush, and 215 for Constitution
Party candidate Michael Peroutka. In 2000, the same precinct
cast less than 8 voters for all third party candidates
combined. This pattern is found in at least 10
precincts throughout Cleveland in 2004, awarding hundreds
of unlikely votes to the third party candidate. Notably,
these precincts share more than a strong Democratic
history; they share the use of a punch card ballot. This
problem was created by the combination of polling sites
for multiple precincts, coupled with incorrect information
provided by poll workers.
In Cuyahoga County, each precinct rotates candidate ballot
position. Therefore, each ballot must go into a machine
calibrated for its own precinct in order for the voter's
intent to be counted. In these anomalous precincts, ballots
were fed into the wrong machine, switching Kerry votes into
third party votes. This was done on the advice of poll
workers who told voters that they could insert their ballots
into any open machine--and machines were not clearly marked
indicating that they would work only for their designated
precinct.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

It appears that hundreds, if not thousands, of votes
intended to be cast for Senator Kerry were recorded as being
for a third party candidate. At this point it is unclear
whether these voting errors resulted from worker negligence
and error or intentional manipulation. While Cuyahoga County
election official Michael Vu said he would investigate, there
has been no further explanation about what will be done to
remedy this situation, and Secretary of State Blackwell has
refused to cooperate in our investigation or pursue his own
inquiry. In any event, those voters whose votes were not
properly counted suffered a violation of their constitutional
protections of equal protection and due process; if
intentional manipulation is involved, this would also
implicate the Voting Rights Act and Ohio election law.

Franklin County (Gahana)--How does a computer give George W. Bush
nearly 4,000 extra votes?

Facts

On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B
in the Gahana precinct of Franklin County recorded a total of
4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic
challenger John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered
voters in that Gahana precinct, and only 638 people cast
votes at the New Life Church polling site. It has since been
discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording
of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush--the
numbers were adjusted to show President Bush's true vote
count at 365 votes and Senator Kerry's at 260 votes.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

At this point it is unclear whether the computer glitch was
intentional or not, as we have received no cooperation from
Secretary Blackwell or other authorities in resolving the
question. In order to resolve this issue for future
elections, it must be determined how it was initially
discovered that such a computer glitch did and could occur
and what procedures were employed to alert other counties
upon the discovery of the malfunction. Further, a
determination should be made as to whether we can be
absolutely certain that this particular malfunction did not
occur in other counties in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential
election, and what actions have been taken to ensure that
this type of malfunction does not happen in the future.

Miami County--Where did nearly 20,000 extra votes for George W. Bush
come from?

Facts

In Miami County, voter turnout was a highly suspect and
improbable 98.55 percent. With 100% of the precincts
reporting on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, President Bush
received 20,807 votes, or 65.80% of the vote, and Senator
Kerry received 10,724 votes, or 33.92% of the vote. Thus,
Miami reported a total of 31,620 voters. Inexplicably, nearly
19,000 new ballots were added after all precincts reported,
boosting President Bush's vote count to 33,039, or 65.77%,
while Senator Kerry's vote percentage stayed exactly the same
to three one-hundredths of a percentage point at 33.92
percent. Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd., the
reporting company responsible for vote results of Miami
County, stated that the problem was not with his reporting
and that the additional 19,000 votes were added before 100%
of the precincts were in.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Mr. Kearney's statement does not explain how the vote count
could change for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry,
after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster. Thus, we are
primarily concerned with identifying a valid explanation for
the statistical anomaly that showed virtually identical
ratios after the final 20-40% of the votes were counted.
Specifically, we have received no explanation as to how the
vote count in this particular county could have changed for
President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry,

[[Page H97]]

after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster. The vote
results in Miami constitute yet another significant anomaly
in the tens of thousands range without any explanation or
investigation by Secretary of State Blackwell, leading us to
conclude that there is likely some vote error or vote
manipulation. This could constitute a violation of
constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process
and, if intentional, would likely violate the Voting Rights
Act and Ohio election law.

Perry County--Discrepancy in Number of Votes and Voters

Facts

The House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff has received
information indicating discrepancies in vote tabulations in
Perry County. Similar discrepancies have been found in other
counties. For example, in Trumbull County there are
apparently more absentee votes than absentee voters according
to a recent study. For example, the sign-in book for the
Reading S precinct indicates that approximately 360 voters
cast ballots in that precinct. In the same precinct, the
sign-in book indicates that there were 33 absentee votes
cast. In sum, this would appear to mean that fewer than 400
total votes were cast in that precinct. Yet, the precinct's
official tallies indicate that 489 votes were cast. In
addition, some voters' names have two ballot stub numbers
listed next to their entries, creating the appearance that
voters were allowed to cast more than one ballot.
In another precinct in Perry County, W Lexington G AB, 350
voters are registered according to the County's initial
tallies. Yet, 434 voters cast ballots. As the tallies
indicate, this would be an impossible 124% voter turnout. The
breakdown on election night was initially reported to be 174
votes for Bush, and 246 votes for Kerry. We are advised that
the Perry County Board of Elections has since issued a
correction claiming that, due to a computer error, some votes
were counted twice. We are advised that the new tallies state
that only 224 people voted, and the tally is 90 votes for
Bush and 127 votes for Kerry. This would make it appear that
virtually every ballot was counted twice, which seems
improbable.
In Madison Township, Precinct AAS, a review of the poll
books shows that 481 people signed in to vote on election
day, yet the Perry County Board of Elections is reporting
that 493 votes were cast in that precinct, a difference of 13
votes. The same discrepancy appears with respect to Monroe
Township AAV. The poll books show that 384 people signed in
on election day to vote, while the Perry County Board of
Elections reports that 393 votes were cast, a difference of 9
votes.
We have also received information that in at least three
precincts, Pike West AAY, New Lexington I AB, and Redfield
AAC, more signatures appear in the sign-in books than votes
cast. This would indicate that votes may have been thrown
out.
In Perry County, there appears to be an extraordinarily
high level of 91% voter registration; yet, a substantial
number of these voters have never voted and have no signature
on file. Of the voters that are registered in Perry County,
an extraordinarily large number of voters are listed as
having registered in 1977, a year in which there were no
federal elections. Of these, an exceptional number are listed
as having registered on the exact same day: in total, 3,100
voters apparently registered in Perry County on November 8,
1977.
In addition, according to a Democratic staff count of the
poll books, there are approximately 751 registered voters in
Madison Township AAS, while the Perry County Board of
Elections reports that there are 850 registered voters in
that township.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Clearly, there is an unexplained discrepancy between the
actual vote tallies and the number of registered voters in
various precincts as well as other statistical anomalies in
the County. Given the lack of any explanation to date, and an
absence of willingness by Secretary Blackwell or any other
authorities to explain or investigate these irregularities,
it is not inconceivable that some sort of vote tampering has
occurred. If so, that would likely constitute a denial of the
constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due
process, the Voting Rights Act, and Ohio election law.
Republicans in the State of Washington are currently citing
such ``mystery voters'' as evidence of fraud. The State
Republican Chairman has commented, ``people ask me what fraud
would look like? It would look like this.
2. Myriad Other Problems and Irregularities
We learned of literally thousands upon thousands of
additional irregularities in Ohio. As a matter of fact, the
Election Protection Commission has testified that to date,
there have been over 3,300 incidents of voting irregularities
entered for Ohio alone. The following is a brief highlight of
some of the more egregious irregularities we have learned of
during the course of our investigation:
a. Intimidation and Misinformation

Facts

In the course of our hearings we learned:
The NAACP testified that it received over 200 calls
regarding incidents of suspected voter intimidation or
unusual election related activities, particularly actions
taken by challengers who intimidated poll workers and voters.
Other specific incidents involved a caller who reported that
someone was going door-to-door telling people they were not
registered to vote. A voter in Franklin County received
information in the mail identified as being from the state
that said he would have to vote by provisional ballot because
he had moved; in fact, the voter had not moved and had lived
at the address for 10-15 years. One polling place worker was
only asking African American voters for their address. A new
voter was told that there were vote challengers at her
precinct. When she was voting, she was confused by the punch
cards. She was afraid to ask poll workers for help for fear
that she would be challenged. Vote challengers were demanding
that voters provide ID, leading many people to leave. This
egregious behavior should be curtailed by the state.
In Franklin County, a worker at the Holiday Inn observed a
team of 25 people who called themselves the ``Texas Strike
Force'' using payphones to make intimidating calls to likely
voters, targeting people recently in the prison system. The
``Texas Strike Force'' members paid their way to Ohio, but
their hotel accommodations were paid for by the Ohio
Republican Party, whose headquarters is across the street.
The hotel worker heard one caller threaten a likely voter
with being reported to the FBI and returning to jail if he
voted. Another hotel worker called the police, who came but
did nothing.
Phone calls incorrectly informed voters that their polling
place had changed.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer found that several Lake County
residents received an official-looking letter on Board of
Elections letterhead informing them that their polling place
had changed or that they were not properly registered to
vote.
On election day, a fake voter bulletin from Franklin County
Board of Elections was posted at polling locations, and
fliers were distributed in the inner city, telling
Republicans to vote on Tuesday and Democrats to vote on
Wednesday due to unexpected heavy voter registration.
In Cleveland, the Washington Post reported that unknown
volunteers began showing up at voters' doors illegally
offering to collect and deliver complete absentee ballots to
the election office.
The Election Protection Coalition testified that in
Franklin County, voters received fliers informing them that
they could cast a ballot on November 3.
In Franklin County there were reports that about a dozen
voters were contacted by someone claiming to be from the
county board of elections, telling them their voting location
was changed.
``Door-hangers'' telling African-American voters to go to
the wrong precinct were distributed.

Analysis

The use of intimidation and misinformation in Ohio on
election day was widespread and pervasive and clearly
suppressed the vote. The NAACP testified that they received
over 200 complaints of such acts in Ohio, so it is likely the
actual number of incidents ranged in the thousands, if not
higher. It is difficult to estimate how many of these
incidents actually resulted in lost votes.
These incidents of voter intimidation and misinformation
clearly violate the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act
of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to
vote. The fact that Secretary Blackwell did not initiate a
single investigation into these many serious allegations may
represent a violation of his statutory duty to investigate
election irregularities. Cases of intimidation and
misinformation such as we have seen in Ohio appear to have
become a regular feature of our election landscape and would
appear to warrant the development of a stronger investigative
and law enforcement system than we have at present, at both
the state and federal levels.
b. Machine Irregularities

Facts

In the course of our hearings we learned:
In Auglaize County, there were voting machine errors. In a
letter dated October 21, 2004, Ken Nuss, former deputy
director of the County Board of Elections, claimed that Joe
McGinnis, a former employee of ES&S, the company that
provides the voting systems in Auglaize County, had access to
and used the main computer that is used to create the ballot
and compile election results. Mr. McGinnis's access to and
use of the main computer was a violation of county board of
election protocol. After calling attention to this
irregularity in the voting system, Mr. Nuss was suspended and
then resigned.
In Cuyahoga County and Franklin County, there were voting
machine errors with respect to absentee ballots. The arrows
on the absentee ballots did not align with the correct punch
hole. This likely led to voters casting a vote for a
candidate other than the candidate they intended to support.
In Mahoning County, one precinct in Youngstown recorded a
negative 25 million votes.
In Mercer County, one voting machine showed that 289 people
cast punch card ballots, but only 51 votes were recorded for
president. The county's website appeared to

[[Page H98]]

show a similar anomaly, reporting that 51,818 people cast
ballots but only 47,768 ballots were recorded in the
presidential race, including 61 write-ins, meaning that
approximately 4,000 votes, or nearly 7%, were not counted for
a presidential candidate.
At our Washington, D.C. hearing, investigative journalist
Bob Fitrakis highlighted malfunctions in Lucas County: ``When
the machines in Lucas County, which is a heavily Democratic
county, when they are locked in the principal's office and
nobody may vote at that site; when they're going wrong all
day, and the [Lucas County Election Director Paula Hicks-
Hudson] admits the test failed prior to that, and the
software is provided, of course, by Diebold, whose CEO,
Walden O'Dell, is a member of President Bush's Pioneer and
Ranger team, has visited the Crawford ranch and wrote a
letter promising to deliver the electoral votes of Ohio, one
has to be somewhat suspect.
In Hamilton County, the Washington Post learned many
absentee ballots did not include Kerry's name because workers
accidentally removed Kerry when removing Ralph Nader's name
from the ballots.

Analysis

There is no doubt that there were a number of machine
irregularities and glitches in the election, beyond the major
discrepancies highlighted earlier in our report However, it
is difficult for us to quantify the number of votes that were
altered or affected by these irregularities.
Given the lack of cooperation we have received from the
Secretary of State's office, it is difficult for us to
ascertain whether the glitches were the result of mistake,
negligence, or intentional misconduct. Depending on the type
of misconduct involved, these errors may constitute
violations of the Voting Rights Act, Equal Protection and
Due Process, and Ohio's right to vote. Morever, it would
appear that Secretary Blackwell's apparent failure to
follow-up on these machine errors by way of an
investigation would violate his duty to investigate
election law irregularities.
The role of voting machines and computers in our election
represents an increasingly serious issue in our democracy.
Our concerns are exacerbated by the fact that there are very
few companies who manufacture and operate voting machines,
and they tend to be controlled by executives who donate
largely, if not exclusively, to the Republican Party and
Republican candidates. Issues such as the need for verifiable
paper trails and greater accountability all warrant further
investigation and possibly legislation.
c. Registration Irregularities and Official Misconduct and
Errors

Facts

In the course of our hearings we learned:
A Washington Post investigation found that many longtime
voters discovered their registrations had been purged.
Numerous voters were incorrectly listed on roster as
felons, and thus not allowed to vote.
The NAACP testified to receiving over 1,000 calls related
to voter registration issues, generally from individuals who
were not on the voter rolls even though they had voted in
previous elections, individuals with questions on how to
register, and individuals with concerns about not receiving a
voter registration card.
The Election Protection Coalition found that ``Individuals
frequently reported having `disappeared' from the voter rolls
. . . Many individuals expressed concerns that they had
registered but never received confirmation or were not listed
on the voter rolls at the precincts.''
At our Columbus, Ohio hearing, several documented problems
in Cuyahoga County were brought to our attention by the
Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition (GCVRC). GCVRC
registered approximately 10,000 voters before the 2004
elections, yet when they tracked the registrations, 3.5% were
either not entered at all or entered incorrectly, completely
disenfranchising the applicants. While the board of Cuyahoga
County was alerted to this problem as early as September, no
corrective measures were taken. Projected out county-wide,
over 10,000 people were likely not correctly registered and
lost their right to vote. These registration problems led to
provisional ballots being thrown out.
The NAACP reported that many voters complained they were
asked to show ID when they thought it was unnecessary or were
unable to vote because they lacked proper ID. At several
locations in Cuyahoga County, all voters were being asked for
ID, not just new voters. A voter called to say that all
voters are being asked for ID. The poll workers were checking
the address of the voter against the address on the
registration and if they did not match, the voter was being
turned away, often without casting a provisional ballot. In
still another case, a voter was challenged because the
address on the ID did not match the registration address (but
was in the same precinct).
There were numerous cases where election workers sent
voters to the wrong precinct.
A voter stated that a polling place in Cleveland ran out of
ballots, and put in an emergency request for ballots but did
not receive them.
The Associated Press reported that officials ticketed
lawfully parked cars at the polling stations.
Election protection volunteers received complaints about
provisional ballots from voters, many of whom reported being
denied the opportunity to vote by provisional ballot. Some
polling places either ran out of provisional ballots or never
had any at their location. For example: a voter registered to
vote in September. When she went to the polling place in
Cuyahoga County on Election Day, they said she was not
registered and they refused to give her a provisional ballot.
In Franklin County, some voters, who were in line to vote,
but outside of the doors to the polling place, were sent home
at 7:30 p.m. when the polls closed.

Analysis

Just as we witnessed in the Florida presidential debacle
four years ago, improper purging and other errors by election
officials represent a very serious problem and have a
particularly negative impact on minority voters. The fact
that the Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition
projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio
citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official
registration errors and that the NAACP received more than
1,000 purging complaints on election day indicate that the
overall number of voters who may have been disenfranchised as
a result of official mistakes and wrongful purging is in the
scores of thousands, if not more. Congressional passage of
HAVA's provisional ballot requirement was intended to
mitigate errors such as this, but Secretary Blackwell's
unduly narrow interpretation of this requirement, as well as
weak rules for counting and checking provisional ballots,
have made it far less likely that individuals whose
registration was wrongfully purged or never entered would be
able to receive a provisional ballot and have it counted.
Given the information we have, it is unclear whether
improper purging and other registration errors which appear
so prevalent in Ohio were the result of human mistake or
intentional misconduct. If it was intentional, a strong case
can be made that it violated the Voting Rights Act, Equal
Protection, Due Process, possibly the National Voter
Registration Act, as well as Ohio's right to vote law. The
Secretary of State's failure to investigate these
registration errors and other irregularities may also violate
his duties to do so under Ohio law.
HAVA funds were supposed to be used to implement a fairer
and more efficient registration system statewide.
Unfortunately, full funding has been delayed, and most
states, including Ohio, have received waivers from this
federal requirement.
3. General Problems
a. Spoiled Ballots--Hanging Chads Again?

Facts

Ohio had a significant number of spoiled votes--
approximately 93,000. These are ballots in which either no
presidential vote was recorded or multiple votes were
indicated and therefore ignored. For example, someone may not
have filled in his presidential choice dark enough for an
optical scan machine to read, but did fill it in clearly
enough to be a valid selection in a hand count. In addition,
a punch card voter may not have punched completely through
his choice, leaving a ``chad'' attached that could not be
read by the tabulator. However, that same chad could be read
in a hand count because Ohio law provides that hanging chads
may be considered valid votes as long as two corners are
detached.
According to a New York Times investigation, ``the problem
[with spoiled ballots] was pronounced in minority areas,
typically Kerry strongholds. In Cleveland ZIP codes where at
least 85% of the population is black, precinct results show
that one in 31 ballots registered no vote for president, more
than twice the rate of largely white ZIP codes where one in
75 registered no vote for president. Election officials say
that nearly 77,000 of the 96,000 [spoiled] ballots were punch
cards.''
One of the principal purposes of the recount in Ohio was to
ascertain the intent of these 93,000 ballots. However, by
manipulation or otherwise every county in Ohio but Coshocton
County avoided completing a full hand recount. This means
that the vast majority of these spoiled ballots will never be
reviewed.
The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in
Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25%
each--accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line
to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.
This is in stark contrast to the 2% of undervoting county-
wide. Disturbingly, predominately Democratic precincts had
75% more undervotes than those that were predominately
Republican.
Secretary of State Blackwell has refused to answer any of
the questions concerning these matters posed to him by
Ranking Member Conyers and 11 other Members of the Judiciary
Committee on December 2, 2004.

Analysis

Given the high level of interest in the presidential
election in 2004, it is logical to assume that many of the
persons casting spoiled ballots intended to cast a vote for
president, so this irregularity alone could account for tens
of thousands of disenfranchised votes, with a
disproportionate amount being minority voters and Kerry
voters. One of the reasons Ohio has such a large number of
ballots is that the state relies so heavily on the outdated
and antiquated punch card system that proved to

[[Page H99]]

be error prone in Florida. Sixty-eight of the 88 Ohio
counties still rely on the outdated punch card machines.
Thus, at least in the critical swing state of Ohio the
promise of HAVA funding to help states acquire better
equipment so that more votes could count has not been met.
With regard to the severe undercount voting figures in
Montgomery County, we have not received any cooperation from
Secretary Blackwell in ascertaining how this occurred. This
may have been due to some equipment or poll worker error or,
in the worst case, manipulation.
b. Exit Polls Bolster Claims of Irregularities and Fraud

Facts

An exit poll serves as a predictor of the final vote
results in an election. It is conducted by interviewing
voters about their vote selections as they are leaving the
polls. The process for conducting reliable exit polls was
largely created in 1967 by CBS News pollster and
statistician, Warren Mitofsky, now known as ``a world
recognized expert in exit polling in particular and public
opinion polling in general.'' Former Mexican President Carlos
Salinas credited Mr. Mitofsky's work for contributing to the
prevention of fraud and an increase in credibility in the
1994 election in Mexico.
The exit poll data taken on November 2, 2004, was compiled
by two well-respected firms--Mitofsky International and
Edison Media Research. Joseph Lenski, who conducted the exit
polls for Edison Media Research, trained in the field of exit
polling under Mr. Mitofsky before starting his own firm. They
conducted in 2004 exit polls under a contract from the
National Election Pool (NEP), a consortium of six news and
media organizations: the Associated Press, ABC, CNN, CBS,
NBC, and Fox.
In this year's election, the National Election Pool
conducted two types of exit polls: 73,000 voters were
interviewed in statewide polls, and an additional 13,000
voters were interviewed for a national poll. The national
poll's sample size was approximately six times larger than
the sample normally used in high quality pre-election
national polls. This poll size would normally yield a very
small margin of error and would be very accurate.
Furthermore, such a poll would normally result in a close
congruence between exit poll and official results. The sample
size for Ohio was 1,963 voters, which is quite large for
statistical purposes and equivalent to the 2,000 person norm
for most national polls. In addition, this year's poll
numbers were designed to account for absentee votes after a
large number of absentee votes contributed to the inaccurate
projections of the Florida race in 2000. This year, Mitofsky
and Edison began telephone surveys in key states before the
election to screen for absentee voters and create an accurate
estimate of their votes.
While exit pollsters caution against using their results to
predict election results, exit polls can be extremely
accurate, with only small variations from the official
outcomes in numerous elections. For example, in the three
most recent national elections in Germany, exit polls
differed from the final official vote counts by an average of
only 0.26%. Their results have proven to be very accurate;
correctly predicting the winner with no evidence of
systematic skew of the data. United States exit polls have
also been precise. Brigham Young University students' exit
poll results for Utah in this election indicated 70.8% for
Bush and 26.5% for Kerry.
The official results were 71.1 % for Bush and 26.4% for
Kerry.
In the Ohio election for 2004, early exit polls that were
released just after noon on November 2 showed that Senator
Kerry was leading President Bush by three percentage points.
Shortly after midnight on November 3, exit poll data
continued to indicate that 52.1% of Ohio voters selected
Senator Kerry and 47.9% selected President Bush. These
numbers, however, differed greatly from the final results of
the election; in the official results, President Bush led
Senator Kerry by 2.5 percentage points in Ohio.
National poll data showed a similar shift from a clear
advantage for Senator Kerry on Election Day to a victory for
President Bush on the day after the election. Data that was
provided by Edison/Mitofsky to the National Election Pool
members at 4 p.m. on Election Day showed Senator Kerry
leading 51% to 48%. These percentages held the same in the
data released at 7:30 p.m. that day. By the time Senator
Kerry conceded the election on Wednesday, November 3, the
Edison/Mitofsky poll numbers had been aligned with reported
vote counts. For the first time the poll numbers showed an
advantage for President Bush with 51% to Senator Kerry's 48%.
On December 3, 2004, Rep. Conyers requested the raw exit
poll data from Mitofsky International. Mr. Mitofsky replied
``The data are proprietary information gathered and held for
the benefit of those news organizations, and I am not at
liberty to release them.'' On December 21, 2004, as a follow-
up, Rep. Conyers requested the data directly from the news
wire and television companies that contracted with Mr.
Mitofsky and Mr. Edison for the data. Though the Congressman
has not received a response to his letter, Edie Emery, a
spokesperson for the NEP and a CNN employee, said the exit
poll data was still being analyzed and that the NEP's board
would decide how to release a full report in early 2005. ``To
release any information now would be incomplete,'' she said.
Furthermore, Jack Stokes, a spokesperson for the Associated
Press said, ``like Congressman Conyers, we believe the
American people deserve answers. We want exit polling
information to be made public as soon as it is available, as
we intended. At this time, the data is still being evaluated
for a final report to the National Election Pool.''

Analysis

Clearly something unusual is indicated by the differential
between the exit poll information we have obtained and the
final vote tallies in Ohio. It is rare, if not unprecedented,
for election results to swing so dramatically from the exit
poll predictions to the official results. Kerry was predicted
to win Ohio by a differential of 4.2 percentage points. The
official results showed Bush winning by 2.5 percentage
points. The differential between the prediction for Kerry and
the winning results for Bush represent a swing of 6.7
percentage points. According to University of Pennsylvania
Professor Steven Freeman, this ``exit poll discrepancy could
not have been due to chance or random error.'' Professor
Freeman has further concluded that statistical analysis shows
a probability of 1 in 1,000 that the difference
between Senator Kerry's share of the exit poll projection
and the official count of the vote would be as much as the
final 3.4% spread, a virtual impossibility. As a matter of
fact, there are broad statistical variations of up to 9
percentage points between exit poll data and official
results in Ohio and other key states in the 2004 election.
In state after state, Senator Kerry's advantage in the
exit poll results was lost by sizable margins.
The discrepancy between the exit polls and the official
vote count must be due to an inaccurate poll or an inaccurate
vote. Either there was unintentional error in the exit poll
or the official vote count, willful manipulation of the exit
poll or the official vote count, or other forms of fraud,
manipulation or irregularities occurred in the electoral
process. Pollsters Mitofsky and Lenski have intimated that
their poll numbers deviated from the official results because
a disproportionate number of Bush supporters refused to
participate in their polls. However, Professor Freeman posits
that part of the discrepancy is due to a miscount of the
vote.
As noted above, election polls are generally accurate and
reliable. Pollsters are able to categorize their sources of
error and develop extensive methodologies to limit those
errors with each successive poll. Political scientist Ken
Warren noted claims, ``. . . exit polling has become very
sophisticated and reliable, not only because pollsters have
embraced sound survey research techniques, but because they
have learned through experience to make valid critical
adjustment.'' In fact, prominent survey researchers,
political scientists and journalists ``concur that exit polls
are by far the most reliable'' polls.
Unfortunately, throughout American history various devices,
schemes and legal structures have been used to shape the
outcome of an election. Elections at every level of
government have been skewed by tactics that deny voting
rights, establish poll taxes, lose voter registrations,
disqualify voters and disqualify ballots to ensure a certain
outcome. The Florida election in 2000 provides ample evidence
that our system is rife with election irregularites that have
profound impacts on our election outcomes.
Elections are politically controlled, with extreme
pressures for certain outcomes. In our system, victory can
become more important than an accurate vote count. While
pollsters are privately hired based on their accuracy and
timely results, candidates and campaigns are primarily
concerned with winning. When key election officials are also
key campaign officials, as was the case in Florida in 2000
and in Ohio in 2004, the goal of providing an accurate vote
tally gets into the murky waters of winning the political
contest. But pollsters lose their legitimacy, and thus future
contracts, if they are not accurate. Thus, `` the systemic
pressures on polling accuracy are much greater than they are
on vote count accuracy.
While pollsters use feedback and detailed analysis to
improve their results, are motivated towards accuracy, and
face market competition if they fail to provide thorough,
accurate and timely exit poll results, ``there is little
competition, feedback and motivation for accuracy in election
processing.'' Thus we do not dismiss these exit poll results,
and their discrepancy with the official vote counts, as
others might do. We believe they provide important evidence
that something was amiss in the Ohio election.
Full, accurate and reliable statistical analysis cannot be
completed until the raw data from the exit polls is released.
The limited available ``uncalibrated'' or raw data indicates
the broad discrepancies that are discussed above. However, it
appears that the National Election Pool data was
``calibrated'' or corrected after the official results were
publicized. It may be standard practice to recalibrate poll
results to reflect the actual outcome ``on the assumption
that the [official] count is correct, and that any
discrepancies must have been due to imbalanced representation
in their samples or some other polling error.'' Thus data
that was publicized on Election Day showing these large
discrepancies is no longer publicly available; only the
recalibrated numbers are available on the Internet. An
independent, detailed analysis of the early exit poll data
is necessary to verify the actual outcome of the vote in
Ohio, and thus restore complete legitimacy to this
election. In any event, the discrepancies that we are

[[Page H100]]

able to identify place the entire Ohio election results
under a cloud of uncertainty.
C. Post-Election
1. Confusion in Counting Provisional Ballots

Facts

Secretary Blackwell's failure to issue standards for the
counting of provisional ballots led to a chaotic and
confusing result such that each of Ohio's 88 counties could
count legal ballots differently or not at all. In turn, this
fostered a situation where subsequent to the election,
Cuyahoga County mandated that provisional ballots in yellow
packets must be ``rejected'' if there is no ``date of birth''
on the packet. This ruling was issued despite the fact that
the original ``Provisional Verification Procedure'' from
Cuyahoga County stated, ``Date of birth is not mandatory and
should not reject a provisional ballot'' and simply required
that the voter's name, address and a signature match the
signature in the county's database. The People for the
American Way Foundation sought a legal ruling ordering
Secretary Blackwell and the county elections board to compare
paper registration and electronic registration records.
People For the American Way further asked the Board to notify
each voter whose ballot was invalidated and how the
invalidation could be challenged. Neither of these actions
were taken.
In another case, while the state directed counties to
ensure voters had been registered during the thirty days
before the election, one college student who had been
registered since 2000 and was living away from home was
denied a provisional ballot.

Analysis

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent
standards for the counting of provisional ballots likely
resulted in the loss of several thousand votes in Cuyahoga
County alone, and untold more statewide. This is because the
lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review
standards imposed in Cuyahoga County appear to have
significantly contributed to the fact that in Cuyahoga
County, 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots, or
approximately one third, were ruled invalid, the highest
proportion in the state. This number is twice as high as the
percentage of provisional ballots rejected in 2000.
These series of events constitute a possible violation of
the Voting Rights Act, as not only were legitimate votes
apparently thrown out, they undoubtedly had a
disproportionate impact on minority voters, concentrated in
urban areas such as Cuyahoga County which had the highest
shares of the state's provisional ballots. The actions may
also violate Ohio's constitutional right to vote.
2. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied--Recounts were Delayed
Because of a Late Declaration of Results

Facts

Ohio law requires the Secretary of State to provide county
boards of elections with directives governing voting
procedures, voting machine testing, and vote tallying. Prior
to the election, Secretary Blackwell thus issued a directive
providing that Ohio boards of elections would have to
complete their official canvasses by December 1, almost one
month after the date of the 2004 election. The directive
further states that ``no recount may be held prior to
the official canvass and certification of results,'' so
that county boards would have to wait until Secretary
Blackwell decided to certify the results before proceeding
with recounts.
Ohio law also sets deadlines for the conduct of recounts.
First, applications for statewide recounts must be submitted
within five days of the Secretary of State's declaration of
results. Second, such recounts must begin within ten days of
the recount request. Secretary of State Blackwell gave county
boards of election until December 1 to certify their returns
and then waited to another five days, until December 6, to
certify the results. As a consequence, recounts could not be
sought until at least December 11, and were required to begin
by December 16. The Green/Libertarian recount began on
December 13, 2004. As a result, the recount was pending when
the Secretary of State sent certificates to electors on
December 7, and before the electoral college met on December
13. Because it appeared the Secretary of State had
intentionally delayed certification to ensure that the
recount could not be completed by these time periods, 11
Members of Congress, including Rep. Conyers, wrote to Gov.
Taft asking that they delay or treat as provisional the
December 13 meeting of the state's presidential electors.
The counties completed their recounts on December 28, 2004,
but due to a variety of irregularities and alleged legal
violations in the recount, they remain embroiled in
litigation as of the date of this report.

Analysis

The scenario created by Secretary Blackwell effectively
precluded recounts from being concluded prior to the December
13 meeting of electors. By setting the vote tally deadline so
late and then delaying the declaration of results--it took a
full 34 days after the November 2 election for the results to
be certified--Secretary of State Blackwell insured that the
time for completing recounts, therefore, was pushed to after
the date of the Electoral College meeting. As a result of
this intentional course of conduct, it appears that Mr.
Blackwell has ensured that the controversies concerning the
appointment of electors could not be resolved by December 7,
2004, thereby causing Ohio to lose the benefit of the
electoral college safe harbor so that there appointment of
electors is not necessarily binding on Congress. In addition,
this diminishment of the recount law may violate the voters'
right to equal protection and due process, as well as
undermine the entire import of Ohio's recount law.
3. Triad GSI--Using a ``Cheat Sheet'' to Cheat the Voters in
Hocking and Other Counties

Facts

Perhaps the most disturbing irregularity that we have
learned of in connection with the recount concerns the
activities and operations of Triad GSI, a voting machine
company. On December 13, 2004, House Judiciary Committee
Democratic-staff met with Ms. Sherole Eaton, Deputy Director
of Elections for Hocking County. She explained that on
Friday, December 10, 2004, Michael Barbian, Jr., a
representative of Triad GSI, unilaterally sought and obtained
access to the voting machinery and records in Hocking County,
Ohio.
Ms. Eaton witnessed Mr. Barbian modify the Hocking County
computer vote tabulator before the announcement of the Ohio
recount. She further witnessed Barbian, upon the announcement
that the Hocking County precinct was planned to be the
subject of the initial Ohio test recount, make further
alterations based on his knowledge of that information. She
also has firsthand knowledge that Barbian advised election
officials how to manipulate voting machinery to ensure that a
preliminary hand recount matched the machine count.
According to the affidavit, the Triad official sought
access to the voting machinery based on the apparent pretext
that he wanted to review some ``legal questions'' Ohio voting
officials might receive as part of the recount process. At
several times during his interaction with Hocking County
voting machines, Mr. Barbian telephoned into Triad's offices
to obtain programming information relating to the machinery
and the precinct in question. It is now known that Triad
officials have intervened in other counties in Ohio--Greene
and Monroe, and perhaps others.
In fact, Mr. Barbian himself has admitted to altering
tabulating software in Hocking, Lorain, Muskingum, Clark,
Harrison and Guernsey counties. Todd Rapp, President of
Triad, also has confirmed that these sorts of changes are
standard procedure for his company.
First, during an interview, film maker Lynda Byrket asked
Barbian, ``you were just trying to help them so that they
wouldn't have to do a full recount of the county, to try to
avoid that?'' Mr. Barbian answered, ``Right.'' She further
inquired: ``did any of your counties have to do a full
recount?'' Mr. Barbian replied, ``Not that I'm aware of.''
Second, it appears that Mr. Barbian's activities were not
the actions of a rogue computer programmer but the official
policy of Triad. Rapp explained during a Hocking County Board
of Elections meeting:
``The purpose was to train people on how to conduct their
jobs and to help them identify problems when they conducted
the recount. If they could not hand count the ballots
correctly, they would know what they needed to look for in
that hand count.''
Barbian noted that he had ``provided [other counties]
reports so they could review the information on their own.''
As one observer asked, ``Why do you feel it was necessary
to point out to a team counting ballots the number of
overvotes and undervotes when the purpose of the team is to
in fact locate those votes and judge them?''
Barbian's response was, ``. . . it's just human error. The
machine count is right . . . We're trying to give them as
much information to help them out.''
In addition, Douglas W. Jones, a computer election expert
from the University of Iowa, reviewed the Eaton Affidavit and
concluded that it described behavior that was dangerous and
unnecessary:
``I have reviewed the Affidavit of Sherole L. Eaton (``the
Eaton Affidavit''), the Deputy Director of the Hocking County
Board of Election, as well as the letter of Congressman John
Conyers to Kevin Brock, Special Agent in Charge with the FBI
in Cincinnati, Ohio. In light of this information, and given
my expertise and research on voting technology issues and the
integrity of ballot counting systems, it is my professional
opinion that the incident in Hocking County, Ohio, threatens
the overall integrity of the recount of the presidential
election in Ohio, and threatens the ability of the
presidential candidates, their witnesses, and the counter-
plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, to properly
analyze, inspect, and assess the ballots and the related
voting data from the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. It
is my understanding that 41 of Ohio's 88 counties use Triad
voting machines. As a result, the incident in Hocking County
could compromise the statewide recount, and undermine the
public's trust in the credibility and accuracy of the
recount.''
We have received several additional reports of machine
irregularities involving several other counties serviced by
Triad, including a report that Triad was able to alter
election software by remote access:
In Union County, the hard drive on the vote tabulation
machine, a Triad machine, had failed after the election and
had been replaced. The old hard drive was returned to

[[Page H101]]

the Union County Board of Elections in response to a
subpoena.
The Directors of the Board of Elections in both Fulton and
Henry County stated that the Triad company had reprogrammed
the computer by remote dial-up to count only the presidential
votes prior to the start of the recount.
In Monroe County, the 3% hand-count failed to match the
machine count twice. Subsequent runs on that machine did not
match each other nor the hand count. The Monroe County Board
of Elections summoned a repairman from Triad to bring a new
machine and the recount was suspended and reconvened for the
following day. On the following day, a new machine was
present at the Board of Elections office and the old machine
was gone. The Board conducted a test run followed by the 3%
hand-counted ballots. The results matched this time and the
Board conducted the remainder of the recount by machine.
In Harrison County, a representative of the Triad company
reprogrammed and retested the tabulator machine and software
prior to the start of the recount. The Harrison County
tabulating computer is connected to a second computer which
is linked to the Secretary of State's Office in Columbus. The
Triad technician handled all ballots during the machine
recount and performed all tabulation functions. The Harrison
County Board of Elections kept voted ballots and unused
ballots in a room open to direct public access during daytime
hours when the courthouse is open. The Board had placed voted
ballots in unsealed transfer cases stored in an old wooden
cabinet that, at one point, was said to be lockable and,
at another point, was said to be unlockable.
On December 15, 2004, Rep. Conyers forwarded information
concerning the irregularities alleged in the Eaton Affidavit
to the FBI and local prosecutors in Ohio. He has not received
a response to that letter. On December 22, 2004, Rep. Conyers
forwarded a series of questions concerning this course of
events to the President of Triad GSI and to Mr. Barbian.
Counsel for Triad GSI has indicated that a response would be
forthcoming later this week or shortly thereafter.

Analysis

Based on the above, including actual admissions and
statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad
and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide
``cheat sheets'' to those counting the ballots. The cheat
sheets told them how many votes they should find for each
candidate, and how many over and under votes they should
calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could
avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state
law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the
recount law--to randomly ascertain if the vote counting
apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not to
conduct a full hand recount. By ensuring that election boards
are in a position to conform their test recount results with
the election night results, Triad's actions may well have
prevented scores of counties from conducting a full and fair
recount in compliance with equal protection, due process, and
the first amendment.
In addition, the course of conduct outlined above would
appear to violate numerous provisions of federal and state
law. As noted above, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 provides for
criminal penalties for any person who, in any election for
federal office, ``knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds,
or attempts to defraud the residents of a State of a fair and
impartially conducted election process, by . . . the
procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known
by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election
is held.'' Section 1974 requires the retention and
preservation of all voting records and papers for a period of
22 months from the date of a federal election and makes it a
felony for any person to ``willfully steal, destroy, conceal,
mutilate, or alter'' any such record.
Ohio law further prohibits election machinery from being
serviced, modified, or altered in any way subsequent to an
election, unless it is so done in the presence of the full
board of elections and other observers. Any handling of
ballots for a subsequent recount must be done in the presence
of the entire Board and any qualified witnesses. This would
seem to operate as a de facto bar against altering voting
machines by remote access. Containers in which ballots are
kept may not be opened before all of the required
participants in are attendance. It is critical to note that
the fact that these ``ballots'' were not papers in a box is
of no consequence in the inquiry as to whether state and
federal laws were violated by Barbian's conduct: Ohio Revised
Code defines a ballot as ``the official election presentation
of offices and candidates . . . and the means by which votes
are recorded.'' Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 3506.01 (B) (West 2004).
Therefore, for purposes of Ohio law, electronic records
stored in the Board's computer are to be considered
``ballots.'' Triad's interference with the computers and
their software would seem to violate these requirements.
Further, any modification of the election machinery may
only be done after full notice to the Secretary of State.
Ohio Code and related regulations require that after the
state certifies a voting system, changes that affect ``(a)
the method of recording voter intent; (b) voter privacy; (c)
retention of the vote; or the (d) communication of voting
records, must be done only after full notice to the Secretary
of State. We are not aware that any such notice was given to
the Secretary.
Finally, Secretary Blackwell's own directive, coupled with
Ohio Revised Code Sec. 3505.32, prohibits any handling of
these ballots without bipartisan witnesses present. That
section of the code provides that during a period of official
canvassing, all interaction with ballots must be ``in the
presence of all of the members of the board and any other
persons who are entitled to witness the official canvass.''
The Ohio Secretary of State issued orders that election
officials are to treat all election materials as if the State
were in a period of canvassing, and that, ``teams of one
Democrat and one Republican must be present with ballots at
all times of processing.''
Triad has sought to respond to these charges by arguing
that Ohio law requires a Board of Elections to prevent the
counting or tabulation of other races during a recount and
limit these activities to those offices or issues for which a
formal recount request has been filed. However, this
requirement does not supercede the above requirements that
election machinery only be serviced or otherwise altered in
the presence of the full elections board and observers. There
are at least two ways this recount process could have been
conducted legally. First, recounters could have been given
the full ballot and been simply instructed not to count
the other races recorded. Second, the service company
employees could have waited to alter the software program
until the official recount began in the presence of the
board and qualifying witnesses. Neither of these scenarios
occurred in the present case.
In addition to these provisions imposing duties on the
Board of Elections, there are numerous criminal penalties
that can be incurred by those who actually tampered with the
machines. These apply to persons who ``tamper or attempt to
tamper with . . . or otherwise change or injure in any manner
any marking device, automatic tabulating equipment or any
appurtenances or accessories thereof;'' ``destroy any
property used in the conduct of elections;'' ``unlawfully
destroy or attempt to destroy the ballots, or permit such
ballots or a ballot box or pollbook used at an election to be
destroyed; or destroy [or] falsify;'' and ``willfully and
with fraudulent intent make any mark or alteration on any
ballot.''
It is noteworthy that the companies implicated in the
misconduct outlined above, Triad and its affiliates, are the
leading suppliers of voting machines involved in the counting
of paper ballots and punch cards in the critical states of
Ohio and Florida. Triad is controlled by the Rapp family, and
its founder Brett A. Rapp has been a consistent contributor
to Republican causes. In addition, a Triad affiliate, Psephos
Corporation, supplied the notorious butterfly ballot used in
Palm Beach County, Florida, in the 2000 presidential
election.
4. Greene County--Long Waits, the Unlocked Lockdown and
Discarded Ballots
We have received information indicating negligence and
potential tampering with Greene County ballots and voting
machines. On December 9, election observers interviewed the
County Director of Elections, Carole Garman, and found
substantial discrepancies in the number of voting machines
per voter in low-income areas as compared to other areas.
Apparently, some consolidated precincts had almost the state
imposed limit of 1,400 registered voters and others had only
a few hundred voters. One of the precincts disproportionately
affected included Central State University and Wilbur Force
University, both historically black universities.
The next day, the observers returned to that office and
requested voter signature books for copying. Ms. Garman
granted such access. After leaving the office for three
hours, the observers returned and had been advised that,
under Ohio law, they were entitled to copies of the precinct
books for a nominal fee, and requested such copies from
Garman. Garman did not concur with that view of Ohio law and
telephoned the office of Secretary Blackwell, eventually
reaching Pat Wolfe, the Election Administrator for the
Secretary of State. Garman then advised the observers that,
per Blackwell, all voter records for the State of Ohio were
``locked down'' and they now were ``not considered public
records.'' Garman subsequently physically removed the books
from one observer's hands'' After attempting to persuade
Garman to reverse this decision to no avail, the observers
departed the office.
The observers returned the following day, a Saturday, at
10:15 am. While a number of cars were parked in the parking
lot and the door to the office was unlocked, and there was no
one in the office. One light was on in the office that had
not been on the previous night after the office was closed.
In the office, unsecured, were the poll books that had been
taken from then observers the day before. There were also
voting booths, ballot boxes apparently containing votes, and
voting equipment, also unsecured. Shortly after the observers
had left the office, a police officer arrived and later
elections officials and members of the media. The officials
were unable to offer any explanation for the unsecure office,
other than negligence, and said they would ask a technician
(from the Triad company) to check out the machines on Monday.
A number of other substantial irregularities in Greene
County have come to our attention that were uncovered after
the office

[[Page H102]]

was discovered to be unsecure. In the short period of time
that observers were given to examine voting records, ballots
were not counted for apparently erroneous reasons. In a
number of cases, Greene County officials rejected ballots
because the secrecy envelope for the ballot appeared to
indicate that the voter had voted in the wrong precinct,
notwithstanding the fact that a notation was made--apparently
by an election worker--indicating the vote should count. The
records appeared to indicate that, in some cases, voters were
sent to the wrong precinct by election workers and, in
others, were given the wrong precinct's envelope for the
ballot because election workers had run out of envelopes for
the correct precinct.
These records also appeared to indicate that some voters
were purged from the voting rolls on the basis that they
failed to vote in the previous election, while other voters
who had not voted in several elections had not been purged.
On October 26, Secretary Blackwell issued a directive and
provided it to Greene County officials regarding the ``pre-
challenging'' process, where a voter's eligibility is
challenged prior to the election, and sent an attached list
of voters who were to be pre-challenged in Greene County, to
the Board of Elections. Notice was sent by the Board to these
voters on the Friday before the election by registered mail,
and was likely not received until Monday, advising such
voters of their right to be present at a Monday hearing,
where the voter's eligibility would be decided.
Other irregularities appear in the official ballot counting
charts prepared by election officials, including a number of
precincts where the number of voters do not match the number
of votes cast despite the fact that the charts indicate that
those numbers ``must match.''
We have also obtained evidence indicating that eligible
voters did not have their ballots counted for invalid
reasons. For example, an overseas military ballot was not
counted because it was a photocopy rather than the original
ballot; an 85 year old voter did not have his absentee vote
counted because it did not have a stub attached; a disabled
voter who indicated she marked her ballot with the assistance
of election workers did not have her absentee vote counted
because no stub was attached; an absentee voter with a
properly postmarked ballot did not have his vote counted
because it was received ``too late,'' but before the initial
certification of results; and provisional ballots that were
not counted because an election official forgot to sign as a
witness when the ballot was cast. Substantial numbers of
provisional ballots appear to have been rejected because
voters were purged in the last two years.

Analysis

Numerous Ohio laws appear to have been broken in Greene
County. First it is a misdemeanor to deny the public access
to election records. Ohio law clearly states that ``No
director of elections, deputy director of elections, or
employee of the board of elections designated by the director
or deputy direct shall knowingly prevent or prohibit any
person from inspecting, under reasonable regulations
established and posted by the board of elections, the public
records filed in the office of the board of elections.'' Not
only is this a crime, but grounds for dismissal from election
duties--required whether the offender is an official or an
employee. It does not appear that anyone has been prosecuted,
and no one has been dismissed as required by statute.
Second, the complete lack of security on Friday night
violates any number of Ohio laws requiring that ballots and
machinery be kept absolutely secure. Section 3505.31 requires
that ballots, pollbooks, poll lists, tally sheets and voting
machines be kept tamper-proof and under seal. Ballots are to
be held secure until a recount is properly conducted in front
of witnesses, and ballots may not be handled by anyone except
the board and its employees. Failure of these duties by board
members and their employees, is a felony, as ``No member,
director or employee of a board of elections shall willfully
or negligently violate or neglect to perform any duty imposed
upon him by law, or willfully perform or neglect to perform
it in such a way as to hinder the objects of the law.''
Again, it requires that the offender be dismissed, and again,
it appears that those actions have not been taken in Greene
County. It is important to note that this statute does not
require any intent of wrongdoing--simple negligence is enough
to invoke the statute and there is no explanation as to why
it has not been enforced.
Third, Greene County's operation seems to have several
Constitutional problems, both federally and at the state
level. The selective use of challenges and purges invokes the
Equal Protection clause. We were unable to confirm any
legitimate reason why some voters were challenged and then
purged, and others were not. There are also Due Process
concerns as those to be purged were not given sufficient
notice to meaningfully participate in their scheduled
hearings. And finally, these actions violate Ohio's own
constitution that guarantees the right to vote.

5. Other Recount Irregularities

We learned of numerous additional troubling recount
irregularities in the course of our investigation. The
groundwork for these problems was laid when the Secretary of
State failed to issue specific standards for the recount. In
essence, Mr. Blackwell's directive on recount procedures
permitted each county board of election to determine its own
recount rules. Mr. Blackwell failed to issue such standards,
notwithstanding the fact that election officials themselves
had offered contrasting election recount procedures,
including some counties who sought to unilaterally oppose
doing any recount whatsoever.
Some of the serious recount irregularities that we learned
of in connection with our investigation include the
following:

a. Irregularities in Selecting the Initial 3% Hand Count--Many County
Boards of Elections Did Not Randomly Select the Precinct Samples

In the course of our investigation we learned:
Mr. Keith Cunningham, Director of the Allen County Board of
Elections, explained that it would take considerably longer
to carry out the recount if there were a random selection
process employed. Instead, the Board pre-selected four
precincts, totaling slightly more than the required three
percent, for the recount. Democratic and Green Party
witnesses raised objections but to no avail.
The Clermont County Board of Elections selected the 3%
precinct samples by choosing the thirteen precincts with
lowest number of voters plus the next number of precincts
that reached the total of 3% of the total votes cast in that
county. This selection process eliminated larger and more
diversified precincts. The staff of the Board admitted that
small precincts were chosen because fewer problems would be
encountered in smaller precincts. A witness objected to
this selection process, but to no avail.
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections decided to choose
only precincts with 550 votes or more and from a cross-
section of areas--one East side, one West side, one affluent,
one non-affluent. This criterion left only eight percent of
precincts available to be selected. In addition, witnesses
observed that the ballots were not in a random order, and
that they had been previously sorted. As the ballots were fed
into the counting machines, there were long runs of votes for
only one candidate and then long runs for another, which
seemed statistically improbable.
The total number of votes cast in Morrow County was 16,694.
Three percent of this would be 501. The Morrow County Board
of Elections selected the Harmony Township precinct for the
initial hand count because it had 517 ballots cast. When
observers complained this was not random, the Board responded
that it had the right to select the precinct. During this
discussion, an election official with the Board called the
Secretary of State's office and reported that the Secretary
of State's office stated that the Board was correct.
The Hocking County Board of Elections met and Rod Hedges, a
Republican Board member, stated that he believed the Board
should select a precinct that was not heavily in favor of
George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. The Board decided to
consider only the precincts where the vote totals for Bush
and Kerry were similar. An observer objected that this was
not a random selection, but to no avail.
Election officials in Medina County were aware of several
``problem'' districts, but instead chose to perform the
manual 3% test recount on two precincts that had been part of
a school levy recount the previous Monday. That meant that
those ballots had been taken out of the standard ``double
lock'' situation and had been handled several times since
that Monday.
The Board of Elections in Vinton County selected a precinct
3% manual recount test simply because its vote total was
closest to 3% of the total votes cast in the county.
The Summit County Board of Elections selected precincts
randomly with the Director and Deputy Director of the Board
of Elections and two other Board employees present, both of
whom were IT specialists for the Board so that they could
compute the three percent. The Board shuffled 475 precinct
cards and then chose randomly from the pile. The Summit
County Board of Elections conducted this selection without
any recount witnesses present.

b. Irregularities in Applying the Full Hand-Count Requirement--Counties
Not Conducting Full Hand Count After 3% Hand and Machine Counts Did Not
Match

In the course of our investigation we learned:
In Monroe County, the 3% hand-count failed to match the
machine count twice. Subsequent runs on that machine matched
neither each other nor the hand count. The Monroe County
Board of Elections summoned a repairman from Triad to bring a
new machine and the recount was suspended and reconvened for
the following day. On the following day, a new machine was
present at the Board of Elections office and the old machine
was gone. The Board conducted a test deck run followed by the
3% hand-counted ballots. The results matched this time and
the Board conducted the remainder of the recount by machine.
In Fairfield County, the hand recount of the 3% test sample
did not match the machine count, even after two attempts. The
Board suspended the recount and stated that Secretary
Blackwell recommended that the recount should begin again
``from scratch.'' The Green recount observers were then told
that it was 4:00 PM, the building was closed, and all had to
leave. The Republican recount observers, however, were
allowed to stay in a

[[Page H103]]

conference room for an additional ten minutes or so for a
private discussion. When the Board reconvened a few days
later, it announced that it would be conducting a machine
count of the county's votes. When a Green Party observer
objected, she was told by the Board that she was not allowed
to speak.

c. Irregularities in the Treatment of Ballots--Some Counties Marking
Ballots and Some Counties Not Securely Storing Ballots

In the course of our investigation we learned:
In Washington County, the Board of Elections had, in the
first count, excluded ballots which included no votes and
overvotes. During the recount, the Board altered many such
ballots to make them work. An observer protested this
practice. An election official pulled a black marker from his
right pocket near the beginning of the recount and stated
that he was the mark-up man. He proceeded to do all of the
marking of the ballots. Another election official assisted
with the ``band-aids''. The observer noted that all the re-
marking and band-aiding of ballots did reflect the will of
the voter, with one exception. In the precinct Belpre 4A, a
voter had both marked the oval and put an X through it for
presidential candidate Michael Peroutka and had marked the
oval for Bush. The election official put a band-aid over the
Peroutka vote and put his own X on the Bush vote. The
observer objected that it should be counted as an overvote.
The Board ruled that the vote should count for Bush.
In Lucas County, an observer witnessed the physical
alteration of three ballots for the apparent reason of
ensuring that the vote count produced by the optical scan
machine would match the 3% hand count. At least one of the
election officials stated that she did not want the hand
count and machine count to be different because they did not
want to do a complete hand count. The Board made the
alterations to the ballot after determining the intent of the
voters. Following a lunch break during the recount, the Board
kept recount observers waiting while a technician from the
Diebold company reprogrammed the machine.
In Ashland County, ballots cast in the presidential
election were stored by precinct in open cubicles along one
wall in the employee lunchroom/meeting room, completely open
and visible to anyone who enters the room. Piled on top of
the cubicles were bags of Doritos, mugs, cleaning products,
Glad Wrap and other miscellaneous items. Board of Election
officials said the room was kept locked, except when used.
In Coshocton County, the Board stored voted ballots mixed
with blank, unused ballots in partially-opened boxes,
unsealed at the time of observation and apparently never
sealed after the election. While ballots were stored in a
locked room, all Board employees had keys to the room.
In Belmont County, the Deputy Director of Elections stated
that her county had hired an independent programmer (``at
great expense'') to reprogram the counting machines so that
they would only count votes for President during the recount.
In Portage County, all ballot boxes were locked and
reopened, locked and re-opened again--always in plain sight--
and transported methodically from the visual inspection area
to the tabulator room.

d. Irregularities in the Treatment of Witnesses at the Recount and
their Access to Ballots

In the course of our investigation we learned:
In Summit County, recount witnesses were threatened with
expulsion if they spoke to counting teams. In some instances,
they were expected to ``observe'' from up to 20 feet away,
which prevented them from being able to actually observe
recount.
In Huron County, the punchcard tabulator test was observed
only by Republican witnesses. This test was conducted the day
before the Green Party witness was invited to observe the
recount.
In Putnam County, Board of Elections officials told
observers that their Board would meet on December 15th to
decide the start date. When the observer called back on the
15th, she was told the recount had already taken place.
In Allen County, observers were not allowed to examine
provisional ballots and absentee ballots during the recount.
The Board told them that they must make an appointment at a
later time working around the Board's schedule. The Board
further stated that only the specific person who cast such a
ballot is allowed to inquire whether his or her vote was
counted.
In Holmes County, observers asked to see the spoiled ballot
pile, comprised of five ballots, but the Board denied access,
stating that they were in a sealed envelope that could not be
opened.
In Licking County, the Board denied observers access to
view provisional and absentee ballots.
In Mahoning County, the Board denied observers access to
view rejected absentee ballots.
In Medina County, the Board denied observers access to view
provisional ballot tallies, provisional ballots, and the
actual machines and ballot booklets used.
In Morgan County, 30 of 160 provisional and absentee
ballots were not counted, and the Board denied observers
access to view these ballots. The Board stated that these
ballots were locked away and would be destroyed 60 days after
the election.
In Stark County, the Board denied an observer request to
view the provisional ballots.
In Warren County, the Board denied an observer request to
view provisional and absentee ballots. The observer has
requested that the Board have this decision reviewed by the
county prosecutor and the Board is now awaiting the county
prosecutor's decision.

Analysis

The Secretary of State's failure to issue specific
standards for the recount was a major problem. It appears to
have contributed to a lack of uniformity that may very well
violate both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in
2000, ``Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,
the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate
treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.''
As the Court articulated in that case, ``It is obvious
that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with
the requirements of equal protection and due process
without substantial additional work. It would require not
only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of
adequate statewide standards for determining what is a
legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them,
but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters
that might arise.'' It may also have violated Ohio state
law which charges the secretary of state with ``[issuing]
instructions by directives and advisories to members of
the boards [of elections] as to the proper methods of
conducting elections'' and ``[preparing] rules and
instructions for the conduct of elections.''
In terms of the specific irregularities, they would seem to
be inconsistent if not in outright violation of several
aspects of Ohio's recount law. Those counties which did not
randomly select the precinct samples appears to violate the
Secretary of State's directive on this point. Those counties
which did not conduct a full hand count after the 3% hand and
machine counts did not match is inconsistent with Ohio's
statutory right to have inconsistent results rechecked. Those
counties that allowed for irregular marking of ballots and
which failed to secure and store ballots and machinery appear
to have violated provisions of Ohio law mandating that
candidates have the right to ensure that ballots are secure
between the election and the official recount, that ballots
may not be handled by anyone besides Board members and their
staff, and may not be handled outside of the presence of the
Board and qualifying witnesses. Finally, those counties which
prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various
aspects of the recount appear to have violated provisions of
Ohio law providing that candidates have the right to observe
all ballots.

Recommendations

A. Electoral College Challenge
We believe there are ample grounds for challenging the
electors from Ohio as being unlawfully appointed.
We say this for several reasons. First, there is
considerable doubt that all controversies regarding the
appointment of the electors were lawfully resolved six days
prior to the meeting of the electors (on December 7) in order
for the state's electors to be binding on Congress as
required by 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5. This is because, among other
things, the Secretary of State appears to have intentionally
delayed the initial certification of the electors until
December 6, making it impossible for the recount (of which he
was fully aware) to be completed by December 7, let alone the
December 13 meeting of the electors.
Second, there are numerous irrefutable instances where Ohio
election law has been violated by the Secretary of State and
others such that the election cannot be said to comply with
Ohio law, and the electors cannot be considered lawfully
certified under state law within the meaning of 3 U.S.C. Sec.
15. These violations of law are highlighted throughout this
Report.
The failure to provide adequate voting machinery would
appear to violate both Ohio's Constitution, that provides all
eligible adults the right to vote, and the Ohio Revised Code
which requires the Boards of Elections to provide ``for each
precinct a polling place and provide adequate facilities at
each polling place for conducting the election.'' Secretary
of State Blackwell's failure to initiate any investigation
into this pivotal irregularity notwithstanding his statutory
duty to do so under Ohio Revised Code Sec. 3501.05,
represents another likely violation of Ohio law.
The ``caging'' tactics targeting 35,000 new voters by the
Ohio Republican Party for preelection legal challenge were
found by three federal courts to be illegal as being
politically and racially charged, and burdening the
fundamental right to vote. The tactic would also appear to
violate Ohioans' right to vote under the Ohio Constitution.
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent news media and exit
polls from interviewing Ohio citizens after they voted was
found by a federal court of appeals to have violated the
First Amendment's guarantee that state conduct shall not
abridge ``freedom . . . of the press''. His decision also
likely violated Ohio's Constitution that provides: ``Every
citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the
abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain
or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press.''

[[Page H104]]

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent those voters who
requested absentee ballots, but did not receive them on a
timely basis from being able to vote, was found by a federal
court to violate HAVA. This restrictive directive also likely
violated Article 5, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution,
granting every Ohio citizen the right to vote if he or she is
otherwise qualified.
Numerous incidents of voter intimidation and misinformation
engaged in Ohio on election day likely violate the Voting
Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Ohio right
to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a
single investigation into these acts likely represents a
violation of his statutory duty to investigate election
misconduct.
The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted
that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in
numerous counties to provide ``cheat sheets'' to those
counting the ballots. By insuring that election boards were
in a position to conform their test recount results with the
election night results, Triad's actions may well have
prevented scores of counties from conducting a full and fair
recount. Triad's action appears to violate Ohio law
prohibiting election machinery from being serviced, modified,
or altered in any way subsequent to an election, unless it is
done so in the presence of the full board of elections and
other observers.
Numerous Ohio laws appear to have been broken in Greene
County, where after initially being granted access to poll
books to conduct an audit, election observers had this access
abruptly revoked under the orders of Secretary Blackwell, and
arbitrary and capricious practices and counting procedures
that disenfranchised hundreds of voters were identified.
These practices violate Ohio law requirements preventing the
denial of public access to election records; requiring that
ballots and machinery be kept absolutely secure; and
protecting the right to vote.
The Secretary of State's failure to issue specific
standards appears inconsistent with Ohio state law which
charges the secretary of state with ``[issuing] instructions
by directives and advisories to members of the boards [of
elections] as to the proper methods of conducting elections''
and ``[preparing] rules and instructions for the conduct of
elections.''
There were numerous specific irregularities in the recount
that are inconsistent with several aspects of Ohio's recount
law. Those counties which did not randomly select the
precinct samples violated the Secretary of State's directive
on this point. Those counties which did not conduct a full
hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts violated
Ohio's statutory right to have inconsistent results
rechecked. Those counties which allowed for irregular marking
of ballots and which failed to secure and store ballots
and machinery appear to have violated provisions of Ohio
law mandating that candidates have the right to ensure
that ballots are secure between the election and the
official recount, that ballots may not be handled by
anyone besides Board members and their staff, and may not
be handled outside of the presence of the Board and
qualifying witnesses. Finally, those counties which
prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the
various aspects of the recount violated provisions of Ohio
law providing that candidates have the right to observe
all ballots.
Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations
would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this
time. However, we do know that there are many serious and
intentional violations which violate Ohio's own law, that the
Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid
accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on
Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by
recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.
B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings
It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct
additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities
in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.
While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and
investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key
participants in the election, such as Secretary of State
Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or
respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are
prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of
systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not
planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed
to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in
Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of
obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation
is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may
require.
Given the seriousness of the irregularities we have
uncovered, and the importance of the federal elections, we
recommend that the House and Senate form a joint, select
committee to investigate the full gamut of irregularities
across the board.
Among the issues which require further attention at
Congressional hearings are the following:
The misallocation of voting machines. Congress should
examine the extent to which the lack of machines in certain
areas led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised
predominantly minority and Democratic voters.
The decisions to restrict provisional ballots to actual
precincts and to deny them to voters who did not receive
absentee ballots. Congress should examine the extent to which
the decisions departed from past Ohio law on provisional
ballots, how many voters were impacted, and whether a broader
construction would have led to any significant disruption at
polling places.
The use of partisan, pre-election ``caging'' tactics.
Congress should examine to what extent caging is used and to
what degree minority voters were targeted for intimidation
and suppression.
The use of voter suppression and intimidation tactics.
Congress should investigate reports of intimidation and
misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and
the Ohio right to vote.
The use of partisan challengers. Congress should examine
whether the use of such challengers is disruptive and
intimidating to voters. Further, Congress should investigate
whether the precinct judges, which are required by law, are
sufficient to regulate voting practices.
Voter purging and other registration errors. Congress
should look at what methods of voter purging are used and
whether they target minority groups.
The prevalence of undervotes, in which ballots are cast but
lack votes for president. Congress should further investigate
whether undervotes are principally caused by punchcards and
what reforms can be made to prevent them.
The need for greater accountability in ballot counting.
Congress should examine whether an audit capability for
voting machines would enhance the ability to verify voter
choices.
The lack of national standards for issuing provisional
ballots and conducting recounts. Congress should examine
areas in which national standards would promote the
guaranteed right to vote and would ensure that every vote
counts.
Restrictions on the use of government-granted power for
political or personal gain. Congress should investigate the
need for restricting the ability of state contractors and
public officials involved in the administration of elections
to participate in campaign activities.
C. Legislation
Our investigation has made it abundantly clear that
Congress and the States must reform the election laws to
address the many inequities that have come to light. At the
very least, we must--
Develop a fair and uniform system of processing provisional
ballots, including training of poll workers and counting
votes.
Ensure that every voting machine has a verifiable audit
trail, guidelines for which could be established by the
Election Assistance Commission.
Consider an Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to reaffirm the right to vote.
Facilitate voter turnout through the establishment of a
national election day holiday, the expansion of early voting,
and the re-enfranchisement of former felons.
Ensure full enforcement by the Justice Department of anti-
voter intimidation laws, including prohibitions on voter
suppression and caging.
Establish national standards for voter registration,
polling place opening hours, and ballot recounts.
Establish an explicit private right of action for voter
rights in the Help America Vote Act.
Ensure that state and local election officials involved in
the administration of elections do not use their offices for
political gain.
Ensure enough accessible voting machines and poll workers
are available at all precincts such that waiting times are
reasonable, including in lower-income and minority
communities.
Consistent with the First Amendment, restrict state
contractors from participating in campaign activities.
Develop and fund public campaigns to educate voters on
voting rights, anti-voter intimidation laws, etc.
Fully fund the Help America Vote Act.
Clarify that provisional ballots are available to all
citizens who request them, as long as they are in the
appropriate County.
We recommend that House and Senate Members join together in
reforming these laws and preserving our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding.
Honorable colleagues, the numerous irregularities that occurred with
the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November 2 of last year point
to an unresolved national crisis: The lack of a unified standard for
all voters and all ballots cast in a Federal election. Congress must
establish this standard, with a verifiable paper or audit trail. It is
the only way to ensure the integrity of the Federal election process.
Reports of voter intimidation, inadequate and malfunctioning voting
machines, incompetent election judges, and lines at polling

[[Page H105]]

places in urban areas that lasted for many hours were widespread.
These irregularities were compounded by the irresponsible conduct of
the allegedly unbiased top election official who openly became a
partisan advocate for his party's Presidential nominee.
The Ohio Secretary of State has refused to assist us in the search
for the truth. He has shown no interest in determining whether the
glitches were the result of mistakes, negligence, or intentional
misconduct.
Numerous voters have reported that when they attempted to cast a vote
for Kerry-Edwards, the electronic voting machine registered the vote as
a ballot for Bush-Cheney. While it is difficult to quantify the number
of votes that were altered or affected by the irregularities that have
been reported, a single vote not counted, as it was intended . . . is a
discredit to our democracy. I am not suggesting that these
irregularities changed the outcome of the election. But I am insisting
that we act to ensure that the sacred right of every voter, to have his
or her vote counted, as the voter intended, is protected by adopting a
uniform Federal standard.
In order to protect the voting rights of the citizens of Ohio, and to
be true to the oath that we all swore to earlier this week, it is our
responsibility as Members of Congress to review the serious
irregularities that occurred in Ohio to ensure that this significant
disenfranchisement of voters never happens again. It is imperative that
we give voters complete confidence that their votes will be accurately
counted by reforming our election laws to address all of the
irregularities that have come to light. I encourage my colleagues to
join me in preserving our democracy.
Mr. CONYERS. Members of the House, we are here today not as partisans
for one Presidential candidate or another, but because we want to do
our duty under the Constitution to protect our democracy. We are here
because of the inner-city voter in Franklin County who waited 10 hours
in the pouring rain while suburban voters in the same county had no
wait because election officials decided to reallocate voting machines
from Columbus to the suburbs. We are here because of the Hispanic voter
in Hamilton County who also stood in line for hours, but was directed
to the wrong voting table and had his ballot thrown out because of a
decision by the Secretary of State of Ohio to throw out ballots cast at
the right polling place but the wrong precinct.
We are here because of the elderly voter in Lucas County who
requested an absentee ballot that never showed up and was refused a
provisional ballot because of another partisan decision by the
Secretary of State of Ohio. We are here because of the new voter in
Delaware County whose registration form was thrown out because it did
not meet the paper weight requirements set forth by the Secretary of
State. We are here because of the African American voter in Summit
County who was targeted with an unlawful voter challenge because of her
race and because she refused to answer a certified letter from the
chairman of the Republican Party.
Most of all we are here because not a single election official in
Ohio has given us any explanation for the massive and widespread
irregularity in the State. No explanation for the machines in Mahoning
County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush. No explanation of improper
purging in Cuyahoga County. No explanation for the lockdown in Warren
County. No explanation for the 99 percent turnout in Miami County. No
explanation for machine tampering in Hocking County.
Read on our Web page 101 pages of great staff work that takes this
out of semantics, of partisanship; and I appeal to every Member of this
body to sustain this objection.
We are here today, not as partisans for one Presidential candidate or
another, but because we want to do our duty under the Constitution to
protect our democracy.
We are here because of the inner city voter in Franklin County, who
waited 10 hours in the pouring rain, while suburban voters in the same
county had no wait because election officials decided to reallocate
voting machines from Columbus to the suburbs.
We are here because of the Hispanic voter in Hamilton County who was
directed to the wrong voting table, and had their ballot thrown out
because of a decision by the Secretary of State to throw out ballots
cast at the right polling place but the wrong precinct.
We are here because of the elderly voter in Lucas County who
requested an absentee ballot that never showed up and was refused a
provisional ballot because of another partisan decision by the
Secretary of State.
We are here because of the new voter in Delaware County, whose
registration form was thrown out because it did not meet the paper
weight requirements of the same Secretary of State.
We are here because of the African American voter in Summit County,
who was targeted with an unlawful voting challenge because of her race
and because she refused to answer a certified letter from the chairman
of the Republican Party.
Most of all we are here because not a single election official in
Ohio has given us any explanation for the massive and widespread
irregularities in that State: No explanation for the machines in
Mahoning County that recorded Kerry votes for Bush--No explanation for
the improper purging in Cuyahoga County--No explanation for the lock
down in Warren County--No explanation for the 99 percent voter turnout
in Miami County--No explanation for the machine tampering in Hocking
County.
The debate we have today will not change the outcome of November's
election. We know that. But out of today's debate, I hope this Congress
will respond to our challenge:
A challenge to hold true bipartisan hearings to get to the bottom of
what went wrong in Ohio and around the Nation on election day.
A challenge to show the same concern about voter disenfranchisement
in this country that we show in Afghanistan, and the Ukraine, and Iraq.
A challenge to enact real election reform; that gives all citizens
the right to a provisional ballot; that gives all voters a verifiable
paper trail; and that bans election officials from serving as campaign
chairs.
The thing we should never fear in Congress is a debate, and the thing
we should never fear in a democracy is the voters. I hope that today we
have a fair debate and 4 years from now, we have an election all our
citizens can be proud of.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan for yielding.
I agree with John Kerry. I think George W. Bush won Ohio. But I agree
with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait
4 hours to cast a vote. I agree with tens of millions of Americans who
are very worried that when they cast a ballot on an electronic voting
machine that there is no paper trail to record that vote in the event
of a recount.
What today is about is to demand that the Federal Government begin to
move forward, to guarantee that every voter in America feels secure and
confident that all of the votes cast in this country are counted
accurately and that all of our voters are treated with respect and
dignity. That is what democracy is about and that is what we are
fighting for.

{time} 1345

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the gentleman from Vermont
make his remarks, I assume that means that he will be voting with me to
accept the results from Ohio since he agrees that the President won.
That has just been verified for me. So the whole purpose of this
discussion, at least from that perspective of understanding that there
are still challenges in our election system in the country, should be
handled at a different time.
But let us talk about what we are doing here today. First of all,
every Member of this body was elected to this body. It distinguishes us
from almost any other institution, certainly in the Federal Government
and in many other institutions. We also were all elected under the same
rules and regulations that we are discussing today. I do not know that
we help the process by casting doubt on what all of those people that
work in elections all over America do. I know in Missouri when I was
the chief election official for 8 years and an election official for 20
years that no Republican did anything on Election Day by themselves. I
think it is the same in Ohio. Every single thing that is done is done
by a Republican. It is also done at the same time by a Democrat. I do
not think the people that stepped forward to accept that significant
public responsibility are saying there was a problem with the election
on Election Day. In fact, I think they are all saying we did exactly
what we should have done on Election Day: We tested the equipment; we
verified the ballots; we counted, as we should, with bipartisan teams

[[Page H106]]

there to do that; and we have certified these results.
If we were taking this important time today to talk about a
difference of 118 votes, that might be justifiable in my mind. To take
this time on this day to challenge all of those Democrats and
Republicans who gave of themselves and their time to make this process
work in Ohio and in Missouri and everywhere else where people voted the
November Election Day with a difference in this State of 118,000 seems
to me to be the wrong time, the wrong place, and maybe even the wrong
job for the Federal Government. These are great discussions to have in
Ohio. That is where they are ultimately going to solve the problem of
how they conduct elections in Ohio, and this apparently is more about
that than anything about the result.
The purpose of our work here today is to certify the result
unquestioned by the country, unquestioned by the Democratic nominee,
unquestioned by anybody involved in this process who certified the
election, our job today was to count the electoral votes, get on with
our business of doing the work that can only be done here in this city
by the Federal Government to move the country in a new and positive and
better direction. We need to continue to do that. We need to be
committed to that. We also need to understand that every time we attack
the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so
important.
People do have to have, as I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) said, confidence that the process works in a proper way. They
do not need to believe that it is absolutely perfect because, after
all, it is the greatest democracy in the history of the world and it is
run by people who step forward and make a system work in ways that
nobody would believe until they see it to produce the result of what
people want to have happen on Election Day.
This was not a closely decided election. The President's margin is
significant. No President elected since 1988 has had a majority of the
vote, let alone a 3 percentage point majority of the vote with a
direction clearly to move the country forward.
We need to get on with our job. We need to honor the election process
by working in the proper time and the proper way at the proper place to
make it better, but not to suggest that because there were problems
that somehow those problems affected a result in ways that every one of
us knows is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
(Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a wise saying we have used in Florida over the
past 4 years that the other side would be wise to learn: ``Get over
it.''
Is it not ironic that the very people who refuse to move on are the
people from Moveon.org and their hero Michael Moore?
There's a wise saying we've used quite a bit in Florida over the past
4 years that the other side would do well to learn--Get over it. Isn't
it ironic that the only people who refuse to ``move on'', are the
people from ``move on.org'', and their hero Michael Moore?
My colleagues across the aisle have two sides to choose from, the
John Kerry side that acknowledges the election is over and President
Bush has won. Or the Michael Moore side that defines ``democracy'' as
Democrats going to the polls, and ``conspiracy'' as Republicans going
to the polls.
The election is over and the results couldn't be clearer. We know
that President Bush won the electoral vote by 286 to 252. We know that
President Bush won the popular vote by 3.3 million votes. We know that
President Bush won Ohio by more than 118,000 votes, an overwhelmingly
comfortable margin. We know that in every area of Ohio, bipartisan
county boards have verified and vouched for the integrity of the Ohio
election results.
Why are we here wasting time on silly Hollywood inspired conspiracy
theories?
Well, since Hollywood likes conspiracies so much, here's a real one.
On June 23, 2004, the Michael Moore movie ``Fahrenheit 911'' premiered
in Washington, DC. According to U.S. News and World Report, New York
Times, and National Journal, one of the few Senators who attended this
premier was Senator Barbara Boxer. In this movie, Mr. Moore said it was
shameful that not one U.S. Senator objected to the electoral vote count
in Florida. Two days ago, on January 4, 2005, the same Michael Moore
published a new letter to Senator Boxer and other Senators reminding
them that they didn't object to the electoral vote count 4 years ago,
and requested that they rise and object to the vote count from Ohio
today. Today, in fact, Senator Barbara Boxer just objected to the Ohio
vote count.

Is this all merely a coincidence? Is this pandering to the Michael
Moore wing of the Democratic Party? Is it worth wasting 2 hours of
Congress' time? The only bigger waste of 2 hours would be to go see
``Fahrenheit 911.''
Do the people in the Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party really
think that the American people and their congressional representatives,
are so stupid that they could be tricked into objecting to these
electoral results? Well, the answer is ``yes.''
Michael Moore told a British newspaper ``Americans are possibly the
dumbest people on the planet . . . We Americans suffer from an enforced
ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our
country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.''
In Germany, Mr. Moore told the German people ``You can see us
(Americans) coming down the street . . . We've got that big grin on our
face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.'' He further
asked the German people, ``Should such an ignorant people (as
Americans) lead the world? . . . Don't go the American way when it
comes to economics, jobs and services . . . it is the wrong way.''
Regarding those who are now killing Americans in Iraq, he said, ``The
Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents or
terrorists or the enemy. They are the revolution, the minutemen and
their numbers will grow--and they will win.''
How many normal people in this country really believe that a
terrorist like Al-Zarqawi, who chops off the heads of Americans over in
Iraq, is on the same level as Paul Revere, the folk hero of the
American Revolution?
Here's some straight talk. In 2000, they didn't like the way the
votes were counted in Florida. Now, they don't like the way the votes
are counted in Ohio. In the blue States, they call it a recount. In the
red States, we call it what it is: sour grapes.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush has clearly won the electoral vote and
the popular vote. Certifying these electoral votes is the only course
for us to follow. Why allow the conspiracy theorists to undermine the
public confidence in the electoral system itself? Let us vote down the
objection, certify the electoral college results, and prepare to
celebrate the happy day of January 20, 2005 when President George W.
Bush is once again sworn in as the President of the United States.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more basic to democracy than
assuring that everyone who wants to vote is provided that opportunity
and that each person's vote is counted in the result.
In the last two election cycles, our country, which has held itself
out as the world's model of an example of true democracy has fallen
woefully short of meriting that title. The United States cannot
continue to claim that it stands for and is willing to fight for
democracy and the rights of people to vote in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
other places around the world while not being willing to do whatever is
necessary to guarantee the vote of all of our citizens here at home.
Equal access, convenience of voting, quality of voting machines, and
other means to assure democracy must not be a function of economic
status, race, where citizens live, or any other variable. We must do
whatever is necessary to assure equality in voting rights, opportunity
and access for all our citizens, and if our democracy is to be
protected, the eyes of the world will be watching to see how we respond
to this, not treat it as frivolous when people are not allowed to vote.
That is why I applaud the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) for her
leadership and for allowing this body to have a discussion about the
basic right to vote in America.
For me this is not about whether George Bush won or lost the last
election. I am planning to vote to certify. I will tell the Members
that. But there is nothing more basic than the right to vote, and if we
pretend that this is frivolous, then we are not going to move forward
and do anything in response to what is going on.

[[Page H107]]

Two days ago we took an oath of office to uphold and defend the
Constitution, that at least three amendments in the Constitution which
guarantee equal access to the ballot, and yet we are saying that people
who did not get an opportunity to vote, who did not have equal access
to the vote, are raising frivolous issues? Come on, give me a break. We
should not be about denying or abridging that right, and I stand here
in full support of it. We have got to improve the Help America Vote
Act. We took the first step 2 years ago. We have got to take additional
steps to make sure that every single person who seeks the right to vote
is given that right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I stand today with my colleagues in the
Congressional Black Caucus as they affirm their commitment to ensuring
the vote of every American is counted, something I hope everybody in
this body supports.
As Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I am proud to be a
voice for this long proud history of Hispanics in this Nation. Since
the earliest days of this country, Latinos too have died and fought for
the ideals that our Nation was founded upon, but unfortunately we know
that many in our Latino community feel disenfranchised from our
political process. Our democracy depends on full participation of all
our citizenry and a deep and abiding faith in our electoral system.
For the sake of this country, I ask Congress to do all they can to
commit themselves to ensuring that our elections are not clouded in
question and that we can truly proclaim ourselves a model for the rest
of the world.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be recognized for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. It saddens me that we have
to be here today debating this issue. Politics in America can be
bitter. Campaigns can divide people and breed resentment. That is a
given. It also used to be a given that once a campaign was over the
winner claimed victory, the loser accepted defeat, everybody else went
on with their lives, and the country moved forward. Now, unfortunately,
it seems the bitterness and resentments do not end with the campaign.
Instead, the divisions are stoked by individuals who simply do not like
the results.
The curious thing about this challenge today is that it is taking
place in spite of the fact that the losing candidate has admitted
defeat. I have to applaud John Kerry for the gracious and magnanimous
speech that he made the day after the election where he acknowledged he
had been beaten. He also called for unity. I wish those bringing this
challenge had heeded his call.
I know there are some problems obviously with this election. They are
not frivolous. These problems were not unique, however, or confined to
Ohio. Nor were they limited just to Democratic voters. There is no such
thing as a perfect election. There has not been. There never will be a
perfect election. The question, then, is not whether or not mistakes
were made. Of course they were. The question is did those mistakes
affect the outcome of this election? The answer is no. No serious
person, no objective observer, could claim that they did today.
Now let us talk a little bit about the so-called evidence that has
been presented about what happened in Ohio. Much has been made about
the long waits for voters in some precincts. The distribution of voting
machines in the State has been criticized, the claim being that
minority precincts did not have enough machines while white or suburban
precincts had too many. Ken Blackwell, our Secretary of State, has been
a frequent target and basically blamed for everything. But, in fact,
elections in Ohio are run by and large by the county election boards.
If my colleagues are not familiar, these bipartisan boards consist of
four members, two Democrats, two Republicans. Decisions about how many
machines to have in each precinct are made by those boards, not by the
Secretary of State. It is possible they could have miscalculated or
underestimated.
In a recent article that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, and this
is important, Franklin County Board of Elections Chairman William A.
Anthony, Jr. said long lines were not caused by the allocation of
machines, a process controlled by a Democrat supervisor, he added, but
by the high voter turnout, the overall lack of voting machines, and a
ballot that included more than 100 choices for voters.
For those thinking Mr. Anthony must be a part of this conspiracy, I
would point out that in addition to his position on the elections
board, Mr. Anthony serves as chairman of the Franklin County Democrat
Party. He said that he is offended by accusations from a band of
conspiracy theorists. He further added, ``I am a black man. Why would I
sit here and disenfranchise voters in my own community? I feel like
they're accusing me of suppressing the black vote. I've fought my whole
life for people's rights to vote.''
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but basically what is the point? Those
who believe this election was stolen will always believe it. No amount
of facts or evidence will convince them otherwise. The bottom line is
those bringing this challenge today simply cannot accept the fact that
George Bush has been elected President of the United States. It is too
painful for them.
We must always be seeking ways to improve the process. We announced
weeks ago we are going to have bipartisan hearings to look at these
issues, and they are not frivolous. They are important issues. But it
would not have changed the outcome of the election.
Mr. Speaker, it does not elevate those who are bringing this
challenge. It does not elevate our House. It does not elevate the
debate. It debases all of us, and it merits a sad day in the history of
this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Most of our colleagues may not know that we not only had an election
in Ohio but we had a recount that was funded by two third-party
candidates that got less than 1 percent of the vote, and knowing this
was going to happen today, I called my boards of election back home to
see how that recount went.

{time} 1400

In Ashtabula County after the recount, each candidate picked up one
vote.
In Geauga County there was a net gain of two votes for President
Bush, and the 72 provisional ballots that were not allowed were not
allowed because the people did not live and were not registered in the
State of Ohio. In Lake County, not one ballot changed from November 2,
and all of the 201 provisional ballots tossed were tossed because the
people were not registered in the State of Ohio.
In Summit County, there was a four-vote swing for Senator Kerry.
In Cuyahoga County, the county that I am lucky enough, home of the
City of Cleveland, to share with the objector and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the net
swing was 23 votes for John Kerry.
On this day, we should be praising the dedication and hard work of
our election officials and not castigating them.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing democracy at work.
This is not, as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it,
sadly, frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy.
The representatives of the American people in this House are standing
up for three fundamental American beliefs: that the right to vote is
sacred; that a Representative has a duty to represent his or her
constituents; and that the rule of law is the hallmark of our Nation.
Under the rule of law, today this House will accept the election of
President Bush and Vice President Cheney as President and Vice
President of the United States. There is absolutely no

[[Page H108]]

question about that. This is not in any way about rejecting that
outcome. So, please, let us be respectful of each other and understand
what it is about.
Today's electoral challenge is not intended to overturn the results
of the election. It is instead to discuss the real problems with our
electoral system and the failings of the process in Ohio and elsewhere.
It is about election reform, not about the election result.
The Members of Congress who have brought this challenge are speaking
up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been
disenfranchised in this process. This is their only opportunity to have
this debate while the country is listening, and it is appropriate to do
so. If there were other venues of this caliber, we would have taken
that opportunity. But this is the opportunity. We have a responsibility
to take advantage of it.
The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy. A discussion of
that foundation, again, should not be considered frivolous.
As the Supreme Court noted: ``No right is more precious in a free
country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make
the laws under which as good citizens we must live. Other rights, even
the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''
I repeat: ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the
right to vote is undermined.''
The principle of one person-one vote is sacred in our country, and we
must do everything to uphold it. Yet more than 225 years since our
founding, there are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our
elections and of ensuring the principle of one person-one vote, that
every person has access to voting and that every vote will be counted.
Twenty years ago, I was chair of the California Democratic Party. It
was our function, it was our purpose to remove obstacles of
participation to voting. The greater responsibility, of course, was
with the Secretary of State in our State and in States across the
country who controlled the elections in the State. But we all, in all
of our capacities, had a responsibility to remove, not throw up,
obstacles to participation.
I know that this issue is not just about counting votes, but what
happens in all three phases, before, during and after the election; and
in all three phases, there were problems in this election in Ohio and
elsewhere.
Before the election, there were complaints about absentee ballots
that were requested, but did not arrive. There were reports of
registration problems and of improper purging of the voting rolls. The
Ohio Secretary of State made decisions about provisional ballots,
partisan poll watchers and paper requirements for registration forms
that some found questionable, leading to widespread confusion and
possible disenfranchisement.
During the election we know that there were not enough voting
machines in poorer and minority areas. This is a fact. Yet there were
sufficient machines in wealthier areas. This led to appallingly long
waiting times of up to 10 hours in certain places. You can deny it all
you want, but it is a matter of public record that this is a fact, and
this is wrong.
There were credible reports of voter suppression on election day
through intimidation and misinformation and the patchwork use of
provisional ballots led to unequal treatment under the law; unequal
treatment under the law, undermining the principles of one person-one
vote and equal protection.
As for after the election, the American people must have every
confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and
accurately counted. But constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and
malfunctioning electronic machines which may not have paper receipts
have led to additional loss of confidence by the public.
As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our
election system and its administration. We cannot be here again 4 years
from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election. We must work
with the Elections Assistance Commission to further reform the election
process, and we must pass legislation to improve the Help America Vote
Act, including universal standards for provisional ballot and strong
verification measures and paper trails.
I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the distinguish
chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his leadership
in helping to pass the HAVA Act, which is really where we are pinning
our hopes, and to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who served
in that capacity with the gentleman, and now in the Senate others, a
broader array of people who are weighing in on that.
Congress must seize the opportunity this year to reauthorize the act
and to make the needed reforms and improvements. Our very democracy
depends again on the confidence of the American people and the
integrity of our electoral system.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, please do not talk about
this as a ``conspiracy theory.'' It is not about that. It is not about
conspiracy; it is about the Constitution of the United States. George
Bush and Dick Cheney are the elected President and Vice President of
the United States, and I think the objection will be overruled today in
that regard. It has never been about that. It has always been about the
fundamental principle of the legitimacy of our electoral process.
Congress will resolve this dispute today, and we will all abide by
the results because we are a Nation of laws. America is a beacon of
democracy to the world. We must never forget the power of our own
example to those who aspire to freedom throughout the world.
So let us respect this debate today for what it is, about ensuring
the foundation of our very own democracy, and by sending a message to
the world that we are truly, truly protective of our Constitution and
that we honor the oath of office that we take to protect and defend the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues all to join together in a
bipartisan way for electoral reform to follow on the good work that I
mentioned of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) earlier and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and to make sure that 4 years from
now we will come together not having to have this kind of debate, but
that today's debate will serve the purpose that it is intended to have
for our country.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Democratic leader
mentioned the bipartisan support led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ney) and the gentleman from (Mr. Hoyer). The committee on which I sit,
the Committee on House Administration, did bipartisan work on the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, and it took a step in the right direction.
For the record, the chairman has also scheduled hearings to evaluate
where we are and where we are going in the future so we can work in a
bipartisan fashion on the Help America Vote Act and its future
considerations.
Mr. Speaker, in 1974, Captain Hiroo Onada formally surrendered to the
U.S. military forces. What made his surrender particularly unique is
Captain Onada, who had already been declared legally dead for 15 years,
was a member of the Imperial Army, still fighting a war whose outcome
had been decided 29 years earlier.
Thirty years later, another contest whose results have been firmly
decided is being waged not on some remote island, but in the halls of
the United States Congress.
It is a sad day.
Mr. Speaker, President Bush won more votes than any candidate in
America's history. His opponent conceded that victory long ago. The
Ohio results have been certified, and one of that State's newspapers,
the Dayton Daily News, reported last month that those advancing the
wild-eyed conspiracy theories surrounding Ohio's electorate votes are
``speaking nonsense.''
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle cannot accept the words of their very own candidate who
said, ``We cannot win this election.''
The American people have spoken. I urge my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to open their ears and hear their voices; to join us
in facing the challenges of the future rather than trying to change the
past.
President Bush has been duly elected by the people of this great
country, and

[[Page H109]]

it is time for those who refuse to accept the American people's
decision, if you will pardon the expression, to move on.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula).
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Ohio recount requested by the other party, has been
completed and has been verified. In every area of Ohio, bipartisan
county boards have verified the integrity of these election results.
This is the true message to the world: our system works with integrity.
We keep hearing that Ohio's vote was rigged in some way. But this is
not plausible when you have a system of 88 separate bipartisan county
election boards. In Ohio, our boards take great pride in their
administration of the election laws.
I urge the Congress to accept the votes cast today by the State of
Ohio for President Bush.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5
minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not question the outcome of this
election. However, I do know that I stood in line for hours with voters
trying to cast ballots, and since election day I have heard from dozens
of voters, Democrats and Republicans, who lost their right to vote on
November 2 in my State of Ohio.
For 8 years in the 1980s I served as Ohio's elected Secretary of
State. During my term in office, we held and my office conducted two
Presidential elections, two gubernatorial elections, and dozens of
primary and special elections.
The role of the Ohio Secretary of State serves two main functions: to
ensure everyone is confident that his or her vote will be counted and
to encourage everyone to exercise that right to vote. Our Secretary of
State this year failed on both counts. I speak from experience when I
say the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio was riddled with unnecessary
problems.

{time} 1415

I visited four precincts in Oberlin, Ohio, outside of my district
where I stood in line with voters, some of whom waited up to 6 hours to
vote. I visited Hispanic and white working-class precincts, and I saw
long lines everywhere I went. I received panicked calls throughout the
day from voters whose polling places had broken machines and were being
denied the right to vote. In the days leading up to the election, I
witnessed reports throughout my district in northeastern Ohio of voters
who had been told their voter registration could be invalid and that
despite their efforts to register, they were not on the voting rolls.
In far too many cases, their votes were not allowed.
Ohio voters should never again be forced to wait 3, 5, sometimes even
10 hours to cast a vote. Ohioans should never again, as too many people
did this November, lose their right to vote.
But it is not just about Ohio; it is not just about who won and who
did not. It is about our system of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I am
saddened that no Republicans in this body are joining us today in
acknowledging problems in Ohio and in working with us to fix those
problems because, Mr. Speaker, defending the right to vote should be a
concern for Republicans and Democrats alike.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Ohio symbolizes that the Help America Vote
Act fell short of the lofty goals set by this Congress. Ohio's
Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, in a State in
which all statewide offices are controlled by Republicans and, in our
State legislature, Republicans outnumber Democrats two to one in both
chambers, our Secretary of State repeatedly took actions to make it
more difficult for as many Ohioans as possible to have their votes
fairly cast and accurately recorded.
No national standards were set for voting equipment because the Bush
administration appointed members of the Election Assistance Commission
so late that their confirmation was nearly a full year later than
required by HAVA itself. They had no time to recommend standards until
it was too late, and those standards are still not in place today.
The Ohio Secretary of State tried to force county boards of elections
to buy equipment that his own reports showed to be flawed. Federal
dollars that this Congress appropriated to help modernize elections
became stuck in Ohio between the Secretary of State's office and local
boards of elections who were often in deep disagreement as to which
machine standards were trustworthy.
Just prior to election, Secretary Blackwell continued to frustrate
the enfranchisement of Ohioans with actions ranging from specifying
paper weight standards for voter registration forms that even his own
office could not meet, and then fighting the availability of
provisional ballots right up until 3 p.m. on Election Day. In fact,
people who had requested absentee ballots and had not received them
were denied provisional ballots until a Federal court ruling that was
issued at 3 p.m. on Election Day, after who knows how many Ohioans were
denied ballots that they were prepared to cast for the candidates of
their choice.
No one can change the outcome of this election; but believe me,
hundreds of thousands of Ohioans do have questions about the way that
this election was handled in Ohio, in a State in which the winning
margin was only 118,000 votes. Implementing the actual intent of HAVA
and amending it where necessary deserve the full investigation of this
109th Congress, and it ought to be our first order of business.
I commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) of Cleveland who
experienced these abuses in her area for bringing this to national
attention. We are very proud of her. We are very proud of the Members
who have chosen to join her. I would ask my Republican colleagues,
starting with the Committee on House Administration, to join us in this
effort to make HAVA really work as we approach the elections of 2006.
Ms. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I seek to be recognized for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) for 5 minutes.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, this may be the most appropriate time to
remind each and every one of us engaged in this debate that it is the
hallmark of our constitutional Republic and our government to operate
by the consent of the governed. And there is a corollary to that which
we should likewise remember: in a free system where the people choose,
it is also necessary for contestants who are unsuccessful to accept the
verdict of the people. In our Republic there are majority rules, but
the rights of the minority are protected.
Now, also understand what has transpired this afternoon. In what
should be a reaffirmation of our constitutional Republic and the
Electoral College, a Member has chosen to dispute the outcome of voting
in the State of Ohio. Despite that fact, speaker after speaker on the
minority side, including the leader from California, has said they
accept the verdict of the election. Do not misunderstand, I say to my
colleagues. This is a vitally important point.
The problem we confront with this debate is that it serves to plant
the insidious seeds of doubt in the electoral process. All the talk of
election reform, all the talk of hearings that the leader championed,
all the process complaints, some that are inaccurate that have come
from the other side, are points to be debated in the regular business
of this House. Yes, they are important. But to disrupt the Electoral
College, to say in effect, hey, we just want to shine light on this
problem, is not the proper use of the people's time. And with all due
respect, I question not the intent; but the net effect is this: again,
it is to place doubt and to institutionalize forever the notion of
grumbling and a lack of acceptance of the verdict of the people. In
less elevated terms, Mr. Speaker, it is called sour grapes; and it is
sad to see in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this view
is not

[[Page H110]]

shared universally, despite the kind words for the Member who brought
this from her friends on that side of the aisle. Listen to the comments
from Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade: ``I'd give my right arm for
Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true, but blogging doesn't
make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past.''
Or Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart on Election Day: ``We think the
system has worked today. There were thousands of lawyers deployed to
make sure that no one tried to take advantage or unfair advantage and,
by and large, it has worked. I've seen very few reports of
irregularities, and even the ones we have seen, after a little
investigation, you find there is not much going on.''
And it bears repeating, even though he has spoken earlier today in
Baghdad and made some comments I vociferously disagree with from a
Member of the Senate going into a wartime theater, listen to the words
of the nominee of your own party who lost the election, my friends on
the Democratic side: ``But the outcome should be decided by voters, not
a protracted legal process. I would not give up this fight if there was
a chance we should prevail, but it is now clear that even when all of
the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be
enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio and, therefore,
we cannot win this election.''
Mr. Speaker, one of the virtues of our system is this: in America,
there are never lost causes because, in America, there are never fully
gained causes. That is why we have the electoral process. How sad the
electoral process has been sidelined today for a publicity stunt.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in
objecting to the certification of the State of Ohio's electoral votes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues in objecting to
the certification of the State of Ohio's electoral votes.
Unfortunately, last November in Ohio we witnessed many of the same
irregularities that occurred in Florida in the year 2000 and which
tainted the election results. That year, former Vice President Gore won
the popular vote by over half a million votes but was denied an
electoral victory because of voter irregularities.
As a member of the House International Relations Committee, I have
monitored elections around the world, in remote nations like Namibia in
Africa, and most recently in the disputed election in the Ukraine.
Watching election coverage of our own elections here in the United
States last November, I was shocked to see American voters facing
greater obstacles than I have seen in third world countries. There were
voters who waited in line over 10 hours to cast a ballot. For those
standing in line, not only was this frustrating, it was also a
particular hardship for older voters and for parents who had families
waiting for them.
In addition to the unreasonably long lines at certain voting
precincts, other problems included a large percentage of provisional
ballot rejections, voting machine errors, and voter registration
obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, as in the past, the most impacted voters are African
Americans, Hispanics and other minorities. In Florida in 2000,
minorities on their way to the polls were stopped at road blocks in
their neighborhoods on the pretense that law enforcement officers
needed to check vehicle inspection stickers. The wait was so long that
many minority voters had to turn around and go home or to work. This is
not democracy. This is how people lived under apartheid in South
Africa.
Now we learn that in Ohio, more than half of the complaints about
long lines came from Columbus and Cleveland where a huge proportion of
the State's Democratic voters live. The House Judiciary Committee
report details numerous problems and obstacles that Ohio voters faced.
For example, a New York Times investigation revealed that Franklin
County election officials reduced the number of electronic voting
machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them to the suburbs.
One entire polling place had to shut down at 9:25 in the morning on
election day because there were no working machines. Does this sound
like democracy?
Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to ensure that the
constitutional right of every voter in this country is protected. We
are raising this objection to try to ensure that our Nation takes
action to ensure that what happened in Florida and Ohio will never
happen again.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, let us not denigrate factual concerns
about the Ohio election by dismissing them as simply partisan. This is
not about Democrat or Republican votes. It is not about red or blue
States or black or white. It is about wrong or right. It is not about
winners or losers. It is about protecting voting rights in our
democracy against corruption.
Let us review just one of the very serious concerns with the Ohio
election: voting machines were misallocated, causing voters to stand in
line, in some cases for 10 hours. That denies voters equal protection
of the law. In the State's capital, a shortage of voting machines in
predominantly African American communities was created, even though the
Secretary of State knew far in advance that 102,000 new voters were
registered in that county alone. The misallocation of voting machines
was estimated to have denied at least 15,000 people the opportunity to
vote. Furthermore, the Secretary of State, who under Ohio law has a
constitutional duty to ensure election laws are upheld, failed to issue
guidelines under the Help America Vote Act for 2 years. Contrary to the
spirit of HAVA, which is to encourage voting and to have every vote
count, Ohio's top election official conducted the activities of his
office in a most partisan manner, undermining public trust in the
election. He sharply restricted the ability of voters to use
provisional ballots. He endeavored to make it more difficult for lower-
income people, who are more likely to move, to vote.
We know who won the election, but what the American people do not
know is the extent to which voting irregularities in the State of Ohio
deprived tens of thousands of my fellow citizens of their 14th
amendment right to equal protection of the law and their
constitutionally protected right to vote. The right to vote is
expressly protected by the 15th amendment, the 19th and the 24th
amendment, and the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution. It
is that right which has produced our very presence in this Chamber. It
is that right which binds us as a Nation, which creates the unity of
States, which legitimizes the government, which enfranchises not just
the people, but in which reposes the treasure of the American people, a
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
People have marched for that right, have put their lives, their
fortunes, their sacred honor on the line for that right, have died for
that right; and the least we can do is show our commitment to
protecting that right.
The outcome of the election will remain unchanged, but what must
change is a system which denied citizens of a great State their
opportunity to change the outcome. Election reform is our solemn duty.
Our statements today show whether we intend to do that duty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to
continue this.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that I rise to object
to the certification of Ohio's electoral vote; and I want to thank the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones), and Senator Barbara Boxer for their leadership. We all know
this is not deja vu. The Supreme Court did not appoint President Bush
this time, as it did in 2000. But again, in 2004, the Democratic
process was thwarted.
It is a fact that thousands of minority voters were disenfranchised
before and on Election Day. The misallocation of voting machines, the
restrictions of provisional ballots, the improper purging of voter
rolls, the delays in mailing absentee ballots, the malfunctioning of
electronic machines, the widely reported incidents of intimidation and
misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act are all but a few
examples of the widespread efforts to disenfranchise and suppress Ohio
voters.
Let me tell my colleagues, my constituents in the Ninth Congressional
District of California want democracy to work for all. Some say ``get
over it.'' I will never get over the shameful stain

[[Page H111]]

of the suppression of any American's constitutional right to vote. We
must pass Federal standards to require a paper trail, insist on
nonpartisan officials ensuring the process be moved forward for real,
in a real way, and pass real election reform.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speakr, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), a great leader.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1430

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote has been stolen from
qualified voters. Stolen through corruption, through political
cynicism, through incompetence, through technical malfunction.
Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in
the Ohio election have not been proved to change the outcome of the
presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is
unacceptable.
Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be
fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic
institutions.
This year we have dodged a bullet. If the apparent margin of victory
in Ohio were closer, the Florida 2000 fiasco would look like a picnic.
Mr. Speaker, normally the process of counting electoral votes is a
purely ceremonial event. Normally it is a celebration of our democratic
institutions. Normally it is a celebration of the rule of law and equal
protection of all Americans under the law.
But we do not live in normal times. the right to vote has been stolen
from qualified voters--stolen through corruption, through political
cynicism, and through incompetence, through technical malfunction.
Regardless of the reason, the denial of the fundamental right to vote
is a crime against our democracy, against our way of life, and against
the most fundamental rights of every American.
Despite the fact that the widespread and documented irregularities in
the Ohio election have not been proved to have changed the outcome of
the presidential election, the loss of the right to vote by so many is
unacceptable.
Elections must not only be fair and honest, they must be seen to be
fair and honest in order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic
institutions.
This year, we have dodged a bullet. The disgraceful events in Ohio
may not have changed the outcome of the election, but a closer vote
could well have made this belief impossible. If the apparent margin of
victory in Ohio were 30,000 or 40,000 instead of 118,000, we would now
be embroiled in a dispute that would make Florida in 2000 look like a
picnic.
What is at stake is our democracy. This is not about conspiracies, or
phantoms. It is about the failure to count valid votes for invalid
reasons. It is about disenfranchising thousands of voters by forcing
them to wait on line 10 hours to cast their votes. It is about the co-
chair of the President's reelect committee serving as the chief
election officer for the state, and doing everything possible to
prevent voters from voting. It is about voting machines that invalidate
valid votes.
We are told to get over it. How do you get over having your vote
stolen? How do you get over widespread disenfranchisement?
This Congress must fully investigate these allegations, and we must
act to prevent these outrages from happening again. If these outrages
were criminal violations of our laws, those responsible must be brought
to justice. If they were not violations of the law, they ought to be.
Our next election must not again steal people's votes.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should not let partisan
politics stand in the way of an honest assessment of this election.
They should not ignore what happened. However they vote today, they
should commit themselves to a full and fair investigation. Anything
less would suggest that they think there is something to hide. It would
suggest that there is a partisan coverup.
We can do better. We must do better.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for
5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the American people must be
watching this debate and literally shaking their heads. With all of the
challenges facing our Nation we are spending our time debating the
challenge to the validity of the Presidential election simply because
the Democratic Party cannot accept the fact that their candidate lost
this election. They cannot accept the fact that their agenda, that
their vision for America has been rejected by the majority of
Americans. They cannot accept the fact that President George W. Bush
simply received more votes than Senator John Kerry.
This election was very hard fought on both sides. The American people
have accepted the fact that it is over and they want this Congress to
get to work and to work in a bipartisan way.
If this is a minority party's idea of bipartisanship, then let the
people of our Nation see it for what it is. Because in the spirit of
bipartisanship, the Democrats are asking us to overturn the
Presidential election which President Bush won by over 3 million votes
nationwide and by over 118,000 votes in the State of Ohio.
In the spirit of bipartisanship they say that somehow Karl Rove was
manipulating votes from a secret computer in the White House and that
somehow these secret computers were changing the votes on punch cards
and optical scan sheets that record actual votes. This language is in
their challenge.
How interesting, however, that their challenge as it talks about
conspiracies in the State of Ohio, making allegations that have no
basis of fact, their challenge is silent about an incident in Ohio
where fraudulent voter registration forms were being submitted and the
worker who collected them was paid in crack cocaine.
How interesting that their challenge does not mention the Democratic
group ACORN which submitted vote registrations for dead people that
used 25 different addresses for the same individual.
Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress I served very proudly for 8
years as the Michigan Secretary of State where my principal
responsibility was serving as the chief election officer. So I feel I
have a little bit of background to make some observations about the
election process. In fact, Michigan is recognized as a national leader
on elections. We constructed the first statewide computerized voter
registration list which precludes the possibility of anybody having
more than one address or registering more than once.
In fact, I might add, I was very proud in my former capacity to
receive the highest grade in the Nation of Secretaries of State for
voter election reforms and that grade was given to me by the NAACP.
We are all committed to free and fair elections. We all want to make
sure that every single vote is counted, that no different voter is
disenfranchised.
I do remember clearly, however, how distressed I was in my former
capacity to have to threaten the Detroit City Clerk, a Democrat, with
court action if she did not comply with our State election law to make
sure that every vote is counted, particularly minority votes. However,
my dismay at seeing that none of the Members of the United States
Congress here ever spoke out to protect the rights of their own
constituents to be heard at the ballot box. There was no outrage. There
was no indignation. And yet today we hear outrage based on fantasies
and conspiracies.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am sincerely interested in undertaking
the important work of the American people in truly a bipartisan manner.
So I would ask that we might be spared from selective outrage, that we
might be spared from the righteous indignation based on fantasy.
Mr. Speaker, the challenges to those votes in Ohio are turkeys. I
think those turkeys should be given to someone else.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, when the processes that are meant to
guarantee our freedoms are abused, they are weakened in meaning and the
rights and privileges that they are meant to protect are placed in
peril. Like the person who cried wolf for attention, who risked the
safety of the herd by demeaning and diminishing the meaning of the
alarm, the objecting Members today weaken the processes of objecting to
a State's electoral votes and place in peril future real attacks on our
voting rights.
If their goal today was to protect the right to vote, why object only
to Ohio?

[[Page H112]]

Why not pick a State that voted for John Kerry? Because the objection
today is not about protecting our right to vote. It is about
undermining our election process and our President.
Mr. Speaker, we are asking people in Afghanistan and Iraq to risk
their lives to vote, and today we hear complaints about the time it
took to vote in free elections in the greatest democracy in the world.
My hometown newspaper in Dayton, Ohio said, ``What's not in order is
the suggestion of some great fraud where there is none. Some people
will take advantage of the inevitable flaws of elections to confuse
other people . . . Those people do harm, not good.''
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that everyone has the right to
vote and every vote is counted.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the fact that too many
Americans are being denied the right to vote in a fair, free and open
election process. Every American citizen who wants to vote should be
allowed to vote, and every vote must count.
Sadly, many voters in this nation believe their right to cast ballots
for President, Member of Congress, Governor or countless other
leadership positions has been undercut because of this nation's broken
electoral system.
Today, the House of Representatives will certify the Electoral
College's ballot electing the next President. While my first choice for
this important job was Senator John Kerry, I know that President Bush
won this election.
This does not change the fact that around the country and
particularly in the state of Ohio, many voters felt as if their vote
was not properly counted. This feeling was particularly acute in more
poor, urban and minority areas. Money, privilege, or geographic
location should not make someone's vote count more than anyone else's.
In October 2002, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act, which
addressed many of those weaknesses. It created a new federal agency,
the Election Assistance Commission, with election administration
responsibilities. It set requirements for voting and voter-registration
systems and certain other aspects of election administration, and it
provided federal funding; but it did not supplant state and local
control over election administration.
Yet, more needs to be done. We cannot have another election where
tens of thousands of Americans feel as though their votes did not count
or were counted improperly. We must continue to work toward a more
perfect system. The Republicans control Congress, and their
unwillingness to invest what it takes to correct our national electoral
system is a disgrace.
Fixing the voting problems around the country will not be easy and
will not be cheap. But a fair and open election is the bedrock of our
democracy and what ensures a peaceful transfer of power. How can we ask
Americans to respect the laws made in Washington if we cannot ensure
them the lawmakers were elected fairly?
Today, American soldiers are being wounded and dying so the United
States can spread democracy around the world. It is absolutely shameful
that when these soldiers return home, they cannot even be sure their
own electoral process is fair and accurate.
I realize that in the case of Ohio, the irregularities would not
overturn the results of the election. Even Senator Kerry has conceded
that and does not support this congressional motion. I, therefore, will
vote against the motion, but feel that it is important today to
highlight the very real problems we have with our electoral process--
which must be addressed by this Congress.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, today this is not about overturning
election results but reforming a broken election system.
Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my friends from the other side I become
quite upset when I hear them say things like, we are trying to break
down the election system, taking away from the credibility of our
election system. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What we are trying to do is make sure that every single voter has the
right to vote and that their vote is counted.
This is not a black and white issue. This is not a Republican/
Democrat issue. This is a red, white and blue issue.
This Constitution that we base our country and our laws on, the
fundamental things of that Constitution, that building block, is the
vote; and when we take away that vote, then what we do is we basically
are destroying our democracy. That is what this is all about.
I wonder, I really do, if it were your wife who was denied the right
to vote or your child, would you be making the same arguments?
All we are saying is we want to make sure that if we have a broken
system, if there is one person whose vote is not counted, if there is
one person who does not have the right to vote, then that is one person
too many. It is as simple as that.
So it upsets me that you keep saying these things about us denying
Bush his opportunity to be President and all this kind of thing. That
is not true.
What we are addressing is the fundamental right to vote. It is simple
as that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern for our nation's
democracy. At its core, our form of government is based on the premise
of ``one person, one vote.''
When you take away that right to vote or when you deny a cast vote
from being counted, then you denigrate the building blocks of our great
democracy and our Constitution.
We are not here to contest the election results, but urge election
reform of a broken system.
In fact, today, we are reliving the painful experiences of the 2000
election.
Those problems included: outdated and unreliable technology,
confusing ballots, lack of poll worker training, and inaccurate voting
lists.
As a result, 6 million voters were disenfranchised.
We all remember that this disenfranchisement was most prevalent in
Florida.
And here we stand again, four years later, to discuss flaws that led
to a significant disenfranchisement of voters in the recent 2004
Presidential Election.
This is not an effort to overturn the results of the election.
Rather, this is an effort to address the irregularities of the election
and to fix our broken election system.
Although there were general reports of irregularities across the
country, we must examine the prevalent problems that occurred in the
state of Ohio, in particular.
There were numerous accounts of eligible voters--waiting on line for
up to ten hours in the cold and rain--facing insufficient resources at
polling places, voting machine shortages, the denial of provisional
ballots, voting machine errors or tampering, and the intentional
distribution of inaccurate information.
I think many of my colleagues find these irregularities appalling.
My friends of the House and Senate this is a red, white and blue
issue; not black or white; not urban or rural; or even Republican or
Democratic.
We must stand up to these injustices.
That is why, as a result of these irregularities, I believe these
critical steps must be taken:
1. Congress needs to enact meaningful non-partisan election reform--
HAVA can and needs to be improved, particularly by providing for a
verified paper trail for electronic voting machines.
2. Congress should engage in further hearings into the widespread
election irregularities reported in Ohio and around the country to fix
our piecemeal election system.
Our duty to uphold democracy in America is clear.
If even one American is denied the right to vote, or one vote is not
counted, that is simply one too many.
I applaud the brave gentlelady of Ohio, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and
the equally brave Senator Barbara Boxer of the State of California for
raising this contest to the electoral votes from Ohio.
I leave this great Chamber with a fitting quote from Thomas
Jefferson, ``[It is] by their votes the people exercise their
sovereignty.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, never have the issues been so clear as
they are for all of us today. Our country is at war ostensibly to bring
democracy to a far off country on the other side of our planet. At the
same time, a significant chunk of the American people protest in their
own humble ways for democracy at home. They see unequal protection of
the precious right to vote blatant in Ohio but not only in Ohio; voting
machines that cannot be trusted, casting votes for candidates not
intended by the voter. That happened in my own race in my own State of
Georgia.

[[Page H113]]

Provisional balloting made absurd by seemingly purposefully drafted
arcane rules that in some case rendered the right to vote moot; our
democracy entrusted to privately owned software run on computers that
can be hacked, that overheat, break down or have their batteries die in
the middle of the voting process; and, moreover, voting on machines
that do not even tell us after we have voted who it is exactly that our
vote was counted for.
When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, it hoped to correct
the blatant irregularities and purposeful disenfranchisement that
occurred in Florida in the 2000 election. It is clear from the work of
the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones)
and the tireless efforts of people across Ohio that this Congress has a
lot of work to do.
Our Vice President has told to us expect war for the next generation.
It is not only our responsibility but our right to demand full
democracy at home, and we do that by our actions today. This is not
merely about bitterness or a recount, this is about a blackout.
It is time to end the blackout and shine the lights on our precious
right to vote.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, the numerous irregularities that occurred with
the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November 2 of last year point
to an unresolved national crisis. The lack of a unified standard for
all voters and all ballots casts in a federal election.
Congress must establish this standard with a verifiable paper or
audit trail. It is the only way to ensure integrity of the federal
election process.
Reports of voter intimidation, inadequate and malfunctioning voter
machines, incompetent election judges and lines at the polling places
in urban areas that lasted for many hours were widespread. These
irregularities were compounded by the irresponsible conduct of the
allegedly unbiased top election official who openly became a partisan
advocate for his party's Presidential nomination.
Honorable colleagues, the numerous irregularities that occurred with
the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November 2nd of last year
point to an unresolved national crisis: the lack of a unified standard
for all voters and all ballots cast in a federal election. Congress
must establish this standard, with a verifiable paper or audit trail.
It is the only way to ensure the integrity of the federal election
process.
Reports of voter intimidation, inadequate and malfunctioning voting
machines, incompetent election judges and lines at polling places in
urban areas that lasted for many hours were widespread.
These irregularities were compounded by the irresponsible conduct of
the allegedly unbiased top election official who openly became a
partisan advocate for his party's presidential nominee.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the remarks of my
returning colleague from Georgia. I certainly welcome her back to this
great deliberative body. She began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we are
a nation at war, and it is very clear that we are. We are in the midst
of a global war on terrorism and the people who are leading that war on
terrorism clearly have no confidence whatsoever in the process of self-
determination. And that is why I think that this exercise which we are
going through today clearly emboldens those who would, in fact, want to
undermine the prospect of democracy because there is no evidence
whatsoever, no evidence whatsoever that the claims that are being made
are valid.
The vote in Ohio has already been recounted. There is no doubt
President Bush won the election. He won with historic margins, and
millions of first-time voters in Ohio were participating. John Kerry
has accepted this fact. Even those foreign officials who many of our
colleagues invited to the United States as election observers have come
to the conclusion that George Bush won the election.
We as a Nation are regularly encouraging elections all over the
world. We just observed this amazing exercise that has taken place with
the election of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine.
Now, it is true that no election is perfect. We have seen this since
the beginning of our democracy. But small imperfections here and there
do not a mass conspiracy make. In fact, we have had a number of people
quoting newspapers. I am not an expert on the newspapers in the State
of Ohio, but I have been told by more than a few people that the Dayton
Daily News, which is sometimes named something else, actually endorsed
John Kerry and on December 3 they said the following: ``Some people
will take advantage of the inevitable flaws of elections to confuse
other people, to sow doubts. Those people do harm, not good. They
undermine the legitimacy of every close election outcome.''
The fact is the system worked pretty well. People should know that.
Now, that came from what I am told is one of the most liberal
newspapers in the State of Ohio and a newspaper that endorsed John
Kerry.

{time} 1445

I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, as well as those on the other side of the
Capitol, that what makes our system great is our willingness to accept
the legitimate results of an election, whoever wins, and move forward
together for the good of the American people.
I would remind them once again, there is no evidence whatsoever to
suggest that the results of this election were anything other than
legitimate. We know how difficult it is to lose an election. I am here
with my colleague returning also, Dan Lungren. He lost his first
election in 1976. I lost my first election in 1978, and Dan likes to
regularly remind me that he was the first one to come and campaign and
encourage me to run again in 1980.
Losing an election is disappointing, no doubt about it whatsoever;
but moving forward in defeat is just as critical to the integrity of
our democracy as claiming victory itself.
It has been said that democracy still represents the best hope for
mankind. Sowing seeds of doubt about a legitimately decided election
threatens to unnecessarily dim that hope.
This objection is without any merit whatsoever, Mr. Speaker; and we
should move on together as we look towards the inauguration which will
be taking place on the 20th of this month and as we proceed to
implement the agenda of the American people.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting irony in today's
challenge to the legitimacy of President George W. Bush's election, the
very partisans who fought against him the first time, arguing against
his intelligence, political savvy and leadership abilities, are at this
very moment accusing him of pulling off a major feat in tampering with
and illegally affecting the outcome of the vote in Ohio. All of this he
allegedly did without leaving a shred of evidence.
Mr. Speaker, I find an interesting irony in today's challenge to the
legitimacy of President George W. Bush's election as President of the
United States:
The very partisans who fought against him the first time, arguing
against his intelligence, political savvy and leadership abilities are
at this very moment accusing him of pulling off a major feat in
tampering with and illegally affecting the outcome of the vote count in
Ohio.
All of this, ladies and gentlemen, he allegedly did without leaving
so much as a shred of evidence.
So I ask my colleagues who prefer to dwell on the past rather than
fight for the future; who would rather level accusations than
legislate; who would rather waste Congress's time and taxpayer dollars
than work on providing health care, education and a strong military for
America--I ask these colleagues, if reform is needed in Ohio, to work
with their State legislature to create the best system possible and to
join Senator Kerry in accepting the will of the American people.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for
5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Today's
objection is not about an individual, but our institutions. It is not
about Republicans, but our Republic. It is not about

[[Page H114]]

Democrats, but our democracy. It is not about an election result. It is
about an election system that is broken and needs to be fixed.
Today, we are hearing the facts about voting irregularities in Ohio.
In 2000, we saw a similar mess in Florida and other States. As we try
to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is
prudent and appropriate and timely to examine our own democracy.
What is wrong with our democracy? What is wrong with our voting
system? State after State, year after year, why do we keep having these
problems?
The fundamental reason is this: Americans do not have the explicit
right to vote in their Constitution. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in
Bush v. Gore ruled: ``The individual citizen has no Federal
constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the
United States.'' So at present, voting in the United States is a State
right, not a citizenship right.
Hence, our voting system is built on the constitutional foundation of
States rights: 50 different States, 3,067 different counties, 13,000
different election jurisdictions, all separate, all unequal.
Consider this, if a person is an ex-felon in Illinois, they can
register and vote. If they are an ex-felon in 11 States, mostly in the
South, they are barred from voting for life. There are nearly 5 million
ex-felons who paid their debt to society but are prohibited from ever
voting again, including 1.5 million African American males; but in
Maine and Vermont, a person can vote if they are a felon while they are
in jail. Illinois, Florida, Vermont. Different States, different rules,
different systems.
In contrast, the first amendment to the Constitution guarantees us an
individual citizenship right, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of association; and we can travel between the States with such
a fundamental right. However, when it comes to voting, a person does
not have such a fundamental right. They have a State right. A State
right is not a citizenship right, but a right defined and protected by
each State and limited to each State.
108 of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials
in some democratic manner have the right to vote in their Constitution,
including the Afghan Constitution and the interim document in Iraq. The
United States is one of eleven nations that does not have an
affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. Should we not be the
108th nation that does just that?
The Bible says if we build a house on sand, when it rains, the winds
blow and the storms come and it will not stand. Our voting system is
built on the sand of States rights. Florida one year, Ohio the next
year, and no telling what is happening in 2008 and 2012.
As a result, the American people are gradually losing confidence in
the credibility, the fairness, the effectiveness and the efficiency of
our voting system. So we need to build our democracy, not on HAVA
Democrats, not on HAVA Republicans, but build our democracy on the
fundamental individual guarantee in the Constitution that every citizen
can rely upon in their Constitution.
We need to provide the American people with the citizenship right to
vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary system
from Maine to California so we do not have so many separate and unequal
systems. Mr. Speaker, it is the foundation upon which we build a more
perfect Union amongst the States.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, whose
credentials on the question of voting are unparalleled and unmarked and
unmatched in this Congress.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend
for yielding.
The right to vote and to have every vote counted is precious and
sacred. It is the heart and soul of our democratic process. We cannot
be true to ourselves as a democratic society unless we get it right.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and appropriate that we pause,
that we have this discussion, that we have this debate, and that
Congress hold further hearings on questions about the Presidential
election in Ohio and elsewhere.
Our electoral system is broken, and it must be fixed once and for
all. What happened in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 tends to
dramatize the fact that there is something wrong with our democracy.
More and more of our citizens have grown uneasy.
I hear people on the other side saying we should forget it, we should
get over it. How can we get over it when people died for the right to
vote, where people suffered for the right to vote? The right of every
vote to be counted must be upheld by this body.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to address this House
for the first time in my elected career. It is also with a heavy heart
that I address this House.
I think that this debate diminishes this House. This was one of the
proudest weeks of my life, when my father was able to see his son being
sworn into this House, when I was able to bring my daughter to watch
her father being sworn into this House.
As a son of immigrants, I take very seriously the freedoms and rights
granted to us in this country, America, the greatest country in the
world.
I think we diminish this House by the discussion that we are having.
Let us be clear. We are not here at a congressional hearing. We are not
hear to talk about improving our election procedures. We are hear to
certify the results of this recent election. We are here to certify the
fact that President Bush did, indeed, win the votes granted to him in
the State of Ohio; did, indeed, win election across this great country.
In many ways, I am glad that my daughter and father are no longer
here to watch this debate taking place in this House. Even CBS news has
recognized the fact that President Bush has won this election. This is
probably the only place left that is still disputing this election.
What kind of message are we sending out? What kind of message are we
sending to the rest of the world where we bring democracy to every
corner? Where we are trying to bring democracy, the right to vote to
Afghanistan, to Iraq, to the Palestinian people, what message do we
send when we stand up and say if you lose an election, if you do not
like the results, you can always go to court, you can always hire an
attorney?
This is the wrong message to be sending. This does not bring honor to
this House. This does not bring honor to our democratic tradition. This
does not bring honor to the history of a peaceful transition of power.
This does not bring honor to those who have gracefully conceded before.
Indeed, in my own home State we had a congressional election decided
by less than half of a percentage point, less than one vote per
precinct. I want to stand up here and congratulate both the Democratic
winner of that election, as well as his Republican opponent.
Mr. Speaker, I have got several remarks from several different
editorial pages from the State of Ohio that say that we should not be
having this discussion, that say that the votes were counted in Ohio.
There is another place, there is another time to be having this
discussion. Today is about certifying, accepting the results.
Two things that have been good that have happened today: one, I have
heard many of my colleagues from the other side recognize our President
as the rightful winner. I thank them for doing that. Secondly, before I
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), I
would like to say in Louisiana we make several jokes about the fact
that in the past, distant past, people used to vote multiple times. We
never, however, in the history of our State have ever had multiple
counts of the same vote.
I would offer that this is not a good day for our country, not a good
day for democracy; and we have stopped the acceptance of the
certification of the votes.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

[[Page H115]]

(Mr. TIBERI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I am often asked in Columbus, Ohio, why it
is so partisan here in Washington, D.C., and one wonders why 2 days
after we get sworn in.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a board of elections official this morning
in my district, a Democrat, who said that what we are doing today is,
in her opinion, an insult to not only Democrat but Republican board
members throughout the State. The bipartisan system that is in place in
Ohio, not one board member has objected to the process in Ohio, not
one.
Mr. Speaker, were there problems? Certainly, there were problems in
Ohio. Were there long lines? Certainly. I stood in a long line in my
area. The Columbus Dispatch reported there were long lines everywhere.
In fact, in central Ohio, in Columbus, Ohio, the busiest places to vote
were not in urban areas. They were in suburban areas.
All electoral votes in Ohio have said what we are doing today is
wrong. In fact, the chairman of the Democrat Party in Franklin County,
my county, has gone so far as to label the charges as a band of
conspiracy theorists. I did not say that; he said that. By the way, Mr.
Anthony, the head of the Franklin County Democrat Party, the head of
the board of elections in Franklin County is also a union official, an
African American and a good man.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, as the Cleveland Plain
Dealer has said, is the election horse is dead. We are beating a dead
horse. The election is over. Let us get on with it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
rise in support of the challenge to Ohio's electors.
After the 2000 Presidential Election we knew we had to make changes
in our elections system so American voters were confidant that their
vote had been registered and counted. The 2000 election taught us that
many of our election machines were outdated, and unfortunately, some of
our election officials served their political party over the voter who
should have the right to vote on Election Day.
Three years ago, Congress approved landmark election reform
legislation, the Help America Vote Act, that was supposed to fix many
of the election problems we encountered in Florida and other States in
2000.
We've spent more than $3 billion over the last 3 years to correct the
voting problems of the past, but despite all this funding we still
heard horror stories of Americans in lower income and minority areas
having to wait more than 4 hours to cast their votes because of the
lack of enough ballot machines. We have to do more to ensure that every
American has an equal chance to vote--meaning we need to make sure
working election machines are available at all polling places.
The nationwide use of provisional ballots is a direct result of that
legislation. The problem is that while Congress can require that States
allow voters to use provisional ballots, it has little control over how
election officials count those provisional ballots.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the second Presidential election in
a row in which serious, well-documented concerns have been raised about
disenfranchisement and voting rights violations without any
congressional investigation. This is the second time, and this time, it
must be different.
The United States is supposed to be a beacon of freedom, the greatest
democracy in the world. Yet we cannot seem to guarantee that the votes
of our citizens are counted.
This past election there was everything from votes outnumbering
voters in some precincts to blatant voter intimidation in other
precincts. It is time that we investigate these serious violations
because they are violations to our democracy.
There is an irony here, a very tragic irony. Yes, indeed, we are
sacrificing American lives and billions of dollars to try to establish
democracy in Iraq. Yet we cannot seem to get our own democracy in order
right here at home.
This is not about which candidate won, which candidate lost on
November 2. It is not about politics at all. It is about citizens and
their most fundamental rights.

{time} 1500

The recommendations put together by the minority Members of this
House must be followed, and I look forward to working with them to
ensure that our efforts to ensure every vote counts come together
before the next election. And if we do not, why would any American
bother to vote?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we have preached democracy in Afghanistan. We
have preached democracy in Iraq. Now the time has come for us to
accelerate the process of more fully practicing what we preach.
I wholeheartedly endorse the democracy mission of America, but I am
here today to beg the chosen decisionmakers here in Congress to take a
giant step forward to bolster America's world crusade for democracy.
Today it is appropriate that we address our remarks not only to the
citizens of America but also to the people of Iraq. Our efforts to
achieve free elections in Iraq will be totally shattered if we want to
propose today that Nation be divided into 30 or 50 units with each unit
granted the power to determine its own election procedures, to select
its own equipment, and to appoint its own administrators without any
uniform national standards.
Our historic compromise granting certain powers to the State that was
necessary for the birth of this Nation must no longer be used as an
excuse for the abuse of the free and democratic election process here
in America. The abuse in certain sections of the country, which once
openly used violence and intimidation, were outlawed. All other abuses
involving voter suppression and dirty tricks should immediately be made
Federal crimes. Out of those who have fought in the past and those
still on the battlefield for the cause of democracy, it is our duty to
take the steps to escalate our momentum toward the attainment of a more
perfect Nation.
Mr. Speaker, we have preached democracy in Afghanistan. We have
preached democracy in Iraq. Now the time has come for us to accelerate
the process of more fully practicing what we preach. Our great nation
is the premium democratic government of the world and we are all proud
of that fact. A unifying position of both Democrats and Republicans is
that we support democracy everywhere. We believe that where there is
democracy the people are inevitably better off. I wholeheartedly
endorse the democracy mission of America. But I am here today to beg
the chosen decision makers here in the Congress to take a giant step
forward to bolster America's world crusade for democracy. As we strive
for a more perfect union let us unite to end hypocrisy and to construct
a more perfect one person, one vote electoral process.
Today it is appropriate that we address our remarks not only to the
citizens of America but also to the people of Afghanistan and to the
people of Iraq. We should begin by apologizing for this present
electoral system, which undercuts the principle of one person, one
vote. Our efforts to achieve free elections in Iraq would be totally
shattered if we were to propose today that the nation be divided into
30 or 50 units with each unit granted the power to determine its own
election procedures; to select its own equipment; and to appoint its
own administrators without any uniform national standards. Our historic
compromise granting certain powers to the States that was necessary for
the birth of this nation must no longer be used as an excuse for the
abuse of the free and democratic election process here in America. The
abuse in certain sections of the country, which once openly used
violence and intimidation, has been outlawed. All other abuses
involving voter suppression and dirty tricks should immediately be made
federal crimes.
For too long our nation has accepted as legal and has tolerated
blatant sabotage of free elections. Florida offered abundant evidence
of such sabotage in the year 2000. Now, in 2004, Ohio has produced a
multiple list of irregularities and we are demanding a more thorough
investigation. In Ohio the failure of 25 to 30 voting machines to
operate correctly with one precinct recording a negative 25 million
votes; and the forced waiting periods of three hours in the rain in
African American neighborhoods, and ten hours at a polling site for
college students; these are only a few of the outrageous examples of
voter disenfranchisement in Ohio.

[[Page H116]]

In honor of those who have fought in the past and those still on the
battlefield for the cause of true democracy it is our duty to first
investigate and then to legislate to overcome all of the poisoning
obstacles which obstruct the consolidation of a more perfect national
election process. This is a vitally necessary action which will
escalate our momentum toward the obtainment of a more perfect nation.
God bless America. And God bless democracy everywhere.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mr. Speaker, this is a sacred debate. This is not a frivolous time in
our history. This is about avoiding the suppression of votes. Might I
say when the people of Ukraine rose up against their flawed election,
they understood what democracy is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to object to the votes in Ohio. I rise under the
Constitution of the United States in Article 4, 14 and 15. I argue the
point that we have an inconsistent election, and I argue the point that
we believe in democracy. The equal protection and due clauses of the
14th amendment of the Constitution operate to protect the rights of
citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Furthermore, the well-settled case on this issue, Reynolds v. Sims,
states that ``the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's
choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions
on that right strike at the heart of representative government.''
How would Members like to be in Ohio and be told that the election
was on November 3, 2004, instead of November 2, 2004? The
Constitution's due process clause requires fundamental fairness and
that a State election official not employ vote-counting procedures that
are so flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people value the value of
one vote, one person, and all votes counted.
Mr. Speaker, I support the objection made as to counting the votes of
the Electoral College from the State of Ohio in the name of the
American people, the United States Constitution, in the name of
procedural due process, and in the name of democracy. The Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution operate to protect the rights of citizens to vote for the
candidate of their choice. Furthermore, the well-settled case on this
issue, Reynolds v. Sims states that ``the right to vote freely for the
candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society,
and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of
representative government.''
This is a sacred debate that is in no way frivolous use of the time
of the Congress or of the tax dollars of the American people. Nor is
this debate one that aims to overturn the 2004 presidential election.
On the contrary, this debate is being made at the request and at the
behest of the American people.
I will cast a protest vote today not only in the name of the
integrity of the Ohio voting process but for the democratic process
that is seriously flawed and that must be fixed.
The Court in that case also enunciated that ``undeniably the
Constitution of the United States protects the rights of all qualified
citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections . . . It has
been repeatedly recognized that all qualified voters have a
constitutionally protected right to vote, . . . and to have their votes
counted.''
Moreover, under the Equal Protection Clause, all methods prescribed
by a legislature to preserve the right to vote must be effected and not
thwarted as stated in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Reynolds and its progeny of
cases added that votes that are cast must actually be counted under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--applicable to the
individual States.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution's Due Process Clause
requires ``fundamental fairness,'' or that a state official not conduct
an election or apply vote-counting procedures that are so flawed as to
amount to a denial of voters' rights to have their voices heard and
their votes count. The First Circuit federal Court in 2001 held that
where ``organic failures in a state or local election process threaten
to work patent and fundamental unfairness, a . . . claim lies for a
violation of substantive due process.''
As we look to reauthorize relevant sections of the 1965 Voting Rights
Act (VRA), it would be an indictment of the election process itself if
we fail to ask pointed questions as to the integrity of the Ohio
election in 2004. This challenge is an absolute must relative to
America's standing and reputation as a real democracy and as a center
that promotes the sanctity of the right to vote.
Today's challenge in Joint Session forum aims to ensure the
maintenance of the integrity of the voting process. I support my
colleagues in challenging the mechanics of the Electoral College vote
certification for its procedural value. This challenge represent our
collective exhaustion of legal remedies on behalf of the American
people--our constituents, for without this act, their voice remains
muted. What my colleagues and I stand to achieve today is to raise the
awareness of the American people as to the legitimacy of the democratic
process and the absolute value of the notion of ``One person, One
vote''. Our collective efforts may not net a different result in terms
of the recent presidential election; but can and will affect future
elections. On a global scale as the standard bearers of democracy this
challenge can serve to provide a shining example of hope to the
emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The exhaustion of all remedies available when there is any doubt as
to the legitimacy of the overall process is one of the basic tenants
upon which this country was founded. The duty to doggedly pursue a task
to its ultimate conclusion is as applicable to the recent gubernatorial
race in the State of Washington as it is in the democratic elections
taking place for the first time in the Ukraine. In Washington State,
candidate Dino Rossi declared victory after only a partial recount.
However, after a full and fair recount, it was correctly determined
that the Democratic candidate Chrisine Gregoire was the victor. A rush
to judgment is never prudent. The transparency of process and
convincing evidence of the true and correct outcome will preserve this
institution we call democracy.
In the Ukraine, a new election was held when majority supporters
protested and complained of fraud in the election that resulted in the
surprising defeat of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. The second
vote held revealed that Yushchenko had actually won by a significant
margin. What underscores the critical nature of full and fair recounts
when there is doubt as to legitimacy is the fact that while the first
flawed election rendered Yushchenko a loser by three (3) percentage
points, the revote rendered him a winner by eight percentage points.
This is clear and convincing evidence. This is democracy.

Mr. Speaker, election processes, like legislation, are imperfect;
therefore, we must use every opportunity and resource available to
bring them closer to legitimacy and a truly representative nature. All
evidence of voting irregularity and failure of votes to be counted is
relevant and important to the achievement of this goal. This is
democracy.
The hearings that we have held as a body within the House Judiciary
Committee and the hard work that officials such as my colleague from
Ohio, Ms. Tubbs Jones has done leading up to November 4 and well
through its aftermath have yielded factual findings that suggest the
existence of ample grounds on which to challenge the electors from Ohio
as being unlawfully appointed. Our fact-finding has shown possible
violation of 3 U.S.C. Section 5--which states that all controversies
regarding the appointment of electors should be resolved six days prior
to the meeting of electors (or December 7, 2004 for purposes of the
current election) in order for a state's electors to be binding on
Congress when it meets on January 6, 2005, to declare the results of
the 2004 election.
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and others appear to have
intentionally delayed the initial certification of the electors until
December 6, rendering a recount impossible by December 7--let alone by
the December 13 meeting of Ohio's electors.
Today's debate is very important to document the serious election
improprieties that occurred in Ohio and in other voter precincts around
America. Some of the incidents that occurred include:
Insufficient resources allocated to poor and minority precincts,
which resulted in unusually long lines which resulted in long waiting
time;
Lack of a verified ``paper trail'' relating to electronic voting
machines, thus failing the test of transparency;
Reports of Ohioans being told, incorrectly, that the presidential
election was to take place on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, as opposed
to Tuesday, November 2;
Denial of provisional ballots to voters;
Voter intimidation;
Voting machine errors or tampering;
Improper purging of eligible votes;
Fraudulent phone calls, fliers, and bulletins on official-looking
letterhead;
Questionable vote recount in Ohio, about which the case Yost v. David
Cobb, et al. is currently under litigation.
The American people deserve to have their voice heard and to have
their fundamental rights advocated.
During this past pre-election period, I had the privilege of working
closely with my constituents and with very efficient legal minds

[[Page H117]]

that really care about making every vote count. A former staff member
of mine, Attorney J. Goodwille Pierre, led an organization called
Election Protection 2004 in efforts to educate voters on the best way
to increase voter turnout.
Entities such as the Houston Black Lawyer's Association, the African-
American section of the State Bar of Texas, Region 5 of the National
Bar Association, and Election Protection 2004 combined to hold a lawyer
training session on Texas election law on October 9, 2004. Over 200
lawyers attended and participated in this training session, and I feel
that it was very effective in empowering the voters in the 18th
Congressional District of Houston.
In addition, I worked with these groups to hold a public meeting of
over 500 volunteers from all walks of life, which included over 100
lawyers, to discuss strategies on decreasing voter intimidation and
implementing complaint mechanisms. I would like to thank Attorney John
Strausberger from the firm of Weil, Gosthal, & Mangen for having given
us the legal procedure backbone to our effort on a pro bono basis. I
also had the opportunity to meet with the key election official for
Harris County to bring her within arms-reach of these groups so that
voter intimidation could be detected early and properly addressed.
I would also like to thank Ms. Barbara Arnwine of Lawyer's Committee
on Civil Rights, Mr. Ralph Nease of People For The American Way, and
Carmen Watkins and Unity '04-Texas for their leadership and extensive
efforts.
Election Protection 2004 produced a report entitled ``Texas Election
Protection EIRS Report.'' It revealed over 2,200 incident reports with
over 1,500 having occurred on Election Day as compiled from poll
monitors, on-line systems, and the 1-866-VOTE hotline.
A partial breakdown of the results showed my District, Harris County,
as leading other counties with over 720 complaints. Among the key
issues identified in the complaints obtained were:
(1) Confusion about how to implement provisional ballot requirements;
(2) A significant number of Harris County voters having not received
absentee ballots;
(3) Apparent vote switching in Harris and Travis Counties on e-Slate
voting machines associated with straight party voting;
(4) Stringent and obtrusive identification requirements;
(5) Voter intimidation; and
(6) Confusion among voters about straight party voting.
Mr. Speaker, the fact-finding made by the Committee on the Judiciary,
my colleague from Ohio, my constituents and the constituents in many
other districts makes it more than clear that additional and more
focused hearings are required as to the irregularities in the Ohio
presidential election and around the country. Furthermore, the election
law requires reform in order to make voting more fair, consistent, and
representative. We must lead by example. We must act in the true spirit
of democracy.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to request permission to address
the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I rise in opposition to the objection.
Mr. Speaker, as a freshman member I stood here with the rest of you
two days ago taking an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States. I couldn't be more proud and humbled
to be a Member of the finest deliberative body in the Nation.
Having served four terms in my state Senate in Georgia in both the
majority and minority--I have great respect for appropriate procedural
objections.
However, political grandstanding during this vital electoral college
ballot count is shameful and reprehensible.
What my new colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing today
is destructive of our system. To raise an objection for which many
speakers on the other side have said they will oppose--only feeds
unfounded discontent in the veracity of our great democracy.
I shall never lose my faith and pride in our great Nation and will
fight vigorously and pray for our future at a time when some in the
minority party put politics over people.
God Bless America.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have been asked by our Democratic
colleagues to take this objection to the vote today seriously. We have
been told this is not frivolous.
Well, we have to ask, why Ohio? Why Ohio, the State that happened to
put President Bush over the top? Why not Minnesota where Kerry won,
where there were discrepancies and Democrat groups working inside
polling places at polling booths? Why not New Hampshire where Kerry won
where Democrat operatives allegedly slashed wheels of vehicles intended
to take Republicans to the polls? Why not Wisconsin which Kerry won
where Democrat operatives physically intimidated Republican voters? Or
why not even Colorado where a Democrat worker with ACORN signed herself
up to vote 25 different times? Or why not New Mexico where a 13-year
old was registered to vote by the same Democrat front group? And why
not some of the other problems that were going on in Ohio, why do we
not talk about them?
For example, in Franklin County in Ohio where a dead person was
registered to vote, or 25 addresses were submitted for the same man,
why are they not concerned about that? Or why not raise a question
about Lake County where a man who had been dead for 20 years was
registered to vote?
Our Democrat colleagues do not seem to be concerned about that, and
yet here is the serious charge of that complaint by Reverend Bill Moss:
A, that there was a computer in the White House hooked up to voting
booths in Ohio which was allegedly controlled by some super agent who
could change the results of those elections in Ohio from 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not think even Hollywood would even buy into
that;
B, there were numerous agents who were doing ``unidentified things''
to intimidate voters;
C, that a Democrat Supreme Court candidate received more votes than
John Kerry; therefore, the election is a fraud; and
D, because the exit polls showed Kerry was going to win, he should
have won. The only thing that I know that are less realistic than exit
polls are Godzilla movies, and yet that is what the basis of this
attack was.
We have heard that many voters had to stand in line for 3 hours. My
dad is 87 years old. He is blind. He is very inconvenienced when he
votes. He has to have assistance, yet as a World War II veteran and
survivor, he is proud to wait 3 hours to vote. He only wishes more of
his peer group was alive to have the same honor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have two
sides to choose from, the John Kerry side that acknowledges the
election is over and President Bush has won, or the Michael Moore side
that defines democracy as Democrats going to the polls, and conspiracy
as Republicans going to the polls. The election is over and the results
could not be clearer. Why are we here wasting time on silly, Hollywood-
inspired conspiracy theories? Well, since Hollywood likes conspiracy so
much, here are some real facts.
On June 23, 2004, the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 premiered
in Washington, D.C. According to U.S. News and World Report, the New
York Times and the National Journal, one of the few Senators who
attended its premier was Senator Barbara Boxer. In his movie, Mr. Moore
said it was shameful that not one U.S. Senator objected to the
electoral vote in Florida.
Two days ago on January 4, 2005, the same Michael Moore published a
new letter to Senator Boxer reminding them that they did not object to
the electoral vote count 4 years ago, and he requested they rise and
object to the vote count from Ohio today. Today, in fact, Senator Boxer
objected to the vote count. Does Michael Moore and the people in the
Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party really think the American
people and their elected representatives are so stupid that we could be
tricked into objecting to these electoral results. Well, the answer, I
think, is yes.
Michael Moore told a British newspaper, ``Americans are possibly the
dumbest people on the planet. Our stupidity is embarrassing.'' In
Germany, Mr. Moore told the German people, ``You can see us Americans
coming down the street. We have that big grin on our face all the time
because our brains are not loaded down.''
Regarding those who are now killing Americans in Iraq, Michael Moore
said, ``The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not
insurgents or terrorists or the enemy, they are the

[[Page H118]]

revolution, the minutemen, and their numbers will grow and they will
win.''
Mr. Speaker, how many normal people in this country really believe
that a terrorist like al-Zarqawi is the same as Paul Revere? I ask my
colleagues to vote no on this objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to request permission to address the
House.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I dedicate my objection to Ohio's electoral
votes to Mr. Mike Moore, the producer of the documentary Fahrenheit 9/
11, and I thank him for educating the world on the threats to our
democracy and the proceedings of this House on the acceptance of the
Electoral College votes for the 2000 Presidential election.
The Democratic Judiciary Committee Staff Report clearly establishes
that the State of Ohio has not met its obligation to conduct a fair
election. Ohio's partisan Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Blackwell, I
am ashamed to say an African American man has failed to follow even
Ohio's election procedures, let alone procedures that comply with
Federal law and constitutional requirements. Our ancestors who died for
the right to vote certainly must be turning over in their graves.
Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Ohio where the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) convened hearings, and I listened to citizen after
citizen describe the Ohio election debacle. When there is a shortage of
voting machines that leads to lines of up to 10 hours to cast a vote in
precincts that are predominant minority and Democratic voters, forcing
countless prospective voters to leave without voting, and where a
number of Democratic precincts had fewer machines than were used in the
primary election, despite the certainty of a much higher turnout in the
hotly contested general election for President, it is clear that Ohio
has failed to run a fair election.
When Mr. Blackwell arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to provide
provisional ballots to voters who were in the right county but the
wrong precinct, or to voters who requested but did not receive an
absentee ballot in a timely manner, it is clear that Ohio has failed to
run a fair election. When a county in Ohio shows more votes cast than
registered voters, or when another Ohio county shows an underfunded
Democratic State Supreme Court candidate getting substantially more
votes than the well-funded campaign of Senator Kerry, it is clear that
Ohio has failed to run a fair election.
When Secretary of State Blackwell refused to recognize thousands of
new voter applications because they are not on postcard-weight paper,
it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. And where
Secretary Blackwell, in violation of his statutory duty to investigate
election irregularities, refused to investigate or remedy any of the
hundreds of cases of voter intimidations reported to him, it is more
than clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election.
Mr. Speaker, we are now over 4 years beyond the nightmare of Florida
in the 2000 election. I chaired the Democratic Caucus Election Reform
Committee. We traveled all over this country. We held hearings. I
worked with Members of this House to pass HAVA, Help America Vote Act.
Yet, is there anyone who can say we have a fair election system or this
is the best we can do?
The 2004 election in Ohio and elsewhere revealed that enormous
problems remain in our election systems and HAVA simply does not
address those problems. It is stunning to me that in the 21st century
we continue to use horse-and-buggy procedures to conduct our elections.
It is amazing but true that in many jurisdictions we use more
sophisticated technology to run the daily lottery than we devote to our
election system. Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have
moved to electronic voting to avoid the problem of chads and punch
cards, we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against
vote tampering. If an ATM machine can give each user a receipt that
that user can reply upon, then a voting machine should also be able to
give a receipt.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not whether the problems in the
Ohio election were outcome determinative, although they could have
been, it is whether the State has met its obligation to provide every
voter with an equal opportunity to vote and have his vote counted. We
must not allow these egregious violations to be trivialized. There is
no constitutionally acceptable level of inequality in access to voting
in Federal elections.
Mr. Speaker, there is no conceivable justification for disqualifying
a vote for President or Senator on the count that a legally qualified
voter shows up to cast his vote in the right State but the wrong
precinct. Why could we not count that voter's ballot? The voter's
intent is clear. There is no question as to the voter's right to vote
for the President of the United States or Senator. We can ensure that
the voter does not cast a provisional ballot in more than one location.

{time} 1515

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, elections are divisive activities in our
communities, in our States, and in our country. After an election, and
after the divisiveness, there needs to be a period of healing to bring
our communities, our States, and our Nation back together. I think John
Kerry was very graceful in his concession to George Bush to begin the
healing process in our country so that when we the Congress come back
to work, we have an opportunity to come back together to do the
people's work.
That healing period over the last several months has been interrupted
by an activity without merit. I think the proceeding today will cause
great harm to this institution and great harm to our country at a time
when we should be coming together to get ready to do the serious work
the American people sent us here to do.
I regret that. The Constitution clearly gives the responsibility for
running elections to the States. All the States have their rules and
regulations. In Ohio we have heard clearly, it is a very bipartisan
process, two Democrats, two Republicans in each of the 88 counties. I
have not heard one election official in any of the 88 counties,
Democrat or Republican, raise any concern about the outcome or the
fairness of the election that occurred in their counties.
If we really want to have a debate about how elections are run, that
debate ought to occur at each of the 50 State legislatures where they
in fact ought to look at what happened in their State. They ought to be
making adjustments. But the election officials are doing the best they
can, and I do think that what is happening today is really an
indictment of the good work of many of those people in our States.
So I would ask my colleagues, let us get this behind us, quickly; and
let us come here to do what the American people sent us here to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my good
friend and colleague from Ohio. I am amazed at how many experts on Ohio
election law we have in this Chamber. I had no idea that so many
Members from all over the country would have such a working knowledge
of the Ohio electoral process. My friend from Ohio and others have
explained it quite well how we work very well on a bipartisan basis.
Indeed, our election laws in Ohio are quite adequate to the task
despite the fact that we had a huge number of voters, an unprecedented
number of registrants, and some adjustments to the new voting system;
but I think we, by everybody's estimation, did quite well.
I know my friend from Michigan had a tough November with the Buckeyes
beating the Wolverines and, of course, earlier in November with the
loss of his Presidential candidate; but we should not try to overturn
the presidential race any more than we should try to overturn the
outcome of the Ohio State-Michigan game despite what my friend from
Michigan might want. This is a time, as my friend from Ohio said, for
reflection, for healing, for getting on with the business of the
Nation.

[[Page H119]]

This exercise, unfortunately, has distracted our country from that
worthy goal. For that, I am truly sorry.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5
minutes.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan for 5
minutes.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, on November 2
across America, tens of thousands of people were unable to cast their
vote. Many voted and their votes were not counted. I rise to support
the gentlewoman's effort from Ohio. I thank her very much. Our United
States Constitution gives us the opportunity and the right to represent
the millions of people that we represent daily to be on this House
floor today. This is their right to speak through us on what happened
to them on November 2. The rules of the House of Representatives allow
us as elected representatives, representing 700,000 plus people apiece,
the right to be on this floor at this time. This is the only way as we
represent those people that we might express their dismay that they
felt on November 2. As our leader said, this has nothing to do with
overturning the election. This is why we are sent here to represent,
and that is what we are doing.
Regardless of what we have heard the last hour and a half, we the
Members on this side of the aisle object to the process that failed
many Americans on November 2. Long lines, cold, in the rain. It was in
Ohio that we talk today; but Michigan, a neighboring State, had many
problems. I was in my voting area called down to count the votes after
the polls closed. All day long we had reports of intimidation, of men
in suits intimidating my voters, asking for identification every time
they went to vote all day long. But they stayed in line, they pressed
forward, and they voted.
Something was very wrong on November 2. When the polls closed at 11
o'clock that night, November 2, and we were there overlooking the vote,
men in suits were touching my vote counters, touching our ballots. I
went on TV, live TV, the 11 o'clock news and said, That is a felony.
You cannot touch our counter. You cannot touch our voters. You cannot
touch the ballots. It could have been Michigan, but you chose Ohio; and
I am here to stand with you today.
Something is very wrong with our voting process. Every vote must
count. Every vote must be counted. We have got to fix this, and I thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his efforts, but we have got more
work to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical to the
foundation of our democracy than the guaranteed right to vote. In the
2004 Presidential election, there were voters in every State, including
the pivotal State of Ohio, who were denied that right; and each time it
happened, the foundation is weakened. That is why I join my colleagues
today in objecting to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes. I commend
my colleagues in this House of the people and the Senate who are
raising this objection for their courage, and I am proud to join them.
There is little disagreement that irregularities did occur. The
question is what are we going to do about it. It is simply not
sufficient to tell the losers in this election to get over it, or to
accuse them of sour grapes, or to say we are doing the best we can. It
is our patriotic duty to stand up for every voter no matter his or her
race or party affiliation and demand that Congress act to expand voter
protection and guarantee voter rights.
Once all the facts are determined, a national demand for electoral
reform must force Congress to finally finish the job begun under the
Help America Vote Act, HAVA, including voter-verified paper trail. We
cannot simply sit back and accept the results as if nothing happened or
possibly illegal activities had taken place in precincts throughout
Ohio. Those Ohio election officials who denied voters provisional
ballots, a portion of the voting reform bill that I championed, must be
held accountable along with those who allowed machines to be tampered
with, eligible voters to be purged illegally, and voters to be
intimidated.
This is our chance to demonstrate to our citizens and the world that
Americans are constantly working to perfect our own democracy.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just for history purposes, I
think in the 1960s we might have heard the same thing when we had the
Voting Rights Act that needed to be passed by this Congress.
I rise today to address an issue that is at the core of our
democracy: our ability to ensure that each vote cast by an American is
counted.
Voting irregularities have been a major concern in our country for
decades In October 2002, this body passed the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) in order to eliminate voting irregularities and restore
integrity and reliability to our electoral system. However, these new
systems have not been without flaws. Software errors used in Florida's
2002 election lost over 100,000 votes, and at least 15 states,
including Texas, reporting irregularities in their equipment throughout
our most recent elections.
Under HAVA, this body provided billions of dollars to the states to
replace old lever voting booths and punch card voting machines that
produced the infamous ``hanging chads'' in Florida with more high-tech
machines. However, this new technology conceals the most important part
of the election process: the recording and counting of votes.
While there are no federal elections being constested in Texas, there
are three State House elections that are being reviewed including one
in my hometown of Houston. All of these election contests were brought
by Republican candidates even though there are Republican county clerks
and the Secretary of State is a Republican. While the process of
contesting election results in our country is a peaceful process, I
question how much faith the American people have in our ability to
accurately report election results. Surveys leading up to the 2004
Presidential election indicated as many as 42 percent of Americans
anticipated problems with our voting system and they were right.
I strongly belive voting standards should call for a paper trail in
case a vote needs to be audited. Without such requirements, even having
uniform standards would not enable us to accurately rely on a final
vote count without a paper trail. Several states including my home
state of Texas do not have the ability to print a ballot for
verification purposes. The inability to conduct a complete audit of
elections results is bad public policy and it's detrimental for our
democrary.
Americans deserve the ability to confirm their vote and our democracy
depends on the accuracy of our election process. It is time for this
body to require that each voter receives verification that their vote
was accepted and counted. No election is perfect, but we all deserve an
election system that enables us to correct errors when they occur.
This country served as a guide to Afghanistan in their historic
elections on October 4 of last year and now, we are assisting Iraq to
make their first open election in history a success on January 30. If
we are to serve as the world's model of democracy, we must ensure that
every vote is counted, and if need be, is able to be recounted
accurately and fairly. We cannot serve as the model of democracy if our
own democratic process is flawed
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, Americans turned out in record numbers and
their votes have been counted. President Bush won with more votes than
any other Presidential candidate in the history of our great country.
In Ohio, in fact, the votes were counted and then recounted, and
President Bush won by over 118,000 votes in my State.
No election is ever perfect. They never are. But there is absolutely
no credible basis to question the outcome of the election. That is what
is going on here today. I heard my friend from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) say,
this is about the right for every vote to be counted. No one on this
side of the aisle will disagree with that. We could not agree more.
That is why we have HAVA. That is why we are going to refine it
further. That is why we need to continue our work, as many speakers on
our side of the aisle have said, to be sure that every vote is indeed
counted.
But that is not what this objection is about. This objection from the
other

[[Page H120]]

side of the aisle, and I am going to quote one of my colleagues who
said, it is about ``massive and widespread voter irregularities in the
State of Ohio.'' Not so.
I also read in the challenge lots of irresponsible conspiracy
theories about what happened in Ohio. I was there. It did not happen. I
also heard today from the other side of the aisle that no one has
answered any of these questions. That is wrong.
One of the concerns that has been raised time and time again, most
commonly raised, is that in Warren County, a district that I represent
and a city that I represent, that somehow there was not a fair election
because people were locked out. Yes, the media was locked out in the
Warren County board of elections. It happened. But here is Jeff
Ruppert, a lawyer for the Kerry-Edwards campaign who was inside and saw
nothing unusual: ``It was as clear and open as it could possibly be,''
he said. Other witnesses included, of course, the Democratic members of
the election board and several Democrats who were hired to help count
the votes.
As has been said time and time again in Ohio, we have got a pretty
good system. It is totally bipartisan, two Democrats, two Republicans,
every single board in every county of our 88 counties in our great
State.
This is not the time, ladies and gentlemen, to obstruct the will of
the American people. It is time to get our work done. It is time to
govern, not to object. Let us be clear. This is not Americans forcing
their will on the American people. This is the views of Ohioans that
have been clearly expressed. Every objective observer agrees. In fact,
every newspaper in the State of Ohio agrees. Every editorial page
agrees.
We have heard some quotes today. Here is one I love from the
Cleveland Plain Dealer. It says: ``The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's
88 county election boards pondered their jurisdictions' results,
accepted their subordinates' good work, and are now turning their
energies toward the future. Are they all dupes in some Machiavellian
Republican scheme? Or do they simply have a firmer grasp of reality
than that displayed by a handful of unrelenting zealots still ranting
in the January rain 8 weeks after the election?''
Maybe we should look at some other States. Again in Ohio, President
Bush won by over 118,000 votes. John Kerry won New Hampshire, but by
9,200 votes. John Kerry won Minnesota, but by only 98,000 votes. John
Kerry won Wisconsin, but by only 11,300 votes.
I want to thank my Republican colleagues today for not raising
objections to those results in those States. We need to move on. I hope
what we will do today, Mr. Speaker, is that we will vote
overwhelmingly, Republicans and Democrats alike, just as the other body
has just voted. I am told the vote was 74-1 to turn down the objection
in the United States Senate. I hope we will come together as Democrats
and Republicans today to vote down this objection, not to continue this
cynical political ploy to try to somehow delegitimize the Presidency of
the United States and his election, but rather to move forward and get
on to the very important work that we have before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Cincinnati,
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let us face it. This is nothing more or less than an
attempt to sow doubt on the legitimacy of this President. It is an
attempt to weaken President Bush, and it is unfortunate because we have
much work to do in this House and in the Senate putting this country on
the right track.
On November 2, 2004, George W. Bush received a majority of the votes
cast in this country, including the State of Ohio, the State that I
happen to be a Member of this House. As a Congressman from Cincinnati,
Ohio, I had an opportunity to go to dozens of polling places, both in
urban areas in my city of Cincinnati and also in suburban areas. I have
talked to many, many people; and most people agree that this election
was conducted professionally and fairly and freely.
News sources reporting on the elections have said that few mainstream
politicians doubt President Bush's victory. However, rather than
certifying the 2004 election in accordance with the Constitution and
Federal law and starting the work that we were elected to do, we are
forced today to engage in essentially partisan debate by our colleagues
across the aisle. That is most unfortunate.
A nonpartisan group such as electionline.org that pushed for election
reform placed Ohio at the top of the list. Let us get back to our
business.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the most basic and fundamental
principles of any democracy are equal opportunity, equal protection
under the law and guarantee of the right to participate, to have that
right protected and to have that participation count.
Unfortunately in the last two Presidential elections, an increasing
number of elections across the country are being marred with
allegations of manipulation, chicanery, trickery, intimidation and
outright illegal acts of fraud, thievery, and violence.

{time} 1530

All of these acts and actions have served to undermine confidence in
our electoral system, disrupt the process of normalcy, and are
beginning to shake the very foundation of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, Thomas Paine once said, ``The right of voting for
representatives is the primary right by which all rights are protected.
To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.'' Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, based upon an inordinate number of allegations suggesting
gross voter rights allegations and misconduct, I join with my
colleagues and object to counting the State of Ohio's electoral votes
and urge that we pass a strong Voting Rights Protection Act to guard
against any further attempts to manipulate and erode our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
If we are the democracy we say we are, we must show it today by
taking on the astonishing problems in our national system of elections
that can no longer be blinked away. Ohio's often brazen irregularities
bring forward this debate, but the Buckeye State is only the poster
child for the nationwide system of voting that has been discredited in
the eyes of millions of voters. I watched the long lines nationwide and
here in the District with both exhilaration and pain, exhilaration that
finally we were getting what we asked for, with so much enthusiasm for
voting that people were standing in line the way they do for million
dollar lottery tickets; pain that long lines would surely discourage
many voters, particularly first-time voters, people of color, young
people, and many others who wanted to believe that voting could matter
in their lives. The long lines in the District were especially poignant
because citizens were waiting for hours to vote for a Member of
Congress who herself could not cast a vote for them in this House.
Ohio's close and contentious vote speaks for the country about
virtually all the problems of the last election, from voting machine
access to voting intimidation and the absence of national standards for
the basics. It will take time and bipartisan determination to make us
proud of our elections. Until then, one reform could begin the process
of restoring confidence in our elections. If all else fails, voting
machines, polling place controversy, confused or partisan election
officials, a provisional ballot that, if valid, will count, can help
heal voting flaws until we enact a real cure. We have got a failsafe
for almost everything else, from bullet proof vests to backups for
computers. Let us fix our system this year, including with failsafes
for voting to save our democracy.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, functional democracy requires
that the citizens have confidence in an election process and of course
confidence that all legitimate votes will be counted. Clearly the State
of Ohio is not able to provide such confidence.

[[Page H121]]

First, there is a significant unexplained, uninvestigated difference
in exit polling results and the reported election results. There are
specific unresolved allegations of other election problems,
particularly the long lines in some precincts that were caused not
because of an unanticipated voter turnout but because of insufficient
voting machines in the precinct. Other allegations were widespread and
none of these allegations was investigated.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this objection is somewhat awkward because
it does not have the apparent support for the candidate involved, but I
believe it is our responsibility to ensure that election results meet
the spirit and letter of our Constitution and that we have confidence
in the process by demonstrating that voting schemes and irregularities
are not ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would take this in consideration as
we review this election return so that this does not happen again.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. BUTTERFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the challenge.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this
opportunity to debate this very important issue. In Ohio there is a
bipartisan system at the county level. However, every board of election
member serves at the behest or discretion of the Secretary of State,
Kenneth Blackwell, who, in fact, was the co-chair of the Bush campaign.
I want to go on to say that, for example, Secretary Blackwell issued
a directive to local boards of election mandating rejection of voter
registration forms on 80-weight paper. He issued a directive which
ultimately was reversed which resulted in confusion and chaos among
counties with regard to provisional ballots.
But be that as it may, the objection today is raised because there
are irregularities across this country with regard to voting and we as
a Congress have an obligation to step up to the plate and correct them.
All voters ought to be allowed to vote early. There should be
established a national holiday for elections to bring attention to the
importance of voting. We should require those working at the voting
booth to be fairly compensated, adequately educated, and sufficiently
supported such that the job importance will be elevated. We need to
provide them equipment, whether it is punch card, electronic, whatever
it is, that it be fully tested, fully calibrated, and that there be a
paper trail.
What happened in Ohio may well have been repeated across this
country; yet that is no excuse for us to push the irregularities behind
us and go on with the business of the day. This is an important enough
issue that all the people across America want us to address it, they
want us to deal with it, and they want us to correct it.
I thank all of my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to be
heard, for giving us an opportunity to address the issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the Members of the
House who have stayed here with us, who have participated in the
debate, who have shared their views, as different as many of them are,
because this is the way we work.
This debate, I think we all know, will not change the outcome of the
November election. But we do know that out of today's debate, the
Congress will respond to the challenge that has been raised here in
connection with a better system of voting, not just for Ohio but for
everywhere. A challenge has been raised here this afternoon to hold
true bipartisan hearings to get to the bottom of not just what went
wrong in Ohio but around the Nation on Election Day. This day, the
first time in our history, that since 1877 this law has been used in
which the Senate and the House have come together to say that an
objection has enough merit to keep us here in this discussion.
Join us. Enact real election reform and give the citizens the right
to an operative provisional ballot and give all voters a verifiable
paper trail. We should never fear this debate in the Congress, and I
hope that today we have a fair debate and that 4 years from now, Mr.
Speaker, we have an election that all our citizens can be proud of.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for the remainder
of the time.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time that is?
The SPEAKER. In the tradition of the House, the gentleman from Texas
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here today is amazing but
not surprising. Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here today is a
shame. A shame. The issues at stake in this petition are gravely,
gravely serious. This is not just having a debate. But the specific
charges, as any objective observer must acknowledge, are not. That is
because the purpose of this petition is not justice but noise.
It is a warning to Democrats across the country, now in the midst of
soul searching after their historic losses in November, not to moderate
their party's message.
It is just the second day of the 109th Congress and the first chance
of the Democrat congressional leadership to show the American people
what they have learned since President Bush's historic reelection, and
they can show that, but they have turned to what might be called the
``X-Files Wing'' of the Democrat Party to make their first impression.
Rather than substantive debate, Democrat leaders are still adhering
to a failed strategy of spite, obstruction, and conspiracy theories.
They accuse the President, who we are told is apparently a closet
computer nerd, of personally overseeing the development of vote-
stealing software.
We are told, without any evidence, that unknown Republican agents
stole the Ohio election and that its electoral votes should be awarded
to the winner of an exit poll instead.
Many observers will discard today's petition as a partisan waste of
time, but it is much worse than that. It is an assault against the
institutions of our representative democracy. It is a threat to the
very ideals it ostensibly defends. No one is served by this petition,
not in the long run. And in the short term, its only beneficiaries are
its proponents themselves.
Democrats around the country have asked since Election Day, and will
no doubt ask again today, how it came to this. The Democrat Party, the
party that was once an idealistic, forward-looking, policy colossus.
The New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the Great Society, the space program,
civil rights. And yet today one is hard pressed to find a single
positive substantive idea coming from the left.
Instead, the Democrats have replaced statecraft with stagecraft,
substance with style, and not a very fashionable style at that. The
petitioners claim that they act on behalf of disenfranchised voters,
but no such voter disenfranchisement occurred in this election of 2004
and for that matter the election of 2000.

{time} 1545

Everybody knows it. The voters know it, the candidates know it, the
courts know it, and the evidence proves it.
We are not here to debate evidence, but to act our roles in some
scripted, insincere morality play.
Now, just remember: pre-election memos revealed that Democrat
campaign operatives around the country were encouraged by their high
command in Washington to charge voter fraud and intimidation regardless
of whether any of it occurred. Remember, neither of the Democrat
candidates supposedly robbed in Ohio endorse this petition. It is a
crime against the dignity of American democracy, and that crime is not
victimless.
The Democrat leadership came down to the floor and said this is a
good debate; we ought to be having a debate on this issue.

[[Page H122]]

This is not a normal debate. This is a direct attack to undermine our
democracy by using a procedure to undermine the constitutional election
that was just held.
If, as now appears likely, Democrats cry fraud and corruption every
election regardless of the evidence, what will happen when one day
voters are routinely intimidated, rights are denied, or, God forbid, an
election is robbed? What will happen? What will happen when, God
forbid, this quadrennial crying wolf so poisons our democratic
processes that a similarly frivolous petition in a close election in
the future is actually successful, and the American people are denied
their constitutional right to choose their own President?
Mr. Speaker, Democrats must find a way to rise above this self-
destructive and, yes, plain destructive theory of politics for its own
sake. A dangerous precedent is being set here today, and it needs to be
curbed, because Democrat leaders are not just hurting themselves. By
their irresponsible tactics, they hurt the House, they hurt the Nation,
and they hurt rank-and-file Democrats at kitchen tables all around this
country.
The American people, and their ancestors who invented our miraculous
system of government, deserve better than this. This petition is
beneath us, Mr. Speaker; but, more importantly, it is beneath the men
and women that we serve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to
do the right thing. Vote ``no,'' and let us get back to the real work
that the American people hired us to do.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that every vote should
be counted. There were obviously irregularities in the Ohio vote and I
urge that they be thoroughly investigated by this Congress and the
Department of Justice. We have an obligation to resolve the problems
that have been documented. However, I would have voted against the
motion because I do not believe this to be the proper occasion to
address this important issue.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, the debate today is not about contesting the
results of the last November's election. Today's debate cuts to the
essence of our democracy--the founding principle of our country--the
right to vote. Clearly, the right to vote is dependent on the assurance
that all voters have access to the polls and that all votes will be
counted. But since the presidential election in 2000 the American
public has grown increasingly wary of the accuracy and integrity of our
elections, and I applaud my colleagues for their efforts to bring focus
to this issue. It's essential that we bring attention to the serious
problems facing our electoral system.
It's up to Congress to restore confidence in our elections, and I
call on all Members to make this a priority in the 109th Congress. The
2000 Presidential Election spurred a series of reforms, and Congress
took important first steps to improve our system of voting. I was proud
to cosponsor the Help America Vote Act, which did much to upgrade our
electoral process and create national standards for conducting
elections. However, I'm disappointed that subsequent efforts to
increase the security and reliability of our Increased Accountability
Act in the 108th Congress, I supported requiring verifiable paper
trails for all voting machines, a step that would provide a significant
boost to voter confidence and allow for expedited recounts.
Unfortunately, this legislation was not considered prior to the 2004
election, and the House majority leadership refused to even bring it up
in committee. This issue must be revisited and legislation should be
promptly passed in the 109th Congress.
Democratic elections are the foundation of all democracies, and
thousands of Americans have died--and continue to die every day--for
the right to vote. The United States of America should set the standard
for fair and accurate elections, and the reported irregularities tell
us that we continue to fall short. One need not believe in conspiracy
theories or maintain that the outcome in Ohio was invalid to recognize
that we still suffer from serious shortcomings in our electoral
process.
I urge my colleagues not to let this opportunity slip buy. We must
promptly pass electoral reforms that will ensure that the results of
our elections are beyond reproach and accepted by all voters.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not able to attend
today's vote regarding the objection to the November 2004 electoral
college results in Ohio. This recorded vote was not expected and came
up at the last minute. I was unable to return for the vote in time due
to bad weather in the Midwest that resulted in more than 1,000 flights
being delayed or cancelled. Due to the problem with flights and a prior
family commitment, I was unable to travel back to Washington, DC from
Michigan. Had I been in attendance I would have voted ``no'' on
agreeing to the objection.
However, I have very serious concerns about the voting irregularities
that occurred in Ohio. I believe those problems have not been properly
addressed by Ohio's Secretary of State, who also served as the State's
Republican Party leader.
It is my hope that these specific problems will be further
investigated and that by the 2008 presidential election our Nation's
electoral process will be more fair, more open and more accessible than
it was in 2004.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Ohio was granted an opportunity
today not afforded to my home state of Florida in 2000, and for that I
am thankful. I express my gratitude to Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs
Jones of Ohio and Senator Barbara Boxer of California for raising this
objection, but I feel that we must now move past the documented voting
irregularities that plagued the State of Ohio.
The purpose of this objection is not to change the outcome of the
2004 Presidential election, but to raise awareness to the difficulty
faced by thousands attempting to cast their ballots for President in
Ohio. Following the 2000 election, the people of America were promised
sweeping electoral reforms aimed at preventing problems like those that
happened in 2000, but those promises were only partially kept. This
body let the voters of this country down, and we simply need more
reform. There is still too much room for error in our election law and
we must be earnest in addressing these lapses.
We know that elections are not perfect, but no American should be
castigated for raising questions or concerns when valid voting problems
arise. Only open debate on this issue will solve these problems; only
accurate information will quell rumors and conspiracy theories that
question our country's sacred democratic tradition.
As we are all aware, the former Soviet Republic of Ukraine's recent
presidential elections were called into question. After the first vote,
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle condemned this
election in a foreign country as fraught with irregularities and
intimidation. Yet some of these same Members rise in apparent
indignation when irregularities are discussed in our own elections in
our own country. They do not want to talk about the voting problems in
Ohio. Yet these problems are real, and they deserve the attention of
the American people. They provide compelling reasons why the Congress
must address election reform in the first session of the 109th
Congress.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was a good start, a necessary first
step, but it was inadequately funded and unevenly implemented. More
attention is needed. We must ensure that all voting machines have a
paper trail that will ensure a proper recount can be conducted. We must
eliminate conflicts of interest among those who administer our State's
elections. No Secretary of State should serve as a Presidential
campaign State co-chair as was the case in Ohio this year and in
Florida in 2004. We simply must have independence, uniformity and
accountability in all elections across our great republic.
These lapses, inconsistencies, lack of resources and conflicts of
interest are, Mr. Speaker, worth discussing.
Again, I thank those who brought this objection. These two Members of
great courage and integrity have given this country a platform for
reform. Only a proper review of our voting processes will stop these
kinds of electoral abuses, and I urge the House leadership to make this
effort an immediate priority of the 109th Congress.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a functioning democracy requires
that the citizens have confidence in its election process, and of
course confidence that all legitimate votes will be properly counted.
We saw the importance of this principle in the recent Ukraine national
election and in the Washington State Governor's election.
Clearly, the State of Ohio is not able to provide such confidence.
First there is a significant, unexplained and un-investigated
difference in exit polling results and the reported election results.
Then, there are many specific, serious, unresolved allegations of
voting irregularities in Ohio. For example, strong evidence exists to
indicate that in some predominately Black precincts, voters had to
stand in line to vote for as much as 10 hours due, not to an
unanticipated voter turn out, but to a clearly insufficient number of
voting machines at the precinct.
Other allegations include evidence that numerous requests for
provisional ballots were improperly denied, that the counting of
provisional ballots violated the Help America Vote Act and that there
were over 90,000 ballots cast which were set aside as spoiled ballots
without justification. Not one of these allegations was officially
investigated.

[[Page H123]]

Now I know that this objection is somewhat awkward because it does
not have the apparent support of the candidate involved, but I believe
it is our duty and responsibility to assure that election results meet
the spirit and the letter of our Constitution and that we instill
confidence in the process by demonstrating that voting schemes and
irregularities are not ignored.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, although I will not file an
objection to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes, I rise today to
acknowledge the voting discrepancies and irregularities that occurred
in the State of Ohio in this past presidential election.
As is evident in my colleague John Conyers's voting rights status
report, Ohio has failed to provide the opportunity for its citizens to
have equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote
accurately counted.
Many voters were denied provisional ballots and some eligible voters
were improperly purged. Others were given erroneous information as to
where and when they could vote. The State provided insufficient
resources to minority precincts, resulting in long lines that caused
delays up to 10 hours, forcing some voters to have to leave those lines
to tend to personal obligations.
There were rampant incidents of voter intimidation, deceptive phone
calls and fraudulent fliers on official looking letterhead.
The lack of a verifiable paper trail by some of the electronic voting
machines contributed to a questionable vote count.
Clearly, Ohio's election officials, including Secretary of State
Blackwell, have questions to answer regarding these disturbing
irregularities.
How can we encourage free and fair elections in Iraq, a country that
may soon become a fledgling democracy, when we can't ensure free and
fair elections in America after 200 years of democracy.
As a Member of Congress it is my duty to uphold the right of the
people to have free and fair elections of their government officials.
It is my hope that this Congress will work together in the coming
months to enact real election reform that will restore America's
confidence in the electoral process.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Tubbs Jones and
Senator Boxer and Representative John Conyers for forcing this
institution, and thus our Nation, to debate the quality of our
democratic voting process and to consider whether it meets the
expectations of its people.
If we are to form a more perfect union, we must dedicate ourselves to
forming a more perfect voting process.
Four years ago, this Nation shuddered at the weakness of our ballot
process, and vowed to improve it.
But in some respects, it was weakened further.
The ballot was weakened when votes were allowed to be cast without a
printed record.
The ballot was weakened when the vote took so long that voters had to
choose between voting and missing a day's work.
The ballot was weakened when provisional ballots were not honored.
We must confront the fact that electronic voting machines that do not
provide a ``print our'' are a black hole.
We can do better. Our ATM machines give receipts in return for cash.
It is clearly not a technological barrier to provide a receipt in
return for a vote.
This is America. We are the incubator for democratic evolution. We
are a beacon to the free world. Ohio had special problems this time,
but they are problems we can fix, and when we fix them in Ohio, we will
have made the progress in 2005 that we failed to make over the last 4
years.
I am voting to support this challenge to the certification of Ohio's
vote as a legitimate and constructive beginning to a more perfect
democracy and a more perfect union.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not frivolous. This is not
about sour grapes. This is not about conspiracy theories. This is about
the central act of democracy.
Here in the House of Representatives all members have been elected.
Some of us have been elected in recounts.
What are recounts? They are independent checks of the tally.
Reliable knowledge is verifiable knowledge. As my colleagues know, I
am a scientist. It is a principle of scientific thinking that one
person's claim must be subject to independent confirmation or
correction.
I agree with Senator John Kerry. We should today award Ohio's
electoral votes to President Bush. I believe President Bush got more
votes in Ohio then did Senator Kerry. I believe it. I cannot confirm
it. No one can confirm it.
Consider electronic voting machines. If there was an error between
the voter casting the vote on the touch screen and the recording of an
electronic signal in a memory bank, no one will ever know. It might be
a software error; it would not necessarily be a malicious conspiracy.
But if the vote is recorded incorrectly, no one will ever know.
I ask my colleagues, can anyone say he or she knows that the actual
vote is what has been presented to us? The answer is no. None of us can
say this knowledge has been independently verified. It is not reliable
knowledge unless it is verified knowledge. This is not a philosophical
fine point. Americans don't want to and should not have to take the
results simply on faith. The electronic machines used in Ohio and most
other States are not designed to be verifiable. Recounts are
meaningless.
Self-government works only if we believe it does. A loss of
confidence in our system is fatal to a democratic republic such as
ours. That confidence has been eroded over the years and has taken some
body blows in recent years.
We need a major effort to shore up our democracy.
Americans are a trusting people, but we demand evidence. We demand
verification.
We are also a pragmatic people, and so we in the House will not upset
the apple cart today. Without doubt we will endorse the electoral votes
presented to us today. But we should not be satisfied. Republicans
should not be satisfied. Democrats should not be satisfied. The reason
is not that President Bush got more votes. The reason is that the
knowledge of President Bush's majority is unreliable knowledge.
Anything of value should be auditable. Votes are valuable. Each voter
should have the knowledge that the vote is recorded as intended. We are
talking today about the heart of our democratic republic.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, not with the hope
of overturning an election, but with the hope of overturning a system
that has for too long failed to guarantee every American their most
basic right, the right to vote.
Our very democracy was founded on the essential right of citizens to
have a voice in their government. As Members of Congress we are sworn
to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which includes the
13th and 19th Amendments, and I am quite frankly saddened that such a
debate today breaks down along party lines. Each and every one of us as
Americans should stand to defend this right, to protect and guarantee
that every citizen, black, white, male, female, Democrat or Republican,
has the opportunity to cast a vote.
As representatives we should not fear the will of the people; we
should not fear a debate here on the floor of the House seeking to shed
light on and improve our voting system, rather we must fear any threat
to our right to vote. We must take seriously any allegation that would
deprive any citizen of this right, let alone the serious and widespread
allegations that are being make in Ohio.
The debate today is not about the election of George W. Bush, rather
it is about the integrity and the future of our voting system. Today we
are challenging ourselves to do better. We are challenging ourselves to
examine our voting system, to get to the bottom of what went wrong in
Ohio and around the Nation on Election Day. We need to hold hearings.
We need to conduct an investigation and we need to pass legislation
that puts in place specific federal protections for our federal
elections, especially in the areas of auditing electronic voting
machines and casting and counting provisional ballots. We must be
willing to hold the same light on our election system that we hold on
nations such as Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Iraq. How can we serve as a
model for democracy, when our own citizens lack faith in our democracy?
That is what today is about, restoring faith in our system. This can
not be accomplished by simply accepting the status quo and allowing
opportunities such as today to pass without objection. The only way to
change an injustice is to stand against it. Mr. Speaker, this is why I
rise today. We must not accept the status quo, rather we must challenge
ourselves to do better. This is what we do as Americans and this is
what I am challenging us to do today.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the
2000 election, in which my congressional district witnessed the
discarding of 27,000 votes, I am displeased to see that the Congress is
here again today, 4 years later, continuing to confront many of the
same problems we faced in the previous election. Many Members of
Congress here to voice their own concerns, as well as echo those of
citizens across the county, are engaging in floor debate to publicly
enunciate their doubts and worries with respect to the veracity and/or
fairness of the 2004 election. The goal of my colleagues is not so much
to systematically overturn the 2004 election results, but rather, to
bring about honest and open debate today to the House floor. Clearly, a
formal challenge to the election's outcome could not change the
results, but what it can do is to at least force both Chambers to
engage in open debate and

[[Page H124]]

speak clearly about the serious flaws we have experienced in our last
two presidential elections. I believe this debate is beneficial for our
democracy, particularly in light of recent events that went on in my
State in Florida, as well as apparent discrepancies in Ohio.
With respect to the Ohio vote count, I find the objections stated by
my close friend and colleague, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, to
be most disturbing. According to her press statement, among the
numerous discrepancies in her state, perhaps the most egregious
included: ``large percentages of rejections among provisional ballots,
numerous problems with voting machines, and significant flaws in
registration processes and procedures.'' These very serious concerns, I
believe, deserve to be discussed and debated by the Congress, in an
open public forum in full view of the American public.
In addition, I would like to enumerate numerous other discrepancies
that were contained in a report put out by the Judiciary Committee
entitled, Preserving Democracy, What Went Wrong in Ohio, about the 2004
elections:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented
long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of
thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters.
Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots
resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds,
of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and
Democratic voters.
Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter
registration applications based on paper weight may have
resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in
time for the 2004 election.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in
preelection ``caging'' tactics, selectively targeting 35,000
predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a
negative impact on voter turnout.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands
of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and
Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of
legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became
discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions
were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican
officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican
Party, admitted the challenges ``can't help but create chaos,
longer lines and frustration.''
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested
absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis
from being able to receive provisional ballots likely
disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr.
Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.
Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained
anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands
of votes that have yet to be accounted for:
There were widespread instances of intimidation and
misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and
the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to
institute a single investigation into these many serious
allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty
under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.
We learned of improper purging and other registration
errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens
of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter
Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone
over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a
result of official registration errors.
There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast
for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be
inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two
precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of
over 25 percent each--accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who
stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for
president.
There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities
in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning
county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown
number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County
locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI
warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI
states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting
records of Perry county show significantly more votes than
voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than
voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one
ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded
Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received
more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential
candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker
error may have led to little known third party candidates
receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had
ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas;
(vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and
highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the
precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes
were recorded for President Bush.
Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous
irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting
and completing the recount that disenfranchised thousands of
voters and call the entire recount procedure into question
(as of this date the recount is still not complete):
Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent
standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in
the loss of thousands of predominantly minority
Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the
recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of
both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clauses.
The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted
that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in
numerous counties to provide ``cheat sheets'' to those
counting the ballots (Preserving Democracy, What Went Wrong
in Ohio, A Report Put out by Democratic Judiciary Committee
Staff).

Moreover, in my State of Florida, the problems that surfaced
regarding the 2004 election related more to pre election
irregularities. Examples are plentiful, examples include: Duval County,
where I had to personally fight to get additional early voting
locations in the county so citizens could vote early if they so
desired; in Orlando, along with many of my Florida colleagues, I
demanded a Department of Justice investigation into police misconduct
and voter intimidation, in which the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement officers intimidated elderly members of Orlando's black
community, wherein armed plain clothes police in Orlando went house to
house to question, or rather intimidate, dozens of elderly African
American voters in their own homes. It is not surprising to me that
many of the people that were questioned were volunteers in get out the
vote campaigns. Lastly, we saw once again that the Florida elections
supervisors were on the verge of incorrectly purging thousands of
Florida citizens from the voting rolls, an action which fortunately was
never completely carried out because of a CNN lawsuit requesting to see
the names on their list.
Let us remember that during the 2000 elections, in my district alone
(Duval County) there were approximately 27,000 ballots that were spit
out by faulty machines. A disproportionately large percentage of these
votes came from City Council Districts 7, 8, 9 and 10, primarily
African American residential areas. Even more disturbing to me was that
the Supervisor of Elections' office didn't release these figures to
local officials until after the 72 hour deadline had passed. As a
result, there were no legal avenues to demand a recount.
Moreover, it often goes unpublished that Florida Governor Jeb Bush
spent $4 million of taxpayer money to purge a list of suspected felons
from the rolls across the State: but whether or not this list was
accurate was of little importance to Governor Bush. Apparently, it was
the responsibility of the accused citizen to correct his or her status.
Only later did we learn that the reason many of the people were
incorrectly purged (estimates go as high as 50-57,000) was merely
because their name was the same as, or similar to, one of the purged
felons. For this reason, during the 2000 elections, some of the local
election supervisors went so far as to refuse to purge names from the
list of their voter rolls because, they argued, `they did not have
faith in how the state compiled its list of disqualified voters.'
Moreover, as part of a grassroots effort to encourage voters,
particularly minorities, to get out to the polls, I organize motor
voter drives. Yet during the last election, many voters, especially
African Americans, were wrongly purged from registration lists, and
many who had signed up at state motor voter vehicle offices never had
their voter registration fully processed. As a result, these voters
were disenfranchised as well. It is for this reason that provisional
balloting is so important (wherein if a voter has not re-registered
after moving within the same county, he or she may cast a provisional
ballot at the polling place of their current residence). Unfortunately,
to this day, the state of Florida STILL does not completely follow
through with provisional balloting because, in Florida, if one casts a
provisional ballot in a voter precinct which is not their own, their
vote will be discarded.
To close, I reiterate that I strongly support today's Floor
discussion, and pledge to continue to do everything within my capacity
as a Member of Congress, and as the Democratic Party's Voting Task
Force, to improve our voting system to ensure that everyone's vote is
counted in future elections, and that our democracy remains just that,
a democracy, not a plutocracy ruled by the elites.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, many have suggested that those of us
committed to seeing a complete and accurate count of the Ohio vote in
this past November's Presidential race should simply ``just get over
it''.
Well this Member of Congress has sworn an oath to ``uphold and
defend'' our nation's Constitution, and I do not believe that our
commitment to Democracy is anything we should ``get over''. In fact,
our commitment to democracy is something I believe we must deepen and

[[Page H125]]

expand until this dream is transformed into a reality for every citizen
of this nation.
But democracy is not to be achieved by an investment in the latest
computer technology (even if computers can help us administer our
elections). It is not achieved by rhetoric and flags, pomp and feel
good myths of what a great nation we are.
Democracy will only be achieved by listening closely to the intention
of the voters and hearing clearly from them what a great nation they
wish this to be.
I'm afraid that has not happened in Ohio nor likely in other states
this year.
Predominantly African-American precincts and campus precincts saw
localized shortages of voting machines leading to long lines
frustrating would-be voters who left for work without casting a ballot.
Precincts in affluent, white and Republican suburbs did not suffer such
problems.
Phone calls and fliers targeted African American voters sending them
to vote on the wrong day at the wrong locations.
Long-time voters ``disappeared'' from voting rolls.
Voting machines ``defaulted'' to Bush votes regardless of which
candidate the person voted for.
People were forced to vote provisionally if they were in the right
county but the wrong precinct. Sometimes the right precinct was
literally only one table away.
And as we did in Georgia--I'm sorry to say, too many voters in Ohio
cast ballots on machines running trade secret protected, proprietary
software, which produced no contemporaneously voter verified paper
audit trail of their votes, leaving voters intentions subject to
untraceable electronic manipulations.
The Green and Libertarian Presidential candidates demanded a recount
because the stories of vote suppression and manipulation were so
blatant. Three thousand volunteers and six thousands contributors came
together to make that recount possible.
But Secretary Blackwell, charged with providing for free and fair
elections for the people of Ohio fell short. While the law requires
that precincts be selected randomly for spot checks, many counties
hand-picked precincts in violation of the law.
Ohio law requires that a discrepancy between the machine count and
the hand count in a spot checked precinct lead to a full recount by
hand of the entire county. But these hand recounts were not conducted
as required.
The integrity of the recount itself was put at risk by lax security
for the ballots and the voting machines, which failed to maintain a
chain of custody for election materials.
Credentialled observers were denied an opportunity to meaningfully
observe the recount process, were threatened with eviction for asking
questions and completed their work still unable to assure the voters
that the certified results accurately reflected the collective
intention of the voters in their counties.
The Ohio Secretary of State failed to provide adequate and uniform
standards for the conduct of the recount.
Perhaps as disturbing as anything else, was that Ohio Secretary of
State J. Kenneth Blackwell mixed his non-partisan duties to the voters
of Ohio with his partisan duties as the co-chair of the his state's
Bush Re-election campaign.
We need:
A Constitutional right to vote;
Uniform standards for the conduct of elections and recounts;
A contemporaneously produced voter verified paper trails for
electronic voting machines;
An end to the use of trade-secret protected, proprietary software for
voting machines;
Independent election commissions (or administrators) to oversee
elections. (No campaign officials should ever again be placed in charge
of counting or overseeing the vote); and
The abolition of the Electoral College, replacing it with popular
vote using Instant Runoff Voting.
As can be learned at votecobb.ord, the recount documented wide spread
evidence of fraud, the obstruction of legitimate votes (especially
those cast by African Americans and young people), and computer voting
machine manipulation. The Ohio recount was tainted by a lack of
cooperation, the failure to follow consistent standards, and conflicts
of interest by Republican election officials.
A constituent of mine from Chamblee Georgia wrote that ``If Senate
Democrats remain silent on Thursday, and we see a repeat of their 2000
endorsement of a manipulated election, the Democratic Party will have
abandoned all claims to be the opposition. Americans who care about
democracy and fair elections should understand such silence as an
endorsement of the kind of Republican election engineering we witnessed
in Ohio and of the Bush agenda.''
The founders ratified our Constitution, but under popular protest
very quickly adopted a set of amendments demanded by the people. Among
those first changes to our governing Constitution were two Amendments
designed to ensure that our nation would continue to serve the people
of this nation. The First Amendment guarantees our right to petition,
speak, write and assemble: in short to organize politically to change
our form of government. The Second Amendment was adopted to ensure the
``security of a free State.'' If we cannot protect the sanctity of the
vote and those First Freedoms, we risk leaving our citizens no choice
but to reach for the Second Amendment in their own defense.
There have been 1,341 U.S. soldiers, including twenty-nine Georgians
and two from my district that have so far lost their lives in our
occupation of Iraq. I grieve with the families for their loss. But what
are we to do when we attempt to export democracy abroad when we can't
seem to even produce it at home.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, today it is with a respect of my
past ancestors that I rise to list my name with my fellow colleagues,
who have come to address the disenfranchisement of many voters who were
unable to cast their votes in the most fundamental exercise of
democracy--voting for the President of the United States.
As the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus and the only
woman to serve on the Committee on House Administration, I have
received numerous letters from constituents and citizens whose outcry
is of faulty equipment and irregularities in this last Presidential
election.
Mr. Speaker, the breadth and depth of what occurred in Ohio
surrounding this past Presidential election is astounding and naturally
calls into question the validity of our electoral process.
However, the larger picture requires that we must engage a debate of
our voting process as it represents the bedrock of our democratic
society.
The Judiciary Committee, under the request of Congressman John
Conyers, found that voter registration applications were incorrectly
rejected; registered voters were wrongfully purged from the rolls;
inadequate numbers of voting machines were used resulting in voters
waiting hours to vote; and voter intimidation and misinformation was
insidious at voting sites. This caused the disenfranchisement of
thousands of voters across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the voices of my constituents in the 37th
district of California who are calling on this Congress to fully fund
the Help American Vote Act. I have also called on the President to
fully fund HAVA to remedy the ill-fated processes and procedures that
currently exist.
Our country cannot be seen as the example of democracy in the world
when there are lines of voters wrapped around the corner unable to vote
and exercise this fundamental right.
We must do everything in our power as a representational body to make
sure that every voter votes and that every vote is counted. We must
reform our election process so that the outcome of future elections
will not bring us again to this same place.
I will continue to call for further hearings that will help alleviate
the irregularities in voting, and put into action the implementation of
voting best practices.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the American electoral system is the
paragon of democracy for the world. Therefore, we must hold ourselves
to the highest standards when we conduct elections. There can be no
doubt about the outcomes, no questions about fairness or fraud. Where
there is even a whiff of impropriety, we have an obligation to act, and
in a bipartisan manner.
The fundamental underpinning of our democracy is our guarantee that
every citizen has the right to vote. Over the last 225 years we have
worked slowly, but steadily, to expand this right. We have corrected
grievous injustices that once prevented too many of our fellow citizens
from having a voice in our democracy. Despite these efforts, sadly, we
have had serious evidence of improprieties in both of the last
Presidential elections. In 2000, the disenfranchisement of Florida
voters took that election all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
2004 Washington State gubernatorial election took over 6 weeks to
resolve, and the Ohio voting process gives rises to grave concerns.
In Ohio, and other states, voters in far too many precincts faced
significant obstacles when they tried to vote. Ten-hour lines to vote,
a lack of sufficient ballots, wrongly purged or inaccurate voter
registration roles and miscalibrated voting machines are unacceptable.
These actions not only call into question the integrity of our election
results, they deprive individuals of the right to vote that too many
people have fought and died to protect.
We should have learned our lesson after the 2000 election. I
supported and co-sponsored strong voting reform legislation, including
the Help America Vote Act. This was the most

[[Page H126]]

comprehensive package of voting reforms passed by Congress since the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. It marked a first step, but only a first
step in modernizing our electoral process nationwide.
While Congress did pass legislation, the 2004 election shows that we
have not gone far enough to restore integrity to the process. We cannot
continue to ignore this problem. We cannot allow Americans to be
unjustly deprived of our fundamental right to vote or of anyone to
doubt the outcome of our elections. Congress must develop a
comprehensive and bipartisan solution to the problems that still plague
our system.
I commend the gentlewoman from Ohio for raising this issue, and
commit to work with her and the rest of my colleagues in our continuing
quest to assure that all Americans' votes are counted.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as even the sponsors of today's challenge
to the Ohio vote acknowledge, the protest is not intended to try to
overturn the results of the 2004 election. President Bush won the state
of Ohio and the popular vote.
However, like in 2000, the most recent election was marred by
multiple irregularities, allegations of fraud, and technical
challenges. Today's debate provides an important opportunity to discuss
on the House floor our continuing concerns about the integrity of our
electoral process, which has been called into question by the last two
Presidential elections.
Others have mentioned many of the specific concerns about the process
in Ohio. Many of these problems were seen in other states as well. In
response to the widespread problems, I wrote to the Government
Accountability Office in November requesting an investigation of these
irregularities and a review of whether tougher federal voting standards
are necessary to resolve them. While Congress did approve election
reform legislation in response to the problems in 2000, more needs to
be done to restore the integrity of the electoral process.
One of the most blatant shortcomings is the lack of a paper trail for
many electronic voting machines. In 2003, I cosponsored legislation to
rectify this problem. Regrettably, the Republican Congress refused to
act on it. So we headed into this last election knowing that electronic
votes could not be verified or recounted manually. Damaged machines and
programming errors have actually expunged all records of votes in
isolated instances. That is unacceptable. I will continue to pressure
the Republican leadership to allow a vote on this issue.
In addition, I asked GAO to review the need for open-source computer
code for these machines. The new technology must be accessible for
review and audit. The voting public must be certain that the system
cannot be manipulated, and that their vote is recorded properly and
accurately regardless of what system they use.
And, I asked that the investigation review the need for uniform and
simple standards for counting provisional ballots, registering voters,
and identification requirements at polling places. I believe strong
federal standards in these and possibly other areas are necessary for
federal elections. The varied standards from state to state, and even
within states, seriously endanger the integrity of our elections.
We need to insure the integrity of our electoral process is
absolutely beyond question. Until we fix the problems mentioned today,
we will never be able to say with confidence that every vote has been
counted, and counted correctly and fairly. Election reform must be a
top priority of the 109th Congress.
Mrs. DAVIS, of California. Mr. Speaker, the 2004 election is over,
and the results are in. I am not here today to dispute which candidate
won the election. I join my colleagues today in expressing concern,
however, about the irregularities that have been documented from the
election in Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, we can argue all day about what did or did not happen
with the election in Ohio, the procedures that were or were not used
there, or about the voting machines. The issue we are addressing today,
however, is the fundamental right of every American to vote. I am not
challenging the outcome of the past election today. What I am
challenging is the fact there are people in America who have been
denied the right to vote. And that, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.
People from around the world watched the State of Ohio with great
interest on Election Day. Widespread reports of irregularities and
waiting times in excess of 4 hours were extremely troubling to all of
us.
I just returned from the Ukraine, where some of my colleagues and I
had the privilege to observe the second election there. As we are all
well aware, incidence of irregularities, voter intimidation and fraud
during the first Ukrainian election were widespread and well
documented. People from all over the world watched both of the Ukraine
elections. And we have all been deeply moved by the success of
democracy there. The triumph of the Ukrainian people's will has been
profound.
Mr. Speaker, a success for the democratic process like the one we
just witnessed in the Ukraine doesn't just happen on its own. It takes
the courage and conviction of a country's citizens to rise up and
challenge what they feel is wrong. If the people feel that
irregularities or intimidation have taken place, they must stand up to
it. They must shed light on it. They must insist it be prevented from
ever happening again.
Much of the international community, including the United States, has
contributed money, training and resources to help build democracy in
countries like the Ukraine. Having the opportunity to go to the
Ukraine, and to witness the process first hand, was an incredible
experience for me and for my colleagues who were with me. To see the
people in the streets, and to observe their profound sense of
satisfaction with the election was very powerful. It was clear to all
of us who were there that the Ukrainian people had come to believe that
people truly are empowered to challenge injustices when they occur.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the parallels we should draw between the
issue we are addressing today and my experiences during the Ukrainian
elections. In large numbers, the Ukrainian people took to their
streets--not to support a particular candidate--but to support
democratic principles and the right for each person's vote to be
counted fairly and unencumbered. I am heartened that America has been
able to offer assistance to countries like the Ukraine in establishing
democracy. What we must realize, however, is that America may indeed
have a few things to learn from their experience as well.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
with where we are today and what this process has become. I'd like to
start by pointing out just a few facts.
County boards of elections in Ohio are bipartisan--made up of two
Republicans and two Democrats. These individuals routinely put in 12-15
hours a day for 3 months to oversee elections in Ohio. I've spoken with
Democratic members of the boards of elections in the counties I
represent. They too have expressed disappointment. In fact, not one
board of elections official has raised complaints.
In fact, Franklin County Board of Elections Chairman William Anthony
has gone so far as to label those making these wild charges ``a band of
conspiracy theorists.'' By the way, Anthony is also head of the
Franklin County Democratic Party. I know him personally, as I do others
who serve on the boards of elections in the three counties I represent.
Democrat or Republican, they badly want their candidates to win. But
above all else, they want to ensure that everyone eligible to vote has
an opportunity to do so, and that each vote is counted accurately.
Were there problems? Certainly. Long lines, not enough voting
machines, these are things we can discuss. But, we must also
acknowledge that these are problems that occurred across the board--
urban and rural, Republican and Democrat.
The Republicans and Democrats who served on each county board of
elections decide on the placement of voting machines jointly. I don't
think the Democrats would agree to a plan that would cost their
candidates votes by shifting machines away from where their supporters
cast ballots.
Second, there were lines everywhere because of unprecedented turnout.
As The Columbus Dispatch pointed out after the election, the busiest
places to vote were not in the urban areas of Columbus, but in the
suburbs.
All editorial boards of the major newspapers in Ohio have said what
we are doing today is over the line. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
``The election horse is dead. You can stop beating it now.''
Everybody talks about how partisan this town has gotten. I wonder
why--look at how we're starting the 109th Congress.
In closing, I'd like to say a few words to boards of elections
members--and all other elections workers--that they might not have
heard recently:
Thanks. Your hard work is appreciated.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, several members have mentioned the
inconvenience that many voters may have experienced on voting day by
having to stand in line to wait their turn to vote.
I want us to put that inconvenience into a proper perspective. It
goes without saying we should eliminate any barrier to voting that we
reasonably can eliminate. That said, one day last year the Afghan
people got up early one morning, put on their best clothes and set out
to vote for the first time. They left the safety of their homes to vote
at the express threat to their safety and very lives. They were
threatened with being shot and killed or maimed by bombs. In addition,
many stood in line all day to vote.
I believe we should look to the Afghan people for an example of how
to fulfill our responsibility to vote.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I've been rather mystified over the
reaction to the recent election by many Democrats. Since the November
election, when a political opportunity

[[Page H127]]

arises, some on the other side of the aisle shout out words like
``fraud'' and ``sham.'' If they aren't doing that they demean what the
people in the red states did on Election Day and call them insulting
names.
If this all seems to be the reaction of a shell-shocked party who has
lost any vision and has moved to a vicious attack cycle--it is. The
hard truth is that 58 million people voted for President Bush. And the
even harder truth is that the majority of this country voted for
President Bush, no matter how you try to confuse it. No proven
allegations of fraud. No reports of widespread wrongdoing. It was, at
the end of the day, an honest election.
My concern with this protest, is its overtly partisan nature. I
notice that my colleagues are quick to criticize the vote in Ohio, a
state that the President carried. Yet we have heard little about
potential problems with voting in states that Senator Kerry won. Rumors
of voter problems have been reported in states other than Ohio,
including my own state of Pennsylvania. But the focus today seems to
only be on a state carried by President Bush; and that leads me to
believe that today's protest is about the outcome not about the
process.
I believe a good deal of the reason for the last election is the
failure of the left to produce a vision. And with an opportunity to
regroup, take responsibility and work hard; they have walked away to
the comforting shoulder of smear attacks.
I say let's move on to do what we were elected to do, make positive
change in this country. It's time we put partisan politics behind us.
The SPEAKER. All time has expired.
The question is, Shall the objection submitted by the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the Senator from California (Ms. Boxer) be
agreed to.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 31,
nays 267, not voting 132, as follows:

[Roll No. 7]

YEAS--31

Brown, Corrine
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Evans
Farr
Filner
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McKinney
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Schakowsky
Thompson (MS)
Waters
Watson
Woolsey

NAYS--267

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Istook
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--132

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Coble
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hefley
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Issa
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Matheson
McCarthy
McDermott
McIntyre
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Neal (MA)
Ortiz
Otter
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pickering
Rangel
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Serrano
Shays
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wilson (SC)
Wynn

Swearing in of Member-Elect

The SPEAKER (during the vote). Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) please come to the well of the House and take the oath of
office at this time.
Mr. NORWOOD appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath of
office, as follows:
Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that you will take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about
to enter, so help you God.

Announcement By the Speaker

The SPEAKER (during the vote). Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the
Chair announces to the House that in light of swearing in the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) the whole number of the House is adjusted to
430 Members.

{time} 1702

Messrs. HALL, MORAN of Virginia and CUMMINGS changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. McKINNEY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the objection was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, due to official travel today with the
House Armed Services Committee, I was unable to cast my vote on the
challenge to the Electoral College tabulation of votes for President
and Vice President of the United States. Had I been present, I would
have voted to sustain the objection to the Ohio electoral votes.
Stated against:
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for the rollcall
vote today on challenging the Ohio electoral vote. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 7.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that
today's Record reflect that I was in my home State of Oregon attending
a longstanding official event

[[Page H128]]

when I learned of the vote relating to Mrs. Jones of Ohio's objection
to the certified results of the Electoral College balloting in the
State of Ohio and was unable to return to Washington, DC in time for
today's vote. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been
present I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidable detained and therefore
unable to cast a vote on rollcall No. 7. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on January 6, I was conducting oversight in
Southeast Asia of tsunami disaster relief efforts and, therefore,
missed one recorded vote.
I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the
Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have
voted ``no'' on recorded vote No. 7.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, because of illness, I was not present on
the vote on agreeing to the objection on the Ohio electoral vote on
January 6. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to
vote on rollcall 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on
this measure.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall No. 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 6, 2005, I regrettably
missed recorded vote 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

personal explanation

Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I had to fly back to Wisconsin
for a military funeral and missed rollcall vote No. 7.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will now notify the Senate of the action of
the House, informing that body that the House is now ready to proceed
in joint session with the further counting of the electoral vote for
the President and Vice President.

____________________