Election Issues

Tomorrow (Thursday, January 6) Congress will host an unprecedented Constitutional showdown over the future of American democracy. 

It rises from a catalog of abuses that poisoned the November 2 presidential balloting in Ohio. Taken together, these attacks on the democratic process shifted Ohio's vote from John Kerry to George W. Bush, giving him the presidency.
 
Other states, most notably New Mexico and Florida, suffered similar problems, casting a dark shadow of doubt over the alleged 3.5 million-vote nationwide edge claimed by Bush. 
 
By virtue of an 1887 law passed in response to the contested election of 1876, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) and others will challenge the seating of Ohio's electors.  If joined by a single Senator, Congress for the first time will debate the outcome of a presidential election as determined by the Electoral College. 
 

The presidential vote for George W. Bush does not compute.

By examining a very wide range of sworn testimonies from voters, polling officials and others close to the administration of the Nov. 2 election; by statistical analysis of the certified vote by mathematicians, election experts and independent research teams who have conducted detailed studies of the results in Ohio, New Mexico, Florida and elsewhere; from experts who studied the voting machines, tabulators and other electronic equipment on which a fair vote count has depended; and from a team of attorneys and others who have challenged the Ohio results; the freepress.org investigative team has compiled a portrait of an election whose true outcome must be investigated further by the Congress, the media and all Americans -- because it was almost certainly not an honest victory for George W. Bush.

This document contains links to pdfs of the complete text of the filings of the VERIFIED ELECTION CONTEST PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, also known as Moss v. Bush, and other related court documents.

Moss v. Bush

First Filing (Dismissed) (File size: 82 KB)
Second Filing (Current) (File size: 1.2 MB)

Moss v. Bush expert witness depositions

Dr. Baiman (File size: 100 KB)

Dr. Lange (File size: 76 KB)

Dr. Phillips (File size: 152 KB)

Moss v. Moyer

First Filing (Current) (File size: 838 KB)

The below document is the complete transcript of the December 13, 2004 congressional hearing on the presidential election in Columbus, Ohio. The hearings were chaired by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and Congressman John Conyers.

Download now

I'll admit it; my checkbook is not very tidy.  Like many people, I don't scrupulously reconcile my bank statements and I don't record every trip to the ATM or check card purchase the way my dad taught me.  Usually everything works out fine but every once in a while I bounce a check and suffer the consequences of my sloppiness.   It seems our public officials are being just as reckless with our votes.  An examination of the New Mexico canvass report of the November 2 election suggests that the state might be running the risk of bouncing an election.

The following is a fax from Office of the Secretary of State of Ohio documenting the distribution of voting machines on election day 2004.

Download the file (PDF, File size: 196 KB)

"That can't be what they really call them!" I exclaimed in amusement. But Lowell Finley, legal counsel for the Green/Libertarian recount effort in New Mexico, assured me that 'phantom vote' was indeed the common legal term for the puzzling phenomenon I had uncovered in looking at the state's canvass report. A phantom vote occurs when the number of votes recorded exceeds the number of ballots cast. Mathematically, phantom votes are merely the inverse of undervotes. Undervotes, which show up when there are less votes than ballots cast, can be accounted for more or less persuasively in one way or another but I have yet to come up with any acceptable explanation for phantoms. Much less, 2,087 of them statewide in New Mexico, just about one third of the margin of victory that determined the selection of that state's presidential electors.

Executive Summary:

There is a substantial discrepancy—well outside the margin of error and outcomedeterminative— between the national exit poll and the popular vote count.

The possible causes of the discrepancy would be random error, a skewed exit poll, or breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count.

Analysis shows that the discrepancy cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or random error.

Evidence does not support hypotheses that the discrepancy was produced by problems with the exit poll.

Widespread breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count are the most likely explanations for the discrepancy.

In an accurate count of a free and fair election, the strong likelihood is that Kerry would have been the winner of the popular vote.

Download the paper (PDF, File size: 2.1 MB)

On Election Night, when 100% of the precincts in Miami County had reported, only 31,620 votes had been counted.  George W. Bush was reported to have won Miami County with 20,807 votes (65.80%) to 10,724 votes (33.92%) for John F. Kerry.  These numbers did seem low.  In 2000 there had been 42,841 ballots cast.  Bush had won Miami County with 26,037 votes (60.78%) to 15,584 votes (36.38%) for Al Gore.

Somehow the final total came in later that night at 50,235 votes cast, giving Bush a margin of 16,000 votes, exactly – 33,039 to 17,039.  Moreover, as has been widely reported, even with the addition of 18,615 new votes, Bush's percentage was almost unchanged (65.80% to 65.77%), and Kerry's percentage was exactly the same (33.92%).  This led some observers to believe that the optical scanner had been programmed to come out that way, to provide the desired 16,000-vote plurality.

On December 9, 2004, I posted an article on Lucas County.  I noted with deep suspicion the voter turnout data for the City of Toledo.  Of the 495 precincts in Lucas County, the 88 precincts with the lowest turnout, all in the City of Toledo, were won by John Kerry.  Of the 8 precincts with less than 50% reported turnout, 4 are located in 2 wards.  Of the 29 precincts with less than 55% reported turnout, 20 are located in 4 wards.  Of the 63 precincts with less than 60% reported turnout, 34 are located in 4 wards, 39 are located in 5 wards, and 43 are located in 6 wards.

When the precinct numbers are combined into totals for each ward, a clear and unmistakable pattern emerges.  The 14 wards with the highest reported turnout were won by John Kerry by a margin of 11 to 7 in the aggregate.  The 10 wards with the lowest reported turnout were won by John Kerry by a margin of 6 to 1 in the aggregate.  The more competitive the ward, the higher the reported turnout.  Conversely, the less competitive the ward, the lower the reported turnout.