2004 United States election voting controversies

2004 United States election voting controversies

After the November 2, 2004 election in the United States, concerns were raised about various aspects of the voting process, including whether voting had been made accessible to all those entitled to vote (and no one else), and whether the votes cast had been correctly counted. More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome of the presidential election, in which the incumbent, Republican President George W. Bush, defeated the Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry. There was generally less attention paid to the Senate and House elections and to various state races, but some of them were also questioned.

Kerry himself conceded the presidential election to Bush on November 3. Some of his supporters criticized him for doing so, arguing that Bush's apparent win in Ohio was so narrow that it might be reversed if improprieties were corrected and the still-uncounted provisional ballots were largely in Kerry's favor. A subsequent partial recount in Ohio did not significantly reduce Bush's victory margin there [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/national/24vote.html Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul] , The New York Times] . (Some of the alleged improprieties in the election could not be addressed by a recount.) There is an ongoing debate about possible changes for future elections.

Among the issues raised in 2004 were:
* Obstacles to voter registration.
* Improper purges of voter lists.
* Deliberate voter suppression.
* Practical impediments to voting, such as excessively long lines.
* Accuracy and reliability of voting machines, and potential for undetected interference in their operations [ [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500805_pf.html Election Whistle-Blower Stymied by Vendors] , Washington Post] ("hacking"), including those employing DRE voting machines, []

A study performed by the Caltech / MIT Voting Technology Project concluded that "there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for President Bush." [cite paper
author = Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project
title = VOTING MACHINES AND THE UNDERESTIMATE OF THE BUSH VOTE
date = November 11, 2004
url = http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/VotingMachines3.pdf
accessdate = 2008-07-23|format=PDF
] This study was criticized for using data that had been corrected to match the official count, and thus "essentially analyzing rounding error". [cite web| last = Blumenthal| first = Mark| | title = Exit Polls: CalTech/MIT Report | date = November 15, 2004| url = http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/exit_polls_calt.html | accessdate =2008-07-23 ] On December 5, 2004 Charles Stewart III of MIT released a revised report which, he said, used pre-corrected data. [ [http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf Addendum to Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote] ]

On December 7, 2004, Warren Mitofsky, who had overseen the exit polling, stated that the pre-corrected data were proprietary and would not be released. [ [http://web.archive.org/web/20050521094237/http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/mitofskyelecinforesp12704.pdf Letter from Warren Mitofsky to John Conyers, Jr.] December 7, 2004]

One paper concluded that discrepancies in the exit polls were proof of a corrupted election, [cite paper
first = Freeman
last = Steven F.
author = Steven F. Freeman
title = The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
date = December 29, 2004
url = http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf
accessdate = 2008-07-23|format=PDF
] though others alleged this paper was unscientific. [ [http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/03/hello_exit_poll.html Hello Exit Polls My Old Friend] . Mark Blumenthal, Mystery Pollser] [ [http://web.archive.org/web/20060502035232/http://stonescryout.org/files/unexplained.pdf A Critical Review of The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy] , Mark Brady]

Other inaccuracies on Election Day

In the 2000 election, especially in the disputed recounts in Florida, there were issues concerning the ambiguities and uncertainties that arose from punch-card ballots, such as the hanging chads (incompletely punched holes). In 2004, the punch-card ballots were still widely used in some states. [ [http://www.edssurvey.com/images/File/VotingEquipStudies%20/ve2004_news.pdf New Study Shows 50 Million Voters Will Use Electronic Voting Systems, 32 Million Still with Punch Cards in 2004] , Election Data Services Inc] For example, more than 90,000 votes cast in Ohio were discounted, many because of hanging chads. [http://www.cleveland.com/election/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/109956457262001.xml] Fact|date=August 2008

Provisional and absentee ballots

Provisional ballots are for would-be voters who assert that they are registered but whose names cannot be found in the list available at the polling place. The voter completes a written ballot, which is placed in a sealed envelope. The ballot is opened and counted only if the voter is subsequently found to be registered.

In 2004, there was contention over the standards for determining whether to count provisional ballots. In several states, officials said that they would not count provisional ballots, even those from properly registered voters, that were submitted at the wrong precinct. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, although the original procedure had stated that the voter was not required to provide a date of birth, a new rule issued a week after the election called for rejecting any provisional ballot that lacked a date of birth. [http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985]

Absentee ballots were also an issue. There were reports of absentee ballots being mailed out too late for most voters to complete and return them in time. (In some instances, officials argued that last-minute litigation over Ralph Nader’s ballot status or other issues had prevented them from finalizing the absentee ballots as early as they wanted to.) In Broward County, Florida, some 58,000 absentee ballots were delivered to the Postal Service to be mailed to voters, according to county election officials, but the Postal Service said it had never received them. [ [http://www.local10.com/politics/3854230/detail.html Local 10 Uncovers Big Ballot Mystery - WPLG Miami] ] [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3960679.stm Florida ballot papers go missing] BBC News] In one widely reported instance, 5 Princeton University students (Theo Ellis, Luke Goodwin, Kelsey Johnson, Alison Hess, and Katharine Brandes) drove 40 continuous hours from New Jersey to Florida and back in order to vote. Hess, who lived in Democratic-stronghold Boca Raton, had never received the absentee ballot she applied for months in advance. The students rallied behind their friend, leaving at 11PM the night before the Presidential election to take her to vote in person in Florida. Numerous student groups used the students as an example to encourage other youths to exercise their right to vote; one group, the Princeton Democrats, raised money to pay for the 5 students' gas expense. [ [http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/11/03/news/11276.shtml In pursuit of a ballot, five freshmen take 19-hour road trip to Fla. - The Daily Princetonian] ]

Racial discrimination and other bias

Some of the issues described above have created problems for voters generally. Others, however, by accident or (it is charged) by design, have disproportionately affected racial minorities. For example, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights determined that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as "spoiled" were cast by African Americans, who were only 11 percent of the voters. [ [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2004/elect04.pdf Is America Ready to Vote?] Office of Civil Rights Evaluation U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ] People for the American Way and the NAACP catalogued a number of voting problems with discriminatory impacts through early 2004 in [http://www.naacp.org/inc/pdf/jimcrow.pdf this report] , with a subsequent [http://www.naacp.org/news/2004/2004-11-01.doc update] .

The 2004 election continued the well-established trend that African Americans were much more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. As a result, a disproportionate reduction in the African-American vote would tend to hurt the Democrats. Beyond that factor, many Democrats alleged that other election-related problems affected their supporters more heavily. Some argued that, if the election had been conducted without improprieties, Kerry would have won the presidency. According to Democratic attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. ... In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots. And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.
Journalist Greg Palast came to the same conclusion. [ [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php] ]

Recounts

Ralph Nader requested a recount of 11 wards in New Hampshire where vote totals for Bush were 5% - 15% higher then predicted by exit polls. The Nader campaign reports: [ [http://web.archive.org/web/20061003061606/http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413 Nader-Camejo Hand Recount in New Hampshire Ends With No Significant Discrepancies] ]

In the eleven wards recounted, only very minor discrepancies were found between the optical scan machine counts of the ballots and the recount. The discrepancies are similar to those found when hand-counted ballots are recounted.

In Ohio, two minor-party candidates, Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green, though not on the ballot in Ohio) cooperated in requesting a recount.

According to Ohio recount rules, 3% of a county's votes are tallied by hand, and typically one or more whole precincts are selected and combined to get the 3% sample. The 3% must be randomly selected, and all hand counts are to be performed in public (with observers). After the hand count, the sample is fed into the tabulator. If there is no discrepancy, the remaining ballots can be counted by the machine. Otherwise, a hand recount must be done for the whole county.

The Cobb campaign claimed that the precincts were not randomly selected and the ballots were pre-sorted. They suggested that this indicates that precincts were selected that would match the machine count, in order to prevent a county-wide hand count, i.e. that it was "staged". [ [http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/ohio_reports/#notrandom 2004 Ballot Recount » Ohio County Reports » Cobb-LaMarche 2004] ]

Around the country there were also recounts of races for state and local office. Most of them reflected simply the closeness of the official tally, but some also raised issues of election irregularities. These included the elections for:
* Governor of Washington, between Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire. Issues raised included the mailing of absentee ballots, the counting of provisional and absentee ballots, correction of improper marks on optically scanned ballots, and alleged tampering with electronic voting machines. The first tally and the first recount gave the election to Republican Dino Rossi. However, after two statewide recounts, Gregoire, the Democrat, had a narrow lead of 129 votes out of 2.8 million cast. A Republican lawsuit seeking to overturn the result and force a re-vote was rejected by the court, after which Rossi conceded the election. See Washington gubernatorial election, 2004.
* North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture, between Britt Cobb and Steve Troxler. The number of votes lost due to a voting machine malfunction in Carteret County (over 4,000) exceed the reported margin of about 2,000. A new election has been called by state election supervisors.
* Governor of Puerto Rico, between Anibal Acevedo Vilá and Pedro Rosselló. Nearly 30,000 ballots are in dispute in this race, where the two candidates are separated by just under 4,000 votes.

See also Moss v. Bush

References

External links

* [http://vote2004.eriposte.com/ "Vote Watch 2004"] - information and links about many incidents (pro-Kerry viewpoint)
* [http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml "Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff"] - investigation into irregularities reported in the Ohio presidential election by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (page down)
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070407113643/http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=676] Response by Kenneth Blackwell to accusations of Ohio misconduct
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61930-2005Jan9.html Comments on problems with the 2004 election (washingtonpost.com)]
* Mark Hertsgaard, Mother Jones, [http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio.html Recounting Ohio] (November/December 2005)
* Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Rolling Stone, [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print Was the 2004 Election Stolen?] (June 1, 2006)
* Farhad Manjoo, Salon, [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index.html Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. -- Critique of Robert F. Keennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone Article] (June 3, 2006)


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”