Francais | English | Espanõl

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Image:Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Concerns were raised, following the 2004 election, on various aspects of the voting process: whether voting had been made accessible to everyone entitled to vote, whether the votes cast had been correctly counted, and whether these irregularities decisively affected the reported outcome of the election.

Among the issues raised were allegations or complaints regarding obstacles to voter registration, improper purges of voter lists, voter suppression, accuracy and reliability of voting machines (especially electronic voting), problems with absentee and provisional ballots, areas with more votes than signatures of voters in election poll books, areas with more votes than registered voters<ref name=WrongOhio>Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. U.S. House of Representatives (2005-01-05). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, and possible partisan interference by voting machine companies and election officials. Although a recount was conducted in Ohio, many of the alleged improprieties (such as long lines or tampering) could not be addressed in a recount.

Contents

[edit] Issues

Map showing reported problems by percentage, and their state distribution. [1]

The concerns included:

  • Exit Polls: The November 3rd 12:23 am election-day exit poll results conducted for the National Election Pool (NEP) by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International <ref name=Mitofsky>Mitofsky International.</ref> predicted John Kerry winning the popular vote by 5 million, while the official results gave George W. Bush the win with a popular margin of 3 million, an 8 million vote (6.5%) difference.
  • Voter Suppression: There are reports, some documented through video, of long lines at certain precincts in urban areas that favored Kerry. <ref name=NYTSpur>Dao, Jame. "Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul", New York Times, 2004-12-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>. Few experts believed the problems were enough to overturn Bush's victory and little evidence of fraud has emerged. <ref name=NYTSpur/> A report issued by the DNC stated that the difference in wait times was racially based. According to the DNC report, the average wait time across the state of Ohio for an African-American was 52 minutes, as compared to 18 minutes for whites. <ref name=DNCReport>Brazille, Donna (2005). Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio. The Democratic National Committee/The Voting Rights Institute. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Remarks were made by DNC Chairman Howard Dean. <ref name=DeanOhio>Dean, Howard. Gov. Dean's Remarks Introducing the Ohio Report. Democratic National Committee. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Speculations as to the cause of the delay include more efficient voting in suburban areas (machines in suburban areas were more heavily used), suburban voters were less easily discouraged from voting, or poorer districts were provided inferior and less equipment per capita. <ref name=NYTSpur/> The DNC report believed differences in the voting experience between African-American voters and white voters caused voter disenfranchisement by the state of Ohio since African-Americans tend to lean heavily towards the Democratic party. The report did not "challenge or question the results of the election in any way." <ref name=DNCReport/>

[edit] Voting machine security and HAVA

Main article: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines

In response to the 2000 presidential election controversy in Florida, where problems with punch-card voting systems led to Bush v. Gore [citation needed] Congress passed a law called the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) which appropriated $3.8 billion to replace punch-card and lever voting systems with computerized electronic voting systems. <ref name=HAVABasics>HAVA Basics. The Century Foundation (2006). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> The passage of HAVA acted as a catalyst to bring electronic voting machines, which had been in use for at least a decade, to a significant portion of the nation. [citation needed] It is estimated that around 40 million votes were cast using electronic voting machines in the 2004 U.S. election. <ref name=EWeekNC>"Computer Loses 4,500 Votes in N.C.", EWeek, 2006-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=APNC>"Computer Loses 4,500 Votes in N.C.", Associated Press, 2004-11-04. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=WashTimesHouse>Wyatt, Kristen. "House OKs changes for voting", The Washington Times, 2006-03-10. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

As the use of these machines became mainstream, several reports were released that highlighted insecurities in them. <ref name=DieboldRetreats>Festa, Paul. "Diebold retreats; lawmaker demands inquiry", CNET, 2003-12-01. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> The electronic voting machine industry joined the Information Technology Association of America, an industry organization that represents hundreds of the top technology companies in the U.S., <ref name=UnderFire>Festa, Paul. "Under fire, e-vote companies form a trade group", CNET, 2003-12-09. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> and created the "Election Technology Council" in order to address these concerns.

Many voting machines do not provide an auditable paper trail. <ref name=MachinesGoneWild>Lewellen-Biddle, Mark. "Voting Machines Gone Wild!", In These Times, 2003-12-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Votes tallied on an electronic voting machine can be electronically altered, possibly without detection. <ref name=WPWhistleBlower>Whoriskey, Peter. "Election Whistle-Blower Stymied by Vendors", Washington Post, 2006-03-26. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=BBVReport>Hursti, Harri (2005-07-04). The Black Box Report. blackboxvoting.org.</ref><ref name=EETMachines>Brown, Chappell. "Voting machines remain unsecured, expert warns", EE Times, 2004-10-28. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Without a voter-verifiable paper trail, proper auditing of results produced by the voting machine is difficult if not impossible. <ref name=StanfordPaperTrail>Computerized voting lacks paper trail, scholar warns. Stanford Report (2003-02-04). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> According to a team of security experts, even a small alteration of the machine could have been enough to change the result in battleground states. <ref>Goldfarb, Zachary. "A Single Person Could Swing an Election", The Washington Post, 2006-06-28. Retrieved on 2006-07-01.</ref> Some computer scientists have said these machines are not tamper resistant and that open-architecture voting machines would make the process more transparent. <ref name=OVCFaq>"The Open Voting Consortium FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)", The Open Voting Consortium. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Government agencies that purchased voting machines were usually denied access to the manufacturer's proprietary software, and the official certifications were routinely bypassed by the failure to perform manufacturer-prescribed tests, the failure to apply instructions intended to safeguard their integrity once purchased, or the use of uncertified software and updates. <ref name=AllPresidentsVotes>Gumbel, Andrew. "All the President's Votes?", Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2003-10-13. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=EFFNC>Diebold, North Carolina, and the Immaculate Certification. Electronic Frontier Foundation (2005-12-01). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=GuardianMachinations>Meacher, Michael. "Political machinations", The Guardian, 2005-02-02. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> When software was available for review, there were concerns that most agencies lacked the technical expertise to find problems or audit changes to the software. [citation needed] In several cases, agencies and experts examining the machines expressed dismay at their quality and security. <ref name=NYTSecurity>Schwartz, John. "Security Poor in Electronic Voting Machines, Study Warns", New York Times, 2004-01-29. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

At least one voting machine began counting backwards to zero when it reached 32,000 votes. The manufacturer, ES&S, allegedly had known of this issue for two years but had failed to fix the bug. <ref name=BrowardBlunder>Broward Vote-Counting Blunder Changes Amendment Result. WJXT (2004-11-04). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> In two cases, a certifying company (Ciber Inc.) recommended voting machines for certification without testing core firmware or attempting to verify any of the crucial security aspects of the machines. <ref name=CIBERReport1>CIBER Software Functional Test Report - Diebold Election Systems - GEMS 1-18-24. blackboxvoting.org. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=Scrunched>Illinois Ballot Integrity Project (2006-02-25). Will Dupage Voters Get "Scrunched" In Early Voting?. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=CIBERReport2>Diebold Election Systems Software Qualifications Test Report - GEMS 1-18-15. CIBER (2003-01-03). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=ScoopDiebold>Thompson, Alastair. "Diebold Confirms U.S. Vote Count Vulnerabilities", Scoop (news website), 2003-09-12. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=ScoopHarris>Harris, Bev. "Bev Harris: The Election Center and R. Doug Lewis", Scoop (news website), 2003-08-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Some managers and/or affiliates of each of these also have criminal records, including cases of computer fraud, embezzlement, and bid rigging. <ref name=BBVDean>The Jeffrey Dean Testimony. blackboxvoting.org.</ref><ref name=RawDiebold>Raftery, Miriam. "Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record", The Raw Story, 2005-12-06. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=SeattleCons>Howland Jr., George. "Election Pros Are Cons", Seattle Weekly, 2004-02-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=BBVCompany>Company Information: What you won't find on the company Web sites. blackboxvoting.org (2004). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> In addition, voting machine companies have been accused of major security and law violations. Employees (including senior executives) have been found to have had multiple prior convictions including bans for bid rigging, embezzlement, and drug trafficking, <ref name=CDCrooks>Landes, Lynn. "Elections In America - Assume Crooks Are In Control", Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2002-09-16. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=FairFraud>Voter Fraud. fairelections.org. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=SouthernCounts>Ashwill, Gary; Kromm, Chris. Who Counts the Vote?. Institute for Southern Studies. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> installing uncertified and untested versions of software on touchscreen voting machines, and tampering with computer files. <ref name=WIREDConJob>"Con Job at Diebold Subsidiary", Wired News, 2003-12-17. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=BBVDean/> According to internal email messages at the manufacturers, data files used in the machines are not password protected to prevent manual editing. <ref name=ScoopDiebold/><ref name=BBVDieboldMemos>Original Diebold Memos -- FULL SET. blackboxvoting.org (2005-08-04). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

The top three voting machine companies (ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia) account for over 90% of voting machines in use. <ref name=RegisterDebacle>Granneman, Scott. "Electronic Voting Debacle", The Register, 2003-11-18. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=CNETDMCA>McCullagh, Declan. "Students buck DMCA threat", CNET, 2003-11-03. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Two groups are trying to create new programs for electronic voting machines are The Open Vote Foundation and the Open Voting Consortium. <ref name=OpenVoteFoundation>The Open Vote Foundation.</ref><ref name=OpenVotingConsortium>Open Voting Consorium.</ref>

[edit] Exit polls

Main article: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

Exit poll interviews of voters leaving the polling place have been used in other countries to expose election fraud. In the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, for example, exit poll discrepancies were an indication of possible election fraud. <ref name=PunchDoubleStandards>Lindorff, Dave. "Double Standards on Exit Polls", CounterPunch, 2004-11-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19. </ref><ref name=CDUkraine>"Ukraine Gripped by Poll Turmoil", Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2004-11-22. Retrieved on 2006-05-19. </ref><ref name=NationUkraine>Huevel, Katrina V.. "Truth and Consequences in Ukraine", The Nation, 2004-12-01. Retrieved on 2006-05-19. </ref><ref name=ModerateUkraine>Vasquez, Betsy R. (Nov 2004). Speaking of Fixed Elections: Ukrainian Election Dubbed a Fraud. The Moderate Independent 2 (22). </ref><ref name=IrishUkranianFraud>Stephen, Chris. "Ukraine opposition defiant as poll fraud condemned", The Irish Times, 2004-11-23. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=BBCUkranian>"Poll dispute sparks Ukraine rally", BBC News, 2004-11-22. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> A re-vote was eventually ordered and the election result was overturned.

The National Election Pool (NEP), a consortium of news organizations responsible for conducting most exit polls for the 2004 election, hired Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International (Edison/Mitofsky) to conduct the polls. The stated goal of NEP's and Edison/Mitofsky's exit polling and subsequent analysis is to accurately predict election winners, not to detect fraud. Accordingly, they adjust the final (published) exit poll results to match actual vote counts.

According to blogger Mark Blumenthal, in the 2004 election, pre-adjustment exit poll results were most likely leaked onto the Internet during Election Day via CNN. <ref name=MysteryFreeman>Freeman's Data. Mystery Pollster (2004-11-29). Retrieved on 2005-05-19.</ref> These results, based on unadjusted exit polls, indicated that Kerry was leading Bush. <ref name=MysteryWrong>Exits: Were They Really "Wrong"?. Mystery Pollster (2004-12-14). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> According to an internal review of 1,400 precincts, Kerry's vote in the exit poll was higher than that in the vote count by an average of 1.9 percent. At one point during the day, Kerry's lead over Bush was estimated to be 3% of the popular vote. <ref name=WPDamage>Morin, Richard. "Surveying the Damage", The Washington Post, 2004-11-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Differences between vote counts and pre-adjustment exit poll results were larger in battleground states.

A preliminary report <ref name=VTPUnderestimate>Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote. Voting Technology Project. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> from the California Institute of Technology purported to show no discrepancy in the exit poll data. Another analysis <ref name=FreemanDiscrepancy>Freeman, F., Steven (2004-12-29). The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> from Steven Freeman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, gained initial media attention by asserting that the odds were less than 1 in 250 million that the difference between unadjusted exit poll data and actual vote counts was due to chance, although he later revised these odds to 1 in 662,000. His paper has attracted criticism <ref name=MysteryWrong/> from polling statisticians for not having incorporated large enough design effects, which would mean that the paper overstated the odds against these anomalies occurring by chance, and for other statistical failings. <ref name=StonesDiscrepancy>Critical Review of The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy. Stones Cry Out (2005-03-20). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Initial exit poll results indicated that Bush made substantial gains among Hispanics, especially in his home state of Texas, but some of these apparent gains now seem to have evaporated. <ref name=SacramentoLatino>Doyle, Michael. "Pollsters lower estimate of Bush's Latino support", The Sacramento Bee, 2004-12-03. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> A correction <ref name=ScrippsHispanic>Brosnan, James W.. "Hispanic vote less for Bush than exit polls showed", Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=NBCLatino>"NBC Makes Unprecedented Downward Correction in Latino Support for Bush", William C. Velasquez Institute, 2004-12-03. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> reported by the Press reduced Bush's support substantially, turning an 18-point Bush margin among Texan Hispanics into a narrow Kerry lead. Nationwide figures reported later by NBC reduced Bush's gains further, while other surveys have produced mixed results. A poll by the William C. Velasquez Institute <ref name=VelasquezInstitute>William C. Velasquez Institute. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> indicated that Bush's gains among Hispanics since 2000 were not statistically significant, but the University of Pennsylvania's larger National Annenberg Election Survey showed a significant increase in Bush's support. <ref name=AnnenbergHispanics>Annenberg Public Policy Center (2004-12-21). Bush 2004 Gains among Hispanics Strongest with Men, And in South and Northeast, Annenberg Data Show. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

In a 77-page report issued in January 2005, the polling company, Edison/Mitofsky, denied the possibility that fraud caused differences between exit poll results and vote tallies. <ref name=MitofskySystem>Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004. Mitofsky International (2005-01-19). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Edison/Mitofsky believes "Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters" and that this willingness was the cause of the error in the exit poll results. Edison/Mitofsky said their evaluation does not support the hypothesis that discrepancies were higher in precincts using electronic voting equipment.

A group called US Count Votes responded with its own report <ref name=UCVDiscrepancies>Study of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies. US Count Votes (2005-01-28). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, saying: ["The Edison/Mitofsky report] gives no consideration to alternative explanations involving election irregularities [and] fails to substantiate their hypothesis that the difference between their exit polls and official election results should be explained by problems with the exit polls. They assert without supporting evidence that (p. 4), "Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters." In fact, data included within the report suggest that the opposite might be true."

Their report also states that Edison/Mitofsky did not adequately investigate whether the type of voting machine was a factor in discrepancies. Several professors of statistics and other analytical fields contributed to the US Count Votes report. The report recommended that a national database of precinct-level election results be compiled to support rigorous statistical analysis.

US Count Votes have since produced a further report (Executive Summary <ref name=USCMitofsky>Mitteldorf, Josh (2005-03-30). Response to the Report Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 (Summary). US Count Votes. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, Full Report <ref name=USCMitofsky2>Mitteldorf, Josh (2005-03-30). Response to the Report Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 (Full report). US Count Votes. Retrieved on 2002-05-19.</ref>), which claims that Edison/Mitofsky's data gives support to the idea that the exit polls were more accurate than the official vote tallies, and that a thorough investigation and exhaustive recounts in key states would be appropriate.

[edit] Vote suppression

Main article: 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

The term "voter suppression" is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described alleged voter suppression in his state (Ohio):

Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common.

—Dennis Kucinich

Voting technology irregularities - In 2004, the issue of long lines and unequal voting machine distribution (among other issues) received increased attention in Ohio.In many places, voters had to wait several hours to vote. <ref name=PBSScience>Michels, Spencer (2004-12-02). Election Science. PBS. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> These waits have been attributed to an overall increase in voter registration without the mandated proportional increase in voting machines in some precincts (some precints lost voting machines while gaining registered voters); misdirection of voters, and poorly trained staff.<ref name=ElectionProtection>"Election Protection Watch", AlterNet, 2004-11-02. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=ReportCard>Wang, Andrea. "2004: A Report Card", The American Prospect, 2005-01-04. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=HookCrook>Dunn, Andy (March 2005). Hook and Crook. Z Magazine 18 (3).</ref> <ref name=WrongOhio/>

"Ballot spoilage" was also a major issue, and was predominately reported in African American precincts.<ref name=BallotsBalance>Valelly, Richard M. Ballots in the Balance. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=GettingOut>Greene, Allen. "Florida: Getting out the vote", BBC News, 2004-09-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=DemocracySpoiled>Democracy Spoiled. Harvard University (2002-07-12). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> These precincts were allocated a disproportionately high proportion of punch-card voting machines compared to other precincts.[citation needed] High turnout and a very high percentage of the voters voting the same (Democrat) resulted in an anomolously high concentration of reported "broken" punch-card machines; machines in which the metal pin that punches out the chad can no longer push the chad through the whole because too many chads had built up beneath it - resulting in ballots without a vote for president. [citation needed]

This problem first surfaced in Florida in the previous presidental election. In that election, punch-card machines were likewise distributed in disproportionally high amounts in African American precincts.<ref name=RaceEqualRight>Race and the Equal Right to Vote. ACLU. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=UnscannedMajority>Corn, David. "The Unscanned Majority", The Nation, 2000-12-25. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Public recognition of the potential for abuse by allocating these machines disproportionately resulted in nation-wide efforts by citizen groups to discontinue the use of these machines.<ref name=ACLUHAVA>H.R. 3295/ Help America Vote Act. ACLU (2001-12-11). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> In 2004, the punch-card ballots were still widely used in some states. For example, more than 90,000 votes cast in Ohio were discounted, many allegedly due to "hanging" chads. <ref name=JointSessionVotes>Counting Electoral Votes--Joint Session of the House and senate. Coalition Against Election Fraud (2005-01-06). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Voter registration irregularities - Allegations of voter registration fraud were made by both parties in many states during the 2004 election. Some of the controversies involved the procedure by which workers are paid per registration. In Colorado at least 719 cases of potentially fraudulent forms were submitted. <ref name=ITeamFraud>Sherman, Deborah. "I-Team investigation uncovers voter registration fraud", 9News, 2004-10-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson issued a statement saying:

I have a message for those that finance direct participation in abuse - I'm saying abuse. They could be out there legally doing it and there's no problem. If there is abuse in their process, we're going after them.

—Donetta Davidson

In Nevada, former field registrars for the Republican party and for the Republican party-funded group "Voters Outreach of America" claimed that they had been instructed to "dispose of" any voter registrations they received from Democrats. A Republican official described the allegations as an "outright lie", and that there was "no way anyone would issue instructions to destroy valid registrations, even from Democrats". <ref name=KLASFraud>Knapp, George. "Voter Fraud Allegations Headed to Court", KLAS-TV. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, <ref name=KLASRegistrations>Knapp, George. "Investigation into Trashed Voter Registrations", KLAS-TV. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, <ref name=MercuryFraud>Kurtzman, Laura. "GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge", San Jose Mercury News, 2004-10-11. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Months prior to the election, the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections filed suit against the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Board of Elections, claiming that they botched or failed to file the registration of at least 10,000 voters.

Provisional ballot irregularities - During the election, a record number of provisional ballots - ballots for people who believed they had registered but were not on the voter roles - were filled out in that county. Of those, 33% (8,099) were ultimately thrown out, more than three and a half times the normal Ohio rate of 9%.<ref name=WTOLCuyahoga>"Cuyahoga County Throws Out 8,000 Votes", WTOL, 2004-11-23. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=NationElections>Nichols, John. "The State of US Elections", The Nation, 2005-01-06. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> [citation needed] Shortly after the ballots had been counted, the People for the American Way filed a lawsuit seeking to have provisional ballots re-examined, demanding that provisional ballots be accepted regardless of the precinct they were filed in, in accordance with Ohio state law and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that registration be checked against voter registration cards, rather than just electronic voting lists.<ref name=PFAWCuyahoga>People For the American Way (2004-11-24). Lawsuit Demands "Second Chance" for Counting Cuyahoga Provisional Ballots. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Absentee ballot irregularities - Absentee ballots were also an issue. In Broward County, Florida, over 58,000 absentee ballots sent to the Postal Service to be sent out to voters were never received by the Postal Service, according to the Postal Service and county election officials. <ref name=BBCMissingBallots>"Florida ballot papers go missing", BBC News, 2004-10-28. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Tire slashing - In Wisconsin, the son of Rep. Gwen Moore (D) and four volunteers for the Kerry / Edwards campaign slashed tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to aid in voter turnout. Republican campaign workers were able to replace the vans in time to take voters to the polls. Spokesman for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Seth Boffeli, said the five were paid employees of Kerry's campaign, but were not acting on behalf of the campaign or party.<ref name=Tires>Ehlke, Gretchen. "Congresswoman's son, four others charged with slashing Republican van tires on Election Day", SFGate, 2005-01-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> All five were arrested and faced felony charges. <ref name=Tires/>. Four of the five, including Rep. Moore's son, were sentenced to 4 to 6 months in jail.<ref name=MSNBCTires>"Lawmaker's son sentenced for slashing tires", MSNBC, 2006-03-26. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>.

[edit] Allegations of racial discrimination and other bias

Some critics allege that the pattern of voter disenfranchisement is by design, having disproportionately affected racial minorities and/or urban precincts. For example, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights estimated that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as "spoiled" were cast by African Americans, who represented only 11 percent of the voters. <ref name=CivilRightsIrregularities>Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election. United States Commission on Civil Rights (2001-07). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> People for the American Way and the NAACP catalogued a number of voting problems with discriminatory impacts through early 2004.<ref name=NAACPBarriers>Run-up to Election Exposes Widespread Barriers to Voting. NAACP (2004-11-01). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

The 2004 election continued the 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 Democratic candidates. BBC journalist Greg Palast, a self-described progressive, alleged that if the election had been conducted without improprieties, Kerry would have won the presidency. <ref name=KerryWon>Palast, Greg (2004-11-04). Kerry Won. tompaine.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=WPPushing>Becker, Jo. "Pushing to be counted in Florida", The Washington Post, 2004-10-13. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=JoynerJudge>Joyner, James (2004-11-01). Judge Rules Against Ohio Polling Place Challenges. Outside the Beltway. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=PalastRolls>Greg Palast. "Voters claim abuse of electoral rolls", The Observer, 2004-10-31. Retrieved on 2005-05-19.</ref><ref name=FPOhio>Fitrakis, Bob. "Document reveals Columbus, Ohio voters waited hours as election officials held back machines", The Free Press, 2004-11-16. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Jesse Jackson, a prominent African-American activist and founder of the Rainbow Coalition, remarked on Election Day: "Suppose 500 black folks came into a white neighborhood to challenge votes. It would be totally unacceptable. We will not surrender in the face of this madness." <ref name=BoingMoore>Election-day footage from Michael Moore "Video the Vote" team. Boing Boing (2004-11-06). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> <ref name=BoingMoore2>Michael Moore "protect the vote video team" member's Ohio account. Boing Boing (2004-11-03). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>.

In August 2004, the NAACP and other civil rights leaders charged that the Republican Party was mounting a campaign to keep African Americans and other minority voters away from the polls in November.<ref name=WPStifle>Becker, Jo. "Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote", The Washington Post, 2004-08-26. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] International election monitoring

A small team of international election monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were invited to monitor the U.S. election. The OSCE observers were granted access to polling stations in a number of states, although sometimes only in specific counties. The monitors criticised partisan election officials and the long lines at polling places, but said that electronic voting machines generally appeared to run smoothly.

As for electronic voting, [election monitor] Gould said he preferred Venezuela's system to the calculator-sized touch pads in Miami. "Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould said. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud." The United States is also nearly unique in lacking a unified voter registration system or national identity card, Gould said, adding that he would ideally require U.S. voters to dip a finger in an ink bowl or have a cuticle stained black after voting. "In El Salvador, Namibia and so many other elections, the ink was extremely important in preventing challenges to multiple voting," Gould said. "In Afghanistan it didn't work so well, because they used the dipping ink for the cuticles, so it wiped right off."

—Thomas Crampton

[edit] Allegations of a media 'lockdown'

Since reports of irregularities surrounding the 2004 Presidential vote first started to surface, there has been an ongoing complaint by progressive and liberal figures and media watchdog groups that the "mainstream" media has not given enough coverage to the issue, or has in fact intentionally minimized coverage and public awareness. <ref name=GlobeIrregularities>Jurkowitz, Mark. "Media accused of ignoring election irregularities", The Boston Globe, 2004-11-17. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=FAIRBroken>Spencer, Miranda (March/April 2005). America?s Broken Electoral System. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Although numerous publications have covered the voting process leading up to, during and following the election, the allegation of a "media lockdown" has persisted and grown as the majority of the coverage and insight into the election irregularities has taken place in alternative media outlets (independent/local media, internet media, etc.).<ref name=CDIgnoring>Jurkowitz, Mark. "Media Accused of Ignoring Election Irregularities", Common Dreams NewsCenter, 2004-11-17. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> In light of numerous troublesome occurrences, most notably the exit polls withheld from public scrutiny by various media corporations who own the data, allegations of corporate or government manipulation and suppression of the media continue.<ref name=ZNetSuppression>Azulay, Jessica. "Amid Charges of Vote Suppression, Activists Look for Larger Fraud", ZNet, 2004-11-13. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref name=CDIgnoring/><ref name=FAIRSuppressing>Spencer, Miranda (Jan/Feb 2005). Suppressing the Vote, Suppressing the News. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), in an open letter to supporters, alluded to such a media lockdown: [citation needed]

John Conyers

[edit] Other controversies and allegations

There have been incidents of irregularity, confusion or possible malfeasance in official handling of ballots with address errors, missing birthdates or other discrepancies, where such handling has been alleged to be contrary to standing law. Please see the In the news section for a list of reports detailing reported irregularities and unresolved aspects of the election.

In Cleveland, a mistake in precinct poll coordination led to hundreds of presidential votes being cast for a third party candidate instead of the intended candidate. <ref name=TOElection>Fitrakis, Bob. "Election 2004", Truthout.org, 2005-01-03. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> Another article <ref name=PattersonTheft>Paterson, James (2004). The Theft of the 2004 US Election. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> alleges that Democratic results on election night were withheld until Republican results had moved ahead.

Some analysts have suggested that a discrepancy between the loss margins of minor Democratic Supreme Court candidate C. Ellen Connally and Kerry/Edwards indicates vote manipulation: one would expect a minor candidate to receive fewer votes, relatively speaking, than the major candidate for the party. In some areas, this situation was reversed. <ref name=DNJackson>"Jesse Jackson: Kerry's "Early Concession Betrayed the Trust of the Voters"", Democracy Now!, 2004-11-30. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

Blackboxvoting.ORG<ref name=BBVCurtain>Pay No Attention to the Men Behind the Curtain. blackboxvoting.org (2004). Retrieved on 2005-05-19.</ref> reports that the following voting irregularities are directly foreseeable: "There are some who are using election-manipulation techniques to transfer a block of power to their friends. This is a business plan, or a form of organized crime, depending on how alarmed you are ... Manipulation of elections includes the following attack points."

  1. Strategic redistricting, ignoring normal timelines for re-evaluation.
  2. Orchestrated vote suppression: Hiring "challengers" to confront voters in targeted areas; moving polling places at the last minute, "losing" the voter registration records for a percentage of targeted voters, booting up equipment late, or not having enough equipment in minority districts.
  3. Casting and counting the vote on manipulatable and insecure systems.

Blackboxvoting.ORG<ref name=BBV>BlackBoxVoting.org. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> has alleged<ref name=BBVAttack>Harris, Bev (2005-12-14). This site was under attack. blackboxvoting.org. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> it was "under attack around the time of the 2004 election, repeatedly, using various methods, very aggressively." The attack "was not random. It was clearly a targeted attack using a variety of methods..."

thumb

Also, it was reported that in Ohio, postcards telling voters to vote on November 3rd, a day after the true presidential election were circulated.

In one instance, Chad Staton of Defiance, Ohio, charged with filing 124 false voter registration forms, said he committed the felonies in exchange for crack cocaine from Georgianne Pitts of Toledo, who was working for NAACP Voter Fund. <ref name=BladeDefiance>Mahr, Joe. "Voter fraud case traced to Defiance County registrations volunteer", The Blade (newspaper), 2004-10-19. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>


[edit] Voter's rights advocacy organizations

[edit] Blackboxvoting.org

Black Box Voting has launched a fraud audit into Florida and Ohio. Three investigators (Bev Harris, Andy Stephenson, and Kathleen Wynne) were in Florida requesting hand counts on selected counties that had not fully complied with blackboxvoting.org's Nov. 2 Freedom of Information requests. Blackboxvoting.org accuses Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell of failing to properly account for provisional ballots, and refusing to allow citizens to see pollbooks.

The director of blackboxvoting.org, Bev Harris, has filed a lawsuit against Palm Beach County, Florida Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore, which accuses her of stonewalling or ignoring requests for public records. The information was obtained from her successor, Arthur Anderson.<ref>Palm Beach County fails audit. Black Box Voting (2005-06-08). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref>"A Corrupted Election", Independent News, 2004-03-03. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] Electronic Frontier Foundation

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation electronic voting machines may have serious security problems that aren't being addressed. Most of the machines use "black box" software that hasn't been publicly reviewed for security. Few machines provide voter-verifiable paper ballots which can be used to detect vote fraud. A recent analysis by several academic researchers outlines the many and varied ways that anyone from a technically proficient insider to an average voter could disrupt a poorly designed e-voting system to defraud an election. EFF has filed numerous lawsuits concerning voting irregularities.

[edit] The Election Protection Coalition

Hearings were held November 13 and 15, 2004, in Columbus, Ohio. The hearings were organized by the Election Protection Coalition and allowed citizens to enter their concerns regarding voter suppression and other irregularities into the public record.

[edit] Lynn Landes' investigation of Associated Press exit polls reporting

Journalist Lynn Landes' investigation states that the Associated Press (AP) is the "sole source of raw vote totals for the major news broadcasters on Election Night" and that they have refused to explain where this information will be sourced, and "refused to confirm or deny that the AP will receive direct feed from voting machines and central vote tabulating computers across the country."

She notes that if so, a remote computer could also access these same machines (the manufacturers already requested they not be connected during some elections, see above), that the manufacturers pride themselves on "accessibility" and that many of the AP executives have Republican ties and as a sole source may not be as non-partisan as is believed. She also points out there are significant ownership ties between conservative newspapers and voting machine manufacturers. <ref>Could the Associated Press (AP) Rig the Election?. Ecotalk (2004-10-22). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] Verified Voting and TrueMajority campaigns

Over a thousand computer scientists, academics, lawyers, elected officials and regular citizens have signed verifiedvoting.org's petition<ref name=VVFResolution>Resolution on Electronic Voting. Verified Voting Foundation. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> to require voting machines with a verifiable paper trail. TrueMajority founder Ben Cohen (of Ben & Jerry's fame) notes, "The fledgling technology already has failed widely-publicized tests. One hacker was able to open a locked machine and start changing votes. It took him less than a minute. Another hacker was able to intercept and change vote totals being sent to headquarters." <ref name=WiredAte>Zetter, Kim. "The Computer Ate My Vote", Wired News, 2004-02-16. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] Political party efforts

[edit] Democratic Party

Several Democratic members of the House Committee on the Judiciary have written to the GAO requesting a formal investigation. Their first letter was written three days after the election, on November 5 <ref name=ComptrollerLetter>Conyers, John; Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler (2004-11-05). Letter to the Comptroller General. House Committee on the Judiciary, Democratic Members. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, and this was followed by a second letter on November 8 listing further matters which had since come to light <ref name=ComptrollerLetter2>Conyers, John; Jerrold Nadler, Robert Wexler, Robert C. Scott, Melvin Watt, Rush Holt (2004-11-08). Letter to the Comptroller General. House Committee on the Judiciary, Democratic Members. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>. The investigation by the GAO is ongoing.

Numerous Democratic politicians have responded to the irregularities reported in the 2004 Presidential election. The Democratic National Committee (DNC)'s Voting Rights Institute has initiated an investigation of the Ohio irregularities. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) promised on January 6 that HAVA (the 'Help Americans Vote Act') would be 'fixed' in the 109th Congress. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is expected to introduce the 'Federal Election Integrity Act' in February 2005. 'FEIA' is aimed at preventing election officials from participating in campaigns they oversee. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) agreed to join Senator Boxer (D-CA) in re-introducing legislation in the Senate requiring a paper audit for all electronic voting machines currently in service in the U.S.

[edit] Third party candidates

Green Party candidate David Cobb, in conjunction with his Libertarian opponent Michael Badnarik, raised the funds needed for a recount of the Ohio presidential vote in four days. Their request was filed with the required fees on November 19, and the recount was begun on December 13. Observers from the Green Party claimed that there were irregularities in the conduct of this recount <ref>The 2004 Recount in Ohio: County Reports. David Cobb (?). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>, and Cobb filed a federal complaint on December 30 asking for a recount to be reconducted using uniform standards.

Cobb and Badnarik also requested a recount in New Mexico, but were asked to pay the estimated cost of $1.4 million up front. They instead challenged this requirement in court, and appealed an initial ruling that upheld this fee.

They also requested a recount in Nevada, but withdrew this request due to financial and other demands which they considered unreasonable.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader filed a request for a recount of the votes with New Hampshire's Secretary of State. Nader's request cited "irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire" and added: "These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 percent to 15 percent over what was expected." <ref>Nader/Camejo Challenge Electronic Voting Results in New Hampshire. Nader for President 2004 (2004-11-05). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> The state conducted a partial recount which was completed Nov. 30, finding no significant discrepancies. <ref>Nader-Camejo Hand Recount in New Hampshire Ends With No Significant Discrepancies. Nader for President 2004 (2004-11-30). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>.

According to Nader, the current situation with voting machines warrants investigation. Several elements make voting machines "probative" for investigation, according to Nader, a consumer affairs lawyer: proprietary ownership, secret code, vested interests, a high-value reward, and lack of any real consequences, or likelihood of getting caught, for vote manipulation. "We are told that shenanigans are just politics," said Nader at a press conference on Nov. 10. "Well, it's not politics. It's taking away people's votes."

[edit] State and Federal government agencies

Master list of Election-related litigation<ref name=FindLawInvestigations>Voting Cases and Investigations. FindLaw (2006-05-19). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary (Democratic Staff)

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee requested an investigation by the GAO, asked Ohio election's chief J. Kenneth Blackwell for explanations of many irregularities, and held two Public Congressional Forums about voting irregularities in Ohio on December 8 and 13. Among the attendees were Jesse Jackson, Cliff Arnebeck, David Cobb, Bob Fitrakis and (at the first forum) Steve Freeman. Warren Mitofsky and Ken Blackwell were invited to the first forum but declined to attend.

Relevant excerpts from the hearings are available at the article 2004 U.S. presidential election recounts and legal challenges.

A 100-page status report on their investigations was released on January 5, 2005, prior to the Jan. 6 joint meeting of Congress to receive the electoral college votes.

For letters and press releases, see House Committee on the Judiciary, Democratic Members.

[edit] Government Accountability Office

In November 2004, the Government Accountability Office began investigating vote counting in the election. <ref name=WiredGAO>"GAO to Probe Vote Counting", Wired News, 2004-11-24. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref> The GAO report found problems with electronic voting machines, which could have resulted in lost or miscounted votes. The report did not make any specific accusations of fraud in the 2004 election. <ref name=GAOVoting>Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed. Government Accountability Office (2005-09). Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] California State Voting Panel and State Department

In October of 2004 the state of California issued an order stating that 15,000 brand new touch-screen voting machines would not be used in next week's presidential election. These electronic machines were manufactured by Diebold Inc., a North Canton, Ohio-based company that also specializes in automated teller machines and electronic security.

California election officials say there are serious flaws with the machines and that Diebold repeatedly misled the state about them. "[Diebold] literally engaged in absolutely deplorable behavior and, to that extent, put the election at risk, jeopardizing the outcome of the election," said California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. <ref>Ross, Brian. "Touch-screen Trouble: California Decertifies Flawed Electronic Voting Machines", ABC News, 2004-10-27. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref><ref>Zetter, Kim. "Diebold May Face Criminal Charges", Wired News, 2004-04-25. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced before the election in September that he will sue e-voting technology maker Diebold on charges that it defrauded the state because of their aggressive marketing and overstated claims, and sold the state poor-quality equipment that did not produce a paper trail and was full of security vulnerabilities. In December 2004, Diebold settled the case by agreeing to pay $2.6 million and to implement "certain reforms". <ref>Boulton, Clint. "Diebold to Settle with California", Internet News, 2004-12-17. Retrieved on 2006-05-19.</ref>

[edit] Moss v. Bush

Main article: Moss v. Bush

On November 2, 2004, the American people went to the polls to select the electors for President of the United States. Under the electoral college system George W. Bush garnered 286 electors while John Kerry received 251. Between November 2 and November 12, ballots were counted and certified by each state's secretary of state. One month later on December 13 2004 the Electors met to vote for President of the United States and transmit the certificates of vote to the Congressional Archivist. Each state had until December 22, 2004 to transmit these records.

Within this period a civil case citing numerous statistical anomalies in Ohio's official canvass report alleged that election irregularities had altered the outcome of the election. The case, Moss v. Bush, was initially filed on December 13, 2004 in Ohio Supreme Court but was dismissed without prejudice because of a legally incorrect challenge. It was refiled and accepted. The Plaintiffs requested an expedited trial in order to meet the deadline of January 6 when Ohio's electoral votes were to be congressionally certified. The presiding judge, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, denied that request. On January 6, 2005, congress certified Ohio's electoral votes. The Plaintiffs then requested that the case be withdrawn since the certification rendered the case moot. The judge accepted the request.

[