Voting Experts, Democracy Watchers Pinpoint Problems with Past, Future Ohio Elections

OhioNewsBureau

By John Michael Spinelli

COLUMBUS, OHIO: Ohio earned a reputation for conducting a questionable presidential election in 2004 and while some democracy activists are still claiming foul four years later, other election watchers are looking forward to this year’s elections and sounding warning shots to state and county election officials that problems associated with emergencies and home foreclosures could become serious with an anticipated record turnout of voters.

Meanwhile, shouts of  justice delayed by latter-day democracy activists who continue to gnaw at the ankle of Ohio’s chief election officer for saying one thing and doing another, with respect to election irregularities and the destruction of records they say are a violation of a judges ruling to save ballots that constitute evidence in a live lawsuit its managers hope will shoot off  more fireworks than were seen over Independence Day, continue to roil the election waters in a state trying to not have a repeat this year of what happened in 2004.

Being the perennial political bellwether battleground state it is, both Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain will spare no expense to win Ohio and its 20 Electoral Collage votes on Election Day. As major and minor political party candidates crisscross this Heartland state in the four months before the General Elections, cause for concern about future elections is being sounded by respected election experts.

LACK OF EMERGENCY PLAN IN OHIO TROUBLING

In his look forward called Election-Day Emergencies: Are We Prepared?, Nathan Cemenska, writing for Election Law @ Moritz (ELM), a Web site associated with the Moritz Law School at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio’s capital, makes a cogent argument that while the probability of technical problems and “maladministration in conducting the vote” has been reduced in many jurisdictions, its now time to look at emergency preparedness for Election Day, focusing on who’s in charge and what happens when special situations like severe weather or other anomalies arise.

According to Cemenska, of the 16 states ELM studied, eight of them had no law telling election administrators what to do when strange emergencies occurred. Moreover, while Ohio, which earned a black eye for how it conducted its 2004 election, was one of the eight states that had no state emergency plan, it was one step of the others only because its chief election officer has a recommendation that “local election officials should have a risk mitigation plan.” ELM says that because such an effort is relatively easy and offers great returns, election administrators should “make it a priority to come up with some sort of basic statewide plan in this area.”

SOME SEE LINK BETWEEN HOME FORECLOSURES AND PROVISIONAL BALLOTS?

One election expert, Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at The Ohio State University, says Ohio’s home foreclosure problem will become an issue this year because voters who are still registered at their former addresses may be subject to challenges or sent on an odyssey to multiple polling places or be forced to vote provisionally, which can occur when election records and state identification laws collide.

Tokaji, speaking to the Associated Press, said such problem is a “real issue” and wonders aloud whether the scores of thousands of Ohioans caught in the foreclosure crisis could why Ohio produces so many provisional ballots when compared with its neighboring Midwest states. The published report said nearly 37,000 voters are registered to vote at Columbus addresses the city lists as vacant, based on city and board of elections records.

The Franklin County Board of Elections, the report noted, sent out 27,000 notices in January to voters who had filled out change-of-address forms but who failed to then update their registrations. This could force them to vote a provisional ballot, which is problematic because they must make another trip to the BOE to bring the documentation they failed to have when they showed up on Election Day.

For a bit of historical perspective, President Bush enjoys his second term due to the 118,000 vote margin that put Ohio in his win column in 2004. In that year the Ohio Republican Party challenged more than 31,000 newly registered voters statewide, the AP reported, after letters the GOP mailed out came back as undeliverable. Ohio’s new state law requiring counties to mail their own notices to all registered voters could lead to another round of pre-election challenges, state officials say.

Real estate statistics cited in the AP article show that Columbus ranked 32nd among U.S. cities in the number of foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2008. Other Ohio cities, like Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, Toledo and Cincinnati, are among the top 50 cities for home foreclosures. As a state, Ohio was ninth among states during May with one filing for every 410 homes.

ARE OHIOANS AS "DUMB AS HAYSEEDS?"

In separate but related news on Ohio elections, the small, vocal group of democracy activists know as the Ohio Election Justice Campaign (OEJC), who are focused on the 2004 election, blasted Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner for saying that records from the destruction of ballots in 2004 were delivered to the federal court handing a live lawsuit – King Lincoln, et al. v Blackwell – when their research showed Brunner’s office didn’t do that.

Basing their statement on 800 pages of court records, OEJC said Brunner’s office still has the ballot-destruction records because they are not in possession of the court.

In a letter from the group’s leader, Paddy Shaffer, to Brunner, the group said the transfer of documents from the state to the court has yet to happen even though it’s been a year since Brunner said she would effect the movement of documents. Moreover, Schaffer wrote that 15 Ohio counties, of the 56 out of 88 counties who destroyed election records, have yet to submit letters of explanation on their destruction of ballots.

In closing her letter, Schaffer, who continues to rail against Brunner and the actions of her office on this and other election-related matters, again poked her finger in Brunner’s eye, asking, “Are Ohio voters dumb hayseeds or have they trusted unwisely?” Comments intended to inflame Brunner, who won office largely on a slogan to make Ohio elections “free, fair, open and honest” but who has vexed Schaffer and others, like powerful lawmakers and political leaders on both sides of the political isle and many of the local election administrators she oversees, will only cause Brunner to harden her management style that shows little room for different if not opposing views.

As recently as Monday, an editorial from an Ohio newspaper thrashes Brunner for her dominatrix-style management. The Salem News paddled her in an editorial that rehashes her domineering and partisan exuberances. "Thus far, Brunner's tone has been a sour one, raising legitimate questions about whether the Democrat leader is handling her office in a fair-minded way," the editorial said, adding that "Brunner sometimes appears to be more interested in control than in nonpartisanship."

"If Ohio's chief elections officer is viewed as a partisan manipulator, there is no doubt that the results of the general election will be controversial," the editorial ended. It called on her to cool her partisan jets and set the right tone for the November elections.

To contact this correspondent about a tip or news story, send an email to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it