“I think there is going to be a move in the General Assembly to adopt some post-election audit requirements.”
Norden replied that he would be happy to talk to Damschroder about the audit requirements; Damschroder soon began the process of scheduling meetings with Ohio House Republicans, ostensibly at this point about post-election audits.But concerns expanded when on January 5, Damschroder wrote:
“I’ll make arrangements for us to meet with some folks from the House and Senate on Thursday.
An interesting development Friday afternoon (can’t remember if I already emailed this to you, if so, I apologize for being redundant) … SOS issued another Directive requiring Board Members to answer, in writing, with their names, whether or not they support her idea for central count paper ballots for 11/08. Per the Directive each member must complete the form independently and without consultation with other Board Members or the Board’s Director and/or Deputy Director. Disconcerting on two levels:
1) could violate Ohio's Open Meeting laws; and
2) half of the Board members are up for her to reappoint on 2/29 ... are we witnessing a separation of the sheep from the goats?”
The first point is ironic, because shortly after Damschroder’s open records concerns, the Ohio Republican Party held a closed door meeting of all Ohio GOP Election Officials to discuss Brunner’s questionnaire. As for his second point, just as in the case of September’s Controlling Board agenda, Damschroder appeared to use subjective paranoia to elicit a response from his audience – in September it was alleged bias of EVEREST scientists – here it was Brunner’s re-appointment authority -- and it worked as Norden responded:
This is indeed disconcerting. I intend to send a letter out to all county boards first thing Monday discouraging them from this move.
Damschroder Research Leads to ACLU Lawsuit
Two days earlier on January 4, Damschroder emailed a court decision to a list of undisclosed recipients. The case centered on the use of paper ballots in Cuyahoga County. The 1953 Court decision said:
“For a Board of Elections to fail to furnish the minimum ballots required by law, and subsequently have the ballots exhausted before closing time, would render the total vote in these precincts void irrespective of the number of people refused the right to vote. The election laws that pertain to the fundamental operation of voting, such as ballots and the make-up, should be rigidly enforced. Any relaxation of such enforcement will only invite fraud and corruption.”
To put this in context, Damschroder’s action means a former GOP operative whose goal is to preserve electronic voting, was fanning the flames of one of the alternatives – paper ballots – and pushing it on of all things the far-left ACLU, hardly a traditional GOP ally. Hoke responded by saying
“Boy, you make me feel like such a smart Election Law professor! Again, exactly what I had stated would be the governing principle of any sane court. I’ll pass this along….
By January 6, Hoke was readying to go farther with Damschroder’s research:
Larry and Matt,The more I thought about this most recent Directive for evidence of support of the paper ballot project, the more I’m convinced that it can be litigated as a First Amendment claim. That would be a core ACLU concern, of course. There might have to be a Board Member willing to be a plaintiff. If there is someone that Matt knows, we can transmit the info to the litigators.
Ironically, also on January 7, the Ohio Attorney General responded to a separate legal opinion from Jennifer Brunner after the ACLU had sent letter to the SOS and Cuyahoga County Board claiming that the central count-optical scan voting system “runs afoul of state law which requires the state to only use voting machines that preclude a voter from overvoting.”
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
