Connecting the acorns - er - dots

Jesse Hathaway has been doing some great work on his blog Athens Runaway lately and his latest post, "Acorns? In MY State Elections?" is no exception.

He rounds up some of the state goals of ACORN, the 'community organizing' group known for their voting fraud issues, which show the supposedly non-partisan group is, indeed, partisan.

And it takes a look at some public record requests pending in the Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office, especially considering that an ACORN 'Project Vote' person served as a consultant to her last campaign.

I hope you'll read the entire post.

Brunner rejects LCRP request to change Board of Elections members

I've previously written about the request made to Ohio's Secretary of State by the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee to remove Patrick Kriner from the Board of Elections and replace him with LCRP Chairman Jon Stainbrook.

Here is her response:

Jennifer Brunner
Ohio Secretary of State
1 8O EAST BROAD STREET, 1 6TH FLOOR
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 USA
TEL: 1-877-767-6446 FAX: 1-6 1 4-644-O649
WWW.SOS.STATE.OH.US

June 3,2009
Via U.S. Mail & E-mail (admin@lucascountygop.org)
Hans Schnapp
Secretary, Lucas County Republican Party
10 S. Superior
Toledo, Ohio 43604

Re: Appointment of Patrick Kriner

Dear Mr. Schnapp:

This letter is in response to your letter of May 29, 2009, sent by you in your capacity as Secretary to the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee, and received by this office on June 2, 2009. In your letter, you request that I "appoint Jon Stainbrook to the vacant position as a member of the Lucas County Board of Elections * * * by the close of business on June 3, 2009." You enclosed with your letter a completed Form No. 301 (Recommendation for Unexpired Term Appointment of Member of Board of Elections) and Form No. 302 (Questionnaire for Prospective Appointment as a Member of the Lucas County Board of Elections).

This office has not received a resignation letter from Mr. Kriner or any other documentation of a vacancy on the Lucas County Board of Elections. R.C.3501.07 provides that the executive committee of a county party may meet and recommend a qualified elector to serve on the board of elections within fifteen days after a vacancy occurs on the board.' Because no vacancy existed when the party met on May 28, 2009 and recommended Mr. Stainbrook to serve on the board, the party's recommendation is premature and must be rejected as a matter of law.

The records of this office reflect that, on January 19, 2008, the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee recommended the re-appointment of Patrick Ki'iner to a full term on the Lucas County Board of Elections. In accordance with this recommendation and with the appointment procedure established in RC.3501.07,1 appointed Mr. Kriner to serve a four-year term on the board beginning March 1, 2008. The forms filed by die Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee with this office in connection with the recommendation of Mr. Kriner were, on their face, proper, and I was not aware of any facts that brought Mr. Kriner's competence into question. For the past sixteen months since the filing of the recommendation, neither you nor anyone else has raised with this office any concerns regarding either the process by which Mr. Kriner received the party's recommendation for the appointment or Mr. Kriner's service on the board.

It appears from reading the January 20, 2008 Toledo Blade article included with your letter that Mr. Stainbrook may have contemporaneously raised with the party an objection to the party's recommendation process. However, to my knowledge, Mr. Stainbrook did not, prior to the date of Mr. Kriner's appointment, raise an objection with this office or seek from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas injunctive relief to enforce Ohio's Open Meetings Act as authorized by R.C.121.22(I).2

As Secretary of State, I do have the authority to remove members of boards of elections, including Mr. Kriner, for "neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for any willful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code, or for any other good and sufficient cause. * * R.C.3501.16. You assert that the process by which the party recommended Mr. Kriner for the appointment violated the Open Meetings Act and that this is "good and sufficient cause" for me to remove him from the board. The Revised Code does not, however, vest in me the authority to adjudicate legal issues arising under the Open Meetings Act. Nor has Mr. Kriner had the opportunity to present any facts or arguments that he might wish to be considered concerning the issues you raise.

Even assuming, arguendo, that errors or irregularities occurred during the party's January 2008 recommendation process in violation of Ohio's Sunshine Laws, Mr. Kriner is, at a minimum, a de facto member of the Lucas County Board of Elections. Moreover, because Mr. Kriner held the position on the board prior to the recommendation process in question, Ohio law requires that Mr. Kriner continue to serve until a successor has been duly appointed. R.C.3.01.3

For the reasons stated herein, and in the absence of a judicial determination to the contrary, I decline at this time to remove Mr. Kriner from the Lucas County Board of Elections. Unless and until a vacancy occurs on the board, I cannot appoint Mr. Stainbrook to a position on the board as you request.

Sincerely yours,

Jennifer Brunner


1 R.C.3501.07 states:
[a]t a meeting held * * * within fifteen days after a vacancy occurs in the board, the county executive committee of the major political party entitled to the appointment may make and file a recommendation with the secretary of state for the appointment of a qualified elector. The secretary of state shall appoint such elector, unless he has reason to believe that the elector would not be a competent member of such board. * * *If no such recommendation is made, the secretary of state shall make the appointment. (Emphasis added.)

2R.C.i2i.22(I) provides as follows:
[a]ny person may bring an action to enforce this section [Ohio's Open Meetings Act]. An action under division (I)(i) of this section shall be brought within two years after the date of the alleged violation or threatened violation. Upon proof of a violation or threatened violation of this section in an action brought by any person, the court of common pleas shall issue an injunction to compel the members of the public body to comply with its provisions.

3 "A person holding an office of public trust shall continue therein until his successor is elected or appointed and qualified, unless otherwise provided in the constitution or laws of this state."

(cross posted on Eye On Toledo page)

Ohio GOP slams Brunner in new ad

The video for the new web ad using Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's own words against her.

The script:

Jennifer Brunner: "I will work day and night for you to restore your trust to elections, so that when you are dealing with the presidential election in 2008, perhaps no one will know my name like Ken Blackwell or Katherine Harris, because the Secretary of State is doing her job."

Steve Doocy, Fox: "The Secretary of State is a Democrat by the name of Jennifer Brunner

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

John Gibson, Fox: "To the great people of the state of Ohio, heads up, somebody is trying to steal your election"

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

As Inigo Montoya said:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

U.S. Attorney General should investigate Ohio voter fraud

When the Ohio Republican Party had it's lawsuit against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, it wasn't because of the merits of the case, but because the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) does not authorize a lawsuit by a private party. According to the law, only the Attorney General of the United States is authorized by Section 401 to bring a civil action to enforce the statute.

So what is the Department of Justice doing?

Two federal courts, including the applicable court of appeals, have stated specifically that the law is being violated by a state official. If the Justice Department believes the courts are wrong and the Secretary of State is correct, then it has an obligation to issue a statement explaining why it believes that is true. If the Justice Department agrees with the courts, then it has an even more compelling obligation to fulfill its enforcement duties and immediately file suit. Not a lot of work would be required other than to ask the federal district court to reissue its TRO ordering the Secretary of State to comply with the law – all of the evidentiary findings have already been made and approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Justice Department excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.

Now that claim is being disputed. In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, dated Oct. 31, 2001, former attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department dispute statements that "the activities of the Department before and after Election Day have essentially been limited to “placing federal observers to monitor elections pursuant to provisions of the Voting Rights Act.""

"This claim is inaccurate both as a matter of fact and established practice, as evidenced by the many lawsuits that have, over time, been filed by the Civil Rights Divisions before federal elections. In fact, just within the last month, the Division has filed two complaints and one amicus brief in three different election-related cases to enforce the Voting Rights Act and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

More specifically, during both this Administration and prior Administrations, the Civil Rights Division has filed lawsuits close to Election Day to remedy violations of all of the statutes it is responsible for enforcing, including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Help America Vote Act."

In what can only be perceived as something akin to a 2x4 upside the head, they point out that proof of such cases can be found on the department's own website.

They also state:

"As these cases show, in more than four decades of operation, the Civil Rights Division has never hesitated to fulfill its responsibilities by filing lawsuits to enforce federal voting rights laws that govern access to the polls and the administration of elections even on the very eve of Election Day. Against this backdrop, the Division’s recent failure to act in the case filed by a private party against the Ohio Secretary of State in which two federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have specifically found that the Secretary of State is not complying with the verification requirements of Section 303 of HAVA, is difficult to fathom. Its similar lack of action in Wisconsin, where the state election board has also admitted that it is not complying with this provision of HAVA, is equally perplexing. This appears to be a dereliction of the Department’s obligations to enforce federal law."

In response to claims that such enforcement of the laws will somehow have a 'chilling effect' on voters, particularly minority voters, they rightly point out that "the only voters intimidated by strong enforcement of our
election laws are those behaving fraudulently."

So why isn't the Civil Rights Division doing its job? Numerous media reports and the campaign finance data on file with the Federal Elections Commission show that attorneys responsible for enforcing these laws are donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

In a July speech at the “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium” in Columbia, SC, Muskasy pledged vigilance on the 2008 elections.

“Although instances of such fraud appear to be more the exception than the rule, the consequences of undeterred and undetected violations are potentially enormous. We’ve seen how close elections can be — and the fraudulent votes of even a small number can, in a close election, invalidate the votes of every other citizen who participated in the election. Whatever the exact numbers, even the prospect of vote fraud may undermine the integrity of the voting process. In a democratic society, even the perception of corruption or fraud has a damaging effect because it corrodes people’s faith in the democratic system.

Our task, then, is to support the greatest possible access to voting rights allowable under the law, and simultaneously to uphold the integrity of those rights through strong enforcement. In recent years, some have tried to suggest that these goals — protecting voting rights and protecting the integrity of elections — are somehow at odds. But they are really two sides of the same coin.

So what is he waiting for?

Voter access needs to be protected, but Democrats, like Jennifer Brunner, are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters - or denying that voter fraud even exists. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at ACORN, who have been registering thousands of phony voters.

Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books. The Attorney General and the Justice Department are obligated to enforce them.

Brunner's ties to ACORN run long and deep

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has been fighting the verification of voter registrations and denying that vote fraud exists in Ohio.

(For a complete story of the fiascos that have plagued Ohio under her months in office, you can search this blog - link on the left - for 'Brunner.')

Throughout the various court battles and the directives and the calls for investigations of Republicans, but not of ACORN, everyone wondered just why it was she was turning a blind eye to obvious problems.

Some speculated that it was because some of these groups were part of her advisers - but now the evidence is clear.

An investigation into ACORN's alleged fraudulent election activity revealed yesterday that one of the national directors, Karyn Gillette, may have collaborated with the Obama campaign to raise funds for the group's voter registration efforts.

So what does this have to do with Brunner? Gillette is identified on Jennifer Brunner's 2006 campaign website as a consultant. A blog entry by Brunner's husband Rick talks about that relationship, saying: "our candidate had gone earlier in the day to have some meetings and work out of Karyn Gillette's office." He also describes Gillette as "very helpful to the campaign."

According to campaign finance reports that were filed, Gillette was paid $21,250 by Brunner's campaign. She has a longtime history of serving as a fundraising consultant to Ohio Democrats.

An ACORN whistle blower testified in a Pennsylvania state court that "in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists." Project Vote is the voter registration arm of ACORN. (Wall Street Journal, 10/29/08)

But that's not all. Gillette is not Brunner's only tie to ACORN. Members of the group's voter registration arm, Project Vote, regularly advise Brunner on election strategy, previously serving on her Voter Rights Institute and even recently issuing a news release claiming credit for Brunner's directive banning challenges to suspected fraudulent voter registrations.

So our Secretary of State shares a campaign advisor with ACORN, takes direction from ACORN's voter registration arm, and refuses to verify over 200,000 mismatched registrations while claiming there is no voter fraud going on in Ohio...and that attention to such frivolous issues distracts her from doing her job.

And then there was more bad news for Brunner. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission announced on Wednesday that it intends to suspend SysTest Laboratories, the company hired by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to study Ohio's electronic voting system. (Read the USEAC release here.)

The commission said in a news release that the planned suspension is due to numerous non-conformities, including failure to create and validate test methods, improper documentation of testing and unqualified personnel.

Secretary Brunner spent $1.7 million to hire SysTest in September of 2007 for a comprehensive study of Ohio's electronic voting machines, which would later be called EVEREST. The Columbus Dispatch accused Brunner of "overreacting" to the report, arguing "the unfortunate consequence of the study is that conspiracy theorists will renew their claims that Ohio's elections are inherently untrustworthy. That's simply not the case." (Columbus Dispatch, "Don't rush to judgment," 12/16/2007)

Voters are already concerned about the validity of votes in Ohio. Maybe we should start worry about how to replace our Secretary of State.

Voter Fraud: here's the evidence!

According to Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net, Barack Obama campaign worker Zachary Cafritz registered to vote in Ohio on September 9, 2008 and he cast an early absentee ballot on October 4, 2008 in Franklin County.

He listed an Ohio address, but he is not the owner of that property. He does, however, own a "a nearly million dollar property within the Beltway" that he bought in February.

Wilson further documents the other Obama staffers who have not withdrawn their ballots and registrations, despite instructions from the campaign to do so.

"Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien sent a letter to each campaign reminding them that no one is entitled to register or vote in Ohio unless they are an Ohio resident. According to the Ohio Revised Code, an Ohio resident must live in the state for at least 30 days before the election and must also intend to remain in Ohio after the election.

Prompted by the letter, 13 Ohio Obama employees pulled their registration and ballots in Franklin County on Thursday. Included among the 13 were three spokespeople for the Obama campaign: Tom Reynolds, Olivia Alair and Isaac Baker. When I spoke with Tom Rosenberg, an attorney for the Obama campaign in Ohio, he said the rest of the 700 Ohio campaigners were instructed to act in accordance with Ohio law. I interpreted this to mean that all Obama employees who had registered in Ohio without the intent to live in Ohio after the election were instructed to withdraw their ballots.

This doesn't seem to be the case.

Yesterday, I found six more members of Obama's Ohio staff who registered and in some cases already voted in Franklin County. I contacted the Franklin County Board of Elections to see if they pulled their ballots. They did not. The individuals in question are Zachary Cafritz, Jay Tucker, David Muehlenkamp, Quentin James, Max Blachman and Stephanie Speirs."

Vote From Home staffers also did not withdraw their ballots.

"The three founders of Vote Today Ohio, an independent get-out-the-vote organization supporting Barack Obama, have not withdrawn their ballots either. Amy Little, Yolanda Hippensteele and Tate Hausman all registered and voted using a 1979 N. Fourth Ave., Columbus address. Hausman owns an apartment and has a wife in New York. Little is from Poughkeepsie and when I visited their address on Friday, a woman said she was out of town. Previously, a NY Post reporter called Little's Poughkeepsie address and a child answered saying Little would return "home" on Thursday. Hippsensteele recently moved from Massachusetts to East Bay, California for a job with Free Press."

Wilson also checked with the John McCain Campaign:

"No Ohio McCain campaigners have withdrawn their ballots. "We have consulted with elections officials and have written them to confirm that our staff meet all requirements of Ohio law and are legally registered to vote in the state," said Jon Seaton, McCain-Palin Regional Campaign Manager."

So we've got clear evidence of individuals who have come to Ohio on a temporary basis, have no intention of staying in the state past the election and its certification, who have homes and families in other states, who have registered and who have cast a ballot. Today, the boards of elections start separating the ballot envelope from the identification envelope, which means that after separated, these individuals can still be prosecuted for voting illegally, but there is no way to separate out their vote and not have it count.

Gov. Ted Strickland has stated that he would not support election reform legislation because he lacked evidence of fraudulent activity:

"If there are problems that can be documented and supported with evidence, I welcome those to be brought to me. But what I am aware of is a lot of talk about potential fraud or inappropriate behavior. But I really haven't seen any evidence that we should have any reason to question the reliability... of our election system." (Columbus Dispatch, 10/22/08)

"There is no evidence of voter fraud in Ohio and it offends me, quite frankly, that even some of the leaders within the Republican Party now are attempting to convey that impression in their criticism of Secretary Brunner and our voting system." (Gongwer News Service, 10/17/08)

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner previously suggested evidence of election fraud in Ohio did not exist:

"There are a number of, basically, allegations that don't have any evidence to support them. There's much more conjecture than anything else." (MSNBC, 10/9/08)

Here's your evidence, Brunner and Strickland - now what are you going to do about it?

UPDATE: H/T from Brian at BearingDriftOhio.com:

"In Ohio we can't use government computers to check the ID of voters, but we can use them to investigate the personal history of someone in Toledo who asks Obama a revealing question.

This is just a taste of our future."

Blackeye State

"Welcome to Ohio - where a voter-fraud brush fire is making the Buckeye State into the Blackeye State, thanks to Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner."

That's what Peter Bronson writes in the Cincinnati Enquirer article, "Blackeye State, thanks to Brunner," and then he details why.

And if the court cases and voter registration verification problems weren't enough, our partisan Secretary of State has issued her 100th directive - and she's not even finished with her 10th month in office.

"Jennifer Brunner has every elections official in the state swimming in red tape," said Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine in a press release. "One of the major newspapers called her a micro-meddler several months ago. She's been out to prove it ever since."

Brunner's latest round of micro-management instructs election administrators on what to do with absentee ballots cast by voters whose registrations don't match up with federal and state databases.

"This is the same mismatch information Brunner has so far failed to provide to county election administrators," said DeWine. "At this point she's telling elections officials what to do with information she hasn't even provided them. Until she releases the 200,000 questionable registrations on file in her office, this directive is worthless."

By comparison, Brunner's predecessor, Ken Blackwell, had only issued 42 directives by October 25, 2004, the first presidential election with the new voting machines.

But the reason she's doing this all for the local boards of elections:

"My first concern is for the boards of elections because they are on the ground, in the trenches, doing the work with the voters, and if i have to be the lightning rod for the boards of elections so they can be left alone undisturbed, then so be it." (Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 10/17/08)

Sadly, the only time Brunner has left Ohio's election officials alone and undisturbed is when they ask for a system of validating thousands of potentially fraudulent registrations.

In the same press release, Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said:

"These board members are outraged by her attempts to keep them from doing their jobs. Secretary Brunner has done nothing but scare, intimidate and stonewall Ohio's hard-working election officials, and her record of disrespect for them and their work is well-documented."

But then our governor, Ted Strickland, weighs in on the issue and says he sees "no evidence" of election fraud here in Ohio. I guess he missed the following:

* A Democrat activist group with strong ties to Barack Obama has publicly testified that its members engage in election fraud right here in Ohio - possibly submitting thousands of fraudulent registrations. (The Plain Dealer, 10/7/08)

* The same group, ACORN, is accused of illegally giving cash and cigarettes to get an Ohio man to register to vote 72 times over an 18-month period. (New York Post, 10/11/08)

* Hamilton County election officials say at least 10,000 duplicate registrations have been submitted and possibly "thousands of fictitious ones." (Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/10/08)

* One man admitted ACORN convinced him to register multiple times and cast a bogus ballot with a fake address. (New York Post, 10/13/08)

* At least 13 college students are under investigation by the Franklin County prosecutor for violating residency requirements to cast illegal ballots. (Columbus Dispatch, 10/16/08)

* and all of the videos on Ohio and voter fraud being done by Shelby Holliday and Tiffany Wilson at Palestra.net.

This is an embarrassing way to run an election and it does, indeed, give Ohio a black eye.

"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines." ~ Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch)

Court fights may be over for Ohio voter registration verifications

David Myhal, the individual who had filed a court case with the Ohio Supreme Court after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Ohio Republican Party had no standing, has dropped his case against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner over the provisions of the Help America Vote Act.

He did so at the request of Ohio GOP chairman Bob Bennett, who issued the following statement:

"We didn't file this lawsuit, but I've asked that it be withdrawn in the interest of negotiating a solution out of court. The legal wrangling on this issue has gone on long enough. Two courts and ten judges have made it abundantly clear that Secretary Brunner is not in compliance with federal law and she has a legal obligation to provide an adequate system of validating questionable registrations.

Secretary Brunner indicated last week that she would comply with the district court's order to assist election administrators in that process. I have reached out to Attorney General Nancy Rogers to begin a dialogue on achieving that objective. While she understandably could not make any guarantees, we have agreed to meet on Wednesday to begin discussions in good faith. I'm hopeful that we can work together on a solution that will give Ohioans greater confidence in the integrity of this election."

This may be a positive step, and the lack of court cases may result in a positive outcome for voter confidence in Ohio's system.

However, this may not be the last word on the issue as a majority of Republican Congress members from Ohio have asked U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the Justice Department to get involved to force Brunner to make the checks on mismatched registration information.

Voter registration issue goes back to court - Ohio Supreme Court

As I was travelling last night, I missed getting this out earlier.

If you've been following the issue of voter registration verification in Ohio, you probably already know that an individual has filed suit in Ohio Supreme Court against Secretary of State to seek an order directing the local county boards of elections to NOT process or count absentee ballots cast by voters registered after Jan. 1, 2008, unless they are first checked for mismatches and verified to be eligible.

The Columbus Dispatch has an objective, fair article on the case.

Democrat OH Senator makes GOP argument for voter registration verification

State Senator Teresa Fedor has penned the following and submitted it to numerous outlets as an op-ed piece. I just want to thank her for making the point of the Ohio Republican Party - that voter registration verification is necessary to protect ALL of Ohio's voters.

But Maggie, you say, that's not the point she's making. Yes, but that is what any logical reading of her piece will show, despite her incorrect interpretation.

She documents some of the basic, typographical and other miscellaneous errors that can occur. She tries to make the point that the very existence of these errors will 'disenfranchise' Joe the Plumber. However, while I will agree that such mismatches can occur, I disagree that verification of the registrations will disenfranchise anyone.

If Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner sends the mismatches back to the local boards of elections, those boards will be able to check with the various individuals and make necessary corrections. Any individual who might have such errors will be able to clarify such inconsistencies and then, when they go to vote on November 4, there will be no issues at the polls. That is the outcome of verifying and sharing the information with the local boards. Individuals who can correct such information PRIOR to the election day will not have to do so on the election day.

How is this a bad thing? It's not. In fact, it's what any logical, common sense approach would indicate is the best course of action.

Fedor also incorrectly summarizes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. She states:

"The United States Supreme Court, in a ruling which I vigorously endorse, agreed with Ohio Secretary of State Brunner and overturned rulings by the U.S. District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have forced Brunner to harmonize its list of registered voters with other lists. The court apparently agreed with Secretary of State Brunner that such an effort, undertaken on such short notice, could have created havoc in the Ohio election process and delegitimized the ultimate result in the minds of many voters while undermining the votes of many legitimate voters."

Actually, the Court DID NOT RULE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. They rejected the appeal based on the technicality of 'standing,' saying that the Ohio GOP did not have the ability to bring suit on the issue. The Court did not agree with Brunner on any of the issues, as Fedor incorrectly asserts, nor did they say she did not have to verify the registrations.

Fedor should know better than to fraudulent assert an opinion of a court that was not stated.

Like Brunner, Fedor does not explain how making sure that boards of elections have accurate information on voters 'suppresses the vote' of thousands. In fact, just the opposite is true. If boards of elections have accurate information - information they have verified ahead of time - no votes will be suppressed on November 4th. And the Sixth District Court of Appeals - which DID rule on the merits of the case, agreed.

Sadly, in her effort to promote the Democrat talking points, Fedor makes the case for the Republicans, and exposes her ignorance of the the voting system and the court rulings.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that any media to which she submitted this 'opinion' will fact-check it or ask the questions that would expose the fallacies of her conclusions.


Here is her op-ed piece:

Protecting All of Ohio’s “Joes”
By State Senator Teresa Fedor

The man chosen by McCain handlers to become the iconic face of the 2008 national election’s debate on federal tax policies, has instead become the symbol of something else. Joe the Plumber is now spotlighting a consequence of the Ohio State Republican leaders’ promoted plan to attempt to match voter registration lists with records from other data sources.

Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher – or, in the common parlance, “Joe the Plumber” – is not the man he says he is. Well, at least he isn’t to the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Authorities that attempted initially to check if Wurzelbacher, who lives in Holland-a suburb of Toledo, Ohio, was actually registered to vote in Ohio were told that he was not. But this was inaccurate: Samuel Joe “Worzelbacher” actually was listed in the records of the Lucas County Board of Elections. He voted as a Republican in the March primary.

Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, explained that, when Wurzelbacher updated his voter registration his signature on the form looked more like an “o” than a “u,” The change from a “u” to an “o” was recorded as such when typed into the Lucas County Board of Elections system.

This example of a minor human error could affect the legitimate registration of hundreds of thousands of Ohioans if the Republicans continue their court fight! The agenda being aggressively pressed by the Ohio Republican Party in these court actions- to match the data bases of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles with the various county boards of election- and flag for further examination causes the following voters to be possibly disenfranchised:

· “Joe the Plumber” updated his voter registration when he moved. This is a common and necessary process for registration. However, drivers in Ohio are not required to update the address on their license when they move. Therefore, they can legitimately be in the BMV system with one address, and in the board of elections system at a different address. In a society where many people – particularly younger people, poor people, and minorities many times move more frequently than older or more well-off individuals, this GOP agenda will have the impact of flagging thousands of these voters.

· “Joe the Plumber” has a driver’s license. But voters will be flagged if they do not have a driver’s license. Studies have shown that the elderly, particularly the minority elderly and minorities are generally more likely to not have a driver’s license than others in the community. It is perfectly legal to register for voting with a Social Security card, comparison of records with the BMV could create problems for these voters. Individuals can register with different agencies using variants of their names. For example our friend “Joe the Plumber” could be “S. Joe Wurzelbacher” to the BMV.

· “Joe the Plumber” was a victim of that simple human error when his name was put into the voter list. A single keystroke error; the misreading of an “o” for a “u”, the inadvertent dropping of a middle initial – any one of these small things could result in the flagging of a person’s ability to vote.

Of course, Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher was able to vote in March, despite the discrepancy. And Ohio Republican Party leaders Bob Bennett and Kevin DeWine would probably scream “voter suppression” if board of elections officials, noting the discrepancy in the records, had forced him to vote provisionally in March until the discrepancy were checked out.

But what about the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans – 200,000, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has estimated – who could be affected by the GOP lawsuits? They have not been the subject of Joe’s international scrutiny. News trucks have not set up on their lawns. They are the ordinary “Joes” – and “Janes” – that no one is likely to interview during this campaign. But they have just as much right to be heard – to have their votes counted – just as Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher’s vote was counted last March.

The United States Supreme Court, in a ruling which I vigorously endorse, agreed with Ohio Secretary of State Brunner and overturned rulings by the U.S. District Court and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have forced Brunner to harmonize its list of registered voters with other lists. The court apparently agreed with Secretary of State Brunner that such an effort, undertaken on such short notice, could have created havoc in the Ohio election process and delegitimized the ultimate result in the minds of many voters while undermining the votes of many legitimate voters.

This Republican attempt, to suppress the votes of hundreds of thousands of Ohioans in a potentially close election, may have only been temporarily suppressed because of Jennifer Brunner’s aggressive response. Don’t be surprised if there is another “trick up the Republican sleeve” to disrupt our Ohio election.

Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher will have his vote counted in November, despite the human error that could have called it into question. But thousands of others may not be so lucky. With the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, we can ensure that thousands of other Ohioans, with Joe’s recent notoriety, will have their voting rights protected, as well.

And Ohio democracy will be the better for it.

What's next after SCOTUS ruling on Ohio voting?

I missed getting this post out earlier because of a lunch with a friend who is leaving Toledo for more fertile grounds in North Carolina (imagine that).

Anyway, better late than never.

Yes, the Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, granted Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's request to halt verification of voter registration information AND the reporting of any mismatches to local boards of elections. However, they did NOT rule on the issue of the law.

The opinion clarifies that the justices were not commenting on whether Ohio is complying with a provision of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. They said they were granting Brunner's request because the law does not allow private entities, like the Ohio GOP, to file suit to enforce the provisions of the law they sued over.

So the Ohio Republican Party does not have the standing to file the suit.

Next question: who does and how quickly can we get individuals with standing to file their complaint? It appears that the lower courts would issue the same types of rulings - and the judges really wouldn't have to think very hard since they've just heard the arguments.

I'll volunteer!

Observers must be allowed at early voting sites, Ohio Supreme Court rules

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner must order the county boards of elections to allow observers at sites for absentee early voting periods.

Brunner had taken the position that Ohio law does 'not require' observers during the early voting times, so boards were told they did not have to allow observers access to the sites. When a radio show host asked her spokesman, Jeff Ortega, about this interpretation - 'not required' being different from 'prohibited' - Ortega hung up.

It was a 4-3 decision with Republican Justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O'Donnell, Robert R. Cupp and Judge Lynn Charles Slaby of the 9th District Court of Appeals, a Republican hearing the case by assignment, in the majority. Dissenting were Republican Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Republican Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger and Judge William Herman Wolff Jr. of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, a Democrat also sitting by assignment. Republican Justices Maureen O'Connor and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, who are on the ballot this fall for re-election, removed themselves from the case.

This is a win for Ohio, especially in light of the coverage Palestra.net has provided about voting irregularities, and all the questionable registrations submitted by ACORN.

Here is the one-page ruling...opinion to follow.

Court battle over Ohio voter registration continues

Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court over previous court rulings that said she must verify new voter registrations with external databases and share any mismatches with local boards of election.

Here is the text of the ruling from the Sixth District U.S. Court of Appeals.

According to Brunner's own office, there are about 200,000 registrations that contain information that does not match either the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration. That's roughly one-third of all the new registrations filed to date.

The way it's supposed to work, the Secretary of State checks the registration card information with these two external databases. Any unverifiable information is supposed to sent back to the local board of election. The local board then will attempt to clarify the mismatch. It could be something as simple as a transposition of figures in the address or Social Security number - or it could be as serious as a registration for a person who doesn't exist. Having a report of the mismatches just allows the local boards to correct the information, ensuring that the registered individual is able to cast a ballot.

Imagine what would happen if, through a typographical error, the data saved into the elections database shows the last four digits of your SS# are 1981 instead of 1891. If the board entered it incorrectly, your correct number on your ballot won't match and it could result in your vote not being counted.

The verification process protects legitimate voters while identifying potentially fraudulent voters. This is a win-win for all involved.

But for some reason, Brunner continues to fight this, despite her claims yesterday that she would comply with the ruling.

Almost as if she anticipated a court ruling a few hours later, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner promised yesterday to give county elections workers access to a list of possibly problematic voter registrations. (source)

At the same time, revelations from Palestra.net reporters Tiffany Wilson and Shelby Holliday (Video Blog: Vote From Home Votes and Prosecutors Now Investigating Ohio Vote) have resulted in an investigation by the Franklin County Prosecutor.

"Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien confirmed that he is investigating alleged voter and registration fraud involving 13 newly registered voters who came to Columbus for a get-out-the-vote campaign and used the same address, a small East Side home." (source)

Brunner ran on a platform of restoring confidence in Ohio's election process. So far, she's doing just the opposite.

Text of court decision on Ohio voter registration verification

Yesterday I blogged about the continuing court sage regarding voter registration verifications in Ohio. While I had a copy of the ruling, I did not have a way to post the 50-page decision on line.

Thanks to Laura at Pursuing Holiness who provides this link to the text of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Ohio voter registration verifications.

You can read for yourself some of the criticisms the majority issued against Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

BREAKING - Brunner must verify registrations and share mismatches with local boards of election

UPDATED: Copy of the complaint with case number available here.

Jason at DarkeGOP posted this ruling first and has excerpts from the ruling here.

Having read the first 15 pages of the ruling, from the entire 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, I call the majority opinion decision 'scathing.' They decide that Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's Secretary of State, made claims she could not support in saying that implementing the ruling of the lower court would be too difficult this close to an election. They also write that she tried to straddle two aspects of the law in order to support her position. They document that she had been verifying the information and sharing it with local boards, but that she stopped doing so. Considering that aspect, they decide that to do so again would not be burdensome.

They rule there is no attempt in verifying voter registrations to prevent people from voting, but that sharing voter identification mismatches with the local boards of election will only give the local boards the ability to pursue better, more accurate information from voters who have recently registered.

Also, I understand that Brunner announced today that she would voluntarily follow the law, apparently expecting the ruling of the court to go against her.

BREAKING - no more voter registration verifications in Ohio

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to overturn a federal court ruling ordering Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to provide an adequate system of identifying newly registered voters.

The Ohio Republican Party has asked for an en banc review of the case.

Her reasoning? It's too much work.

"Brunner argued that it would take two to three days to create the necessary computer programs, and that nothing in the Help America Vote Act required her to do what the lower court ordered. A three-judge panel of the appeals court agreed in a split decision.

"With less than a month until the election, and less than two weeks until the beginning of counting absentee ballots, the secretary cannot be required to undertake the extensive reprogramming and other changes to the election mechanics without complete disruption of the electoral process in Ohio," the majority said in its opinion. "The irreparable harm to the voting public caused by the district court's order is equally clear.""

Ohio Republican Party State Chairman Bob Bennett issued the following statement:

"Jennifer Brunner continues to do everything she can to help her candidate. Her efforts to fight transparency and accountability in the voting process are shameful, and her actions to conceal fraudulent activity only serve to cast doubt on the integrity of this election.

Even the courts acknowledge Secretary Brunner failed to provide election administrators with an adequate system of verifying voter registrations. She claims her office has the ability to flag questionable registrations, but she refuses to give that information to county election officials for review. The Secretary of State was asked about this process months ago, and she intentionally stonewalled everyone involved.

Ohioans have good reason to be concerned. A national Democrat activist group publicly admitted this week to engaging in fraudulent voter registration activity right here in Ohio, but rather than holding them accountable Jennifer Brunner is fighting to let their actions go unchecked.

We agree with the dissenting judge in this ruling, who said Brunner's 'lack of concern for the integrity of the elections process is astounding and deeply disturbing.' She has fought to keep absentee ballots from qualified Republican voters; she has fought to keep observers from watching the early voting process; and now she has fought to keep election officials from verifying the identity of newly registered voters. Her legal battles serve only to destroy public confidence.

Remember this quote?

"Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines."

- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch)

Why Federal Court ruling on voter registration is so important

The Help American Vote Act was supposed to address various concerns by the public to ensure the sanctity of the voting process. In Ohio, we have a state law that closely mirrors HAVA. The most critical aspect of the voter registration process is to ensure that each person who is eligible to vote gets to do so. That also includes ensuring that people who are NOT eligible to vote do NOT do so.

One aspect of both the federal and state laws is to verify all voter registration cards not just against the voter database in the state, but also against an outside database, like the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration.

This outside verification does several things. It confirms that such a person with a particular social security number does, in fact, exist, and it verifies that the person is a resident of the state.

Implicit in the outside verification is the notification that any discrepancies in the verification process are communicated back to the individual boards of elections for them to follow up on the lack of identity confirmation.

If the outside data base is not checked, any person can provide a fake name and give any four numbers as the last four digits of a Social Security number, get registered and then vote. So long as no one else used the same name and same four numbers in another county, there would be no indication that this particular voter was eligible to cast a ballot.

The same person could then go to another polling location and do the same thing, thus voting more than once, or twice, or however many times they wanted.

There is a check to the process in that all voter registrants are supposed to be mailed a card by the local board of election to ensure it is a valid address. But all that requires is one or two people in various locations to agree to have their address used for this purpose. When the post card arrives, they just throw it away. This is especially easy to do with college and apartment addresses. So long as the BOE postcard is not returned, there is nothing to indicate the fraudulent nature of the registration.

Now, if Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner follows the law, which she hasn't been doing, and checks these names and SS numbers against either the BMV or SS databases, the fact that these names and numbers don't exist would show up. Furthermore, if she then notifies the local BOEs, they can attempt to contact the person to gather more information - or, hold the registration and set aside the ballot until the identity can be confirmed.

If the identity cannot be confirmed, the ballot does not get counted, then a fraudulent vote will not have been cast.

But if the Secretary of State wins her appeal of the Federal Court ruling, there will be no way to check any of this ... and groups like ACORN will continue to submit voter registrations that they admit are a fraud. The end result is that an election is stolen - because the safeguards in place to ensure the sanctity of the elections are intentionally ignored.

So why would Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner NOT want to do her job? And does this dereliction of duty rise to the standard of malfeasance for which she can be removed from office?

I would think so.

BREAKING: Federal Court says Ohio Secretary of State broke voter laws

A federal court ruled tonight that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner violated federal election laws by not taking adequate steps to validate the identity of newly registered voters.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge George C. Smith called the identification breakdown "a serious problem" and ordered Brunner to immediately comply with federal requirements to match voter registration data with the information in the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Social Security Administration databases. The court accused Brunner of failing to provide county election administrators with "an effective way to access and review mismatches." She immediately appealed the ruling.

For about two weeks, I'd been trying to verify that Brunner's office was actually comparing the new voter registrations to an outside source, either the BMV or the SS databases. My phone calls to the Secretary of State's office this week have not been returned.

Both Ohio law and the Help America Vote Act require that new voter registrations be compared to an outside, independent database in order to verify the identity of the voter. I'd been told that the connection between the Secretary of State's database and those outside agencies was either not operational or had been removed.

In light of ACORN's admission to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections that the group engages in fraudulent voter registration activity, the independent verification of identities by the SOS office is critical to ensuring a fair and honest election in Ohio.

Ohio ACORN officials "blamed the elections board for not scrutinizing ACORN's suspicious cards," claiming the group "can't be expected to catch everything."

ACORN is facing similar inquires in other Ohio counties as well as 10 other states. Members of the group's "voter-mobilization arm," Project Vote, regularly advise Brunner on election strategy, even recently issuing a news release that claims credit for Brunner's directive restricting challenges to suspected fraudulent voter registrations. Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama also has strong ties to ACORN, working previously as an attorney and "leadership trainer" for the group.

The Columbus Dispatch has their story on line, including quotes from the judge.