From CASE Ohio:
Ohio’s HAVA: make it Harder for Americans to Vote Act
HB 3 makes it • Harder to Vote • Harder to Ensure Accuracy • Harder to
Recount • Harder to Challenge Questionable Results
Some call it “reform,” CASE calls it regression.
By means of:
Restrictive ID requirements (Sec. 3505.18) Could cost 100,000 to 200,000 votes lost!
Deletion of the recount as machine audit (Sec. 3506.20) Ignoring the possibility of failure or error!
Unaffordable recount cost (Sec. 3515.03) 11,366 precincts X $50 = $568,000!
Prohibition of election contests (Sec. 3515.08) Denying voters a remedy in Ohio law.
Don’t just believe the “talking points”; read for yourself.
First, the most recent version of the bill includes the now infamous ID
Sec. 3505.18. (A)(1) When an elector appears in a polling place to vote the
elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the elector's full
name and current address and provide proof of the elector's identity in the
form of either a current and valid photo identification or a copy of a
current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other
government document that shows the name and current address of the elector.
While most Ohio voters will have a photo ID or other identifying documents,
many, many do not, especially the young, old, poor, homeless, out-of-town
college students, and others. HB 3 will effectively disenfranchise legally
The current HB 3 also does away with a mandatory recount as a machine audit
for touch-screen (DRE) machines by removing an entire paragraph. The state
Joint Committee on Ballot Security spent 22 hours in hearings with national
experts, then recommended, 8 to 1, that a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail
(VVPAT) be installed because the technology was easy to hack. Even though
VVPATs are installed the legislature refuses to use it. That section in
the House version passed last spring required the random recount of an issue
or office as a machine audit:
Sec. 3506.20. Any county that uses direct recording electronic voting
machines with a voter verified paper audit trail as the primary voting
system for the county and not only for accessibility for individuals with
disabilities under section 3506.19 of the Revised Code, within two months
after the day of each general election in which a county office or a county
question or issue is on the ballot, shall conduct a complete recount of any
one county office or issue voted on at that election using the voter
verified paper audit trail produced by those machines. The county office or
county question or issue to be recounted shall be selected at random from
all of the county offices, questions, and issues voted upon at that
election. A recount conducted under this section shall be for the purpose of
verifying the accuracy of those machines and shall not change the result of
the election as determined by the official canvass of the election returns
for that election.
For what possible reason would we not want to verify results with an audit?
If anything, that audit should be required before the final vote totals, or
what’s known as the “official canvass.”
The current version of HB 3 quintuples the cost of recounts:
Sec. 3515.03. Each application for recount shall separately list each
precinct as to which a recount of the votes therein is requested, and the
person filing an the application shall, at the same time, deposit with the
board of elections fifty dollars....
Do the math: 11,366 precincts X $50 = $568,000!
Finally, the current version of HB 3 prohibits contests of a federal
election (under Ohio law):
Sec. 3515.08. The (A) Except as otherwise provided in this division, the
nomination or election of any person to any public office or party position
or the approval or rejection of any issue or question, submitted to the
voters, may be contested by qualified electors of the state or a political
subdivision. The nomination or election of any person to any federal office,
including the office of elector for president and vice president and the
office of member of congress, shall not be subject to a contest of election
conducted under this chapter. Contests of the nomination or election of any
person to any federal office shall be conducted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of federal law.
Some will counter that challenges are still available under federal law.
That’s true. Look up the case of Rios v. Blackwell. It was filed in
November 2004; the case is still pending. Even if a federal decision comes
soon, it does nothing about an election already decided.
In summary, the worst features of HB 3 are in the recent version and
Restrictive ID requirements (Sec. 3505.18)
Deletion of the recount as machine audit (Sec. 3506.20)
Unaffordable recount cost (Sec. 3515.03)
Prohibition of election contests (Sec. 3515.08)
CASE does not support HB 3. This bill should be voted down.
Contact legislators at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/
Governor Taft http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp
For further information contact:
Phil Fry (937) 362-4493 email@example.com
Pete Johnson (614) 846-4018 firstname.lastname@example.org
Susan Truitt (614) 270-5239 email@example.com
John Burik (513) 271-4715 firstname.lastname@example.org
January 30, 2006
CASE Ohio Urges "No" Vote, on HB 3, Dubbing Ohio's HAVA the "Make It Harder for Americans to Vote Act"
From CASE Ohio: