Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation. Also, check out our blog and twitter feed.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  Hand Count in Ohio Turns Up Problem


Hand Count in Ohio Turns Up Problem

by Pamela BrustParkersburg News & Sentinel
November 10th, 2004

PARKERSBURG, OHIO - During the hand count of one of Wood County's precincts on Tuesday, officials discovered a problem with the way the election computer's program handled straight party votes in the multiple candidate races of the 10th Delegate District and magistrates.

Wood County commissioners convened Monday as the Board of Canvass. As part of the canvass, four of the county's 85 precincts are hand counted to make sure the election computer's results jive with the hand count numbers. It was during the hand count of one of those precincts that officials said they discovered the problem.

"We feel, on initial testing, the programming itself was not giving a straight party vote to anything where there was a vote for more than one. We checked both the 10th Delegate District (where three were elected) and magistrate race (where four were elected), which were the multiple candidate races and that appears to be the problem. I apologize we didn't catch this during the testing; we were so busy with early voting, and there are only so many hours in the day," Wood County Clerk Jamie Six told the board Tuesday upon discovering the problem.

Six said the good news is the ability to catch the error shows the system's checks and balances do work. The error was caught while the election results are unofficial. Because of the large vote margins among the four winning magistrate candidates and three winning delegate candidates and their nearest competitors, officials said they don't anticipate the change in the vote count will change the results of the two races.

At about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, the county received new software and began retabulating all ballots in those two races, Six said. By 5:30 p.m., 7,500 early ballots and 10 precincts had been checked, and Six expected the work to be completed by noon today.

There were 5,136 straight Republican ballots and 4,922 straight Democrat tickets cast in the election. J.D. Beane finished with 11,858 votes, John Ellem, 10,929, and Tom Azinger, 10,735. The next highest vote-getter (after election night) was Fred Gillespie, with 9,558, followed by Scott Wilkinson with 4,901. In the magistrate race, Donna Jackson had 17,171 followed by Emily Bradley with 17,146, Brenda Marshall with 16,202 and Joyce Purkey with 14,951. The next closest vote-getter was Joe Kuhl with 13,821.

Voters who marked a straight party ticket then marked any candidate in a different party for magistrate are warned on the ballot, that they must mark all their choices for that office because their straight party ticket vote would not be counted for that office once they have marked someone from the other party.

Six said he was informed by the state election officials that code would allow, if the error cannot be "fixed," the board can take the results from election night as they are now.

But Six said he contacted the software/computer firm, and asked the company to send down a specialized program that would properly count those two races, and those corrected numbers could then be recalculated for the corrected count.

"Does this open it up for a challenge?" asked Commissioner Bob Tebay.

"Anybody can always ask for a recount once you declare the results," Six said.

Also Tuesday, the board prepared the 516 provisional ballots which have been overruled and will be counted. The provisional ballots included ones challenged at the polls on election day, ballots challenged during the early no-fault voting period, emergency ballots cast by those in nursing homes, and some absentee by-mail ballots which were challenged.

Once the hand count is complete, the canvass work is finalized, and new election totals are run, the board can then declare the results. That declaration marks the beginning of the 48-hour period during which candidates can request a recount. At the end of the 48-hour period, election results may be certified.

Announcements

August 26, 2010
On India’s Electronic Voting Controversy
August 25, 2010
Pac-Man for president: Hack highlights e-voting flaws
August 6, 2010
Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth
July 27, 2010
State Election Officials: Recountable Process A Must for Overseas Voters
July 20, 2010
Online Voting: All That Glitters Is Not Gold (Unless You're a Vendor)
June 21, 2010
Voting Without A Net In South Carolina
June 17, 2010
Voting results in New Jersey should not be mysterious
June 16, 2010
Verified Voting Calls for Recountable, Auditable Voting Systems Following South Carolina Primary
June 16, 2010
Voting integrity groups call for investigation of South Carolina voting systems in wake of unexpected primary results in Democratic US Senate race
June 15, 2010
On the South Carolina Primary
May 23, 2010
Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed
May 4, 2010
PA - Team 4: Security Concerns About Voting Machines Remain
April 26, 2010
California Assembly committee endorses UC Berkeley statistician's election auditing method
March 8, 2010
Feds Move to Break Voting-Machine Monopoly
March 2, 2010
Is the Internet the Right Place for Our Ballots? Election Administration and Voting Rights Thought Leaders Weigh in on the Future of Overseas Voting at Summit 2010
February 25, 2010
Minnesota Civic Groups Refute Recount Claims
February 17, 2010
Groups and Election Officials Warn Department of Justice that Voting Machine Vendor Merger will Inflate Costs to Taxpayers, Threaten Election Accuracy and National Security
February 11, 2010
Fla. justices uphold local election law
February 3, 2010
NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
February 1, 2010
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • VVBlog: Check out the latest news and commentary at our blog.
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map