John Conyers Urges Kerry/Edwards Campaign to Not Withdraw From Ohio Recount Case

John Conyers sent a letter to John Kerry and John Edwards today urging them not to withdraw from the Ohio Recount Case…

From the John Conyers Blog:

“Today I wrote to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, urging them not to drop out of the Ohio recount case. The case is at a crucial juncture, and while we know the case will not alter the outcome of the election, their involvement is needed to allow us to establish important legal principles and precedents that will help insure that every vote is counted in future elections. The Ohio Election Fraud Blog has the letter.”

From the Ohio Election Fraud Blog:

Congressman Conyers Urges Kerry and Edwards Not to Withdraw From Ohio Recount Case

Letter from Congressman Conyers:

August 17, 2005

Honorable John Kerry
511 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Honorable John Edwards
401 W. Trade Street
Suite 219
Charlotte, NC 28202-1619

Dear Senators Kerry and Edwards:

I would like to express my deepest appreciation for your role in intervening to protect the rights of the candidates seeking the 2004 election recount in Ohio and I applaud you for your great efforts to stand behind the voting public, urging them not to lose faith in our election system.

As you are aware, this has been the second consecutive presidential election where numerous issues were raised concerning irregularities and improprieties within the system. Specifically, we learned of the massive disenfranchisement of fellow voters, as well as numerous incidents of voter intimidation and the purposeful dissemination of misleading information to the voting public, with the intent to interfere with the system. In addition, we learned of numerous irregularities in the way the recount in Ohio was conducted. I therefore commend your willingness to intervene in the recount case as it proceeds in the federal district court in Ohio and to join the candidates and voters in their struggle to fix a seemingly broken system. It is only by investigating these voting irregularities in each past election that we are able to ascertain the problems and pursue a better election process in each succeeding election.

It is for these reasons that I am deeply concerned to learn of the possibility, however remote, that you may be considering withdrawing from the 2004 election recount case in Ohio. As you know, it is absolutely imperative that we have elections that count every vote of every eligible voter, and if there is any issue that is central to a strong democracy, it is ensuring that all eligible voters are able to participate in our elections without encumbrance or interference from others. There is no question that your continued participation in this case will help ensure that we restore trust in our election system.

As you continue your participation in this important case and we continue our investigation of the voting irregularities during the 2004 presidential election, we hope to be able to maintain an open dialogue. As you know, the objective of the recount itself was never to overturn the election, but to win back the confidence of the electorate in the accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures. The objective remains the same for the pending case in federal court challenging the unconstitutional manner in which the Ohio recount was conducted. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact my office at (202) 225-6504.


John Conyers, Jr.

UPDATE: Crooks&Liars has an audio link to an interview with John Conyers today, discussing the Kerry/Edwards letters and Bush’s refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan.

UPDATE: Note there has been no confirmation from Kerry/Edwards that they are withdrawing from the Ohio Recount Case. I contacted Kerry’s Senate office today and they no info on this to date.


Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to John Conyers Urges Kerry/Edwards Campaign to Not Withdraw From Ohio Recount Case

  1. Indie Liberal says:

    I hope the don’t withdraw from this yet. There may be things we don’t know from the election that could be brought to light.

  2. Indie

    I had not heard that they were doing this, so I’m curious. Personally with JK’s propensity to do things under the wire, I have always felt that they were still investigating.

  3. Marjorie G says:

    Think a note from an ardent supoorter about paper ballots, better than paper trail, plus the need for continuing the case is in order.

    Also, maybe Pamela calling to find out the scoop?

  4. Marjorie

    I would think some letters from JK supporters would be in order. I emailed JK’s office enquiring on this… will report when I get news.

  5. kj says:

    Marjorie, I’ve been meaning to get in touch with you with questions, but need to do more research first. The county here is going from paper ballots to touch screen voting. Help!

  6. Marjorie G says:

    Great, and all our huber lefties want to massage a message while there’s a robbery in progress. So true to form.

    California just stopped the purchase because tests failed 20%. Miami-Dade is throwing theirs out, because of the expense. In five years they will make back the purchase price and all the overage expense had they continued e-voting. They’re throwing the junk out.

    Vendors are lying, promising everything to the unsuspecting counties, and DREs have become a partisan way to steal. Often they have the local Boards on their side by payments or party loyalty.

    I have work to do on this, but meantime go and look around. I work with Teresa. I’ll try to send next week.

  7. Marjorie G says:

    what is comment awaiting moderation?

  8. kj says:

    Marjorie, thanks. I thought we were safe here and could focus on other things… so am uninformed. Crash course needed.

  9. kj says:

    Dunno re: comment awaiting moderation… must be a glitch!

  10. Indie Liberal says:

    Thanks Pam. There are those who think if Kerry doesn’t fight this or stand up for election fraud, how can he stand up to Bush and the terrorists. We need paper ballots for 06 and 08.

    I don’t think Bush won “fair and square” like the pundits say.

  11. Noisy Democrat says:


    I got the “moderation” thing a couple weeks back. It happens if you include a URL in the comment. It’s to help filter out the kinds of things that might be spam or trollery.

  12. Marjorie

    There’s some spam controls on the comments and not sure why, but your comment had something in it that disagreed with the spam control. Sorry about that.

  13. Marjorie G says:

    Maybe didn’t like my link, or my attitude today.

  14. Ron Chusid says:

    Just having a single link shouldn’t set up teh spam blockers, but it does look at all the words in a post and sometimes makes mistakes. It’s also done a good job of keeping away some undesirables.

  15. Marjorie

    Not sure, if we could find a spam blocker that blocked undesirable attitudes it mught make a lot of blog owners happy! LOL! Yours is just fine though. We love you!

  16. observer says:

    It is vital that not only OH, but all states’ voting is looked in to. Please remember in 2000, it was FL. In other words, which state will be next for voting improprieties? That’s the way these crooks work. Without a doubt, the next questionable state will be the size of FL and OH in electoral votes.

    If our voting systems continue without real checks and balances we will continue to have republican control of government. We’ve seen the results of that already. Every debacle in Bush’s reign can be traced back to fixed elections. Go to the root of the problem… install verifiable voting systems countrywide. And if that means going back to a sheet of paper, so be it!

  17. I still don’t understand why this whole debacle is so cumbersome — other than the obvious need for boondoggle for Diebold and other useless vendors trying to create a gravy train.

    My vague memory says that one of the engineers who was able to crack the Diebold pseudo-security about 2 years ago, and who subsequently published to the web the whole logic-code that essentially proved how vulnerable to easy-tampering and vote-fixing the Diebold system is, more recently has made this recommendation. (In the end, it doesn’t matter WHO made this recommendation. Point is, I can’t imagine anyone who can drive a bulldozer throught it:

    (1) In order to satisfy the need for the vision-impaired to be able to clearly and easily examine ballot choices and cast their votes, the use of touchscreens should be allowed — BUT ONLY AS FRONT ENDS for a resulting printed ballot. (see #2) In no way would the touchscreens be used as vote counters or tabulators. Essentially, they become input screens, and the outputs are printed ballots.

    (2) All ballots — all ballots — that are counted for tabulation are paper ballots, period. They are optically scanned, or otherwise read/counted, and the paper ballots exist as the papertrail/ verifiable back-up.

    (3) People who do not use touch-screen front end ballot printers would be given paper ballots, and they mark the paper ballots according to the current state of the art. In California, it’s pretty darn simple and foolproof. Next to your choice, for any given vote, is a horizontal “arrow” line with an empty-gap space in the middle of that horizontal line. And you use a felt tip marker to simply fill in the line so that the completed arrow points to your choice.


    FOR U.S. SENATE (unmarked ballot)

    John Smith

  18. (cont’d – part 2)


    FOR U.S. SENATE (unmarked ballot)

    John Smith

  19. (part 3 — I see now… the “arrowheads” I had included in the above two posts somehow signalled “end of post” when in fact there was more stuff that followed. Ahhh, technology — so reliable 🙂 ) Here, I have removed the arrow-heads and so I hope the whole post posts this time.


    FOR U.S. SENATE (unmarked ballot)

    John Smith ====………….=====

    Maria Torres ====………….=====

    Lydia Jones ====………….=====

    Darrell Marshall ====………….=====

    FOR U.S. SENATE (MARKED ballot: choice is for Lydia Jones. Note, the gap between the two ends of the arrow is filled in by felt tip pen.)

    John Smith ====………….=====

    Maria Torres ====………….=====

    Lydia Jones ==============

    Darrell Marshall ====………….=====


    (4) Touchscreen devices, once again, would have absolutely nothing at all to do with counting and tabulation. In fact they should expressly be forbidden to have any counting capability, because that would invite abuse. ALL THEY DO is provide a front-end means for a voter to PRINT-OUT his or her paper ballot. Then that voter views his/her ballot to verify the choices, then feeds that ballot into the optical scanner (or other paper counting device). Voters who do not use a touchscreen-printed-marked-ballot feed their own hand-marked paper ballot into the optical scanning ballot reading device.

    (6) In San Francisco, for example, this simply felt-tip-pen paper ballot method has been used for years now… and you feed your own ballot card into the reader — and you see it advance one more number forward, signifying the ballot has been read and the votes have been counted. There are double redundant hard-drives — and it is the hard drives that are collected by election officials at the close of voting, and delivered to a central secure place where the votes are all counted. Note that each precinct’s paper ballots are locked into the device for that precinct… and are there to compare against the hard-drive tabulations, should there be any contested vote.

    In my view, this is the smartest use of touch-screens: Paper ballot-printers. Not vote tabulators.


  20. Hi Richard in SF

    I’m in LA. We used the system you are talking about in the recent Mayoral race. Very good system, it seemed to me.

    Speaking of the software glitches, yes WordPress reads arrows as the end of a post. The joys of software.

  21. Richard

    Do you know if there are any links with more info on this?