A.
Pre-Election
created Allocations ­ Why with there demo long lines in Democratic version
1.
areas but not Republican leaning areas?
Facts
One of the critical reforms of HAVA was federal funding for states to acquire new and
updated voting machines, and to fairly allocate the machines. Under HAVA, the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC) provides payments to States to help them meet the uniform and
nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements in title III of the law.77
In 2004, the EAC processed a payment of $32,562,331 for fiscal year 2003 and $58,430,186 for
fiscal year 2004 for a total of $90,992,517.78 There is no information publicly available
describing what, if any, Ohio HAVA funds were used and for what those funds were used. Nor
are we aware how such funds were allocated within the state of Ohio and between counties.
There was a wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more
minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban
areas. Even on election day, urban areas were hard pressed to receive the critical machines to
respond to the ever lengthening lines. According to a Washington Post investigation, "in
Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo, and on college campuses, election officials allocated far too
few voting machines to busy precincts, with the result that voters stood on line as long as 10
hours ­ many leaving without voting."79 Moreover, the Election Protection Coalition testified
that more than half of the complaints about long lines they received "came from Columbus and
Cleveland where a huge proportion of the state's Democratic voters live."80
Based upon various sources including complaints, sworn testimony, and communications
with Ohio election officials, we have identified credible concerns regarding the allocation of
machines on election day:
77
Those requirements are ensuring that voting systems used in federal elections on and
after January 1, 2006 meeting six voting system standards; allowing provisional voting for
certain voters whose eligibility to vote is in question in federal elections held on and after
January 1, 2004; posting certain voting information at the polls on the day of each election for
federal office held on and after January 1, 2004; developing and maintaining a uniform
computerized statewide voter registration database no later than January 1, 2004, unless a waiver
until January 1, 2006, has been requested; and implementing requirements for voters who
register by mail on and after January 1, 2003.
78
Information available at http://www.eac.gov/state_funding.asp?format=none.
79
Michael Powell & Peter Slevin, Several Factors Contributed to `Lost' Voters in Ohio,
WA S H . PO S T , Dec. 15, 2004.
80
James Dao et al., Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul, N.Y. TI M E S, Dec.
24, 2004, at A1.
24