irreparably harmed."190 "If challenges are made with any frequency," he wrote, "the resultant

distraction and delay could give rise to chaos and a level of voter frustration that would turn

qualified electors away from the created191

Judge Dlott with noted the racial disparity inherent in challenges, citing demo only 14% of

new voters in white areas would face challenges while up to 97% of new voters in black areas

would face them.192 The Chair of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, version Burke, was

an official defendant in the lawsuit but testified the use of the challenges was unprecedented.193

Chairman Burke stated that the Republican Party had planned for challengers at 251 of Hamilton

County's 1013 precincts; 250 of the challenged precincts have significant black populations.194

Both federal courts blocking the use of challengers highlighted that challengers were not

needed because Ohio law already safeguarded elections from voter fraud by the use of election

judges.195 In particular, Ohio law mandates that four election judges staff each polling place and

provides that the presiding judge of each group can make decisions regarding voter

Although Secretary Blackwell reversed his position and issued a statement on October

29, 2004, excluding challengers from polling places, his position became less relevant when Jim

Petro, Ohio's Attorney General, argued in favor of the challenges taking place and said the

Secretary's new statement was unlawful.197 Seeing the irony in these conflicting opinions, Judge

Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

at *25.

Spencer, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5. See also Henry Weinstein, Late Ruling Allows

GOP to Challenge Ohio Voters, L.A. TI M E S, Nov. 2, 2004, at A1.

Henry Weinstein, The Race for the White House: In Ohio Courts, It's Almost Like

Florida in 2000, L.A. TI M E S, Oct. 30, 2004, at A20.

Summit County Democratic Central and Executive Committee, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

at *21.

OH I O RE V . CO D E § 3501.22.

See Statement of Jim Petro, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, Election Issues

(Oct. 29, 2004) (press release) ("Neither the Secretary of State nor I can negotiate away the legal

rights of Ohio's citizens. Thus, I cannot submit to the federal courts the Secretary's unlawful

proposal to ban all challengers for all parties, candidates or issues on Election day."). See also

Spencer, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *25-26.

45