The Evidence for Ballot Tampering in Escambia County, Florida

 
Escambia County had zero overvoted absentee ballots that contained exactly two marks for presidential candidates. The statistical probability for this is beyond astronomical. The only possible explanation is fraud committed by elections officials.
 

An examination of data collected by the Miami Herald(1) during its examination of overvoted ballots provides convincing evidence of fraud in the counting of absentee ballots in Escambia County. More than 21,500 absentee ballots were cast in Escambia, of which the Herald identified 296 ballots as overvoted. All these overvoted ballots contained three or more marks(2) in the presidential race. Not one ballot contained marks for exactly two presidential candidates. The odds against this result — no overvoted ballots with exactly two marks — are so high that “astronomical” would be an understatement.

Optically scanned ballots with distinct marks for two different candidates are a common occurrence. Such overvotes occur less frequently on absentee ballots than on ballots cast at the polls — but only when there is no “voter protection” at the polls. Various factors can influence the rate at which such ballots are cast, including ballot design (the rates at which overvotes are cast, and “double-marked” ballots occur, are significantly higher in those counties that split their presidential race between two columns than in the counties where all the candidates were listed in one column) and the make-up of the absentee pool of voters.

Even allowing for such factors, the complete lack of double-marked overvotes in the Herald data from Escambia County’s absentee votes should raise questions that warrant an investigation into possible ballot tampering. In most counties, there are more double-marked overvotes than overvotes with three or more marks. No other county even comes close to the results found in Escambia County, where overvoted absentee ballots were exclusively marked three or more times. The odds against this result occurring naturally are so prohibitive that, unless the Herald data is completely erroneous, fraudulent tampering with the ballots is the only explanation.

According to the Orlando Sentinel(3), more than 10,000 ballots were duplicated in at least 26 Florida counties because they were “damaged or defective” (as permitted by law).(4) These duplicates included ballots that contained overvotes and undervotes where the voter’s intent was determined. All but a handful were absentee ballots duplicated in Republican-dominated counties where votes cast at the polls were scanned and tabulated in individual precincts.

Nearly one quarter (2,400) of these duplicated ballots came from Escambia County alone, where duplicated ballots represented more than 11% of the absentee ballots cast.(5) According to the Sentinel, “Escambia’s ‘duplicating team’ of more than a dozen poll workers went to great lengths — working until 2 a.m. — to make sure their absentee voters got a second or third look to have a mistaken ballot corrected and duplicated.”

The Sentinel also states that the duplication of ballots was done “with no outside scrutiny,” even though Florida law requires that duplicating ballots must be done “in the presence of witnesses.”

Other Florida counties show results that warrant investigation. In both Bay and Santa Rosa Counties, for example, the percentage of absentee ballots that were overvoted is so much smaller than average that ballot tampering must be investigated both counties. At least two other counties (Flagler and Seminole) have very low rates of double-marked overvotes that also should be investigated.

Escambia’s absentee overvote rate, in itself, is not low enough to raise suspicion; the absolute lack of any double-marked ballots is what is so noteworthy.

In the discussion of what occurred in Escambia County, these terms are defined as follows:

Also note the following:

 

What the Data Show

Excerpt from Table 1 — Overvoted Ballots in Optically Scanned Counties

The excerpt from Table 1 compares four counties, each of which handled its ballots differently. Lake and Jackson counties both tally the ballots in the central elections office (not at the precincts); Jackson County apparently reviewed and hand-counted its overvoted ballots (both from the polls and absentee), while Lake County did not. Okaloosa and Escambia both tally ballots at the precincts; Escambia hand-counted its absentee overvoted ballots, duplicating many of them to provide a machine-readable copy, while Okaloosa apparently did not. Okaloosa is also paired with Escambia because both counties have military bases, so presumably a large percentage of the absentee vote would be military personnel.

    Poll-Cast Ballots Absentee Ballots Poll + Absentee
county method double-marked multiple marked total over-votes recov-ered votes unre-
covered
double
double-marked multiple marked total over- votes recov-ered votes unre-
covered
double
double-marked multiple marks total over-votes recov-ered votes unre-
covered
double
Lake OC 1490 1386 2876 867 623 125 102 227 86 39 1615 1488 3103 953 662
Jackson OCH 444 561 1005 0 444 31 25 56 0 31 475 586 1061 0 475
Escambia OP 1531 1670 3201 421 1110 0 296 296 0 0 1531 1966 3497 421 1110
Okaloosa OP 348 264 612 89 259 34 31 65 17 17 382 295 677 106 276

The table illustrates the following significant details:

In sum, Table 1 shows that something very strange happened in Escambia County that defies any explanation other than ballot tampering. Escambia County voters overall made all the usual mistakes on their ballots. Nevertheless, according to the data, Escambia County’s absentee voters completely avoided making the mistake that accounts for at least 24% of the “unrecovered” overvoted absentee ballots in the rest of Florida’s counties.(7)

Excerpt from Table 2 — Counted Votes and Undervotes

Table 2 shows that the total number of overvotes in Escambia is not all that unusual; but with more than 21,500 absentee ballots cast, it is most unusual that no ballots are unrecoverable double-marked ballots.

    Poll Cast Votes Absentee Cast Votes Poll + Absentee Votes
county method counted total overvotes unre-
covered
double
counted total overvotes unre-
covered
double
counted total overvotes unre-
covered
double

Lake

OC

74977 2876 623 11604 227 39 86581 3103 662

Jackson

OCH

14249 1005 444 1757 56 31 16006 1061 475
Escambia

OP

92738 3201 1110 21222 296 0 113960 3497 1110

Okaloosa

OP

55002 612 259 14039 65 17 69041 677 276

Excerpt from Table 3 — Overvote Ratio

Table 3 shows that, although absentee ballots are overvoted far less frequently than ballots cast at the polls, unrecoverable double-marked ballots do occur in any large sample of absentee ballots. There is a significant disparity in the percentages of overvotes (and unrecovered double-marked ballots) between centrally tabulated and precinct-tabulated ballots. This disparity can be explained for poll cast votes because voter protection is (usually) available in the precinct-tabulated counties.

    Poll-Cast
Ratio (X:1)
Absentee
Ratio (X:1)
Poll + Absentee Ratio (X:1)
county method total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
Lake OC 26 120 51 298 28 131
Jackson OCH 14 32 31 57 15 34
Escambia OP 29 84 72 infinity 33 103
Okaloosa OP 90 212 216 826 102 250
all op-scan   95 236 108 316 96 245
all central   17 39 34 88 18 43
all precinct   235 643 146 459 215 607

The disparity in the absentee ballot pool cannot be so easily explained. Factors such as ballot design and the overall makeup of the pool of absentee voters could account for the disparities in most counties, but not in Escambia.

The ratio table shows that a “normal” occurrence is one unrecovered double-marked ballots for each 250–900 ballots cast.(8) Five counties have frequencies that are so anomalous that investigation is warranted. In Flagler and Seminole counties, the ratio is not so high that it creates a presumption of fraud. Bay and Santa Rosa counties have frequencies anomalous enough to indicate fraud. Escambia County, which has a minimum ratio of 1 unrecovered double-voted ballot for every 21,222 valid absentee votes cast (assuming that the next ballot cast would have an unrecoverable double-voted ballot) is completely “off the map.”

Even assuming that the rates from Bay and Santa Rosa counties were somehow normal, thus making Escambia’s rate slightly less unimaginable without assuming fraud, the differences in the distribution of overvoted ballots make it impossible to consider Escambia’s numbers as indicative of anything but ballot tampering.

The relationship between the occurrence of unrecovered double-voted ballots and the occurrence of machine counted overvotes is illustrated in the ratio tables.

In all counties except Escambia, there is never more than a 1:6 ratio between the number of unrecovered double-marked absentee ballots and the number of all machine counted overvoted absentee ballots. (Lake County, which had the 1:6 ratio is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard. Only one other county approaches that rate (1:4.5 in Hernando)(9) and the overwhelming majority of counties have a ratio less than 1:3.) If there had been even one double-marked absentee ballot in Escambia, its ratio would have been close to 1:300.

 

Conclusions

The Herald data, if accurate, gives reason to conclude that fraudulent vote counting occurred in Escambia County. It is statistically virtually impossible that no unrecovered absentee double marked ballots existed, or that none of the absentee overmarked absentee ballots had only two marks. This anomaly suggests that, when the elections officials duplicated absentee ballots that the machine could not count, the ballots with two distinct marks for listed candidates were reproduced with a vote for a single candidate. Marks on the original ballots may or may not have been erased. Other forms of ballot tampering may also have occurred, including adding marks on originally double marked ballots where voter intent could be determined on the original ballot.

Circumstantial evidence provides additional support for the conclusion of fraud. Although Escambia County had spent more than $500,000 on precinct-based scanning equipment that had the potential to provide voters with overvote and undervote protection, Escambia County did not turn on this feature at the polls. The professed reason was to save money on duplicate ballots — which would have cost 23 cents each. It would have cost less than $750 to provide duplicate ballots at the polls to the 3,201 people who overvoted in the Presidential race. This explanation also contrasts with the decision to duplicate more than 2,400 absentee ballots, at a cost of more than $550 not including labor.

Ballot tampering in a federal election is both a federal and state offense. The decision to turn off voter protection, then “correct” only overvotes and undervotes only on absentee ballots also represents illegal discriminatory conduct.

According to the latest census, 24.1% of Escambia citizens are African American, and according to the state of Florida, 16.6% of Escambia’s registered voters were black. Blacks make up 30% of the registered Democrats in Escambia (and only 2% of the Republicans) and 86% of black voters are registered as Democrats (6% are registered as Republicans). In this election, there was more than a 10-point difference in the Bush/Gore margin between poll-cast and absentee votes, which suggests that there was a significantly lower percentage of blacks among absentee voters than among voters at the polls.

There can be little doubt that the Escambia County Canvassing Board would be well aware of these demographic realities.

The Escambia County Board offered various explanations why they handled absentee ballots differently from poll cast ballots, none of which hold up to scrutiny. Turning off voter protection at the polls in order to “keep things moving at the polls” or to “save money” might be considered by some to be valid reasons; but they do not explain why poll-cast votes were not treated the same as absentee votes when it came to counting them under a “voter intent” standard.

The decision to turn off voter protection at the polls but to correct overvoted and undervoted absentee ballots must therefore be seen as a deliberate decision to provide different levels of “protection” to two different sets of voters, with the set of voters containing a disproportionate number of blacks receiving the lower level of voter protection. Even assuming that the County officials were unaware of any racial disparity on election night, those officials had the data that showed the racial disparity in sufficient time after the election to go back and provide the poll-cast ballots with the same treatment received by the absentee ballots.

Aside from the evidence of ballot tampering, the higher rates of rejection for ballots cast in minority neighborhoods requires investigation and prosecution of Escambia County’s elections officials to assure Americans, and especially African Americans, that federal elections will be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner. It is a violation of the Florida and U. S. Constitutions, as well as of the Federal Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, to administer elections in a way that discriminates against African Americans; under the Voting Rights Act, it is not necessary to show intent to discriminate; a discriminatory effect constitutes violation of the law. If the Department of Justice does not investigate Escambia County and prosecute those responsible for the disparate treatment of black voters, it will justify the suspicion that the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department has no interest in preventing or prosecuting criminal racial discrimination.

 

Tables

The overvote information in the following tables is based on data provided by the Miami Herald. Because the data so clearly indicate fraud in Escambia County, the Herald has been asked to confirm the accuracy, but so far has not responded to inquiries.

The county-wide “recovered” numbers are from a table published online by USA Today on 11 May 2001 in conjunction with the Herald ballot examination. The table is no longer accessible online.

The absentee precinct-counted “recovered” numbers are from the Herald recount web site search engine (also no longer available online). The counties are divided into three distinct groups for the following reasons:

Presumably, the Miami Herald data include only ballots that were tallied as overvoted in the final totals, not the hand-counted and/or duplicated ballots that were included in the vote count.

When looking at the precinct-tabulated data, keep in mind that some counties (Escambia, Manatee, and possibly others) did not turn on the overvote protection. The data also suggest that some counties did not use voter protection consistently throughout the entire county, whereas others (Leon, Seminole, and Flagler, for example) provide voter protection in all precincts.

The data for Calhoun County are not included in the table because that information is not available in http://bushboyzstolethevote.com/votes.htm. Washington County is also not included because the overvote data did not isolate its absentee ballots. There may have been no overvoted absentee ballots in that county at all. This would be unusual, but given that the total number of absentee ballots in Washington County was less than 5% of the ballots cast in Escambia County, the lack of any overvoted ballots is not so anomalous as to suggest fraud.

Table 1. Overvoted Ballots in Optically Scanned Counties

Table 1 lists totals for overvoted ballots, and breaks them down by how they were cast (absentee or at the poll).
    Poll-Cast Ballots Absentee Ballots Poll & Absentee Ballots
county method double-
marked
multiple
marks
total
over-
votes
recov-
ered
votes
unre-
covered
double
double-
marked
multiple
marks
total
over-
votes
recov-
ered
votes
unre-
covered
double
double-
marked
multiple
marks
total
over-
votes
recov-
ered
votes
unre-
covered
double
Bradford OC 324 310 634 90 234 28 32 60 3 25 352 342 694 93 259
Charlotte OC 1695 1029 2724 266 1429 160 95 255 56 104 1855 1124 2979 322 1533
Franklin OC 177 127 304 29 148 14 14 28 3 11 191 141 332 32 159
Gulf OC 153 146 299 26 127 24 20 44 9 15 177 166 343 35 142
Hendry OC 412 267 679 38 374 47 33 80 7 40 459 300 759 45 414
Lake OC 1490 1386 2876 867 623 125 102 227 86 39 1615 1488 3103 953 662
Okeechobee OC 438 286 724 110 328 43 33 76 12 31 481 319 800 122 359
Suwannee OC 327 325 652 18 309 13 16 29 0 13 340 341 681 18 322
Taylor OC 283 191 474 29 254 16 26 42 0 16 299 217 516 29 270
Gadsden OCH 709 1049 1758 0 709 37 49 86 0 37 746 1098 1844 0 746
Hamilton OCH 136 202 338 0 136 16 9 25 0 16 152 211 363 0 152
Jackson OCH 444 561 1005 0 444 31 25 56 0 31 475 586 1061 0 475
Lafayette OCH 90 65 155 0 90 9 6 15 0 9 99 71 170 0 99
Levy OCH 371 312 683 0 371 17 8 25 0 17 388 320 708 0 388
Liberty OCH 91 62 153 0 91 8 6 14 0 8 99 68 167 0 99
Alachua OP 28 25 53 6 22 26 22 48 0 26 54 47 101 6 48
Baker OP 13 12 25 3 10 14 8 22 0 14 27 20 47 3 24
Bay OP 96 57 153 44 52 6 0 6 3 3 102 57 159 47 55
Brevard OP 59 23 82 21 38 37 17 54 2 35 96 40 136 23 73
Citrus OP 25 6 31 4 21 11 11 22 0 11 36 17 53 4 32
Clay OP 52 52 104 15 37 13 41 54 0 13 65 93 158 15 50
Columbia OP 236 343 579 22 214 15 20 35 0 15 251 363 614 22 229
Escambia OP 1531 1670 3201 421 1110 0 296 296 0 0 1531 1966 3497 421 1110
Flagler OP 1 0 1 1 0 3 3 6 0 3 4 3 7 1 3
Hernando OP 22 24 46 5 17 33 68 101 12 21 55 92 147 17 38
Holmes OP 9 7 16 3 6 7 17 24 0 7 16 24 40 3 13
Leon OP 0 0 0 0 0 43 12 55 0 43 43 12 55 0 43
Manatee OP 781 394 1175 324 457 66 23 89 34 32 847 417 1264 358 489
Monroe OP 33 32 65 4 29 17 15 32 0 17 50 47 97 4 46
Okaloosa OP 348 264 612 89 259 34 31 65 17 17 382 295 677 106 276
Orange OP 205 383 588 48 157 195 392 587 48 147 400 775 1175 96 304
Polk OP 164 250 414 22 142 86 168 254 9 77 250 418 668 31 219
Putnam OP 10 16 26 0 10 15 38 53 0 15 25 54 79 0 25
SantaRosa OP 35 28 63 11 24 1 0 1 0 1 36 28 64 11 25
Seminole OP 20 10 30 0 20 11 7 18 0 11 31 17 48 0 31
St.Johns OP 46 43 89 11 35 27 18 45 0 27 73 61 134 11 62
St.Lucie OP 32 12 44 6 26 53 15 68 0 53 85 27 112 6 79
Volusia OP 33 19 52 7 26 70 32 102 11 59 103 51 154 18 85
Walton OP 23 20 43 0 23 15 14 29 7 8 38 34 72 7 31

Table 2. Counted Votes and Undervotes

Table 2 provides the data on which Table 3 (Overvote Ratio) is based. “Counted” includes only ballots counted for Bush or Gore in those counties, not votes for minor candidates; nor does it include undervoted or overvoted ballots. “Total overvotes” and “unrecovered double votes” correspond to the numbers in Table 1.

    Poll Cast Votes Absentee Votes Poll + Absentee
county method counted total
overvotes
unre-
covered
double
counted total
overvotes
unre-
covered
double
counted total
overvotes
unre-
covered
double
Bradford OC 7384 634 234 1105 60 25 8489 694 259
Charlotte OC 55676 2724 1429 9395 255 104 65071 2979 1533
Franklin OC 3684 304 148 816 28 11 4500 332 159
Gulf OC 4618 299 127 1329 44 15 5947 343 142
Hendry OC 6877 679 374 1110 80 40 7987 759 414
Lake OC 74977 2876 623 11604 227 39 86581 3103 662
Okeechobee OC 7972 724 328 1673 76 31 9645 800 359
Suwannee OC 10474 652 309 1607 29 13 12081 681 322
Taylor OC 5610 474 254 1095 42 16 6705 516 270
Gadsden OCH 12716 1758 709 1786 86 37 14502 1844 746
Hamilton OCH 3061 338 136 807 25 16 3868 363 152
Jackson OCH 14249 1005 444 1757 56 31 16006 1061 475
Lafayette OCH 2038 155 90 421 15 9 2459 170 99
Levy OCH 10787 683 371 1469 25 17 12256 708 388
Liberty OCH 2124 153 91 210 14 8 2334 167 99
Alachua OP 71213 53 22 10276 48 26 81489 101 48
Baker OP 6906 25 10 1096 22 14 8002 47 24
Bay OP 45191 153 52 12296 6 3 57487 159 55
Brevard OP 181428 82 38 31075 54 35 212503 136 73
Citrus OP 45402 31 21 9890 22 11 55292 53 32
Clay OP 48642 104 37 7726 54 13 56368 158 50
Columbia OP 15692 579 214 2319 35 15 18011 614 229
Escambia OP 92738 3201 1110 21222 296 0 113960 3497 1110
Flagler OP 22795 1 0 3715 6 3 26510 7 3
Hernando OP 54240 46 17 9050 101 21 63290 147 38
Holmes OP 6446 16 6 742 24 7 7188 40 13
Leon OP 82274 0 0 18215 55 43 100489 55 43
Manatee OP 93966 1175 457 13163 89 32 107129 1264 489
Monroe OP 88605 65 29 11201 32 17 99806 97 46
Okaloosa OP 55002 612 259 14039 65 17 69041 677 276
Orange OP 236442 588 157 38295 587 147 274737 1175 304
Polk OP 144966 414 142 20529 254 77 165495 668 219
Putnam OP 22550 26 10 2999 53 15 25549 79 25
SantaRosa OP 41455 63 24 7621 1 1 49076 64 25
Seminole OP 119636 30 20 15215 18 11 134851 48 31
St.Johns OP 49658 89 35 9390 45 27 59048 134 62
St.Lucie OP 67574 44 26 8690 68 53 76264 112 79
Volusia OP 150519 52 26 29142 102 59 179661 154 85
Walton OP 14815 43 23 3009 29 8 17824 72 31

Table 3. Overvote Ratio

The numbers in Table 3 represent the ratio of counted votes to total overvotes and to unrecovered double-marked overvotes.

This excerpt from the table illustrates how to interpret the numbers.

    Poll-Cast
Ratio (X:1)
Absentee
Ratio (X:1)
Poll + Absentee
Ratio (X:1)
county method total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
Bradford OC 12 32 18 44 12 33

In Bradford County:

    Poll Cast Absentee Poll + Absentee
county method total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double
total
overvotes
unrecovered
double

Bradford

OC

12 32 18 44 12 33

Charlotte

OC

20 39 37 90 22 42

Franklin

OC

12 25 29 74 14 28

Gulf

OC

15 36 30 89 17 42

Hendry

OC

10 18 14 28 11 19

Lake

OC

26 120 51 298 28 131

Okeechobee

OC

11 24 22 54 12 27

Suwannee

OC

16 34 55 124 18 38

Taylor

OC

12 22 26 68 13 25

Gadsden

OCH

7 18 21 48 8 19

Hamilton

OCH

9 23 32 50 11 25

Jackson

OCH

14 32 31 57 15 34

Lafayette

OCH

13 23 28 47 14 25

Levy

OCH

16 29 59 86 17 32

Liberty

OCH

14 23 15 26 14 24

Alachua

OP

1344 3237 214 395 807 1698

Baker

OP

276 691 50 78 170 333

Bay

OP

295 869 2049 4099 362 1045

Brevard

OP

2213 4774 575 888 1563 2911

Citrus

OP

1465 2162 450 899 1043 1728

Clay

OP

468 1315 143 594 357 1127

Columbia

OP

27 73 66 155 29 79

Escambia

OP

29 84 72 infinity 33 103

Flagler

OP

22795 N/A 619 1238 3787 8837

Hernando

OP

1179 3191 90 431 431 1666

Holmes

OP

403 1074 31 106 180 553

Leon

OP

N/A N/A 331 424 1827 2337

Manatee

OP

80 206 148 411 85 219

Monroe

OP

1363 3055 350 659 1029 2170

Okaloosa

OP

90 212 216 826 102 250

Orange

OP

402 1506 65 261 234 904

Polk

OP

350 1021 81 267 248 756

Putnam

OP

867 2255 57 200 323 1022

SantaRosa

OP

658 1727 7621 7621 767 1963

Seminole

OP

3988 5982 845 1383 2809 4350

St.Johns

OP

558 1419 209 348 441 952

St.Lucie

OP

1536 2599 128 164 681 965

Volusia

OP

2895 5789 286 494 1167 2114

Walton

OP

345 644 104 376 248 575

all op-scan

  95 236 108 316 96 245

all central

  17 39 34 88 18 43

all precinct

  235 643 146 459 215 607

Footnotes

  1. The conclusions in this article are based on the assumption that the Herald data are accurate. Requests for confirmation regarding the accuracy of the data have met with no response to date. See the explanatory notes that accompany the tables for a full explanation of the data.

  2. The word “marks” is used throughout this document, rather than the word “votes,” because a “mark” denotes what an optical scanning machine will pick up as a “vote” regardless of whether it represents an actual “vote” itself. Erasures, stray marks, and marks in the “write-in” areas are all examples of “marks” that do not constitute actual “votes.”

  3. David Damron and Roger Roy, “Mangled Ballots Resurrected.” Orlando Sentinel, 7 May 2001.
    David Damron and Roger Roy, “2001 New System Fumbles Votes.” Orlando Sentinel, 6 May 2001.

  4. Under the 1998 Florida Supreme Court decision in Beckstrom v Volusia County Canvassing Board, ballots containing votes that are unreadable by machines fall under the definition of “damaged or defective” as used in Florida Statute 101.5614(5). It should be noted, however, that the duplication of optically scanned ballots is technically illegal. The law makes a distinction between “ballot cards” (used with punch card equipment) and “paper ballots” (used with optically scanned equipment); it permits duplication of ballot cards, but requires that the “paper ballots” be “manually counted at the counting center by the canvassing board.”

  5. In and of themselves, these numbers are not indicative of fraud; Escambia may have duplicated ballots for all races in which there were overvotes or undervotes where voter intent could be discerned, while other counties may only have duplicated ballots when there were overvotes or undervotes in the Presidential race.

  6. Gore and Bush votes combined accounted for approximately 98% of the votes counted in Florida.

  7. Overall, double-marked ballots accounted for at least 38% of the unrecovered overvoted absentee ballots in the optically scanned counties. Both the median and the mode rate for the counties for these votes was about 50%.

  8. This is the normal range for ballots that had all presidential candidates in a single column. The normal ratio for ballots in which the presidential candidates were listed in two columns is about one unrecovered double voted ballot for every 40–100 absentee ballots cast.

  9. In Lake and Hernando counties, the “uncovered double-marked” ratio is probably higher than it should be; the Herald found overvoted ballots in both counties that showed voter intent.


Copyright © 2003 by Paul Lukasiak
Permission is granted to link to this page or to reproduce the contents, as long as the author is credited. In fact, we think the information is so important we encourage you to spread it far and wide as fast as you can.