Citizens for Legitimate Government

An examination of data provided by the Miami Herald that was collected during its examination of overvoted ballots provides overwhelming evidence of fraud in the counting of absentee ballots in Escambia County Florida. The data shows that out of over 21,500 absentee ballots cast in Escambia County, not one voter overvoted their ballot by placing marks next to the names of two presidential candidates. However, 296 absentee voters did, according to the data, place three or more marks on their presidential ballot.
The odd against this occurring naturally are so high that the word "astronomical" becomes an understatement. And when one considers that the Escambia County Canvassing Board duplicated over 2400 absentee ballots that were originally read by machine as overvotes and undervotes, the only rational conclusion is that the duplicate ballots that Escambia County created did not reflect what was on the absentee ballots themselves.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, over 10,000 ballots were duplicated in at least 26 Florida Counties because they were "damaged or defective" These included ballots that contained overvotes and undervotes where "voter intent" could be determined. All but a "handful" of these ballots were absentee ballots duplicated in Republican dominated counties where votes cast at the polls were scanned and tabulated in individual precincts.

Nearly one quarter of these duplicated ballots came from Escambia County alone, and those duplicated ballots represented over 11% of the absentee ballots cast in Escambia County. And 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 says that the duplication of ballots was done "with no outside scrutiny", an apparent violation of the law concerning "duplicated" ballots, which requires that when ballots are duplicated it must be done "in the presence of witnesses."

Optically scanned ballots with distinct marks for two different candidates are a not infrequent phenomenon. They do occur less frequently on absentee ballots than on ballots cast at the polls when there is no "voter protection" at the polls. Various factors can influence the rate at which such ballots are cast, including the make-up of the absentee pool of voters, and ballot design. (Lake County’s rate of "double marked" ballots was much lower than that of other centrally tabulated counties. Lake County had all their presidential candidates in one column, while the other centrally tabulated counties had them in two different columns.)

Even allowing for such factors, the complete lack of "double marked" overvotes in the Herald data from Escambia County’s absentee votes would have to be considered highly suspicious, and in and of itself warrant an investigation into ballot tampering. But the odds against this occuring absence fraud become utterly prohibitive when one considers that 296 absentee ballots were cast in which three or more marks were made. 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.

Other Florida counties show results that warrant investigation. In both Bay and Santa Rosa Counties, there are so few overvoted absentee ballots relative to the number of absentee ballots that ballot tampering is a very strong possibility in both counties. At least two other counties (Flagler and Seminole) have very low, but not quite unimaginable, overvote rates among their absentee ballots.

But Escambia County is unique in that its absentee overvotes were exclusively from ballots that were marked three or more times. Escambia’s absentee overvote rate is not low enough to raise suspicion in and of itself, it is the absolute lack of any double-marked ballots among Escambia’s overvoted absentee ballots that indicates that fraud was committed in Escambia when the absentee ballots were hand counted and duplicated.

DEFINITIONS AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION

In order to understand the nature of what occurred in Escambia County, a few definitions are necessary.

"Marks" are defined as marks that a scanner would pick up. They may be for a candidate, or for "write in". They also include erasures and stray marks that have been picked up by the machine as "votes".
"Double marked" ballots are ballots with two marks only.
"Three or more marks" indicates (obviously) a ballot with at least three marks.
"Total Overvotes" is the total number of ballots that the machine read as overvotes. ("Double" PLUS "Three or More")
"Recovered votes" are ballots from which the Miami Herald was able to determine "voter intent", and is NOT indicative of ballots hand counted then duplicated by the counties themselves.
"Unrecovered double" is the MINIMUM number of "double marked" ballots that are left after subtracting the recovered ballots from the double marked ballots, and represents the minimum number of double marked ballots for which the Herald was unable to determine voter intent. It is entirely possible/likely that some of the recovered ballots were marked three or more times, but that the voter intent was clear. This number is included because there were NO unrecovered double voted ballots in Escambia County---which is virtually impossible absent fraud if the data is reliable.
"OC" stands for Optically scanned Centrally tabulated ballots
"OCH" stands for Optically scanned Centrally tabulated ballots that were Hand-counted
"OP" stands for Optically scanned Precinct tabulated ballots

And a few other things should be kept in mind

In Table 2, which provides totals for votes cast, and breaks them down by absentee and poll cast votes, ONLY votes cast for Bush or Gore are included.
The frequency number for "unrecovered double votes" represents the highest possible number of "counted" votes for each "unrecovered double vote" in those counties which the Herald found ballots that indicated voter intent. In many cases, those numbers could be lower (indicating that "unrecovered double voted ballots occurred more frequently), in some cases significantly so.

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS

The excerpt from Table One compares four counties, each of which handled their ballots differently. Lake and Jackson Counties are both Centrally Scanned, but Jackson County (apparently) hand-counted its overvoted ballots (both from the polls, and absentee) while Lake County did not. Okaloosa and Escambia are both precinct scanned, but Escambia hand counted and duplicated its overvoted ballots, while Okaloosa (apparently) did not. Okaloosa was also chosen because both have military bases, and presumably a large percentage of the absentee vote would be military personel.

EXCERPT FROM TABLE 1

A few things to note:

There were no double marked ballots among the Escambia County overvoted absentee ballots examined by the Herald. Escambia is unique in this regard.
There were always unrecovered double marked ballots in the rest of the Florida Counties absentee ballots. Escambia is unique in this regard.
In the rest of Florida, there is no massive disparity between the number of absentee ballots with three or more marks, and the number with just two marks. Escambia County is unique in this regard.
Escambia County citizens who voted at the polls did not show any tendency, when casting overvoted ballots where voter intent could not be determined, to do so only by marking the ballot three or more times. Almost half the ballots that were overvoted at the polls were ballots that were double marked, and less than 30% of those double marked ballots showed "voter intent". The county-wide pool of voters from which the absentee voter pool is drawn shows no tendency to overvote their ballots in any unusual fashion. The overall pool of voters from Escambia county is NOT unique in any sense of the word.

In sum, Table 1 tells us that something very strange happened in Escambia County that defies any logical explanation other than fraud.

EXCERPT FROM TABLE 2—COUNTED VOTES AND UNDERVOTES

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

Table two shows that the total number of overvotes in Escambia is not all that unusual. What is unusual, as Table 2 demonstrates, is that even under the best of circumstances, with over 21,500 absentee ballots cast, one should expect at least some ballots to be unrecoverable double-marked ballots.

EXCERPT FROM TABLE 3--OVERVOTE FREQUENCY

POLL CAST ABSENTEE POLL & ABSENTEE

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

Table 3 shows that, even though absentee ballots are overvoted far less frequently than ballots cast at the polls, unrecoverable double marked ballots do get cast in any large sample of absentee ballots. There is a significant disparity between overvote rates (and unrecovered double marked ballots rates), when one compares centrally tabulated and precinct tabulated ballots. This disparity is easily explained when one looks at ballots cast at the polls because voter protection is (usually) available in the precinct tabulated counties.

Explaining the disparity in the absentee ballot pool is not quite as simple, and in fact the disparity may indeed indicate widespread fraud. But factors such as ballot design and the overall makeup of the pool of voters who cast absentee ballots could explain the disparity in most cases.

Except for Escambia County, there is never more than a 1:6 ratio between the rate at which all absentee overvotes are cast, and the rate at which unrecovered double marked absentee ballots were cast. Indeed, Lake County itself (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) 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 ration would have been very close to 1:300.

Except in those cases where the overall absentee overvote rate is extremely suspicious (Bay and Santa Rosa Counties) does the unrecovered double marked overvote rate make it even slightly conceivable that there would be no double marked overvoted ballots in Escambia County. And Escambia’s overall absentee overvote rate is actually on the high end for precinct tabulated counties.

CONCLUSIONS

If the Herald data is accurate, there is virtually no chance that fraudulent vote counting did not occur in Escambia County. The complete and unexplainable lack of unrecovered double marked absentee ballots means that there are ballots that were received with two distinct marks for listed candidates that were "duplicated" as ballots 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.

Circumstantial evidence provides additional support for the conclusion of fraud. Although Escambia County had spent over $500,000 on precinct based scanning equipment which had the potential to provide voters with both overvote and undervote protection, Escambia County did not turn on voter protection at the polls. The reason cited for not doing so was to save money on duplicate ballots, which cost 23 cents each. That may explain why overvote protection was turned off, but does not explain why undervote protection was turned off. There are no costs for duplicate ballots for undervoted ballots. The voter is simply handed back the ballot, and marks it in a way that can be read by the scanning equipment.

This "money saving" explanation also flies in the face of the decision to duplicate absentee ballots. It would have cost less than $750 to provide duplicate ballots at the polls to the 3201 people who overvoted in the Presidential race. Yet Escambia County spent over $550 on duplicating over 2400 absentee ballots (that of course does not include any associated labor costs.)

Ballot tampering in a federal election is both a federal and state offense, and should be investigated by both the Federal Department of Justice, and the Florida Attorney General's office. But the decision to turn off voter protection then duplicate only absentee overvoted and undervoted ballots also represents discriminatory conduct on the part of Escambia County.

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.

NOTES ON TABLES:

The overvote information in the following tables is based on data provided by the Miami Herald. The data itself is available for inspection at http://bushboyzstolethevote.com/votes.htm. Because the data is so clearly indicative of fraud in Escambia County, the Herald has been asked to confirm the accuracy of this data, but so far has not responded to inquiries.

The counties are divided into three distinct groups for a number of reasons. First, there is a huge difference in the occurrence of overvotes when ballots are cast at the polls—centrally tabulated counties (OC) will have a lot more overvotes. Second, according to the Orlando Sentinel, 26 counties, almost all of them precinct tabulated counties (OP), hand-counted and duplicated overvoted and undervoted absentee ballots. Third, some of the centrally tabulated counties hand counted all their overvoted and undervoted ballots as well—in six centrally tabulated counties (OCH), the Herald found no overvoted ballots for which voter intent could be determined. All of these factors influence the likelihood of overvotes having been found in the data, as well as the kinds of overvotes found.

Presumably, NONE OF THE HAND-COUNTED AND/OR DUPLICATED BALLOTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE DATA. The data consists only of ballots that were counted as overvoted in the final totals.

When looking at the precinct tabulated data, keep in mind that some counties (Escambia, Manatee, and possibly others) did not turn on "overvote protection". The data also suggests that in some other counties, use of voter protection was not consistent throughout the entire county, whereas in others (Leon, Seminole, Flagler) voter protection was provided very consistently.

It should be noted that there is a possibility that 2 or 3 of the counties identified as "precinct tabulated" are actually "centrally tabulated". Various sources contradict each other regarding which counties are precinct tabulated, and which are centrally tabulated. The counties designated as "centrally tabulated" are those which the Orlando Sentinel identified as such in its examination of ballots from centrally tabulated optically scanned precincts.

The data for Calhoun County does not appear on the web site cited above, so Calhoun County is not included in the data. Finally, the overvote data did not isolate absentee ballots for Washington County, and thus Washington County is also not included. It appears, however, that 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 1/20 of the ballots cast in Escambia County, the lack of any overvoted ballots does not rise to the point where one cam claim that it is so unusual as to be absolutely indicative of fraud.

TABLE 1

This table provides totals for overvoted ballots, and breaks them down by how they were cast (absentee or at the poll).

"Marks" are defined as marks that a scanner would pick up. They may be for a candidate, or for "write in". They also include erasures and stray marks that have been picked up by the machine as "votes".
"Double marked" ballots are ballots with two marks only.
"Three or more marks" indicates (obviously) a ballot with at least three marks.
"Total Overvotes" is the total number of ballots that the machine read as overvotes. ("Double" PLUS "Three or More")
"Recovered votes" are ballots from which the Miami Herald was able to determine "voter intent", and is NOT indicative of ballots hand counted then duplicated by the counties themselves.
"Unrecovered double" is the MINIMUM number of "double marked" ballots that are left after subtracting the recovered ballots from the double marked ballots, and represents the minimum number of double marked ballots for which the Herald was unable to determine voter intent. It is entirely possible/likely that some of the recovered ballots were marked three or more times, but that the voter intent was clear. This number is included because there were NO unrecovered double voted ballots in Escambia County---which is virtually impossible absent fraud if the data is reliable.
"OC" stands for Optically scanned Centrally tabulated ballots
"OCH" stands for Optically scanned Centrally tabulated ballots that were Hand-counted
"OP" stands for Optically scanned Precinct tabulated ballots

TABLE 2—COUNTED VOTES AND UNDERVOTES

Table two provides the data on which the Table #3 (overvote frequency) is based. "Counted" includes ONLY ballots cast for Bush or Gore in those counties, and does not include votes for minor candidates, nor does it include undervoted or overvoted ballots. "Total overvotes" and "unrecovered double" correspond to the numbers in table 1.

TABLE 3—OVERVOTE FREQUENCY

The numbers in table 3 represent the number of counted votes for each overvoted vote and each "unrecovered double" overvote.

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

In Bradford County

For every 12 ballots cast at the polls and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot counted as an "overvote"
For every 32 ballots cast at the polls and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot that was a double marked overvote from which voter intent could not be determined.
For every 18 ballots cast absentee and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot counted as an "overvote"
For every 44 ballots cast absentee and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot that was a double marked overvote from which voter intent could not be determined.
For every 12 ballots cast (at the polls or absentee) and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot counted as an "overvote"
For every 33 ballots cast (at the polls or absentee) and counted as a legal vote, there was one ballot that was a double marked overvote from which voter intent could not be determined.

TABLE 1--OVERVOTED BALLOTS IN OPTICALLY SCANNED COUNTIES

POLL CAST BALLOTS ABSENTEE BALLOTS POLL & ABSENTEE BALLOTS

county method double marked three or more marks total over-votes recov-ered votes unre-covered
double
double marked three or more marks total over-votes recov-ered votes unre-covered
double
double marked three or more 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