After helping W steal Florida in 2000, SCOTUS is repeating the feat with their new decision
By invalidating the Federal court decision in the last day of the deadline, SCOTUS is running the clock and allowing
About 200,000 of 666,000 voters who have registered in Ohio since Jan. 1 have records that don’t match.
Almost 1 quarter million. A third of the new registration. Phony.
Thanks again, SCOTUS!
That information, BTW was hiden at the end of the article, with an empty reassurance
Brunner has said the discrepancies most likely stem from innocent clerical errors rather than fraud but has set up a verification plan.
I bet she did. That’a why she sued – twice – to get out of doing it.
And excuse me? CLERICAL ERRORS? on a third of the registrations?
Who are the clerks in the Ohio Secretary of State’s office?
Does it mean, Brunner is going to…correct the so called errors?
Not Your Sweetie 
15 comments
October 17, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Bob V
Very pleased to see that the Roberts court is not going to help the GOP keep eligible voters from the polls in Ohio.
October 17, 2008 at 2:29 pm
edgeoforever
Eligible voters? 200,000 of them?
That’s a lot of “clerical errors”
October 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm
insightanalytical
Where’s Greg Palast when you need him…and I feel like being snarky about it, too…
October 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm
insightanalytical
I just took to time to hunt up Palast’s website via a search…
He is saying that the “vote is already stolen” by the GOP…
I emailed him asking him to date his articles…I have no clue when they were written! Talk about “hiding” basic info….
A bit further down there is a story/link to a Buzzflash interview with him…I didn’t go there because..well, I don’t go there anymore after spending about 7 years contributing to the site…
October 17, 2008 at 6:19 pm
edgeoforever
Palast – another one who disappoints me this year
October 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Scott Ferrarello
There is no end to the corruption.
October 17, 2008 at 7:42 pm
pumaalliance
correct.
lets rise.
PUMA haka 2008.
edge come and post! you have been added as an editor.
October 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Scott Ferrarello
Call the Sec. Of State office in Ohio, Jennifer Brunner , and tell her what a corrupt, lazy, lying witch she is.
October 18, 2008 at 12:31 am
angrynana
Witch is too good for Brunner. It is a put down to witches worldwide. May she rot in hell.
October 18, 2008 at 4:38 am
Edmund in Tokyo
200,000 mismatches might seem like a lot until you look at what they’re actually comparing. It appears that a “mismatch” here includes not only differences in spelling in names and driver’s license or Social Security numbers. That means that for everything to match:
– The person registering has to write their name on the voter registration form in exactly the same way as they have in both their driver’s license registration and their Social Security registration. If they have “Ed” on their drivers license but wrote “Edmund” on the voter form, that’s a mismatch. If they got married and failed to notify the BMV that they are no longer using their maiden name, that’s a mismatch.
– The hideously overworked minimum-wage employee charged with the mind-numbingly dull task of typing in their share of 600,000 new registrations has to correctly decipher every letter of the application, then type in this series of mostly meaningless letters and numbers without making any mistakes. So if your name is Joe Wurzelbacher but the database says “Worzelbacher”, that’s a mismatch.
– The same has to have happened for the BMV and Social Security registrations – if anyone screwed up anywhere, that’s a mismatch.
It also appears that it counts as a “mismatch” if there’s no driver’s license record at all – ie. if the person doesn’t have a driver’s license.
Which is why Ohio appear to be using those computerized mismatches only as a way of flagging the application for extra checks, instead of throwing out anything the computer says isn’t exactly the same.
For reference, here’s what Brunner says (under penalty of perjury) the mismatch-flagging system is doing:
“When data is received from the county boards of elections, the Secretary of
State electronically conveys to the BMV information concerning the voter for verification,
including the voter’s: (1) first name; (2) last name; (3) date of birth; (4) driver’s license number;
and (5) Social Security number.
The Bureau of Motor Vehicles then matches the information on the application to the
data in its own system. The BMV computer automatically notifies the Secretary
whether it can or cannot verify the registration information. But the system generates far more
than a simple “yes” or “no” answer: the BMV reports back any problem or discrepancy. For 9
example, the BMV/Secretary of State interface is programmed to identify when the driver’s
license numbers match but the Social Security numbers do not, as well as the converse. The
system also reports mismatches between names and birthdates; Social Security numbers that
belong to people who are deceased; driver’s license numbers that belong to people who are
deceased; and instances where a driver’s license number simply does not exist in the BMV
database.”
Click to access 20081009vote.pdf
October 18, 2008 at 6:36 am
edgeoforever
Edmund
Thou doth protest too much. I just added a new cartoon to the entry in response to your very wordy apologia.
October 18, 2008 at 7:32 am
Edmund in Tokyo
edgeoforever, having read my wordy apologia, are you seriously trying to tell us that you think that all 200,000 registrations are phony and should be thrown out?
October 18, 2008 at 10:25 am
okasha skatsi
Given that your name on your DL generally has to match your name on some other document, e.g., your BC, baptismal certificate or other formal piece of paper, there aren’t likely to be too many folks with their nicknames on their DL’s. As for registrations by the “deceased community”–doesn’t this put up at least a teensy weensy red flag for you?
Should all 200,000 registrations be suspect? Of course they should be, given ACORN’s proclivity for corruption. If you find your mad money missing from your sugar bowl and the last person in your kitchen was a known thief, wouldn’t you be just a little bit suspicious?
November 6, 2008 at 9:53 am
Who stayed home Election Day? What was the price? « Not Your Sweetie
[…] of it, if you think of the 100,000 of Georgians found to have voted in Ohio and Florida as well, or the 200,000 phony registrations that SCOTUS intervened to wave through in Ohio only. That accounts already for 10% of the “new voters” – and I only used 2 news […]
November 9, 2008 at 8:51 am
That huge turnout? Didn’t happen « Not Your Sweetie
[…] SCOTUS must be so disappointed! They wanted voters so badly in Ohio […]