Ohio Election Redux: Walter Mebane's response to DOJ vindication of Ohio voting machine distribution process

On June 29, 2005 the U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division released the results of an investigation "prompted by allegations that Franklin County (OH) systematically assigned fewer voting machines in polling places serving predominantly black communities as compared to its assignment of machines in predominantly white communities." The Department of Justice concluded that "Franklin County assigned voting machines in a non-discriminatory manner."

But the DNCs investigation of the Ohio election paints a different picture. The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African Americans when measured using the standard of the November, 2004, electorate.

The allocation of voting machines in Franklin County was clearly biased against voters in precincts with high proportions of African Americans when measured using the standard of the November, 2004, electorate. In precincts with high proportions of African American voters there were 13.6 percent more active voters per voting machine than in precincts having low proportions of African American voters. While shortages of voting machines caused long delays in voting throughout the county, the allocation of voting machines among the county's precincts affected different voters differently. The most severe effects in terms of reduced voter turnout were incident on voters in precincts that had high proportions of African Americans. The most conservative estimate---based on the reported size of the active electorate in November---is that typically the shortages of machines reduced voter turnout in precincts in which high proportions of the voters were African American by slightly more than four percent, while shortage in precincts where very few voters were African American reduced voter turnout by slightly less than 1.5 percent.

If the allocation of voting machines is compared to information about the size of the active electorate that was available to Franklin County election officials at the end of April, 2004, then the allocation of machines is not biased against voters who were active at that time in precincts having high proportions of African Americans. But if election officials did use that information to make their allocations plans, then they made plans that involved using a total number of machines that was nearly 45 percent too small. Even using the April measure of the size of the active electorate, 5,023 working
voting machines were needed, not 2,800 machines as data supplied by the county indicate were actually deployed on Election Day. And sticking with plans possibly made using the information from April meant that the officials ignored information during the summer and fall that the November electorate would be substantially larger. Between April and November, voter registration in the county increased by 15 percent. If nothing else, the surge of new registrants should have been a clear indicator that plans made based on the April information would prove woefully insufficient. (Dr. Walter Mebane, Jr.)

To read the rest of the report, click here.