Upload
vohanh
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2016
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Damschroder.
A. Good afternoon, sir.
Q. My name is Subodh Chandra, and I'm counsel for the
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and the Columbus
Coalition for the Homeless.
I don't believe you and I have met before, have we?
A. I don't believe that we have.
Q. Okay. Sir, most of the questions I will ask you today
will be yes or no questions. May I have your commitment that
if I ask a question susceptible to a yes or no answer, that
you'll give me a yes or no answer?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. All right. Mr. Damschroder, under the Ohio Revised Code,
the Secretary of State is the chief elections officer of the
State of Ohio, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Secretary in that capacity is responsible for
administering a fair election in Ohio, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. And a fair election would include ensuring that all
ballots from registered eligible voters are counted, would you
agree?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Would you agree that the right to franchise is important?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you agree that if someone is a registered and
eligible voter, that everything within reason that is possible
ought to be done to count their ballot?
A. Yes.
Q. So that the voices of those voters in our democracy can be
heard; would you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree that the State of Ohio should not
erect unnecessary barriers that would disenfranchise people or
cost them their votes?
A. Yes.
Q. Or their voices in this democracy?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, Secretary of State John Husted is a Republican,
correct?
A. He is.
Q. And you are, too?
A. Yes.
Q. And despite those party affiliations, you would agree that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
you are supposed to be nonpartisan in your approach to your
duties. Would you agree with that?
A. I would.
Q. Let's go over some of the changes that came about as a
result it have Senate Bills 205 and 216.
Let's start with Senate Bill 205. You testified on direct
about some of those changes, but I just want to confirm a few
of them with you.
First, there would be a change with regard to the absentee
ballot form that accompanies the return ballot, correct?
A. I don't recall that the form itself changed, but the
requirements for counting the ballot changed.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. And so the five field requirement
came into effect.
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in addition, the cure period was cut; is that
correct?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
THE COURT: Mischaracterizes his testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer,
Mr. Damschroder.
THE WITNESS: Like I testified earlier, the previous
cure period of 10 days was set by directive now it's in the
statute, but yes, it was changed from 10 to 7.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And when one refers to the five fields as being mandatory,
would it be fair to say that, generally speaking, voters are
then expected under Senate Bill 205 to be disenfranchised if
they don't fill out those five fields completely and correctly?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer,
Mr. Damschroder.
THE WITNESS: If the five fields are not completed
accurately, the ballot would not be counted.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Or completely, for that matter.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so the voter's vote, even if the voter were otherwise
eligible, would be lost, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That voter would be disenfranchised, correct?
A. That voter's ballot would not count.
Q. Is there a distinction to you between a ballot not being
counted and the voter being disenfranchised?
A. There is. And, if I may, so I view it as if there are
laws in place that apply to everyone, then if the ballot can't
be counted because the voter doesn't provide that information,
I don't consider that disenfranchisement in the same way that I
would consider it disenfranchisement if we were to say that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
women can no longer vote. So that's the way I view it.
Q. Okay. So let's break this down.
You would agree with me that the right to franchise is the
right to vote.
A. Yes.
Q. And so does it not make since then that losing one's right
to vote if one were an otherwise eligible voter would
constitute disenfranchisement?
A. Like I said, I think I view it differently, but I think
we're saying the same thing.
Q. Okay. Now, going again over the changes related to Senate
Bill 205 and absentee voters, was one of those changes also
that poll workers can no longer assist a voter in filling out
the form unless they are asked?
A. That's correct.
Q. Based upon literacy, blindness or disability, correct?
A. Any voter can ask for assistance, but specifically voters
with disability, illiteracy are specifically allowed to request
assistance.
Q. So you don't read the statute as limiting the ability to
ask for and receive assistance to the voter based upon
literacy, blindness or disability.
A. Correct.
Q. Now, in addition to that change, are poll workers in a
situation where someone is voting early in-person as their form
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
of absentee voting, are poll workers permitted to check the box
regarding the form of I.D. and fill in the form of I.D.?
A. If the voter asks for assistance, yes, the poll worker can
do that. In that case it's a part-time employee of the Board,
but yes.
Q. But except in circumstances where the voter is
specifically asked, is the poll worker supposed to do that?
A. No.
Q. And before Senate Bill 216, was that something that poll
workers would do?
A. I'm sorry, you switched to 216 for provisional?
Q. I apologize, you're absolutely right.
A. Okay.
Q. Under 205.
A. So under 205?
Q. Correct.
A. I don't recall specifically whether there was specific
instructions in the statutes that -- in the statute that the
election official had to fill in the information. I can't
remember whether that was a requirement.
Q. And I apologize. That wasn't my question.
My question was really whether or not poll workers as a
matter of practice in Ohio, to your knowledge, would perform
that task for the voter?
A. I can speak to my experience in Franklin County --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. Please do.
A. -- specifically as it related to 2008.
We had a station set up where voters would come in and
fill out their absentee application, and then we had personnel
there who were available to help if a voter asked for help.
And then when the poll -- when the election officials are
keying the application into the voter registration system, if
the -- if the election official said, hey, you know, you missed
this field, they would hand the application back to the voter
in that in-person scenario, and the voter would fill that
information out.
Q. Okay. But did you have experience in Franklin County in
which -- or were you aware of poll workers who would take the
identification information while assisting a voter filling out
an application -- or, excuse me -- the form related to an
absentee ballot and would then assist the voter by filling in
the identification information and checking the box?
A. I'm not aware of that happening.
Q. Is it your contention that it never happened?
A. I don't know that it never happened. I don't -- I
don't -- I don't remember that we instructed our election
officials to do that. It -- but I don't have specific
recollection that it did happen.
Q. My question is whether you would contend that it did not
happen?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
A. I wouldn't say that it did not ever happen, no.
Q. Okay. And for the voter's vote to be counted even before
Senate Bill 205, the identification information would have to
be provided, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was the poll worker before Senate Bill 205 when someone
was voting early in-person responsible for signing the form in
any way?
A. Was the poll worker responsible for signing?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't -- no, I don't believe so.
Q. That would have been true with respect to provisional
ballots?
A. In the former version I think there was a line for the
election official -- for the precinct election official in
in-person absentee for the Board staff to sign in addition to
the voter.
Q. Okay. So we'll come back to provisional ballots in a
moment. But just sticking with Senate Bill 205 and absentee
ballots -- and I believe you've already answered this, but in
case you haven't -- never mind. You did answer it. Let's move
forward.
Okay. So as a person with significant responsibility for
administering elections in Ohio, what was your understanding of
the problem that existed to be solved by Senate Bill 205?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
A. As it relates to Senate Bill 205, I think the -- the
problem was a level of confusion between the statutorily
prescribed form that had a line for date of birth and then the
question of whether date of birth is or isn't required. And so
now it's clear to all the election officials in the State, the
same five fields for registration, the same five fields for
absentee as for provisional.
Q. Is that the only problem that was to be solved?
A. As it relates to -- as it relates to absentee?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Okay. So where did you gain that understanding of what
the problem was to be solved by Senate Bill 205 and its
provisions?
A. So I think, like I testified earlier, there was a
situation in Franklin County in 2008 where the application
itself said date of birth is required on the identification
envelope --
Q. Tell you what.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Let me withdraw the question and give you a narrower
question.
A. Okay.
Q. So I believe you testified earlier that Senate Bill 205
was -- correct me if I'm wrong -- not something that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Secretary of State's office initiated; is that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so would it be fair to infer from that that it's
something that -- the draft of the bill originated in the
General Assembly, not from the Secretary of State's office.
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And so my question really was centered more toward
where did you gain your understanding of what the General
Assembly's intention was with respect to the provisions we've
discussed in Senate Bill 205?
A. Thank you.
I don't -- I don't know what the General Assembly's intent
was in enacting these laws.
Q. So is it fair to say then that you're making inferences
about what you think the General Assembly was trying to do with
Senate Bill 205?
A. So I think my testimony has been based on my personal
experience at the county or at the Secretary of State's office,
and I'm -- I don't know what the General Assembly intended to
do.
Q. Okay. You're just guessing based on your experiences?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. Okay. Turning now to Senate Bill 216 regarding
provisional ballots, you've already testified about the
material provisions in that; I won't repeat that.
But going back to this question, what was your
understanding of what the Ohio General Assembly was trying to
solve with Senate Bill 216?
A. Because we weren't involved with the drafting or that
legislative process, I don't know what the General Assembly was
intending to solve.
Q. Okay. Did you read any news releases by the Senate
sponsors of either Senate Bill 205 or 216 explaining their
rationales?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you go over to the Senate or the House and watch any
of the committee hearings?
A. No.
Q. Related to either bill?
A. No.
Q. Did you go and watch any of the floor debates related to
those bills?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware in your capacity as senior elections
administrator in Ohio that those bills were controversial,
Senate Bills 205 and 216?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
THE COURT: Basis?
MS. RICHARDSON: Assumes facts not in evidence, calls
for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I recall that there were news reports,
and I recall that there were specifically -- I can't remember
which Chamber it was, whether the Senate or the House, that one
of the Democratic members of the committee wanted the Secretary
of State's office to come testify, and I think -- and I think,
as I recall from maybe a Gongwer report, you know, had gone so
far as maybe even saying, you know, that the General Assembly
should subpoena the Secretary to come over because they wanted
the Secretary's office's input on these bills, and we didn't
because that was not our legislative priority.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. So it would be fair to say that Senate Bill 205 was not a
legislative priority for the Secretary of State.
A. That's correct.
Q. And Senate Bill 216 was not a legislative priority for the
Secretary of State.
A. That's correct.
Q. So all of the ideas you offered to Ms. Richardson about
the benefits of either piece of legislation, would it be fair
to say, are simply your own ideas and not connected in any way
to what the intentions of the Ohio General Assembly might have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
been?
A. That's correct. They're my views based on my experience
in Franklin County and at the Secretary of State's office.
Q. Okay. And so would it be fair to say that if information
came to your attention that brought into serious question some
of the benefits that you believe exist from Senate Bills 205
and 216, that that would cause you to rethink whether those
pieces of legislation are beneficial?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
THE COURT: Vague, compound.
THE COURT: It's long, but not compound.
Do you understand the question, Mr. Damschroder?
THE WITNESS: I don't think so. If I could get a
clarification, that would be helpful.
THE COURT: Yes. Rephrase your question.
MR. CHANDRA: I will.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. So during your discussion with Ms. Richardson, you posited
several potential benefits of Senate Bill 205, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And of 216, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And those were based upon your experience but not any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
knowledge from the General Assembly, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And my question simply is if information were brought to
your attention that would bring into serious question whether
the benefits that you believe exist with respect to Senate Bill
205 -- let's take that first -- would that then cause you to
question whether or not Senate Bill 205 is truly beneficial to
the public in Ohio?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, what's the basis of your
objection, Ms. Richardson?
MS. RICHARDSON: Vague.
THE COURT: Again, it's long, but I don't know that
it's vague.
Mr. Damschroder, do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I think that I do.
THE COURT: You may answer it.
Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I think it -- I don't think that my
view from my election -- from my experience administering
elections at the county and state level, I don't view -- I
don't think that that would change. I -- my experience says
that I think these are benefits to the election administration
process in Ohio.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And the same would be true with respect to Senate Bill
216?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that would really be true no matter what information
you were presented about the actual effects of that legislation
on elections administration in Ohio.
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
MS. RICHARDSON: Mischaracterizes his testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer, Mr. Damschroder.
THE WITNESS: My view is that these are beneficial
laws, and so I -- I can't -- I'm not aware of anything that
would -- that would change what I view as the significant
benefits of -- of these -- of these laws.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And my question was that would be true no matter what
information you were presented with, correct?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. Okay. So I'd like to ask you based on your considerable
experience some questions about the history of the kind of
information required under Ohio law for voters to prove their
identity.
Is it true that at some point in this century that all a
voter had to do to show identity or to prove identity and be
able to obtain their ballot and cast it was provide their name
and their signature?
A. Certainly, as it related to in-person Election Day voting,
they would have to state their name and address and then sign
the poll book.
Q. Then starting in about 2006, the voters had to show name,
signature and some forms of specified identification, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then after that it was name, signature, identification
and address, correct?
A. What mode of voting are we talking about? I'm sorry.
Q. Feel free to distinguish among them if you need to, but
let's talk about in-person on Election Day if that's easiest to
start.
A. So for in-person on Election Day, it used to be that the
voter would just announce the voter's name and address. The
poll worker would find it in the poll book, and then they would
sign the poll book.
In 2006 Ohio enacted a voter identification law. So in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
addition to announcing the voter's name and address, signing
the poll book, the voter would also have to show a form of
identification in order to cast a regular ballot.
THE COURT: Just a second. Could I see counsel?
- - -
Thereupon, the following proceeding was held at
sidebar out of the hearing of the jury:
THE COURT: Read back the last question and answer,
Ms. Coulter.
(Question and answer read back.)
THE COURT: Now, here's is what I'm asking. Those
very same questions were asked by Ms. Richardson on direct.
Now, you've been jumping at the bit all trial to get
to the main witness. This is not a deposition. You know, I
don't want -- what I'm trying to avoid is repetitive testimony
because it's five past 4:00, and we aren't even close. Now,
because Mr. Damschroder is one of the State's main witnesses,
I'm going to give you any time that you need but, you know, I
think that one of the problems that we've had in terms of
cumulative testimony on both sides -- and I understand why it
happened because everybody was cautious and wanted to -- this
is an important case. You want to make sure you cover all your
bases. But, you know, the examinations have been eerily close
to deposition-type questions where you get a lot of background,
and then somewhere in there is the question.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
I want -- since you have this witness on
cross-examination, I don't need you to repeat the direct.
Trial Ed. 101, I need you to go to the points that you want to
make. And you are skilled enough to know that you get up there
and you have five, ten, fifteen points, but among those five,
ten or fifteen points is not the same direct that
Ms. Richardson did, it's your cross. So I want to hear your
cross, Mr. Chandra. I don't want to hear Ms. Richardson's
direct again. I heard it and I have -- I read it, I hear it,
and she's going to give me at the end of today a transcript of
it. So I want to know what you want to know. You got the guy,
you wanted the guy. You got it, now tell me what you want the
plaintiffs' case to reflect from this witness.
MR. CHANDRA: Okay. Thank you.
(Back in open court.)
THE COURT: Mr. Chandra, please continue.
MR. CHANDRA: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. I'm going to move toward to another topic, sir.
Would you agree -- you testified on direct about one of
the benefits of Senate Bill 216 being that the provisional
ballot affirmation form could double as a voter registration
form. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Would you agree, however, that that voter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
registration form doesn't help a voter who has been
disenfranchised for failure to complete the form?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree that that voter registration form
doesn't help the voter that has made some sort of an error on
that form while filling it out?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that disenfranchisement of voters who are
already registered based upon errors and omissions on the form
is not necessary to obtain the beneficial effect of that form
doubling as a voter registration form?
A. So I look at it this way:
I think there are -- there are going to be instances where
an individual voter may not have that voter's ballot cast --
counted because of an error or omission on the envelope. But
as I look at it, I think that the -- from all of the voters,
the benefit of having more data points to find more voters
is -- is also a very important benefit. And I think in my view
as just an elections administrator, that -- that benefit may be
greater than the impact to just that one person. While I
feel -- while I feel bad and don't like that it happens to that
one voter, I think the benefit to the larger electorate is
worthwhile.
Q. Sir, I'll come back to that issue, by my question was a
little different.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
My question was you don't have to have voters
disenfranchised who are already registered to obtain the
benefit of the provisional ballot affirmation form doubling as
a voter registration form for those who are not registered,
correct?
A. Correct, unless they can't be found.
Q. Generally speaking, correct?
A. Yes, generally speaking.
Q. And you testified previously in a deposition taken in this
case on February 25, 2016, that every vote matters, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the voter registration benefit to a provisional ballot
affirmation form has nothing to do with absentee voters who may
be disenfranchised for minor errors or omissions on the form,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So it's really no excuse or explanation for that under
Senate Bill 205.
A. Well, I think, as I've testified earlier, I think there is
a benefit to having clearly established -- in the absentee
context to having clearly established understanding for voters
and election officials alike of what are the required fields.
Q. But respectfully, sir, that wasn't my question.
A. I'm sorry.
MR. CHANDRA: I'll ask the court reporter to please
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
read back my question, please.
(Question read back.)
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Thank you.
I would like to turn your attention to the subject of
voter fraud. And I'll show you what's been previously marked
as -- well, before I even show you the exhibit, are you aware
of studies regarding voter fraud being done by the Secretary of
State's office in recent years?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you involved in those studies?
A. I was involved in the issuing of the directive, yes.
Q. Okay. Would you agree with me -- with this
characterization, that those voter fraud studies showed that
the instances of even potential voter fraud are infinitesimal
relative to the overall population of legitimate votes cast?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you agree in addition that voter fraud or the
possibility of voter fraud, given those study results by the
Secretary of State's office, is not an appropriate
justification for the five fields requirements under Senate
Bill 205 and Senate Bill 216?
A. I believe that's correct.
Q. That the studies do not justify the five fields
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
requirements. Are not a justification for the five fields
requirements might be a better way of asking it.
A. I think that's correct.
Q. All right. And so if a representative of Cuyahoga County
testified in this case that before Senate Bills 205 and 216
that Cuyahoga County, one of the biggest counties in the state,
could previously identify voters without all five fields on
those return envelopes, you would have no information to
dispute that testimony, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you'd agree also that there is no reason for Boards of
Election to compare addresses provided by voters on the five
fields either under absentees or provisionals with the State of
Ohio auditor's website to determine whether it's a valid or
good address?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
MS. RICHARDSON: Vague, calls for speculation,
compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And while you don't know the exact error rate for the SVR
database of the state, you would acknowledge that there are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
errors in it.
A. I guess I don't -- because I don't know what the error
rate is, I don't know for sure that there is -- that there are
errors, but there are probably errors but I don't know what
that error rate is.
Q. But you'd acknowledge that there are probably errors in
there?
A. There are probably errors, yes.
Q. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is
that you also suggested in response to questions on direct that
administrative convenience of Boards of Election may be one
benefit of Senate Bills 205 and 216.
Do you recall that testimony?
A. I don't remember necessarily using the phrase
administrative convenience. But under that umbrella having a
clear understanding of what the rules are, being able to
identify more voters in the voter file to be able to count
those ballots, I would kind of put that under that umbrella.
Q. So you've testified that you were an official at Franklin
County administering their elections. How many tens of
thousands of provisional voters are there in a county like
Franklin County, let's say, in the last two presidential
elections, 2008 and 2012?
A. I don't remember for certain, but I think, if I remember
round numbers for '08, there were -- I think there were about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
forty to maybe fifty thousand provisional voters in Franklin
County, but I can't remember for sure.
Q. Okay. And in Cuyahoga County?
A. Probably a similar number. Maybe just slightly larger
because it's a larger county.
Q. Okay. So somewhere around 50,000 voters?
A. I think so.
Q. Would you agree that if Cuyahoga County and their Board of
Elections representatives testify that they were already able
to establish voters' identities before the five fields
requirement, that requiring them to analyze all five fields on
provisional ballot affirmation forms is an added burden?
Yes?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I'm sorry, I
thought you were making a statement.
Q. I was, but I should have said true?
A. I guess I would answer it this way: I don't think that
the date of birth component of the provisional is necessarily
an added burden to the Board based on what I believe is the
benefit of potentially finding more voters. And the address, I
believe, is important for identifying -- you know, for counting
voters who are wrong precinct who are eligible to have their
ballot counted and for making sure that you count the correct
portion. So I don't think that it's necessarily a significant
or out of -- or irrelevant burden.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. Okay. Well, that wasn't my question. My question was
simply is it an added burden?
A. I think it is added steps, and so that would probably be
an added burden.
Q. Well, and that's talk about what those added steps would
be then.
Senate Bills -- Senate Bill 216 with regard to provisional
ballots would now require a Cuyahoga County Board of Elections
which has already satisfied itself regarding identity to review
all five fields on each provisional ballot form to the tune of
50,000 voters, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And it didn't have to do that at that level of detail
previous to Senate Bill 216, correct?
A. Not at the same level of detail, correct.
Q. And as someone who has administered a large county like
Franklin County, you understand the burden involved in having a
requirement to review tens of thousands of forms, correct?
A. I do.
Q. And that is a big burden, correct? I'm not asking about
benefits. It's a big burden, correct?
A. It is.
Q. All right. How many years of your career, including your
time at the Board of Elections in Franklin County, including
your time at the Secretary of State and anything beyond that,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
have you had administrative experience?
A. It would just be at the Board of Elections and the
Secretary of State's office so '03 to the present. So 13.
Q. So about 13 years?
A. Yeah.
Q. And then before you were at the Board of Elections, what
did you do?
A. Before I was at the Board -- immediately before I was at
the Board of Elections, I was at the state treasurer's office.
Q. So you were working in a large complex organization.
A. Yes.
Q. And how many years were you doing that?
A. I did two different -- I was at the state treasurer's
office for two different time periods probably about 18 months
to two years at the most between the two stints.
Q. And before that did you work in any large organizations?
A. Before that I worked for the -- in between that I work for
the Franklin County Republican Party. Before that I managed a
campaign for a Columbus City Council candidate. Before that I
was a licensed insurance agent right out of college.
Q. Okay. From all your time working in large complex
organizations or administering them, like election systems,
would you agree based on all that experience that when one
introduces a new complexity into a system, it can have
downstream consequences?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And some of those consequences, certainly from your
experience in government, you know, can be bad consequences.
A. Yes.
Q. And some of them can be unintended consequences.
A. Yes.
Q. Or they could be intended bad consequences but hidden from
view at the outset when the changes are made.
A. I think that's possible, yes.
Q. Are you familiar with a scientific principle called Chaos
Theory?
A. No.
Q. All right. So following up on this issue of complexity,
with five fields would you agree that there are at least five
ways a voter responsible for filling out those fields could go
wrong?
A. And, again, this is provisional?
Q. Either one.
A. Either one. I guess, yes, that's correct.
Q. Absentee or provisional.
A. That's correct.
Q. And then when you look at each individual field, there are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
multiple ways that a voter could go wrong on each field; fair?
A. Correct.
Q. So let's use the example of -- and I'm not going to go
over each example, but lets go over the example of checking the
box for I.D. and saying one's driver's license number. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. So I'm going to show you as a demonstrative exhibit here
my own driver's license, if I can get it out of my wallet. I
had more hair in the picture when it was taken. There's some
glare on there -- well, I don't know how visible it will be,
but are you familiar, sir, with the fact that there is a
driver's license number to the right of the main photo on the
left of the I.D., correct?
A. I think that's right.
Q. And then yet above the photo, there is another number
imprinted into the photo, correct?
A. It's unclear on the screen, but my recollection is that
there is an additional number printed on the card.
Q. And that additional number is totally unrelated to the
driver's license number, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so one of the many ways that a voter could go wrong
who is tasked with filling out the form him or herself would be
to write the wrong number down altogether, correct?
A. I would say yes, except that the form -- all driver's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
licenses are two letters followed by six numbers. And so one
of the things that we've -- that we've done to try to limit it
to the correct number is to have 8 boxes -- 8 distinct boxes
with the instructions, I think it says, you know, two letters
of the alphabet followed by six numbers to identify for the
voter that that's the driver's license number.
Q. But you'd agree with me that the voter would have to be
able to read the form to know that, right?
A. Or ask for assistance, correct.
Q. And, similarly, if -- let's take the example of date of
birth. There are multiple ways that a voter could go wrong in
filling out that field, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. They might write the wrong year?
A. Correct.
Q. They could write the wrong month?
A. Correct.
Q. They could write the wrong date?
A. Correct.
Q. If they are -- if they originate even as U.S. citizens
from a country other than the United States, where in every
other country they write the day of the month first and then
the month and then the year as their format, the voter could
err there as well, correct?
A. That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. Have you undertaken any study to find out whether or not
voters have made that kind of error?
A. No.
Q. So would it be fair to say, without doing the mathematical
calculations by every one of those five fields, that there
would be numerous permutations of things that could go wrong
when a voter is trying to fill out that form?
A. Yes, that's possible.
Q. And what is your position on behalf of the Secretary of
State as to whether it is appropriate or not to fill in one's
name in cursive for the name, even if it's legible?
A. Sure.
Our -- I think our position is that the voter has to print
their name and then sign the affirmation.
Q. All right. Do you recall -- were you paying attention to
election issues when Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was the
Secretary of State of Ohio?
A. I started in '03 so there was some overlap between his
administration and --
Q. And do you recall when there was a public controversy over
the fact that Secretary Blackwell insisted that voters submit
their voter registration forms on the right weight of card
stock, or those voter registration forms would not be
processed?
A. I do recall that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. And do you recall that one of the reasons he was mocked,
including by editorial boards around the state, was that seemed
to elevate form over substance, literally --
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
MS. RICHARDSON: Assumes facts not in evidence,
argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Okay. So turning your attention now to the issue of
cursive, if a voter is -- if their name is legible but written
in cursive, hasn't the function of the field which is to
provide the voter's name been fulfilled?
A. There's -- because there's not a standard of, you know,
what is cursive, what isn't, are the letters connected, you
know, the instructions are to print the full name. If the
voter was to, you know, do their signature there, even legibly,
then the ballot would not count.
MR. CHANDRA: I'd ask the court reporter to please
read back my question and request that you answer that
question.
THE COURT: Ms. Coulter?
(Question read back.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. And yet the Secretary of State of Ohio's position is that
that voter should, nevertheless, be disenfranchised for having
written their name in cursive, even legibly, rather than
printing it on the provisional ballot affirmation form or the
absentee ballot form?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection; mischaracterizes his
testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Am I correct?
A. I'm going back. I'm sorry.
Yes, that's correct.
Q. All right. Do you believe that that's a fundamentally
fair position?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I do.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Okay. So in Franklin County you're aware that Franklin
County uses bar codes that are unique identifiers for each
voter?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And they also have -- well, let me stick with the bar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
codes. So if the bar codes in Franklin County uniquely
identify each voter and the Franklin County Board of Elections
has satisfied itself through the application process, let's say
for absentees that a voter has established their eligibility
for that ballot and sent it to them, that barcode would be a
part of the packet that is to be returned by the voter,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so that barcode would uniquely identify that same
voter, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So under those circumstances, there really is no need for
imposing the five fields on those absentee voters, correct, in
terms of establishing the identity of the voter?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, when you testified on direct that you had been
involved in the redesign of the provisional ballot affirmation
form to see how voters with limited or no -- excuse me, I'm
sorry. Let me withdraw that and start over.
You testified on direct that you had been involved in the
redesign of the provisional ballot affirmation form, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you did not conduct a review to see how voters with
limited or no literacy could handle that form, correct?
A. That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. And, in fact, you were advised to do that, weren't you?
A. My recollection is that that was one of the suggestions
that came back from, I think it was Peg Rosenfield from the
League of Women Voters.
Q. Right. And the League of Women Voters, in your experience
as an election administrator, is deeply engaged in issues
concerning fairness and efficiency of elections, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So much so that you thought it important to reach out to
them to ask for their input on the form, correct?
A. Among others, yes.
Q. And you're aware that the League of Women Voters actually
took an official position in opposition to both Senate Bills
205 and 216, correct?
A. I don't remember that for certain, but it wouldn't
surprise me.
Q. Okay. Why wouldn't you surprise you?
A. Because I know from conversations with Peg Rosenfield
going back to even the photo identification bills from, you
know, 2006, that the league's position was, you know, what we
had was sufficient.
Q. And she's a co-president of the League of Women Voters.
A. I don't -- I don't remember what her official role is.
Q. But it's a very senior position in the organization of
Ohio, correct?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
A. Yes.
Q. All right. So Ms. Rosenfield actually sent you an e-mail
that advised you to check and test the form concerning the
issue of literacy, correct?
A. I recall that she sent me an e-mail, yes, and I think she
suggested that we test it.
Q. Okay. So I'm going to show you what's been marked as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11, and this appears to be an e-mail chain.
It starts off at the top dated May 6, 2014 from Dana
Chisnell, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the kind of form design expert you were
consulting with, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it appears within this series of e-mails that's
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11 that the discussion of literacy is
contained somewhere within it, and here is the question,
correct me if I'm wrong apparently coming from Ms. Rosenfield
saying -- could you please read what is asterisked there?
A. Yes.
Has this form been analyzed by a literacy expert and by an
expert on designing forms? It needs to be readable by someone
with a sixth grade reading level, and it needs to be
intuitively clear how to fill it out.
Q. Okay. So there's more information on literacy in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
exhibit, but we'll move on.
But you didn't do it, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And, actually, since the form was implemented
in connection with the 2014 election, the 2015 elections and
the 2016 primary, you have yet to do any sort of testing of
that form to see how people who are functionally illiterate
perform on the form, correct?
A. Correct. We have not done that.
Q. And that's true despite the fact that by late
October/early November 2014, the Secretary of State's office
was on notice that it was a potential defendant via the very
second supplemental complaint at issue in this case in a
literacy test issue under the Voting Rights Act, a literacy
test claim; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So I want to go back to an issue you talked about
on direct regarding poll books and consolidated poll books.
If I understood the testimony correctly, you told
Ms. Richardson and the Court that the Secretary of State's
office by directive had required that poll books be
consolidated on a statewide basis, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And before that were Boards of Election doing different
things with regard to consolidating poll books?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
A. They were.
Q. And one of the reasons that you ordered that the poll
books be consolidated on a statewide basis was to achieve
uniformity, correct?
A. That is one of the benefits, but I wouldn't say that was
the primary reason. I think the primary reason was that it's
an efficient management tool at the precinct level and
virtually eliminates the right church/wrong pew issue.
Q. Okay. But, in general, uniformity is a very important
concept across Ohio's counties to this Secretary of State's
office, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's something that this Secretary of State's office
across a wide range of issues has taken a very strong position
in favor of, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that includes the issue of hours on which voters can
vote early and in-person across Ohio's 88 Boards of Elections,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Regardless of the size of the county, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Regardless of whether that county might have had a history
of long lines at the polls, correct?
A. That's correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Q. So having consolidated poll books on a statewide basis,
the Secretary of State's office has not weighed in to create
uniformity across Ohio with respect to whether Ohio's 88
election boards vote in a number of three on dates of birth and
whether to accept the ballots of voters who have made an error
or omission on the date of birth field on the five fields both
with respect to absentee ballots and provisional ballots,
correct?
A. That's correct.
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. And the Secretary of State by statute is supposed to be a
tie breaker when there is a two to two vote with -- in a Board
of Elections, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And yet the Secretary of State has chosen not to be a tie
breaker one way or the other to ensure that voters are either
consistently disenfranchised or enfranchised based on an error
in the date of birth field, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. So I would like to show you a group of
demonstrative exhibits now, some charts we've created just to
try to expedite matters. To set the stage for this, let me try
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
to get a sense of what you may know with respect to the
different practices of Ohio's 88 counties on the five fields.
So as you've just testified, you've been on notice not
only with respect to the Voting Rights Act literacy test claim
since late October/early November 2014, but you've also been on
notice that the Plaintiffs in this case brought an equal
protection claim under Bush v. Gore concerning whether or not
Ohio's 88 counties are behaving consistently with respect to
the five fields, correct?
A. That's my recollection of part of the complaint.
Q. Okay. And since the Ohio Secretary of State's office was
put on notice about that, you would acknowledge that the Ohio
Secretary of State's office has undertaken no investigation or
inquiry as to whether or not the various Boards of Elections in
Ohio are consistently enfranchising or disenfranchising voters
using the five fields on both forms, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's true even as depositions have been taken in
this case establishing that certain Boards of Elections are
doing certain things with respect to the five fields while
other Boards of Elections are doing others, correct?
A. Well, I haven't read the transcripts of any of their
depositions other than my own so I don't know what all was said
in the context of those. But we have not as a result of
anything yet in this -- in these proceedings undertaken a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
study -- I think that was your question -- undertaken a study
as a result of those things.
Q. And I'm not asking you about conversations you've had with
your distinguished counsel here, but you have been aware that
depositions of county Boards of Elections have been taken
throughout of the course of this case, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have been aware that those Boards of Elections
have been asked questions regarding their practices on the five
fields, correct?
A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. And you have expressed no desire or expended no effort to
try to obtain those depositions and find out for yourself what
they're doing, correct?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Basis?
MS. RICHARDSON: Mischaracterizes his testimony and
argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer,
Mr. Damschroder.
THE WITNESS: I have not, that's correct.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. All right. So I'm going to show you one demonstrative
exhibit, and this is -- let's start with the first issue, which
is: Will a provisional ballot be counted if the name field is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
in cursive not printed?
Now you just testified that your position on behalf of the
Secretary of State is that voters who write their names in
cursive in the name field should be disenfranchised for that
error under your interpretation of the law, Senate Bill 205 and
216, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now, testimony from Lucas County and Warren
County, however, suggests that those counties will count a
provisional ballot under circumstances where the name field is
filled in cursive and not printed. Were you aware of that?
A. No.
Q. Where as Franklin County and Lorain County testified that
they, in fact, follow your position and would disenfranchise
the voter under those circumstances.
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Do you -- when you look at this -- and just assume what
I'm telling you is correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Chandra, you didn't give
Mr. Damschroder an opportunity to answer the question.
MR. CHANDRA: I am sorry about that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I just want the record to be clear. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
question was whereas Franklin County and Lorain County Boards
testified that they, in fact, follow your position and would
disenfranchise a voter under those circumstances.
THE WITNESS: And the answer would be for Lorain I
didn't -- I don't -- I didn't know that that's what they do or
testified to.
For Franklin, that's the way it was when I was there
so that wouldn't surprise me.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Okay. So given the concern of Ohio's Secretary of State
John Husted with uniformity, would you agree that it is a
serious problem problem if voters in different counties in the
state will have their ballot counted or not counted based on
the issue of whether they fill their names in cursive or not?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it trouble you?
A. It does.
Q. But your preference would be that the voters in Lucas
County and Warren County be disenfranchised if they fill their
name field in cursive?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Correct?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you -- could I hear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
the question again? I apologize.
MR. CHANDRA: I'll respectfully request the court
reporter to read it back to me.
(Question read back.)
THE WITNESS: I don't think it's my preference, but I
think that's what the law says.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. So your belief is that the law requires disenfranchisement
of those voters, correct?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. CHANDRA: May I have a sidebar, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
- - -
Thereupon, the following proceeding was held at
sidebar out of the hearing of the jury:
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Chandra.
MR. CHANDRA: Forgive me if I missed something,
Your Honor, I wasn't sure what was wrong with the question as
phrased.
THE COURT: Well, he -- you had just asked --
Read the question back, Ms. Coulter.
(Question read back.)
THE COURT: And then he had just said that. It was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
asked and answered.
MR. CHANDRA: I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize
that was the basis.
(Back in open court.)
THE COURT: Please continue, Mr. Chandra.
MR. CHANDRA: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. So just a couple more follow-up questions on this cursive
issue, sir.
Does your concern about uniformity across the State of
Ohio with respect to issues like cursive stem from a concern
about equal protection under law of voters across the state?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I'm not an attorney and so --
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. I understand that.
A. I think I don't know the -- I guess I look at it from the
standpoint of the -- our -- the Secretary's and my view on
uniformity is that voters, you know, should be treated the
same, have the same opportunities to vote, have the same
expectation that the vote will be counted in the same way from
county to county.
Q. And have the same burdens that might risk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
disenfranchisement?
MS. RICHARDSON: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Yes. That those requirements be the
same across all counties.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. Okay. So moving to the next example -- and I hope to go
through these much quicker now.
The next issue is are early in-person voters allowed to
use DREs -- that is, the voting machines -- and so avoid the
requirement to fill out an I.D. envelope?
And you'll see here on the left we have indicated in the
demonstrative exhibit that the answer for Butler, Franklin,
Lorain, Lucas Miami counties would be yes. The answer in
Cuyahoga and Meigs County would be no.
MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honor, objection. This
characterization misrepresents the testimony that was
presented.
THE COURT: Sidebar.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
- - -
Thereupon, the following proceeding was held at
sidebar out of the hearing of the jury:
THE COURT: Go ahead, Ms. Richardson.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honor, as I read this
demonstrative, it's suggesting that there was a prohibition on
these counties in using DRE machines, and that was not the
testimony that was provided.
THE COURT: Mr. Chandra?
MR. CHANDRA: I certainly didn't intend to suggest
that with the question. I was simply speaking to the fact of
the availability of DRE machines for in-person voting. And so
if there was something about my question that would be
misleading to an official who would have knowledge of how these
things work, then I apologize and I can try to rephrase.
MS. RICHARDSON: Your Honor, the demonstrative I
believe makes that point very clearly.
THE COURT: Get the demonstrative off the Elmo for a
moment.
MR. CHANDRA: Sure.
Your Honor, I see the use of the word allowed rather
than able, and I could simply change it and I hope that would
resolve the issue.
THE COURT: Rephrase.
MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Chandra, while we're here it's 10
minutes to 5:00. How much more do you have for
Mr. Damschroder?
MR. CHANDRA: I think about an hour-and-a-half,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You have about an hour-and-a-half? Well,
to this point, how much redirect would you have?
MS. RICHARDSON: Very little at this point,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. We're going to go until
5:00 o'clock. We're going to have Mr. Damschroder back at
8:30. You're going to have tomorrow an hour and 15 minutes.
I'm going to reserve 15 minutes for you to do redirect. And
then what we're going to do is I have a final -- I have a
change of plea and a final pretrial conference in my Short
North Posse case, and then in the afternoon you're going to put
on your rebuttal case and you're going to be done with it by
5:00. Your rebuttal case can last from --
MR. CHANDRA: I have some good news in that regard.
I don't think we're going to have one. Unless something earth
shattering happens between now and then, we've canceled our
rebuttal case.
THE COURT: Okay. Good enough.
THE COURT: Please continue, Mr. Chandra.
MR. CHANDRA: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CHANDRA:
Q. So going back to the issue of the use of DREs, I've
corrected the demonstrative exhibit so that it now reads the
issue is whether early in-person voters are able to use DREs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
and so avoid the requirement to fill out an I.D. envelope.
And by that, of course, I'm simply referring whether the
particular county uses DRE machines for that purpose.
Do you understand that?
A. I do.
Q. All right. So, as I said before we went to sidebar,
testimony from Butler, Franklin County, Lorain, Lucas and Miami
Counties suggest that the answer to that is yes because they
use DRE machines, and then in Cuyahoga and Meigs County, that's
M-E-I-G-S, they do not use such machines.
Now, would you agree that from your understanding of
voting administration that voters who are using DRE machines
and are in the counties that use DRE machines are able to
bypass the envelope requirement?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And would you agree with me, however, that as to
the risk to individual voters, that would mean that there is
less risk of a ballot not being counted for those voters who
are in counties with DRE machines than for those who are not,
generally speaking?
A. Yes.
Q. And given the Secretary of State and your concern with
uniformity, does that trouble you?
A. It does. But I would say that in this instance, State law
is very specific and leaves only to the county Board of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Elections or the county commissioners the authority to pick the
voting system for the county.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. But it then leaves voters in a
position of non-uniformity with respect to the risk of
disenfranchisement via the absentee ballot form, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. The next item here: Are Board staff permitted
to fill out the I.D. envelope for the voter?
Meigs County said yes. Franklin County said no.
Does that kind of difference concern you given your
concerns about uniformity on behalf of the Secretary of State?
A. Yes.
Q. And let's move on. From your understanding of the State
of Ohio, would you agree that Franklin County has a larger
percentage of African-American voters than Meigs County?
A. I believe that's right.
Q. Okay. And so -- well, let's move forward. Let's look at
the next bubble.
The issue is: Are precinct election officials trained to
check the box showing that I.D. was provided?
This is after the implementation of Senate Bills 205 and
216.
Lucas County says yes. Franklin County says no.
Would that kind of different approach by different
counties impacting voters differently concern you and the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
Secretary of State's office given your concerns about
uniformity across the State?
A. Yes.
MR. CHANDRA: May I have a moment to confer,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHANDRA: Okay. So let's look at the next
demonstrative exhibit --
THE COURT: This might be a good place to stop
because it is 1 minute to 5:00.
MR. CHANDRA: Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Damschroder, we're going to adjourn
for the evening and reconvene at 8:30 in the morning.
Mr. Chandra has assured me that he has about an hour
and 15 minutes left, and Ms. Richardson said thus far she has
no redirect.
Our goal is to be done with you by 10:00 o'clock
tomorrow because I have another proceeding that begins then and
so I don't have a choice, and lucky for all of us.
So thank you very much, sir.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: You may be excused.
Are there any other matters we need to take up,
Ms. Richardson from the Defense?
MS. RICHARDSON: No, thank you, Your Honor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
DARLA J. COULTER, RMR, CRR
THE COURT: Ms. Gentry, Mr. Chandra?
MR. CHANDRA: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Good enough. I will see
everyone then at 8:30.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25