ProgressOhio

Progressives are a diverse lot. It’s part of the DNA of free-form thinking – the Myers-Briggs that defines the ideology. Smart conservatives know that.

So when progressives began to splinter over different issues involving the Ohio Election study – EVEREST -- it was hardly surprising.

What was surprising was how a Republican election official from Franklin County – Matt Damschroder – became – to borrow Reggie Jackson’s famous phrase -- the straw that stirred the drink in sidetracking Ohio’s Secretary of State’s voting change efforts.

One of the few things the increasingly secretive legislators on Broad and High haven’t exempted from public records are emails of Boards of Elections officials. So ProgressOhio requested Matt Damschroder’s emails on the subject of EVEREST to give SHADOWS readers a glimpse of how operatives influence politics.

What we found was correspondence that showed Damschroder become the de-facto Secretary of State for the opposition. These emails showed Damschroder positioning himself as an expert with newspapers, serving as the public relations scheduler for the elections activist community– and generally – evolving into Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s worst unseen antagonist.

Where there was a newspaper leaning -- he pushed. Where there were progressives with narrow concerns – he fawned over them and inflamed.

The emails show Damschroder to have become an impassible Dam to Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s reform efforts – a study in the use of access, geniality and chutzpa to further his partisan agenda.

Matt Damschroder is a likeable guy, a Republican who somehow remained as Director of the Franklin County Board of Elections even though the position usually changes over and mirrors the party of the Ohio Secretary of State, who is now a Democrat.

He has done so, in part, because Denny White, former Ohio Democratic Party Chair and Deputy Director, is phasing out his long, successful career and inching toward rumored retirement. But there are loud grumblings that White remaining in the junior deputy position signals that Democrats may be sleeping while Rome is burning. Our election system calls for balance to keep Ohio elections immune from party politics, and emails reveal that Democrats aren’t offering the needed counter-balance to Damschroder.

The emails of Mr. Damschroder demonstrate the ease and familiarity he has with people of both political parties and the media. And it is that genial behavior that masks what the emails reveal: An agenda to preserve Ohio’s now scientifically proven flawed election machinery.

There are some heavy partisan scars inflicted by Mr. Damschroder’s role in Franklin County, the most obvious being the well-documented voting machine shortages resulting in long lines for Franklin County’s minority precincts in 2004.

A former Executive Director of the Franklin County GOP who left in 2003, Damschroder was disciplined in July 2005 for steering a check from representatives of voting vendor Diebold for $10,000 to the County Republican Party.

The Dispatch reported: "I’m here to give you $10,000," the elections director recalls Gallina saying. "Who do I make it payable to?"

"Well, you’re certainly not going to make it out to me," Damschroder says he told Gallina. "But I’m sure the Franklin County Republican Party would appreciate a donation."

Damschroder’s pay was docked over the incident, even though he never recommended Diebold for the contract. The investigation of the matter by the Franklin County Prosecutor has never been formally closed.

EARLY ON, DAMSCHRODER EMAILS REVEAL AN AGENDA

As evidenced by his actions over Diebold, it is sometimes difficult for Mr. Damschroder to separate his public duties from his other roles – be it with the Franklin County GOP or his just-ended role as President of the Ohio Association of Elections Officials.

It appears that much of the correspondence regarding his Association role occurred during Franklin County business hours and on Franklin County email. And although his role in the Association stems from his duties, the Board of Elections is supposed to set and make policy judgments and the Director and Deputy Director are to focus on the mechanics of Franklin County voting.

By late August, things were heating up as planning for what became known as EVEREST began.

“I’m taking a wait and see position primarily because the more rumblings I hear, the more I am convinced that the SOS wants to use the voting machine test as justification to decertify touchscreen voting machines (a la California) and bring in paper for 2008,” Damschroder wrote Dispatch Editorial Page Director Glenn Sheller on August 25.

Long before EVEREST had begun, Damschroder had already made up his made to defend the status quo.

THE BATTLE TO STOP FUNDING FOR EVEREST

On September 7, 2007, Gongwer News Service reported that Secretary Brunner would go to the State Controlling Board to waive competitive bidding to pay for the $1.8 million contract to test the machines. Damschroder forwarded the Gongwer story to Niquette, writing:

“$1.8 million would pay for a lot of poll-worker training, voter education, or technical support from voting system a vendors.”

Ironically, it had been rumored that Damschroder had actually solicited a position with Secretary Brunner to do poll worker training, voter education and technical support. A record request to the SOS office did find that Secretary Brunner met with Mr. Damschroder on February 7, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. at a job interview.

By September 10, 2007, the Controlling Board had deferred Secretary Brunner’s funding request.

On September 13, the Dispatch ran with an article: Voting panel scrutinized, Experts picked to test Ohio’s machines are biased, critics say. The main critic – Matt Damschroder – said this about the experts picked: “It demonstrates an inherent bias that would likely color any report that they give.”

Secretary Brunner responded with a statement specifically countering the bias claim, prompting a rare rebuke from the people Damschroder works for. Franklin County Democratic Chair and Board Member Bill Anthony wrote his Director:

“Matt, I hope we don’t get into a war of words with the SOS which we really don’t need at this time.”

Anthony’s response was written at 6 p.m. on the 13th -- after Damschroder had written Niquette to compliment his story and defend himself:

“I don’t recall saying anything about political party affiliation and don’t think I saw anything about that in your article. Did I miss something?”

The Controlling Board ultimately approved the expenditure, prompting Dispatch editorial writer Phil Rudell to go to Damschroder instead of his own reporter, Niquette, or the Secretary of State’s office and inquire:

“After reading Mark’s story, I’m not sure what really changed, but the controlling board now unanimously approved the unbid funding. What’s the story behind the story?“

Meanwhile, Damschroder’s crusade to discredit the EVEREST project continued. On September 26 he wrote Rudell:

“Thanks Phil. I think elections officials are still skeptical about the use of the three academics who have already publicly expressed conclusions about the voting machines. However, outside of the project being stopped completely, which was politically unlikely, having a team of local election officials in place to review the process and participate in the report is a good thing. Rudell replied by asking if Brunner appointed the Board members. “Actually, I appointed 6 Republicans and my Democrat Vice President appointed 6 Democrats. I did not appoint myself.” Damschroder replied.

Actually the 12 appointments were made by Secretary Brunner in consultation with the Association’s lobbyist Aaron Ockerman. There is however, much email between Ockerman and Damschroder in which they carefully select who should be on the EVEREST panel.

None of this participation seemed to deter Damschroder and other GOP BOE member’s seemingly partisan paranoia about EVEREST. On October 7 someone using the email allencountyboardofelect@wcoil.com (believed to be Keith Cunningham, former OAEO president and member of the Board of Voting Machine Examiners) wrote:

“Here is they [sic] guy that is coming to Ohio under the pretense of being with SysTest to do the on sight interviews. He is clearly the author of the survey we are looking at. Check out his company and Google his name. I have been told he is a “D” and should be watched. Sources tell me he has not held an elections job for more than 2 years at a time … which explains why he is a consultant. CHECK HIM OUT!!!!! Damschroder replied, “I did a web search. Interesting.”

Cunningham would be no stranger to EVEREST paranoia, telling the Dispatch on January 16 after a closed door meeting of GOP BOE leaders, “I have peers afraid to speak out.” Apparently those fears were skin deep as Cunningham, himself, had no such fears when speaking to the media.

ROLLING OVER EVEREST – December 2007

With EVEREST scheduled for a December 14 release date, Matt Damschroder started his day on December 12 with an email to Mark Niquette at the Dispatch.

“If we’re facing budget problems, whose going to pay for the new voting machines? =)” Niquette replied, “Exactly. Any word on what the report is going to say?”

Damschroder seemingly forgetting that he claims to have appointed six of the BOE members on the EVEREST panel complained, “Everyone is mum. The only people who know anything at all had to sign non-disclosure agreements.” He went on to speculate:

“Off the record, the only rumors I’m hearing is that the grounds probably aren’t there to completely decertify all the machines (similar to what we heard in Chicago); that Diebold will take the biggest hit; touchscreens will a hit [sic]: and that there will be a push for greater security/testing and standardization of processes/procedures which may or may not require a stronger centralized state elections office.”

Damschroder was pleased with the preview story on EVEREST in the December 13 paper and told Niquette so. The next day, when EVEREST was released, Damschroder and the Ohio Association of Election Officials released a statement indicating they were withholding comment.

“While some of our members have been intimately involved with this study, it is premature to offer a position on it,” Damschroder said in the statement.

But neutrality in this statement was either disingenuous or did not appear to last very long. On Monday December 17, he emailed Niquette around noon:

“Am picking up that some of the advocacy groups/VRI members are not happy that the SOS is proposing changes to the entire voting system architecture that are perhaps too dramatic. You might want to call Candace Hoke at Cleveland State… I don’t know where other folks like Donita Judge from the Advancement Project or the NAACP might come down on these kinds of sweeping changes that might be an invitation for administrative error.”

Niquette confirmed a December 18 press conference and forwarded information about it. And none other than Gene Pierce, former Ohio GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell’s political guru, soon emailed Damschroder asking, “Who is behind this news conference” and Damschroder identified voting rights groups such as the Brennan Center of NYU Law School and Candace Hoke a well-known election law scholar at Cleveland State University.

December 17 was a busy day for Damschroder. Having held fire on the 14th when lobbyist Aaron Ockerman had sent numerous emails to the 12 appointees on the committee and Association members, the 12 Committee members abruptly backed away from EVEREST – in both a carefully worded Association email and a more blunt mea culpa email to Ohio GOP headquarters.

“I want to make it clear to all of you that our group of “12” were never asked to endorse Brunner’s “novel ideas”. We did offer many, many, suggestions to the Secretary and her staff concerning our views… We concluded on Wednesday; and her report came out Friday,” wrote Jeff Wilkinson of the Richland County Board.

More pointed was the email Wilkinson wrote for Ohio Republican Party leaders that went to Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine, Keith Cunningham, lawyer Jonathan Gormley; Executive Director Jason Mauk and the only non- ORP employee, Matt Damschroder.

“Jeff Matthews is correct. We did review the Everest reports and vetted, however we never voted as a group on her “novel” ideas. We didn’t see the final news release until everyone else did. Ms. Brunner assured us that both leaderships in the house and senate were by her side.”

If Secretary Brunner had intended for buy-in from the BOEs, and Damschroder and his Association had wanted to cooperate, the whole exercise seemed moot because there was no BOE position on EVEREST. Wilkinson, meanwhile, was put on the defensive in his email to partisan ORP officials.

On December 18, the Dispatch had a not-so flattering Editorial on EVEREST, prompting Blackwell operative Gene Pierce to lead off his day with an email to Damschroder:

“Gotta love the Dispatch editorial, though. That’s probably the one issue Mike Curtin is most personally invested in. I could see the clenched hands and grinding teeth behind the calm, composed prose.”

The day ends with an email from the Franklin Board’s communication director, Ben Piscatelli, who told a Plain Dealer reporter,

“we are willing to work with her [Brunner’s] office.”

There would be no doubt where the Dispatch Editorial page would land and Damschroder was there to stoke the fires. The morning of December 19th, Rudell would email Damschroder:

“In your view, how serious are the security flaws identified in the EVEREST report? And can they be easily fixed? Are we supposed to throw out millions of dollars in new equipment because computer scientists can detect ways to attack the systems?

All pretenses of working with Secretary Brunner seemed to fall by the wayside in Damschroder’s response. Whether he purported to be representing the Association or his Board of Elections, Damschroder cast aside all pretenses about EVEREST, writing:

“Some of the flaws are notable but need to be considered in the context of the use of the technology. Instead of throwing the machines out, the state should rank the potential vulnerabilities by likelihood and impact and then develop state minimum security standards to prevent against the realistic tampering potentials identified. Just because a person could cause a machine to maybe reboot when slamming against the floor in a precinct should not be among the justifications for scrapping the machines (such a scenario is outlined in the EVEREST executive summary or the press release, I can’t recall which.) He went on to say “Regionalized voting centers, expanded in person early voting, etc.. are all interesting election administration reform ideas that should be debated and discussed and hopefully acted upon to some extent…”

He went on to point out that he believed that the report’s concern with industry standards did not take into account that in his view the machines meet Ohio legal standards. Damschroder also pointed out that the report said AutoMark was fatally flawed but encouraged its use for disabled voters.

Association lobbyist Aaron Ockerman liked the response so much he wrote back and said,

“If I do not attribute this and erase the link to Phil, do you mind if I share the substance of the email? I will only attribute it to “an election official.” This is great, because it does give credit to the SOS for the findings, but also points to solutions for fixing those problems.”

One day later, Damschroder was pointedly not so open to the debate over some of the reforms in EVEREST (mentioned in the Rudell email) when he pointed the news division of the Dispatch in a different direction:

“What’s your timeframe for getting a story to press? I’m pretty slammed today; can probably get some thoughts to you tomorrow. You should call Scott Doyle in Colorado (Larrimer County). He “invented the idea of vote centers (a different kind, though than Brunner is proposing – under his program, a voter can go to any location in the county as opposed to an assigned mega-precinct.) He could give you some real insights. I would also call the elections director in Denver – they tried vote centers in 2006 and had major meltdowns… long, long, long lines. As I understand it, their problem was data connectivity problems for the electronic po9ll books with the central server…”

Niquette was after the cost factors of EVEREST on the 20th but had already considered vote centers and replied at 8:40 a.m.:

“I’m probably going to put this out tomorrow in a story, likely led with what happens in Cuyahoga County. If you have time by the end of the day just to provide initial reaction to the assumptions [cost], that would be great. Also would you have time to shoot me a comment with your take on Brunner’s vote center concept I could use in a story for Sunday? Do you like the approach? Would the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? I have talked to Doyle and others already about it.”

One day after Niquette inquired about costs of the reforms, the Association’s lobbyist Aaron Ockerman sent out a questionnaire to Boards in order to “better get our hands around the expected costs associated with the proposed EVEREST recommendation versus your current system…”

Co-opting the Election Activists

For Larry Norden, Counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Ohio’s politicized elections process has to be a blessing and curse. The blessing is the attention that donors and academics give to the Ohio elections.

But the curse is that his findings, like those of the EVEREST scientist, fall victim to murky agendas and conspiracy theories which abound when discussing Ohio elections.

Norden first met Damschroder, Candice Hoke of Cleveland State University and other Ohio elections experts testifying before Congress on opposite sides of an issue. He and Damschroder developed a rapport and eventually appeared on panels together.

So the day after Christmas, when Damschroder first approached Norden, he complimented his statement on the controversy over Secretary Brunner’s Cuyahoga County Board of Elections changes and pointed out that:

“I think there is going to be a move in the General Assembly to adopt some post-election audit requirements.”

Norden replied that he would be happy to talk to Damschroder about the audit requirements; Damschroder soon began the process of scheduling meetings with Ohio House Republicans, ostensibly at this point about post-election audits.

But concerns expanded when on January 5, Damschroder wrote:

“I’ll make arrangements for us to meet with some folks from the House and Senate on Thursday.

An interesting development Friday afternoon (can’t remember if I already emailed this to you, if so, I apologize for being redundant) … SOS issued another Directive requiring Board Members to answer, in writing, with their names, whether or not they support her idea for central count paper ballots for 11/08. Per the Directive each member must complete the form independently and without consultation with other Board Members or the Board’s Director and/or Deputy Director. Disconcerting on two levels:

1) could violate Ohio's Open Meeting laws; and

2) half of the Board members are up for her to reappoint on 2/29 ... are we witnessing a separation of the sheep from the goats?”

The first point is ironic, because shortly after Damschroder’s open records concerns, the Ohio Republican Party held a closed door meeting of all Ohio GOP Election Officials to discuss Brunner’s questionnaire. As for his second point, just as in the case of September’s Controlling Board agenda, Damschroder appeared to use subjective paranoia to elicit a response from his audience – in September it was alleged bias of EVEREST scientists – here it was Brunner’s re-appointment authority -- and it worked as Norden responded:

This is indeed disconcerting. I intend to send a letter out to all county boards first thing Monday discouraging them from this move.

Damschroder Research Leads to ACLU Lawsuit

Two days earlier on January 4, Damschroder emailed a court decision to a list of undisclosed recipients. The case centered on the use of paper ballots in Cuyahoga County. The 1953 Court decision said:

“For a Board of Elections to fail to furnish the minimum ballots required by law, and subsequently have the ballots exhausted before closing time, would render the total vote in these precincts void irrespective of the number of people refused the right to vote. The election laws that pertain to the fundamental operation of voting, such as ballots and the make-up, should be rigidly enforced. Any relaxation of such enforcement will only invite fraud and corruption.”

To put this in context, Damschroder’s action means a former GOP operative whose goal is to preserve electronic voting, was fanning the flames of one of the alternatives – paper ballots – and pushing it on of all things the far-left ACLU, hardly a traditional GOP ally. Hoke responded by saying

“Boy, you make me feel like such a smart Election Law professor! Again, exactly what I had stated would be the governing principle of any sane court. I’ll pass this along….

By January 6, Hoke was readying to go farther with Damschroder’s research:

Larry and Matt,

The more I thought about this most recent Directive for evidence of support of the paper ballot project, the more I’m convinced that it can be litigated as a First Amendment claim. That would be a core ACLU concern, of course. There might have to be a Board Member willing to be a plaintiff. If there is someone that Matt knows, we can transmit the info to the litigators.

Ironically, also on January 7, the Ohio Attorney General responded to a separate legal opinion from Jennifer Brunner after the ACLU had sent letter to the SOS and Cuyahoga County Board claiming that the central count-optical scan voting system “runs afoul of state law which requires the state to only use voting machines that preclude a voter from overvoting.” Both paper ballot and optical scan alternatives were in question which would leave only electronic machines as a voting alternative.

On January 17, the ACLU of Ohio filed suit to block the use of paper ballots in the Cuyahoga County primary elections. On February 5, Damschroder, whose research fueled the ACLU suit, was called to testify before Federal Judge Kathleen O’Malley. In another case of irony, Franklin County Prosecutors tried to stop his testimony arguing that Damschroder was too busy with Franklin County elections – ironic considering it was Damschroder’s meddling outside of Franklin County that helped fuel the lawsuit. [See attached Court Document .pdf]

Damschroder testified by phone and Judge O’Malley blocked the attempt to stop paper ballots. The ACLU indicated it still plans to pursue a trial this year regarding central counting of ballots – one of the core concerns with EVEREST that the Brennan Center, Hoke and many others have with part of EVEREST.

Separately, on January 9, Association lobbyist Aaron Ockerman forwarded an email about excitement in Union County’s BOE in challenging the Secretary of State’s policy that paper ballots should be available if voters request them.

Damschroder forwarded the Union County information to Ohio House Republican Caucus attorney Jack Christopher who clearly saw an opportunity for more partisan gaming pitting Brunner’s position against Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

“Thanks, Matt … has anyone talked about requesting an AG Opinion? …interesting dynamic that would be?

On February 5, Union County filed suit to block paper ballots. On February 6 the case was moved to Franklin County and Secretary Brunner appealed the decision to the Federal Courts to try to dissolve a Union County restraining order. If chaos was the partisan goal to maintain status quo against EVEREST, the plan seemed to be working.

Bring the Chipotle, Aaron!

Damschroder’s banter with Hoke and Norden continued. He extended his invitation to meet with House and Senate Republican leaders and offered to schedule a Dispatch Editorial Board briefing.

On January 7, Damschroder wrote Hoke and Norden:

“I’ve contacted the House to let them know that you are going to be around and to let me know when you are going to be available. I should probably also reach out to the minority leadership as well, even though they are lining up be4hind the SOS on the changes for 2008… Also I’ve contacted the Dispach [sic} to see if they would be interested in having a private meeting with you – similar to an editorial board interview but probably with just one or two folks. Can be all on background for their edification if you want. Let me know.

Norden gave Damschroder the go ahead. Norden said in a ProgressOhio interview that the meeting did not include minority Democratic leadership, but that he and Hoke did reach out on their own to Democratic elected officials – but expressed frustration that they were unable to meet with Secretary Brunner, having tried since September.

The meeting was set for the House and Senate GOP for January 10 at 11:30. House legal counsel Jack Christopher set up the meetings, and correspondence indicates that Damschroder requested that House budget guru Ray DiRossi attend. In a final note, Christopher wrote to Senate policy aide Aaron Crooks:

“Aaron, Ray has requested that you bring the Chipotle.”

Apparently, well fed with EVEREST concerns, Damschroder reported good feedback from the meetings with legislative Republicans and set-up another time for Norden and Hoke to meet with the Dispatch Ed Board the following Wednesday.

Clearly the topic had moved on to things other than post-election audits alone. And while Norden’s comments at all times centered on specific core concerns on the mechanics of EVEREST, what had begun as an offer to talk about post-election audits had now become a series of pieces in Damschroder’s constant campaign for anything but EVEREST. On January 10, he wrote Dispatch Editorial Page Editor Glenn Sheller:

“If you guys have a ½ hour to spare tomorrow a.m., I know that Larry and Candace would love to meet to discuss EVEREST and the recommendations.”

The email trail ends on January 14, with confirmation of the Dispatch meeting.

WHAT IT ALL MEANS:

The average Ohio voter simply wants to vote and have that vote counted. They don’t want long lines or partisan jockeying. What these emails do, if anything, is demonstrate the need for self- imposed civility and restraint among politicians, academics, journalists, editorialists and bloggers in order to efficiently and fairly handle Ohio elections.

• For Jennifer Brunner and her staff, the lesson learned from these emails is that a closed door policy – and failure to reach out to those with divergent views – leads her natural allies of election activists and experts into the arms of a dissent with a far more complicated partisan agenda than election administration in March or November.
• For Matt Damschroder, the emails raise a number of questions? What should be the scope of his duties in running Franklin County elections? Should he be making comments on issues outside the scope of Franklin County and his role? And as head of the Association, what should his role have been in critiquing EVEREST? Did he represent all members or a faction? Finally, should a BOE official be helping an entity develop a lawsuit against another county and the State?
• For Franklin County Democrats, given Damschroder’s very partisan nature, the question remains, “Why is he still Director under a Democratic Secretary of State?” Damschroder, as his emails demonstrate, is a bright, partisan, genial and charming protagonist – characteristics that demand a strong Democratic presence at the Board.
• For Denny White, that means he is faced with the decision of phasing out toward retirement or taking on a role as a strong Board Director who focuses Mr. Damschroder on his new deputy job – Franklin County elections administration – as opposed to Jennifer Brunner’s job which voters have handed her for the next three years?
• Finally, for non-partisan election advocates, it is easy to get wrapped up in help from someone like Matt Damschroder. But the course of his correspondence – much of it unseen to them -- seems to indicate that Damschroder’s rather partisan goals are not really what Election law experts were driving at nor representative of the ultimate policy goals they were articulating. Should there have been more arms-length independence or restraint?

If not, Ohio election reforms will continue to be all damm--ed up with nowhere to go – and the end result is that a scientifically flawed status quo will continue from the confusion. And that after all, seems to be what Mr. Damschroder’s emails indicate he wanted all along.

Documents referenced on file at ProgressOhio