Election reform, the Voting Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act, and related topics -- with special attention to the voting rights of people of color, non-English proficient citizens, and people with disabilities
Dan Tokaji's Blog Links
- Election Law Blog (Rick Hasen)
- Election Updates (Michael Alvarez & Thad Hall)
- electionline.org
- Votelaw Blog (Ed Still)
- Leave it to the Lower Courts: On Judicial Intervention in Election Administration, 68 Ohio State Law Journal 1065 (2007)


Tuesday, April 4
D'oh-bold
Today's Columbus Dispatch has this story on Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's revelation that he owned almost $10,000 in Diebold stock, at the time that he negotiated a deal with the company that allowed Ohio counties to purchase its equipment. Even before this revelation, Blackwell had been criticized on the ground that his office negotiated a sweetheart deal with the company. Blackwell says that he had no knowledge that he owned the shares at the time, and sold them on Monday of this week. He further claims that prior managers of his account were under instructions not to buy Diebold stock, but that a new manager hadn't followed those instructions. In a statement issued yesterday, Blackwell wrote "While I was unaware of this stock in my portfolio, its mere presence may be viewed as a conflict and is therefore not acceptable."
My take: This has to rank as the understatement of the year. Not only may the holding of Diebold stock be "viewed as a conflict." It was a conflict of interest, and a textbook case at that. I take Blackwell at his word when he says that he just discovered his ownership of the Diebold stock. That's because it's impossible for me to believe that any state chief election official -- let alone one planning to run for Governor of Ohio -- could be so foolish as to knowingly purchase stock in a voting machine vendor, with respect to whose financial interests he was making decisions in his official capacity.
The carelessness that Blackwell has demonstrated is difficult to fathom, and its consequences will be most unfortunate. Critics of Diebold's voting equipment will understandably be upset by this revelation. Its supporters should be even more upset, since Blackwell's actions can only exacerbate the doubts about the integrity of the process that the state followed, and damage public confidence in the new machines. It will inevitably fuel the flames of the conspiracy theorists who believe that the transition to this voting technology is part of a grand plot to manipulate the results of future elections.

