December 1, 2000

Mr. Thomas Fitton

President

Judicial Watch

501 School Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20026

We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by Judicial Watch, solely to assist you with respect to your review of Presidential ballot counting procedures in specific precincts in the State of Florida. This engagement to apply agreed-upon procedures was performed in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of Judicial Watch. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.

Summary of Findings

Based upon our understanding that the hand counted ballots were neither segregated nor subtotaled, there is no way to verify how an individual ballot was counted without recounting the entire precinct, therefore, the effect of recounting only disputed ballots can only be measured by recounting the entire precinct.

In addition to this finding, we noted the following in our review:

§ According to Ms. Theresa LePore, Supervisor of Elections, the totals from the manual recount had not been reconciled to the last machine recount dated November 11, 2000 as of Tuesday, November 28, 2000.

§ The Election Board had prepared a written methodology for recording a vote but provided no specific guidance on how dimples on the ballots were to be used in the determination of a vote.

§ We noted some disputed ballots that were placed in the wrong envelope (e.g. Democrat disputed ballot was contained in a Republican disputed ballot envelope).

§ Because of the lack of formal segregation and subtotals, if a questionable ballot were misplaced, there would be no way to determine how it was actually counted in the official count for the precinct.

§ We noted ballots that were pink instead of the normal buff color. Ms. LePore described these ballots as duplicates prepared by counters because the original ballot was damaged.

§ We noted ballots that had chad that were taped back onto the ballot.

Based upon the observations noted in this report, reliance on the manual vote counting procedures is dependent upon resolution of these matters.

Procedures

We arrived at the State of Florida Emergency Operations Center in West Palm Beach on Tuesday November 28, 2000, to inspect the ballots of the vote taken on November 7, 2000 for President of the United States and other offices. We were introduced to Ms. LePore, who became our contact from the county for this engagement.

Our first task was to gain an understanding of how the ballots were stored and organized. Ms. LePore described the storage procedures as follows:

The ballots, which are in the form of IBM punch cards, are stored by precinct in sealed metal storage boxes. More than one precinct may be in a box with physical dividers between precincts. The boxes are numbered and there was an index indicating which precincts were stored in which box.

Ms. LePore indicated that the ballots are sorted in the following order:

A. Ballots that were not questioned by either party or counters during the first phase of the hand count, as follows:

1. Ballots sorted by presidential candidate

2. Under votes

3. Over votes

B. Ballots which had been questioned by either party or counters during the first phase of the hand count but which had been adjudicated by the Elections Board during the second phase, as follows:

1. Ballots sorted by presidential candidate

2. Under votes

3. Over votes

C. Ballots which had been adjudicated during the second phase but which are being challenged by either the Democrats or Republicans, as follows:

1. D-U/V : Democrat disputed under vote

2. D-O/V : Democrat disputed over vote

3. R-U/V : Republican disputed under vote

4. R-O/V : Republican disputed over vote

5. D-#3 : Democrat disputed vote for punch position #3 (Bush)

6. R-#5 : Republican disputed vote for punch position #5 (Gore)

We requested an up-to-date tally of the manual recount by precinct. Ms. LePore told us that she did not have in her possession the tally of the manual recount. An interim tally was in her office but its totals had not been reconciled to the last machine recount of November 11, 2000. She gave us a copy of the November 11 second machine recount tally. She also informed us that we were not permitted to recount the ballots, although eventually she did allow us to count the total number of over and under votes in certain precincts.

We also asked for and received the Board’s written methodology for recording a vote in the event that a ballot did not have clearly punched through chad. The policy did not exclude counting ballots with indentations (“dimples”), but gave no specific guidance as to how the votes on ballots with dimples should be determined. ( See attachment)

Our intent was to review all the questioned ballots (ballots reviewed by the Board) and to count and categorize how questioned ballots were ultimately included in the hand recount.

We selected a number of precincts and asked the county officials to retrieve the boxes that contained the ballots for those precincts. We reviewed the selected precinct as well as all other precincts in the box.

By precinct, Ms. LePore, pulled all the questioned ballots for our review. At no time were we allowed to and we did not touch any of the ballots. Note: There was no separator or divider to denote where the questioned ballots began. Ms. Lepore determined the start point of the questioned ballots. Ms. LePore showed us each ballot for our review. We categorized each ballot as follows:

§ Clear - Per our review it was clear that the ballot should be counted as an over vote (more than one punch for president) or as an under vote (no punch for president)

§ Single dimple – Ballot had a single dimple for the presidential candidate and was clearly punched through for other elections.

§ Multiple dimples – Ballot had a dimple for the presidential candidate and other dimples were noted for the other elections.

§ Upside down – Ballot was forced into the voting machine upside down and indentations were created on the left and right side of ballot.

§ Clear punch & dimple – Ballot had one clear punch for a presidential candidate and a dimple for another presidential candidate.

§ Other – Ballots that had hanging chads, two corners detatched, pinhole markings, etc.

Ballots Reviewed

We reviewed 630 ballots (404 not disputed and 226 disputed) from 35 precincts in Palm Beach County. The following details the ballots reviewed:

Not Disputed Ballots:

Vote – Punch Position #3 (Bush)	43
Vote – Punch Position #4 (Buchanan)	20
Vote – Punch Position #5 (Gore)	237
Vote – Punch Position #6 (McReynolds)	1
Vote – Punch Position #7 (Browne)	2
Vote – Punch Position #9 (Nader)	3
Over Votes	54
Under Votes	44
Total – Not Disputed	404

Disputed Ballots:

Democrat Disputes:
Punch Position #3	23
Under Vote	112
	135
Republican Disputes:
Punch Position #3	1
Punch Position #5	26
Over Votes	1
Under Votes	63
	91
Total - Disputed	226

Based upon our review, the Democrats disputed 23 votes for Mr. Bush (punch position #3) and 112 under votes that were not counted for any candidate. The Republicans disputed one vote for Mr. Bush; 26 votes for Mr. Gore (punch position #5); one vote that was counted as an over vote and 63 under votes that were not counted for any candidate.

As part of our review of the disputed ballots, we categorized each ballot as clear, multiple dimples, single dimple, clear punch and dimple and other as described above. The following table summarizes the results of our categorization of the disputed ballots:

	Clear	Multiple Dimples	Single Dimple	Upside Down	Clear Punch & Dimple	Other	Total
Democrat Disputes:
Punch Position #3	1	8	12	-	-	2	23
Under Vote	22	24	62	-	-	4	112
	23	32	74	-	-	6	135
Republican Disputes:
Punch Position #3	-	-	1	-	-	-	1
Punch Position #5	1	10	-	2	8	5	26
Over Votes	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
Under Votes	5	10	41	-	-	7	63
	6	20	42	2	8	13	91
Total – Disputed	29	52	116	2	8	19	226

We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the specified elements, accounts, or items. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for the use of the specified users listed above and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.