I find it interesting that McFall's supporters, and the Beacon haters, are so angry, frustrated and slanderous. Yes, it appears lapse of judgment took place by assigning Ms. Hatfield to this story. The Beacon could have swept the entire story under the rug, and they didn't. They put it all in print so you can decide the matter for yourselves.

I don't think this article is any more or less biased than the non-researched editorial by the News-Journal endorsing Ms. McFall. The NJ ignored facts they reported on over the past few years regarding Ms. McFall's reluctance (and failures) to comply with Florida's Sunshine Law. Yet the NJ endorsed her.

I can understand why Ms. Hatfield is reluctant to turn to other media reports. What if THEIR reporters are biased? Whose campaigns did those reporters donate money to? Reporters must go to the source for their information.

Ms. McFall could have prepared a press release and made it available to all media outlets, regardless the individual reporter assigned to the story. She would have her facts in writing and can use them again when someone else asks for the same information at a later time.

It is very important, as others have pointed out, that Ms. McFall's actions over the past four years been viewed as a whole. She has not been compliant with the Sunshine Laws. She sent voting equipment home with poll workers days before the 2006 election even though it was common knowledge the optical scanners as well as the touch-screens could be tampered with by using a standard filing cabinet key. A thin strip of red "tamper proof" tape was all that stood between a fair election and a whitewash.

I worked that election, and I was horrified by the casual manner in which equipment and ballots were handled. Procedures were ignored by poll workers, and I was physically threatened when I attempted to report a breach of procedure. These actions, even when reported to Elections Office employees, were minimized. Staff responds in the way in which they are trained. Enough said.

I fail to see where the anger is coming from, unless it is due to a lack of facts and a true understanding of what goes on at the Elections Department compared to what SHOULD be going on.

The no match/no vote issue is very important. It may determine the outcome of this election; not just the presidential election, but the SOE and other races. I can think of several ways in which the voter registration database can be unknowingly, carelessly, or deliberately manipulated in order to keep certain individuals or groups of people from voting. That is where the anger should be directed. A slip of a temporary data entry person's finger, and it could be you who will be voting on a provisional ballot. If that happens, you will have precious little time to travel to the Elections Department and prove to them you had the right to vote in your assigned precinct, and have your ballot counted. The no match/no vote (it should be called no match/vote provisionally) puts undue burden on voters because of a clerical error or worse.

I hope this post leads to a better understanding of the real issues in the SOE race: compliance with Sunshine Laws and state-mandated election procedures, transparency of the entire voting/election process, accountability to all citizens, cooperation with anyone who makes a legitimate request for information, and the highest degree of accuracy possible.