I went to the V.O.T.E.R 49 bash at Michael Harrington's place this afternoon. While the turnout was not overwhelming, it is a committed group of people. I met Michael in person, as well as his partner. Spoke with Don and his wife, Eva, Eileen Foxman and her husband, Toni (who was Pretty in Pink), Carla, and others whose names escape me. Chef Didier Durand showed up with wonderful French bread, brie and other cheeses.
I got an opportunity to converse with Don and Michael for a period of time, and I am convinced that joining V.O.T.E.R. is the right choice for me. This is not about bashing Moore, although no doubt any number of people will portray it as such. It is about that word I so love -- accountability -- and the provision of fair elections. I will contribute my time, dollars if available, as much as possible.
Don spoke briefly about the status of the case. At this point Moore is not the target, the Board of Elections is.
Blognote: If they are like the IRS, they are sputtering internally over that, no matter how calm a public demeanor they may put forth.
There are some concerns about the manner in which the judge's decision was made. It came after the volunteers combed through ~ 4,000 voter applications from half of the precincts. Of the 4,000, the volunteers and legal team identified nearly 1,000 applications for photocopying. These applications stood out as questionable due to visible signature discrepancies and potential address discrepancies. The discrepancies require further research. If the discrepancies meet the criteria to have those votes tossed, then the balance of the precincts really need to be examined as well. At this point, in view of the judge's ruling, the remaining precincts are not being looked at.
In addition, Don's legal team is seeking the envelopes from the nursing home votes. These envelopes are, as I understand it, signed by the election judge and must remain in the judge's possession during transport down to the Board. The votes in those envelopes are treated as absentee ballots (just repeating what Don had to say). There is information suggesting that the envelopes were not properly handled, including meeting the requirement to be in the judge's possession. Those of you familiar with criminal trials know about "chain of custody." This sounds similar.
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is being developed to obtain the information since the Board has yet to provide it.
If Don were to prevail, the judge has 3 options -
1 - proportionally reduce the number of votes for each candidate in a given precinct. If the proportion of the voting was 60% Moore/40% Gordon, and 10 votes are questionable, then Moore's count goes down by 6, Gordon by 4.
2 - toss out the votes for the entire precinct if the number of questionable votes is high enough -- deemed highly unlikely
3 - do the election over next February -- gets the judge off the hook and no one's vote is tossed, it's a do-over
Don clearly stated that he is not expecting that this effort will result in the election results being changed and him being declared the winner. What he is expecting is that this will clearly demonstrate the flaws and problems with the Board's current process. The issues raised about illegal electioneering -- remember the nursing home pics -- need to be raised, but they are not the crux of the case.
In my situation, although the online records clearly show my current addy, no one at the polling place asked for any ID to confirm I was who I said I was. I just signed the card and I voted. So far as I know, that is not the process, but I didn't question it as it was really me voting and not some doppleganger. I do believe that if the folks at the polling place had been doing their job, I would have had to pop my voting card (never received a new one) or something to confirm my local address (I brought along my current ComEd bill just in case). This happened in the Gold Coast when I voted. But not in RP. Why?
I also heard some new details about the Pink Postcard Affair (not from Toni). I am not a lawyer, however, I do work for one of the most anal retentive agencies in Western civilization, which takes the notion of privacy to new dimensions. In view of what was shared, it sounds like an attorney needs to review the Pink Postcard Affair in light of the requirements under The Privacy Act of 1974 in all its amended glory. If my hunch is correct, then a chat with the local US Attorney (YO! Fitz!!) as to the implications is in order, and additionally some research needs to be undertaken to determine if Toni has legal recourse against the responsible party. Makes this post all the more relevant.
Overall -- a good time, interesting, and energizing. I have already submitted my comments about the proposed mission statement and policy statements. We'll see how things go.
11 comments:
All you need is your signature to vote. They have a photocopy of it on the ballot application. Only if the signature you provide varies from the one on the application or a pollwatcher challenges you, do you have to provide ID and proof of residence.
I hope you've kept informed about the differences between voter fraud and voter supression. Voter fraud is very rare while vote supression is rampant. You accuse individuals of voter fraud, you accuse campaigns of voter supression. Maybe you should look at why the Gordon campaign is being accused of voter supression so that you have a balanced view of the election. Funny, isn't it? Nobody is complaining about Moore pollwatchers challenging people's right to vote in the election. Even though you could spot a hornet from a mile away.
with their yellow jackets....
Excellent analysis Khreis. This should be interesting to see how this pans out. Everyone knows Joe Moore stole this election. Or at the very leasdt bought it.
Paradise -
pollwatcher challenges do not, so far as I know, actually prevent folks from voting. It is my understanding that their ballot is provisional and gets counted -- or not -- based on the outcome of the challenge. If there has been a failure to count provisional ballots arising from challenges (regardless of who is doing the challenging) that is in the bailiwick of the Board of Elections. The BOE is supposed to run the election and count the ballots, not the campaigns or the candidates.
The accusation of voter suppression doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with me unless you can show how the Board colluded with the challengers.
> Only if the signature you provide varies from the one on the application or a pollwatcher challenges you, do you have to provide ID and proof of residence.
Paradise - Joe's Fagus judges in a certain precincts were telling pollwatchers that provisional ballots were being 'phased out'.
When the vacant building lady came to vote, the judges allowed her to vote even though she left her ID in Evanston.
Yeah, voter suppression in a transient ward like 49! Are you on Winchester?
Most voters don't need ID to vote, they just need to sign against an example of their signature. Whether or not you need to present ID and/or some proof of residency depends on data analysis by the BOE and the ballot application from the stack is color coded accordingly - certain colors "flag" higher ID criteria beyond just signature, like showing certain forms of ID and/or proof of residency. When additional ID is flagged it is a requirement, not up to judges' discretion.
Kheris you are correct about provisional votes - but they are held to a different level and standard of scrutiny in the process. Why did certain judges and teams of judges (but decidedly not others) fight tooth and nail to preemptively block any and all provisional ballots and ignore all proper procedure, like deliberation or taking a majority vote of judges? Certain judges were heard to declare preemptively "there will be no provisional balloting here today!" Certain teams of judges actually created disturbances, screaming and carrying on, at each challenge request causing teams of judges from other precincts sharing the same space to formally complain about their behavior. Toni already mentioned the misinformation some judges gave about provisional ballot status. There was no way any judge could have gotten the wrong impression about this from the training or the manual. The resistance from some judges to provisional balloting was very proactive and analysing the possible reasons why is very interesting indeed.
I know you and I will never agree on this point, but I'll say it anyway: The way to detect a scam is ignore the talk and watch instead who benefits from the actions. Every con man has a patter, the talk which is used for distraction, in which they tell you what they want you to think. But the benefits of the activity always flow to the con man. Here's Gordon saying that he's not interested in the result of the election anymore, and yet, mysteriously, the benefit of this lawsuit flows directly to him. What an amazing coincidence!
Westgard said....> "Every con man has a patter, the talk which is used for distraction"
Well said Thomas. Expert con-advice from a expert con-man.
Remember, this is the idiot who dressed up in a duck suit.
The way to detect a hypocrit is compare what he says with his actions.
Your concern is touching, but judging by this blog Kheris is one of the brightest women in Rogers Park and unlikely to become anyone's dupe.
@ Westgard:
Looking at the 3 options a judge may have, had this gone forward, I don't see how he will get any real benefit. Don was specifically asked if the outcome of the lawsuit could reverse the the outcome of the election. He stated that it was highly unlikely that would occur.
For him a do-over is the best he can expect, and there are no guarantees that he would win in a do-over. And a do-over will happen if the stars and planets align favorably, in my opinion. He has to appeal first and win the opportunity to present his case.
Given the discrepancies that have surfaced I'd like to see him get that opportunity and see what happens.
Post a Comment