Velvet Revolution Calls on CA Secretary of State to Investigate Prop 8 Vote!

[emlev]

(X-post from GLBT forum)

Velvet Revolution Calls on CA Secretary of State to Investigate Prop 8 Vote!

Did you experience or witness election problems that could have affected the outcome of the Prop 8 vote? Possibly targeted disenfranchisement? Irregularities at the polling place? Voter intimidation? Etc.?

"We ... call for Secretary of State Debra Bowen to initiate an investigation into the results of the Proposition 8 election, based on concerns raised by voters, election monitors and election integrity advocates."
(snip)

"We ask that anyone who has bona fide information relevant to such an investigation submit it to Debra Bowen's office by Monday, November 24, 2008 if at all possible, so that an investigation can be launched immediately. Complaints about individuals' experiences while voting or monitoring the election are encouraged. Please use the official complaint form, which is available for download in several languages, and follow the outlined procedure. ... If you cannot submit your complaint by Monday, November 24, please submit it as soon after that date as possible."
(snip)

We're also asking that people who file complaints send a copy to Velvet Revolution (email info(at)standingforvoters.org). (StandingForVoters.org is a project of Velvet Revolution.)

More at link

[diva77]

1. and while they're at it, I wish they would investigate the results of Prop. 11

I don't trust those results!!

[emlev]

7. If you've got anything about irregularities re: prop 11, submit it!

Some of what is being submitted regarding Prop 8 would also apply to an investigation of 11, if you or someone else has reason to call for that.

[diva77]

9. I was a pollworker in my precinct and a whopping 10% had to vote provisionally

and the voters themselves told me that they had submitted their registration just under the deadline. That tells me that the REGISTRAR IS THE CAUSE OF SUPPRESSING MASSIVE NUMBERS OF VOTES simply by not processing applications in time. There must be some sort of legal precedent somewhere that addresses this -- if not, I think that the registrar MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, and as part of that, that each provisional vote should be hand counted before they certify the results of Prop. 11. With the results so close - apparently 50.9% in favor versus 49.1% against, I believe the narrow margin warrants going after a recount.

county results here:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000011.htm

I wish I had time to pursue this. If anyone else can possibly go after this, it is really a flagrant attempt to turn CA red -- we should NOT have redistricting done in the manner put forth by Prop. 11.

here is a previous post explaining partly why Prop. 11 is BAD!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x32186

[Wilms]

10. A registration deadline two weeks before an election could also be a factor.

I guess with such a late date...and the availability of provisional balloting...the idea was that a maximum number of voters could be included. And it could be argued that it worked.

Another way to look at this is the system was weighed down by the strain of the number of people who waited just weeks before a very important election to register.

Here we have VR reduced to begging people to come forward with possible fraud stories because so far there isn't much of a case to make for one. Of course, there could have been massive breakdowns, or simple programming errors, but we don't count those possibilities since they don't jive well with the "FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD", "KKKARL ROVE is behind the curtain", and the "Bring your checkbook and we'll SPOON(you)A(little)MORE", mantras.

I know a lot of folks want the registrars head. I'm saving my ALL CAPS for the time being.

[diva77]

11. It is terrible for even a single person to be deprived of voting on a regular

ballot; to have one in ten people who met a deadline and did everything by the rules deprived is, to me, an outrage worthy of all caps. I know you're careful and likely to use all caps judiciously. For me, I find 10% intolerable, and inexcusable.

[Wilms]

12. What were they deprived of? n/t

:shrug:

And do you know for a fact that they all, indeed, made the registration deadline?


http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_provisional.htm

[Bill Bored]

17. Then you need election-day registration.

Until then, you need to have provisional ballots. And it's the law.

[emlev]

13. The investigation we're requesting isn't limited to fraud

Not sure why you say "we don't count those possibilities" of "massive breakdowns or simple programming errors."

Nowhere has VR said that we think any investigation of any election should be limited to fraud. All irregularities should be investigated, regardless of whether they are suspected to be intentional or unintentional.

The reward VR is offering is specifically related to fraud. That's because we want election criminals to be held accountable.

[Wilms]

14. I guess I got all caught up in the VR sub-headline:

VR offers $100K reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of election fraud affecting the outcome of Prop 8

Same difference though. Offer the $ for fraud arrest and conviction, but not for any other possible, even likely, cause of an erroneous election result. Hell of a message, IMO. And that's without discussing the reward limited to overturning one race in particular. Do you guys need a PR person?

Then, the story asks Bowen..."to initiate an investigation into the results of the Proposition 8 election, based on concerns raised by voters, election monitors and election integrity advocates..." without suggesting what concerns have been raised. "More explosive evidence", perhaps? Maybe Spoonamore should tell us again that it's actually possible to hack a voting machine. :eyes:

Meanwhile, the CA audit, if properly implemented, would be sufficient to catch a problem...essentially neutralizing the poster child excuse for all the drama.

With such an approach at least no one could ever be accused of being an insider.

[diva77]

15. "if properly implemented" - there's the rub; citizens in LA have been trying

to observe procedures and notify personnel in the Registrar's office when there are problems, unfortunately, the registrar uses tactics such as instructing personnel to not speak to citizen observers, and on other occasions, such as L & A testing, shutting down the observation process and calling the sheriffs when citizens started asking questions. Why all the drama directed against citizens trying to claim their legal right to observe?

Unfortunately, It is a far-reaching assumption to expect everything to be done according to code, i.e. "properly implemented" by the registrar. Also, the mystery of the central tabulator actually being GEMS II rather than MTS, and the fact that it's got an internet connection should all be investigated.

Alerting the public of possible problems with the election results is a good thing and I applaud VR for keeping on top of these issues -- the ballots are only kept around for so long and the security of those ballots is more questionable with each passing day.

Gee Wilms, you sound like you're running for Bd of Supes!

[Wilms]

16. Then feel free to report THAT.

When I consider some of the rhetoric it's no surprise that election officials don't want certain citizens around. I don't know the specifics here and I doubt they're angels, but it wouldn't surprise me that they don't want to talk with people who accuse them of practicing election fraud, and voter suppression when in fact they may be merely overwhelmed by a system WE ourselves argue is overwhelming.

If citizen observers are observing laws be broken I think someone to contact is Lowell Finley.

Torches and pitchforks are great for a rally, and not much else.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. K and R n/t

[Wilms]

3. I'm glad VR asked for volunteers to monitor post-election procedures.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008/11/exit_poll_showed_californias_p.html#more

Bowen probably needs support in reeling in recalcitrant county officials.

There's supposed to be a 1% audit with mandatory reporting and escalations. That's about 250 precincts.

To reverse an outcome with a margin of 4%, you'd have to shift 20% of the vote in about 1,250 precincts--more votes in fewer precincts; less votes in more precincts. The chance of finding at least one is damn near close to 100% with a 1% manually tally.

That's what what I'm told, anyhow.

(.pdf) http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/TAS_paper.pdf

[emlev]

4. AND there's a mandatory 100% manual count of DRE 'paper trails'

Really a pain to count those things, too. It'd be way easier to count -- what do you call those old-fangled things? -- oh yeah, BALLOTS.

[Bill Bored]

5. Here are the procedures that are supposed to be followed...

...for the 1% manual tally:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/post_election_req.pdf

Note that full recounts are possible if there are large enough discrepancies, and the precincts have to be selected at _random_.

Observers should see that these procedures are followed.

[emlev]

8. Any observer who sees that these are not being followed should file a complaint

Sometimes election workers act like their deviance from these procedures is not a big deal. But the procedures are in place for a reason, usually a good reason, like secure chain of custody or accurate counting. One "apparently no big deal" break in the chain of custody can provide the opportunity nefarious players need to go along with their means and motive.

[tbyg52]

6. Wonderful news! nt