The Fight for a Recount in New Mexico
New Mexico had the nation's highest percentage of under-votes for the presidential race, a statewide rate of 2.45%. That figure was determined by taking the difference between the statewide totals of ballots cast and presidential votes. In addition, there were an estimated 2,087 so-called "phantom votes" (also called over-votes), found where there were more votes for a candidate than there were ballots cast. In addition to the under-vote and "phantom vote" problems with New Mexico's 2004 election tally, there were many unanswered questions about provisional ballots, missing votes and the integrity of voting machines that didn't produce a paper trail.
No logical explanation exists for this "phantom vote" phenomenon. However, each "phantom vote" is used to cancel out one under-vote, so there likely were 2,087 more undervotes that were not counted in the New Mexico vote totals. President Bush won the state by about 7,000 votes.
Democratic Officials Block the Recount
New Mexico's Democratic Governor Bill Richardson and Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron were against the recount effort from the start, possibly because much of the alleged fraud happened in Hispanic precincts. Although the alleged fraud seems to have helped Republicans, having a recount would cast a shadow on the state's two highest-ranking Hispanic Democrats. Governor Richardson has presidential aspirations, and Ms. Vigil-Giron currently serves as national president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.The information below, in reverse chronological order, provides brief summaries of the recount developments in New Mexico, along with links to further information.
http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/new_mexico/
FOCUS: The Recount Accounts
December 17, 2004
Research by Allison Bloch, Newsdesk.org Intern
NEW MEXICO
Back to the top
In New Mexico, a judge upheld the state canvassing board's decision that the Green and Libertarian parties must pay $1.4 million by December 16 to cover the costs for a recount. The decision essentially scuttled their efforts.
The state's governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, heads the canvassing board.
The Green Party missed the payment deadline, and is now calling for a partial recount. Their candidate, David Cobb, said his concern is "extraordinary voting anomalies" in precincts that used computerized voting machines.
Keyword search (new mexico recount): Google News, Yahoo News
"Green calls for vote compromise"
Albuquerque Journal, December 17, 2005
"Recount advocates look at limited review"
Associated Press, December 17, 2004
Analysis: New Mexico recount in doubt
United Press International, December 16, 2004
New Mexico: Court Says That State Should Have Allowed Recount
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA
May 28, 2006
Belated Victory for Greens and Libertarians Leaves Flawed Election Results Unexamined
Election integrity activists in New Mexcio were justifiably heartened by a state court decision this month that invalidated a clause in a 2005 omnibus election reform bill that allowed the state canvassing board to require candidates to pay the estimated full cost of a recount up front as a deposit. The decision was a victory for all those involved in the effort to recount the 2004 New Mexico presidential election results. Analysis of the certified results revealed troubling anomalies including 2,087 phantom votes and an alarmingly high undervote rate (2.78% statewide, 21,084 in all), particularly from polling places using Sequoia Advantage and Shouptronic 1242 direct record electronic (DRE) voting machines.
Shortly after the state certified the results of the November 2004 election, presidential candidates from the Green Party (David Cobb) and Libertarian Party (Michael Badnarik) requested a recount. The candidates had submitted a deposit of $114,400 and argued that was the proper amount for a recount based on a formula in state election law. Help America Recount coordinated the recruitment and training of hundreds of citizen observers. But the state canvassing board, which consisted of Governor Bill Richardson, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Petra Maes decided in mid-December 2004 that the candidates could have a recount only if they paid a security deposit of $1.4 million, which was an estimate of the full cost of a statewide recount.
Attorneys for the candidates argued at the time that the convassing board’s demands were in violation of state law but their complaint was dismissed by state courts and the recount never took place. Subsequently the Governor had a provision inserted in an omnibus election bill passed in the 2005 legislative session that allowed the canvassing board to require a deposit of either part or the full estimated cost of a recount. While an agreement to strike the provision was reached with the legislative sponsors of the bill, in the hectic final days of the legislative session, it remained in the bill that was passed and signed into law in May of 2005.
As reported in the Albuquerque Journal:
In Tuesday's ruling, the court said the 2005 change in law was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power because there were no standards to guide the board in deciding how large a deposit to require.
The court said the board was wrong in 2004 and had no authority to condition a recount on the estimated full cost of rechecking votes. Once Cobb and Badnarik paid the deposit based on the statutory formula, a recount should have moved forward, according to the court.
However, the paper went on to explain that:
…the justices declined to order a recount of presidential ballots, saying a new vote tabulation wouldn't change the national outcome of the election because President Bush had enough electoral votes to win even if he hadn't carried New Mexico.
As a result, the canvass report of the New Mexico general election, with its thousands of “impossible” phantom votes and uncounted votes, will remain unexamined.http://www.flcv.com/newmex.html http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.htmlNew Mexico Election Problems
Touch screen machine switching of vote in the presidential and other races, machine glitches and malfunctions, Reports of widespread systematic dirty tricks, misinformation and manipulation by election officials to reduce the vote of minority Indians and Hispanics in heavily minority majority precincts. Student voting problems, Phantom votes (more votes than voters) in some counties, registration problems,
absentee ballot problems, etc.
Monday, August 29, 2005
New Mexico high court hears arguments in 2004 election case
Alexandria Samuel at 3:20 PM ET
The New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a lawsuit filed by 2004 presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik . Attorneys for Cobb and Badnarik argued that New Mexico election officials deliberately obstructed justice by giving counties permission to clear electronic voting machines while their demand for a recount of New Mexico's presidential vote was still pending. Also at issue is the $1.4 million security deposit required for the recount. Attorneys for the candidates contend that the state Canvassing Board exceeded its power under state law by requiring a deposit in excess of $1 million. Attorneys for the board maintain that it properly handled the recount request, and all fees were proper. AP has more.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/new-mexico-high-court-hears-arguments.php
Lawyer Asks N.M. Court to Order Recount
By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer
Monday, August 29, 2005
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/29/national/a105246D98.DTLCobb and Badnarik submitted a deposit of $114,400 and contend that was the proper amount for a recount based on a formula in state election law.
However, the state canvassing board decided on Dec. 14 that the candidates could have a recount but only if they paid $1.4 million — an estimate of the full cost of the recount — as an upfront security deposit.
Under state law, candidates who request recounts must pay for them unless the recount changes the winner of the race. In that case, the state covers the cost and refunds any deposit that the candidate put down in advance of the new count.
Cobb and Badnarik said the canvassing board had exceeded its powers in demanding more than $1 million in advance. The candidates filed a lawsuit, lost in district court and then appealed.
Boyd, the lawyer for Cobb and Badnarik, said the court should decide the case dispute because similar problems could occur in future elections if the canvassing board has "unfettered discretion" in deciding how much to charge candidates in advance for a recount.
He told the justices that it's too late to change the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. He also acknowledged it was impossible to have a complete recount because some voting machines have been cleared of the presidential election results.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
