Posted on 12/10/2010 9:33:18 PM PST by SFmom
To guard against fraudulent votes or improper counting, the Harmer campaign established a comprehensive ballot-integrity operation. As the volunteer attorney who oversaw it, I want to share some of what our volunteers observed on Election Day and during the post-election canvass.
Election Day
On Election Day, trained volunteer poll watchers monitored targeted polling stations throughout the district from the time they opened to the late hours after they closed. At most of the polling places we observed, few ballot integrity issues arose. But several polling places experienced serious and persistent problems involving vote-by-mail ballots ("VBMs," or absentee ballots) delivered at the polls. At several polling locations, poll workers consistently failed to check that the VBMs had the proper, legally required voter signatures before placing those ballots in the ballot boxes. Poll workers at several polling stations also consistently failed to ensure that individuals delivering multiple VBMs had signed the required certification identifying themselves and attesting that they met the legal requirements for delivering another person's ballot.
Post-Election Counting
From the minute the registrars' offices opened on November 3 until the final ballot was counted weeks later, volunteer observers monitored every stage of the canvass process in each of the four counties. The most significant issue was the verification of signatures on VBMs and provisional ballots cast on Election Day. Verification is the process by which registrar staff determined whether these ballots contained the signatures required by law. A comparison of the verification process in the different CD-11 counties is telling.
Alameda County
In Alameda County, a registrar staff person working alone at a computer terminal took typically one or two seconds to compare four VBM signatures at a time to the voters' registration signatures. If the reviewer determined that the signature on a VBM contained just one characteristic similar to the registration signature, the ballot was approved and counted. If the reviewer determined the signatures did not match, the reviewer or another staff person would later review the signatures again. A similar process was followed for provisional ballots.
Observers were allowed to monitor the review of VBMs and provisional ballots while standing a foot or two behind the staff person. Yet observers were prohibited from challenging or even questioning whether VBM or provisional ballots contained the signatures required by law.
As a result, when we observed the following in Alameda County, we were prohibited from challenging whether the ballots should be counted:
Mismatched signatures. There were VBM and provisional ballot signatures that either clearly did not match the registration signatures or for which the match was so questionable that another staff member should have reviewed them before the ballot was approved.
Missing registration card signatures. Staff approved VBM and provisional ballots for which no registration signature was on file for comparison. The voter was simply sent a notice to return a signature card in the future.
Missing voter signatures. Some VBMs that did not have the signature of the voter on them were counted nonetheless if they had the signature of another voter registered at the same street address. This also happened in Santa Clara County. Registrar supervisors in Alameda County deny such ballots were approved by staff, but our observers repeatedly witnessed otherwise.
Contra Costa County
A similar signature verification process was in place in Contra Costa County, but there, for much of the review, volunteers were only able to observe signature verification from behind a glass wall several feet away from staff, making it impossible to see clearly the signatures being compared.
San Joaquin County
In San Joaquin County, two staff (not just one) working in consultation with each other compared one set (not four sets) of VBM signatures at a time while a representative from each campaign observed from directly behind them. Staff were required to find three points of similarity (not just one) between ballot and registration signatures before approving a ballot. The signatures remained visible to both staff and campaign observers for as long as any one of them needed time to compare the signatures. If any one registrar staff member or campaign observer felt a challenge to a signature was appropriate, the ballot was set aside and reconsidered later by additional staff, including the registrar himself, in the presence of the campaign observers. The registrar made the final determinations on challenges when the staff and campaign observers could not agree, which rarely happened.
Santa Clara County
A similar process was in place in Santa Clara County, although there, our volunteers witnessed staff approving ballots that lacked the voter's signature, as in Alameda County.
Even with the challenge process, Santa Clara and San Joaquin Counties completed their canvassing within the time required under California law.
Why These Observations Matter
In my view, David Harmer lost this election primarily because of VBM and provisional ballots cast at the polls on Election Day, and the problems we observed with these ballots are serious. Signatures are required by law on VBMs to ensure that the voter whose VBM is cast is the one who completed that ballot and that the person who turns in another voter's VBM is authorized to do so. If poll workers do not ensure that the required signatures are on the VBMs delivered at the polls, we voters lose an important line of defense against voter fraud.
Furthermore, if private citizens, be they campaign volunteers or just concerned individuals, are unable to question or challenge government determinations about ballot verification during the canvass, we the voters lose yet another line of defense against voter fraud and improperly counted votes.
Warmest regards,
Catharine Baker
I was very disappointed to see Harmer lose. From every indication I saw, he was and is a strong conservative with solid values. In some ways, I can understand the re-election of Boxer and yes, Brown. We are, after all, certifiably brain dead out here. But McNierney, Harmer’s incumbent opponent, is a flaming flat out zero.
I wonder if there is such a thing as voter conspiracy to elect worthless candidates for our own twisted benefit? These candidates are running with the understanding that if they are elected they will violate their oath of office and work only for the benefit of their supporters and to the detriment of the rest of their constituents.
The other possibility, which I consider more likely, is that we who would try to analyze the CA results are simply overthinking it. The fact is, there are great numbers of people who simply and invariably vote Democrat...for ten different reasons neither you nor I nor a dozen professional pundits can accurately quantify. It makes no sense to us. It is unprincipled, it has a repetitively proven history of failure in the case of CA (and many other places) but these people apparently believe they are “voting their paycheck”. IT IS THEIR RIGHT to vote their paycheck. You and I would probably think that they are wrong (both morally and intellectually-thought-process-wise) to vote Dem even if their motivation is their paycheck. But where this process breaks down is largely unknowable. CA is also gerrymandered to death, something like 52 out of 53 districts are massively over-Democratted.
Myself, I can’t overthink it. I’m putting my affairs in order and getting ready to move out of the state.
Both sides don’t want conservatives.
I walked precincts in the Central Valley and the election results didn’t surprise a bit. This is CA. It’s all about the ads. Best ads win.
Jerry Brown’s was the best: “No new taxes without voter approval.”
It has been said that the primary difference between California and the Titanic is that the passengers on the Titanic did not vote to sink their ship.
“CA is also gerrymandered to death, something like 52 out of 53 districts are massively over-Democratted.”
If they could “over-Democrat” 52 of 53 districts, this just indicates it’s an overwhelmingly Democratic state.
On average, the 19 Republicans who won, won by smaller margins than the 34 Democrats who won. If the Republicans were hurt by gerrymandering, the opposite would have to be true.
Who cares? If election results are not what the RATs want, they get a court to overturn the results./s
Why didn’t Harmer contest the election?
My question as well. I’m working on it.
If Harmer wanted a recount - it’s simple - he has to pay for it. So, you and those people who want a recount should have donated on his website for one. Part of the problem is that the people charged with auditing the votes are SEIU members and the Dems poured a lot of money into the district in the final days - outspending Harmer by at least 8 to 1. Lets face it, the Dems got the vote out as evidenced by the thumping the Repubs took for Governor, Lt. Gov, Attorney General, et al. Harmer far better than Meg or Carly.
Two years goes by really fast and there will be redistricting Harmer is a good, descent man that would represent the people well - I would urge him to run again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.