ABSURD: $20 per Ballot for 'Recount' in CA County!

[BradBlog]

Arbitrary and Outrageous Costs for 'Recounts' of Paper Ballot Elections in California Continue to Stymie Citizen Authentication of Results
Stanislaus County Registrar of Voters charges $2,000/hour --- $20 per ballot --- in recent mayoral election 'recount'...

Early last month, The BRAD BLOG offered an exclusive special report on how a single Registrar of Voters in Fresno County, CA effectively stopped a citizen-organized attempt to confirm the results of last November's Prop 37 initiative dead in its tracks. She was able to stop an attempted post-election hand count of the paper ballots in her county by charging the proponents of the count an outrageous and seemingly arbitrary high price to carry out the count.

Now, a very similar story is being reported in regard to an attempt to confirm the results of a mayoral race in another California county where the "losing" candidate is said to have lost by just 53 votes. In that case, rather than an outrageous $4,000 per day to count the paper ballots again, as was the case for Prop 37 in Fresno, the candidate has been charged $2,000 per hour ($20 per ballot!!!) for her attempt to verify that the results of her contest were accurately reported by the computer system.

Anyone else beginning to see the problem here yet?...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9926

[CrispyQ]

1. Kick.

This is important stuff, folks.

But, as we noted when we originally reported this story, this issue makes the notion that "we can count paper ballots later, if needed" absolutely absurd. If paper ballots are not publicly hand-counted by actual humans, as per "Democracy's Gold Standard" on Election Night, there is a very good chance that they will never be counted --- by anyone.

One recount was not even done by hand. It was executed on the same optical scan computers that tallied the original vote. WTF?

[joeybee12]

2. KNR

[Segami]

3. K&R.

[nyquil_man]

4. This is the real voter fraud. nt

[Brother Buzz]

8. It's Election Fraud

I know, Picky, picky, picky

[nyquil_man]

9. Same net effect, though. The will of the people is diluted.

[Lordquinton]

16. Very notable difference though

Putting blame on the right parties is very important.

Plus it is not allowing them to control the dialogue.

[nyquil_man]

17. I was using voter fraud as an umbrella term for electoral fraud.

It was a mediocre choice of words and I see your point.

But aren't we allowing them to control the dialogue by buying into their notion that "voter fraud" only consists of people casting illegal ballots?

[Lordquinton]

19. Voter fraud is people casting illegal ballots

Election fraud is the wide spread problem, voter fraud is small, and on an individual basis, the way they frame the debate is by associating fraud with the people, which is why they call it Voter.

There are other methods that an individual can fraud the vote, but when it goes beyond the singular person it becomes a greater issue.

[nyquil_man]

20. I disagree.

Anything which alters the true vote count is voter fraud. To alter the vote count, whether on the voting end or on the counting end, one must either create votes which should not exist or negate votes which do exist. Either way, the right to vote is being violated.

One of the reason the voter ID crowd has gotten so far is because they seize this powerful term - voter fraud - and use it as a weapon to achieve ends which have nothing to do with preventing fraud.

They didn't invent the term and I don't think they should own the definition. It is fraud perpetrated on the voter, both as an individual and as part of the whole, for anyone to act in any way which alters the true vote count.

[BradBlog]

21. How to remember it...

"Voter fraud" is committed by voters. "Election fraud" can include "voter fraud", but generally, it's the gaming of entire elections, and it's almost always done by election insiders such as officials or candidates.

In short, the voters are doing fine. Please leave them alone. Using the term "voter fraud" implies we need to do something about those pesky voters, like restrict their right to vote, as Republicans are attempting to do in dozens of state, despite the fact that voter fraud carried out at the polls (the *only* type of voter fraud that could possibly be deterred by polling place Photo ID laws), is so rare as to be almost impossible to find.

Where there is actually "voter fraud" it is almost always done by absentee ballot, which GOP polling place Photo ID restriction laws do absolutely nothing to deter.

[slackmaster]

5. JADP - Section 15624 of the California Elections Code

15624. The voter filing the request seeking the recount shall,
before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each day
following, deposit with the elections official a sum as required by
the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.
The money deposited shall be returned to the depositor if, upon
completion of the recount, the candidate, slate of presidential
electors, or the position on the measure (affirmative or negative)
for which the declaration is filed is found to have received the
plurality of votes cast which it had not received according to the
official canvass or, in an election where there are two or more
candidates, the recount results in the candidate for whom the recount
was requested appearing on the ballot in a subsequent runoff
election or general election who would not have so appeared in the
absence of the recount. The depositor shall be entitled to the return
of any money deposited in excess of the cost of the recount if the
candidate, slate, or position on the measure has not received the
plurality of the votes cast or, in an election where there are two or
more candidates, the recount does not result in the candidate for
whom the recount was requested appearing on the ballot in a
subsequent runoff or general election as a result of the recount.
Money not required to be refunded shall be deposited in the
appropriate public treasury.

[lpbk2713]

6. Katherine Harris is alive and well.

Looks like she found work in California.

[marions ghost]

7. Creative aren't they?

No verifiable voting. RethugliCons dream.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. This really ticks me off.

I've been told by our local Prop. 37 "activists" that they're doing nothing locally and here I find, on DU and BradBlog that there are SERIOUS problems in my own county and I have to read it here? I just shot off an e-mail to one of the "organizers" (my ass!) asking why we aren't taking the lead on this. And what's more, I've seen NOTHING in the local news about it. Grrrr!

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Brandy Orth,

Fresno registrar of voters -- she was APPOINTED after Victor Salazar, who used to be our Registrar, resigned (under duress) after he totally fucked up the 2010 election. Dude threw a little temper tantrum because funding for his department was cut -- as was every other department in the county. His temper tantrum consisted of closing about 1/2 of the polling places in the 2010 election which caused MASS confusion. He never even bothered to check accessibility to public transportation so many polling places were inaccessible. I knew this guy personally and he was always a petty little shit. And Republican.

Anyway, Salazar left and Orth was appointed. A little digging and I found out she's a lifelong Republican from Sanger (a local farming community).

The Republicans around here are VERY powerful and the Democrats show no signs of cohesion much less dedication to take on issues any more serious than who is jockeying for the next Chairmanship. Just a reminder at how impotent these guys are, Fresno County has a majority of registered Democrats and we can't elect Democrats to ANYTHING around here. The California Democratic Party couldn't find us with GPS so I'm not sure what the solution for them is.

Anyway, a little local info for anyone who is interested.

[SunSeeker]

13. Well, at least we got you there.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Much to the dismay of my

local elected officials.

[BradBlog]

22. One more point on Orth...

She was hired after a one hour CLOSED-DOOR meeting with the County's Board of Supervisors at the end of an "exhaustive" week-long search.

(Oh, and it's Brandi with an "i", not a "y&quot

[Scuba]

12. Waukesha County Wisconsin still refuses to all the recount of ballots from the Walker recall ...

... every other County in the State has been recounted. All 71 of them. Only Waukesha remains.

Guess who?

[Gold Metal Flake]

15. Democracy costs too much.

We just can't afford it, y'all. Gotta cut back and shit.

[Xithras]

18. There's a bit more to it than that. It's a bit of a personal fued.

Disclaimer: I'm a longtime Stanislaus County resident and am fairly involved with local political issues, so I have a definite bias in this case. The reality here is that Madueno and Lundrigan have a bit of a fued going on.

Madueno wasn't a particularly good mayor in Riverbank and was appointed to that position AFTER the voters had rejected her in an earlier election. When the guy who won resigned, the council appointed her to the position without a vote. That angered a lot of people, so most people really weren't suprised when she lost the next election and couldn't hold the seat.

Stanislaus County has a limit to the amount of time when a candidate can request a recount. Madueno's team didn't announce their intention to ask for a recount, but suprised everybody by sending someone into the Registrars office TWO MINUTES before it closed, on the final day to request the recount. The ballots were already being stored away, and the staff had already been released, because it was believed that nobody would be requesting any additional recounts.

When Madueno's people made the request, they were informed that a full hand recount of the town (and one other town in the county) had ALREADY been done because the results were so close, and she was asked whether she wanted to just accept the results of the previous recount. Maduenos campaign refused, and instead demanded that a second hand recount be performed. Not only that, but they wanted a hand count of the entire election, and not just a few precincts. So Lundrigan went out and found a bunch of new employees to do the recount, paid on short term contracts (as I understand it), and settled in for what should have been several days of hand counting.

Five hours into the recount, after only one precinct had been fully counted, Madueno suddenly announced that she would accept the results of the original recount and called the whole thing off. That infuriated a lot of people in the county, because her demands had created a bit of expense ($7,800) for space, equipment, and employees, and she'd abandoned the entire thing without bothering to even complete it. Stanislaus is NOT a wealthy county (one of the poorest in the state, in truth) and her move was seen as a deliberate attempt to waste everyones time. A final tantrum from a troublesome elected official on her way out. In retaliation, the county stuck her with a bill that included every penny of every expense associated with the recount.

FWIW, normal recounts in this county are a fraction of that cost, and hand counts in especially close races are often automatic and free. This particular instance is simply a high profile example of two poorly behaved elected officials battling it out in the media. It's not representative of the way our county normally works.

[BradBlog]

23. Not exactly...

Thanks for the additional info, Xitrhas, though you've got a few facts wrong, as I've come to understand them.

For one thing, Madueño *never* received a "hand-count", as far as I know. She received a five-hour MACHINE re-tally. Moreover, she had only been reported (by the computers which tally in secret) to have lost by 53 votes out of some 6,000 cast in the election. I am aware of no other previous recount of her race, as you have suggested. Got evidence/link for that?

Furthermore, it doesn't really matter when a candidate files for a re-tally, if they are allowed to do so by law. It is frequently the case that such challenges are filed at the very last second. In CA state (I realize this was a local race, not a state race), there are only 6 days after an election has been certified to file a challenge. They are often filed on the very last day.

No matter when they are filed, if done so legally, then they are to be run legally. No, an election official can't simply charge whatever he or she likes because of some "feud" with the candidate.

As to your opinions of Madueño's time as Mayor, that has absolutely ZERO to do with this case. Nothing. Nada. And, frankly, I'm somewhat offended that you'd bring it up as if to smear her, when the real crime here is being charged $2000 per hour, or $20 per ballot, in an attempt to authenticate the results of an election.

If anybody should be outraged here, it should be Madueño for only having received a machine re-tally which is either right or wrong. Nobody can possibly know -- unless they count the paper ballots by hand. It is both a joke and an outrage and it's astonishing that you'd try to offer justifications for it, frankly.

[Xithras]

24. Here you go.

http://www.modbee.com/2012/12/04/2481668/madueno-asks-for-recount-of-votes.html

First line of the second section: : "O'Brien said he expects the results to stand because Lundrigan, seeing that the race was close, did hand and machine recounts on her own even before getting Madueño's request." Sentences after that provide additional details. This actually says that the ballots were counted THREE times before Madueno turned in her request. All ballots are counted and tallied automatically at the precinct (which is where the initial numbers come from). The registrar ran the ballots a second time electronically to verify the numbers. And then the ballots were hand counted a third time to verify them again. Those were the recounts that Madueno rejected, apparently requesting a fourth count of the ballots. More importantly, she also wanted a specific recount of the provisional ballots. Once they are counted, Stanislaus County doesn't keep provisional's seperate. They are simply filed into the boxes with the rest of the ballots. Madueno's demand that the provisionals be identified meant that employees had to sift through ALL of the ballots ahead of time to try and identify them. She was billed for that time too.

As to my personal opinion of her, you really just have to understand our local politics. She was a frequent pain in the ass who pulled a sneaky backroom deal to get into office in the first place, and many people were just glad to see her go. You'll find that she gets relatively little sympathy from those around here who are just tired of her constant political games. To quote one local pundit: "It's hard to feel sorry for the devil when he gets screwed." You can be astonished by that all you want, but it is what it is. As an outsider, you're looking at this one issue by itself. As a resident, I'm viewing it as one piece of a much larger story.

And Lundrigan has now provided a full itemized list of the costs. The big thing, as I understand it, is that Madueno demanded a full recount so the election workers expected to be paid for the entire time the recount would have taken. The county has passed these labor costs on. It is trying to make Madueno pay for the employee hours that she demanded, and the county paid for. I've heard conflicting stories as to how accurate that info is, but Madueno herself now has the hard numbers in her hand, so if it's incorrect she can make that public.

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you that the whole thing is very asinine and that both sides should sit down and work out a compromise instead of acting like a bunch of petty idiots. I was just trying to explain that theres a lot more to the story than "big, bad county tries to screw poor candidate out of a recount".

Small county politics can be petty and unprofessional. From all perspectives, the Madueno situation is just a particularly ugly example of that.

Oh, and as to the hand vs. machine counting thing. I'm not 100% on this, but it's my understanding that our county uses a sort of hybrid system during recounts. Each ballot is examined and inserted into the digital counting machine. The tally on the counting machine is then checked to verify that it matches the inserted ballot. While the machine ultimately keeps count, each ballot is still examined by human eyeballs and any discrepancies between the machine count and the written count would be immediately caught. That's our version of a "hand count". This is arguably superior to a traditional hand count because it would not only identify any miscounts, but would also identify the specific ballots that were being miscounted.

[BradBlog]

26. Apologies...

Apologies for the late reply. Since I don't know if you'll even receive it or not, I'll try to keep it short.

a) I don't care how liked or disliked she is. She is a candidate for public office and she deserves a full, transparent, public count, as per the law. I would (and have) made that argument for candidates as repellant as Allen West in FL or Joe Miller in AK. The argument about whether she is liked or disliked -- deservedly, or otherwise -- holds exactly zero interest for me in this particular conversation.

b) I don't know if there is a different law for local elections, but as for state law, the registrar may only charge for REAL costs. Counters are to be paid as they are paid for working at the polls. Period. So if there is some additional time they were promised, that is the Registrars fault, not the candidate, who is allowed to count for as long or as short as she likes.

c) Machine counts are not real counts. Counts not done in front of the public (or, in this case, the candidate requesting the count) is not a real count. None of that matters. Only the count that the candidate paid for.

d) "For what it's worth, I happen to agree with you that the whole thing is very asinine and that both sides should sit down and work out a compromise instead of acting like a bunch of petty idiots." -- I did not say that "both sides" are being asinine. I said that what the Registrar is charging appears to be outrageous and arbitrary, and your suggestion that it has something to do with bad blood between the Registrar and the candidate only adds to the evidence that the charges were arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, illegal.

e) I don't understand your argument about a machine count being "arguably superior to a traditional hand count". I've read that graf a few times and still don't understand it.

[Blue Owl]

25. An obstruction of democracy and justice

[Zorra]

27. Legalized corruption is destroying this country. nt