CD11: Harmer taking Contra Costa to court
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Friday, November 5th, 2010 at 11:08 am in 2010 election, congressional district 11.
Harmer
McNerney
Congressional District 11 GOP nominee David Harmer will seek a court order in Superior Court in Martinez this afternoon to stop the vote-by-mail signature verification process in Contra Costa County.
Harmer, who ran against incumbent Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney on Tuesday, says his team should be allowed to challenge the signatures on vote-by-mail ballots.
Contra Costa Election Clerk Steve Weir disagrees. He says the county’s written procedures and guidelines clearly state that observers may challenge the process of counting ballots but not individual signatures.
Challenges to a specific voter’s right to cast a ballot must be made through a pollworker at the polls or through a challenge of a voter who has requested a vote-by-mail ballot, Weir said. This allows the voter to respond to a challenge of his or her right to cast a ballot.
“While Harmer has claimed irregularities, not one instance has been presented to us,” Weir said.
Harmer spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin disagreed and said the other three counties in District 11 allow challenges of signatures on submitted vote-by-mail ballots.
“We just want to ensure that the signature review process is done openly, fairly and transparently,” she said. “Neither side is being afforded the opportunity to review and observe the signature review process.”
The backdrop of this legal dispute is the outcome of the 11th District election.
McNerney leads by 568 votes, an incredibly tight 0.3 percentage point advantage. The votes were breaking the Democrat’s way on Election Day, which means McNerney has little incentive to challenge the counting of ballots that arrived in election offices on Monday and Tuesday.
Harmer, on the other hand, could benefit if signatures on late arriving ballots are deemed invalid and thrown out, ensuring that potential votes for his opponent never show up on the tally.
Stay tuned.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
November 5th, 2010 at 11:26 am
If Harmer loses in the 11th Congressional district that means He lost in the 10th and the 11th, will He try for the 12th?
November 5th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Let the record reflect that the legal war in CD-11 has begun … and Harmer fired the first shot. Perhaps Harmer has concocted this nonsense in order to fire up his base, to hit the “Tea Party” types up for $$$.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Well, it seems he is pulling out all the stops to make sure that doesn’t happen by making sure we don’t count all those pesky pro-McNerney votes. However, should he fail in that attempt, he has 432 districts and 48 states left where he hasn’t yet run.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:41 am
This is getting my blood boiling. If I still have my ballot stubs, is there any way to verify that my vote (mailed in early) gets counted?
November 5th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
How dare he try to take away the right of voters to have their vote count when the voter is not there to respond! Some stranger challenges my signature? Prove it’s not mine or come see me about it. Harmer’s people are cowards and know that they have lost under any fair count.
Shame on them.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
John W – if you mailed early you don’t need to worry. Ballots arriving before election day are the first counted once the polls close. The ballots in question are those turned in at the polls on election day.
That being said, challenging the signatures is a desperate act of a desperate candidate as a show for his dispirited and desperate supporters.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
After having Harmer stickers stripped from my car bumper, and having my Harmer lawn signs stolen during the night before the election, I have a tendency to wonder about the integrity of McNerney’s supporters. What’s the problem with making sure that Donald Duck isn’t voting in this election?
November 5th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
We now have observers from the House Administration Committee…and tons of lawyers.
I will post my documents as soon as possible.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
On second thought, maybe we should give due credit to Harmer as a member of the Meg Whitman Economic Stimulus Team. Let’s hope all those observers and lawyers spend lots of money while they are in town.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
It would be extremely funny if Harmer lost!! Guess he could run for dog catcher or stand on the corner and recite the Declaration of Independence to himself!!
November 5th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Bill F, sorry about your bumper stickers and lawn signs. That’s not right, whichever side does it. And both sides do. I had my bumper keyed, and a George Bush sticker placed over my Kerry sticker in 2004. Nothing is wrong with making sure Donald Duck isn’t voting, or at least that he didn’t vote twice. However, when ballots are challenged without reason, or some geezer has his or her ballot tossed just because he has a shaky signature and is not there to defend his vote, that is wrong.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Does anyone really think that (1) a voter registrar would accept a voter registration in the name of Donald Duck, and (2) the poll worker and precinct leader would sit idly by while a voter purporting to be Donald Duck requests a ballot, and (3) the voter would be able to produce valid ID showing himself to be Donal Duck?
While Republicans like to raise the specter of voter fraud at every opportunity, the truth is that it is virtually non-existent.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Mr. Weir, does you office perform the commendable practice of performing “ballot trapping” late on election day? That is, do you send workers to the main regional US Post Office distribution facility (perhaps the one in Richmond, CA) to gather up ballots that are waiting delivery to your office?
This is commendable because it helps to ensure that anyone who wants to cast ballot has a chance to have his/her vote counted. (I know that Amador County does this by going to the Reno US Postal Center.)
November 5th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Sorry but if I was running and it came down to 568 votes I would want to make sure that they were all legit. Both sides should just agree to check the signatures. What is there to hide???
November 5th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Remember if Harmer can create enough doubt, he can get the House itself to decide this race. Ultimately it is the new Republican majority in Congress that gets to decide not the Contra Counta County Regsitrar of Voters or even the Secretary of State of California. No doubt Roman Buhler will be called in to make the case as he is the GOP attorney with more than 20 years experience in contested House races. The right to observe really should be honored now if one wants to reduce the chances of a challenge in the House of Representatives.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
If you have not already done so, it might be a good idea to determine if any of the four counties performed the commendable practice of “ballot trapping” late on election day. That is, did each county elections office send workers to their respective US Postal Service Destination Sectional Center Facility (SCF) in Oakland, San Jose or Stockton to gather up VBM ballots that were waiting delivery to the elections offices (but not delivered on election day)?
This practice is commendable because it helps to ensure that anyone who wants to cast a ballot has a chance to have his/her vote counted. These ballots that are rescued in time to be counted are, of course, some of the late-mailed ballots.
I know from the 2008 vote counting in the close California CD-4 race that Placer County “trapped ballots” in order to count them by going to the USPS Destination Sectional Center Facility (SCF) in Reno. However, El Dorado County did not, as far as I could tell.
Is this practice a prerogative of each county? Do some do it and not others? If not all, then why not? That would be unequal treatment. Does Steve Weir, registrar of Contra Costa County, who is greatly respected, do it?
If such ballots in fact were not “trapped” in order to count them, then they must have been delivered to the registrars’ offices on Wednesday, 11/3. Do their offices still have them? Have they been tossed aside? If they should have been trapped, then they should count.
What does California statute say about this?
November 5th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
John W, Good news! You don’t even need your ballot stubs to see if your absentee ballot was received. You can go to
http://www.cocovote.us/voterlookup.aspx?
and click on the button next to “What is the status of my Vote By Mail Ballot?” They’ll ask for your birthdate and your address, then they’ll tell you whether your specific ballot was returned and received. I hope this cools that boiling blood!
November 5th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Harmer has now ran for Congress, and lost, in three different districts and two different states. It sounds like he is getting desperate by trying to claim signatures on mail in ballots that voted for McNerney are not valid. Anyone whose ballot is challenged because of his or her signature should be allowed to go to the registrar’s office and verify their signature before a ballot can be discounted. If they claim the signature is theirs and is valid and they did not vote in any other manner, their vote must be counted. They have a constitutional right to vote. Mr. Harmer should be getting used to making consession speaches.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I dropped by the CCC registrar’s office, where the votes are being counted today. You can’t tell which party the voter is from. In fact, you are so far away from the screen (12-22 feet) that you can’t see much of anything. That’s why the seven “observers” that were there were all texting and on the phone. I’ve seen the signature verification process in Santa Clara County where they do allow observers close enough to see the signatures, and the screens are sized so no one sees the party affiliation – not registrar employee, nor observer. Makes sense to me.
November 5th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
# 16, yes,Contra Costa did go to Oakland, and to every post office in Contra Costa to pick up ballots that would otherwise be delivered as “late”. This is a good estimate, we picked up around 750 ballots.
November 5th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Jerry Dees,
Thanks for the info. I was able to confirm that at least twelve of the ballots I submitted under various names were received!
Mr. Harmer, if your people are reading this, that was a joke.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Let’s not be funny.
You cannot challenge a voter at the polls. Only a poll worker can do so, and ONLY upon being presented with convincing evidence before the challenge. IF, after being challenged, the voter takes an oath that the allegations are false, the precinct board must issue a precinct ballot (not a provisional ballot) that is cast and cannot be retrieved and challenged. Why on earth do you think we have gone to this extreme practice? Well, it is because there is a history of vicious challenges to voters in this country. Anyone doubting this, read no further, you have homework to do.
So, why in Sam Heck would you think that the legislature would allow someone to challenge a vote by mail ballot, where the voter is not present to defend themselves, if they have established such a restrictive process at the polls?
Guess what, the legislature has addressed this issue of “fishing” for challenges, THEY DO NOT ALLOW IT. I’ve been the Registrar of this County for 21 years. I have been through this issue by fire.
Eight years ago, I adopted a procedure that states, you cannot challenge the signature of a voter on a vote by mail ballot. That procedure is given to everyone who comes to observe. The time to challenge my procedures is before we are in a close contest.
No amount of bullying will change my mind. I’m looking forward to presenting my case in court on Monday. All of California could benefit from such a hearing.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
John W,
It’s been a while since I thought of Mayor Richard J. -he’d be proud!
November 5th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
The two challenges Mr. Weir describes in the article and #23, seem to address precinct voting and absentee voter applications.
“Challenges to a specific voter’s right to cast a ballot must be made through a pollworker at the polls or through a challenge of a voter who has requested a vote-by-mail ballot, Weir said.”
I don’t see where they intersect with Mr. Harmer’s concern about being able to challenge signatures on vote by mail envelopes.
Here’s what I found in the Election Code 15104 (d) using the embedded hotlink from another of Lisa’s posts.
“. . . voter observers shall be allowed sufficiently close access to enable them to observe the vote by mail ballot return envelopes and the signatures thereon and challenge whether those individuals handling vote by mail ballots are following established procedures, including all of the following:
(1) Verifying signatures and addresses on the vote by mail ballot return envelopes by comparing them to voter registration information.”
This quote seems pretty clear — observers must be allowed to see the voter’s signatures from the envelopes and the voter registration cards, and make challenges based on their observations — just what the other three counties in CD-11 do.
Maybe the County Election Clerk’s guidelines and procedures take precedence over the Elections Code, or the other county’s election clerks aren’t reading the Code correctly. I’m sure all the parties will help a judge figure it out.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Jerry, if you miss by a inch, you miss by a mile. Read the very next section, EC 15105 and tell our readers what you think that says. Your friend in court missed the same section…
November 5th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Jerry, a further reading of your observation of the codes should require stating the case clearly; the challenge can only be to the process engaged in by the
registrar. You may not challenge a signature, you my only challenge the clerk based upon his/her process. I have published my procedures for the past 8 years. What is your objection to my published procedures? You have chosen not to challenge my procedures, which is your only recourse.
Twist as you may, this issue is to be heard in court on Monday. I am staking my reputation as a neutral County Clerk. Can you say the same?
November 5th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Thank you Steve Weir for your insight, professionalism and taking the time to post on this website! I agree with you. Voter should be present to respond to challenge. My signature evolved over the years, and I would be outraged if I discovered that my VBM were rejected without some ability to respond. Right to vote is a constitutional right and cannnot be denied without due process under 14th Amendment.
I take it the hearing is on Monday. Please let us know outcome as soon as possible. Thanks again Steve.
November 5th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Steve Weir: what is case number?
November 5th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Mr. Weir, kudos to you for what sound like very sound practices (as you said, based on experience), and for being part of this conversation!
I’m impressed.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
This is not a popularity contest. We’re in Department 7 on Monday at 8:30 on Monday to hear this case. Let me assure you all, regardless of political persuasion, your County Clerk will not be bullied.
I have to tell you, I am delighted that this has made its way into the Superior Court. (With all deference to the Commissioner who heard this issue today,I have known Commissioner Saunders for 21 years and know her to be diligent) this issue deserves a hearing before a Superior Court Judge.)
This issue is of state wide concern. Only through such a hearing, is it possible to establish statewide standards.
I have made my share of mistakes. At this stage of my life, I’m looking for consistent statewide standards. I am working statewide, and at the national level, to professionalize my industry. In addition, I am advocating metrics (measurement of performance standards) for many aspects of election administration.) In the absence of such professional standards, we have a mish – mash to standends…ripe pickin’s for those who would like to challenge the professional standards for election officials.
Long story short; Election Administration needs to protect you, the voter, from the political attack on your right-to-vote. Our charge is to be the neutral arbitrator of everyone’s right to vote.
So, when presented with the option to cut-and-run, I respectfully (and adamently) decline.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
It’s Ellis Vs. Weir. (Sorry, I do not know the case number.)
November 5th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
OMG, transparency, Two of the four counties involved allow the computer to make the decision on what is a match and not. In Contra Costa, we look at every signature. So, where’s the righteous indignation about the ability to see and review (and challenge) signatures?
And, where’s the law suit?
November 5th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Re: Steve Weir #26
That makes perfect sense — that the observers get to challenge the process, not the signatures. Otherwise, counting VBM ballots in close elections just becomes a continuation of the political campaign and loses all credibility. It’s times like this that Steve and his people really earn their keep. Thanks, Steve, for your integrity and what you’re doing.
With redistricting reform, we are likely to see more of these close races around the state. That coupled with election day VBM ballot delivery growing as a share of total voting presents real logistical challenges for Steve and his counterparts. The results reported on election day and the following day become almost irrelevant, which is frustrating to both candidates and voters. Perhaps we need to do some soul-searching about this hybrid VBM-precinct voting system before this gets out of hand.
Deborah Bowen, are you listening?
November 5th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Close races shouldn’t matter. It is the close races that we’ll be judged upon. Our procedures should withstand a partisan challenge. Otherwise, we’re lost (as in the electorate does not trust our vote count.)
I cannot stress this point enough…You cannot directly challenge a voter at the polls. YOU CANNOT. You may want to, but you cannot. And, hay, what if it just happens to be you who is being challenged? Want to go there?
Now, introduce the vote-by-mail voter. (Like it or not, the Legislature has afforded this vote option.) Looks like a majority of California voters will “opt” for this option in this election.
I would prefer that all of you, afford the ritual envisioned by our founders, go to the polls on election day, and cast your ballot. (I respectfully reserve the right to make this case later.) O.K. a quick primer; You vote at the polls, your vote will be counted. Vote-by-mail, I cannot guarantee your vote will be counted. (I have studied this issue for 14 years and would like to reserve comment for a latter post.
However, this is not my choice. So, what is our option?
Follow the codes prescribed by the California Legislature. That is exactly what I am doing. Value judgment neutral.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Last post for the night. In 1996, there was a contested race for the 7th Senate District. With the termed out of Dan Boatwright, this seat was an up-for-grabs. This district had been; D, George Miller II (Congressman’s dad), John Nejedly (R), Dan Boatwright (D) Richard Rainey (R), Tom Torlakson (D) and DeSaulnier (R) and (D). (Note the joke).
So, in 1996, Jeff Smith and Richard Rainey faced off.
With some 300,000 ballots cast, Rainey lead Smith by some 700 votes after certification. (NOTE: this is not close by 2000 standards!)
An analysis of Vote By Mail stats showed that we had rejected almost 4% of the VBM ballots due to arriving late, as well as other causes.
Since Rainey won in the vote-by-mail category, no one challenged the results. But I was concerned by the volume of rejected vote-by-mail ballots.
Rainey won by about 700 votes. We had 3200 vote by mail ballots rejected.
I began to collect and analyze rejected vote by mail ballots. We embarked upon a program to reduce rejected vote-by-mail ballots. Long story short; in Nov. 1996, our rejection rate for vote by mail was 4%. By November, 2008, it was less than 0.4%.
Measuring metrics and making educational adjustments has clearly shown great improvements in the successful return rate of vote-by-mail ballots.
November 6th, 2010 at 12:14 am
Steve,
I stepped away from the blog for a Baja Fresh Mango-Chipotle Carnitas tortilla and Toy Story 3. I highly recommend them both. It’s time for me to hit the hay, but I wanted to share how I feel about your work as my Registrar.
I moved here to CCC 22 years ago. Shortly thereafter, I walked a couple of precincts and experienced first-hand the effects of benign-neglect regarding not purging the voter rolls of those who had moved away. It was not uncommon for residents I met to recognize the voters listed at the address as the prior two or three owners/residents. I was very appreciative of your good work in cleaning up those rolls. Over the years, I’ve heard many glowing reports of your good work from folks I respect. I’m confident you have done a good job.
When I visited your CCC location today, I noticed a simple step that avoids problems with temporary workers handling ballots – you had them writing with red pencils that couldn’t be used to change a ballot, either accidentally or on purpose. I imagine there are many more procedures that you have instituted over your 21 years that mirror this thoughtfulness and care.
Now, I do disagree with some of the positions you described. Most of them stem from me reading the Code as a unified whole and not pitting one section against another so that a sentence, phrase, or word in one section overrides the plain meaning of another section.
I have no delusion about me knowing what the right answer is. I’m no attorney, I don’t know who argued the cases today in court, nor who the judge/commissioner was. I did read section 15105 and many others, before I wrote what I did. Even after reading your responses, I believe the writers of the Election Code believed they were authorizing observers to challenge absentee ballots when the signatures aren’t from the registered voter. I like the approach of finding a way to count every vote from a registered voter, and a way to not count those that aren’t from a registered voter. I think you know better than I how many of each are in the mix.
I start early tomorrow at a service project on Mt. Diablo. I hope I get a chance to write more specifically on my return. If not, at least I got to share the sincere respect I have for your good work.
November 6th, 2010 at 12:24 am
Wow. Mr. Weir, I’m impressed and pleased you engaged with the readers here and provided some insight into the voting procedures in CoCo County. Please consider running in the future for Secretary of State since we are in need of some statewide guidelines for voting, since as you pointed out, they’re different for every county. On an off topic question, what is your opinion of the recently used ranked choice voting method? Do you think this type of voting would be good for CoCo County as well?
November 6th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Jerry, my posts are not intended to be personal. You have always been a gentleman.
Here’s Election Code Section 15105; “Prior to processing and opening the identification envelopes of vote by mail voters, the elections official shall make available a list of vote by mail voters for public inspection, from which challenges may be presented.”
EC Section 15106 states in part; “Because the voter is not present, the challenger shall have the burden of establishing extraordinary proof of the validity of the challenge at the time the challenge is made.”
EC 15104 (b)deals with the observation of absentee ballot processing and counting. It states in part; “…vote by mail voter observers shall be allowed sufficiently close access to enable them to observe the vote by mail ballot return envelopes and the signatures thereon and challenge whether those individuals handling vote by mail ballots are following established procedures,…”
(Signatures are confidential under the Election Code, an exception is made for the viewing of this process. See EC 2194)
Election Code Section 14240 thru 14253 addressed challenges. Section 14251 states; “Any doubt in the interpretation of the law shall be resolved in favor of the challenged voter.”
We have established procedures for signature checking and we have procedures for observing this process. We clearly state that observers cannot challenge a vote by mail ballot at the signature checking stage. The challenge at that stage concerns whether we are following our adopted procedures. It is our opinion that the challenge must be made prior to the signature checking process.
November 6th, 2010 at 11:39 am
If Mr. Weir is reading and willing to respond, I have a question concerning the 1% Manual Tally. Contra Costa County’s rules for “Canvass Observers” (called “Attachment 3″) says, “Observers will be permitted access to a designated observation area, sufficiently close to enable them to observe and challenge whether individuals handling ballots are following established procedures.”
What are the “established procedures” for the 1% Manual Tally? Are these “established procedures” available on the Contra Costa County Elections Division website? If so, where on the website are they found?
November 6th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Jason, we have them in paper form at the office, I’ll have them posted as well. (Most likely on Monday.)
November 6th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I say fight it, I for one sent in my voter reg before the due date I received a card in the mail telling me where to go and vote, once I got there they had no record of my name I was told I have to fill out some additional paperwork and then voted, when done I was told they would only count my vote if there was a run off… So why did I even bother voting, im sure if my party affliation was Dem not Rep my vote would have counted.
November 6th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
That last paragraph is proof of a biased reporting. If the verifications of ballots happens it would allow both sides to inspect and challenge ballots not just the Harmer side.
Why do you have to make this out like Harmer is trying to steal the election? We all know that massive amounts of ballots (tens of thousands!) were dropped off en mass on election day. Those numbers are not normal and seem a little fishy (like someone is ballot box stuffing) and verification by all parties involved is really needed to make sure that stuffing did not happen.
The citizens votes should be protected and pure. Verification by both sides is the only way to insure that.
November 6th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I WANT A RECOUNT!
I will NEVER vote absentee again! What in insult!! If you vote absentee, you might as well have SEIU erasing your vote, and putting in whomever they want.
McNerney never answered his constituents. He was a puppet to Nancy Pelosi. He was 7 points behind…then all of a sudden he’s ahead? HELL NO.
California has no ID check??? Anybody could come into the office and claim a name.
November 6th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
It might be a good idea to check the signatures of some of the people who are leaving replies herein…can you say SEIU???
November 6th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Re: 42
And where did these fishy ballots come from? Did somebody manage to counterfeit thousands of official looking ballots, complete with the outside and inside envelopes, fill them out and somehow sneak them past the checkers in the Contra Costa election office, where each ballot is matched to a number, address and name on the list of registered voters? Perhaps they bribed somebody to accept and count these bogus ballots. Or maybe they stole them from the mailboxes of Republicans when the county sent them out, held on to them until election day and then loaded them up on a U-Haul truck to drop them off “en mass.” Hmmm. McNerney is a PhD scientist. He may have masterminded the whole plot.
Okay, now that I’ve got the sarcasm out of my system. I’m sure that McNerney did have a strong get-out-the-vote drive using his ground organization from 2006 and 2008. And, since they knew this would be an especially tough election, I’m sure there was a late effort to contact registered Democrats to get them off their butts to complete their ballots if they had not already done so. Also, polls indicated that many voters were undecided on several of the key races and did not make up their minds until late — later than normal. If Harmer had even the slightest specific evidence of fraud — rather than something Joe said to Sally over pizza at the county GOP office — I’m sure we would have heard about it by now.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Harmer should have just ran again in 2012, and possibly win after he gained more recognition among the Voters. That’s how McNerney unseated Pombo and Tauscher unseated Baker. approx. 35% first run and approx 52% second run.
But this kind of shenanigans is wrong. It was wrong for Bush to get the supreme court to halt the counting & call the election for Bush. This Harmer effort is just as bad. I for one, will not vote for Harmer again, whether he pulls off a court ruling win or not.
Steve Weir and his team are obviously very professional. The odd-ball conspiracy theorist posting above are just plan nuts.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Chris, for those who register close to the deadline, we attempt to update the Precinct Inspector with an additional list. However, if we were not successful in getting your name to them, your recourse was to cast a Provisional Ballot. (We received about 11,000 Countywide.) Let me assure you, that if you cast your ballot and you are registered (and your confirmation card tells me you are), we WILL count your ballot.
Because voters could have cast a “late conditional” vote by mail ballot” (see EC 3021)issued within the last seven days of the election, and because a voter could have gone to his/her own poll and cast a ballot and because that voter could have cast a provisional ballot at another poll site, our “canvass” of the vote must be performed in a strict order. We must credit all precincts votes (vote history) and clear all regular vote-by-mail ballots before taking on the late conditional and provisional ballots. So, if you cast a provisional ballot (isolated into a pink envelope so that we will not count it until we have checked all other methods of voting) it will be counted. Such ballots are included in the final canvass.
Guy, we typically receive about 20% of the total vote-by-mail cast on election day. From memory, we received just over 5,000 from the post office and roughly 25,000 at the polls. This is a normal number. Many people do not want to trust the post office and they would like the convenience of going through a very lengthy ballot at home. I have heard that many Rossmoor residents like to have their ballot to vote at home, and like to drop it off at the polls so they can say “Hi” to their neighbors. Others do not like to have their signature go through the mail.
If interested, I have collected issued dates and return dates summaries for major elections back to 2002.
O.K., I don’t have any SEIU workers.
One of the parts of the Calif. process that we should salute is the fact that we not only count votes, we are involved in an elaborate accounting process, that accounts for ballots printed, ballots issued, ballots returned (voted, not voted, and spoiled.)
November 7th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“It was wrong for Bush to get the supreme court to halt the counting & call the election for Bush.”
So you’re saying that the court should have ruled in favor of those who wanted to keep counting until algore won?
November 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Re: 48
The court should have ruled in favor of the current procedure. Finish counting within the allowed time frame as stated by law. Candidates concede elections when they are more votes behind than the number of ballots left to count.
Close elections are a burden on the process but that’s how you illustrate that every vote counts.
It was wrong for the Florida Supreme court to order a “recount” and wrong for the supreme court to say “it will do harm to the plaintiff, George Bush.” The Supreme Court should have only rescinded the Florida Supreme Courts recount. Let the Florida Sec. of State call the election.
November 7th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Terry / John W : Jerry McNerney did, indeed, have a *massive* get out the vote campaign; I was a part of it. There were hundreds of us volunteers in the streets from before 10 am until the last minute before 8pm on election night. I personally got two women from adjacent houses to drive the few blocks to their polling place to vote at 7:50 pm! In four solid days of 10am to 6pm pavement pounding (most of us stopped early to avoid irritating people during the Giants game), I saw a Harmer group ONCE, and that was an SUV filled with Tea Party volunteers driving back and forth in a very disorganized, time-wasting way through the precinct. And I saw only a couple of dozen Harmer door hangers in the four days I spent in Tracy and in Morgan Hill.
On election day, my team and I (three in all) would drive to a precinct, check out the posted list of people who had voted, and then fan out individually to cover as many voters as quickly as possible and get ‘em to the polls. Then we’d zoom to our next precinct, and repeat, snacking on food bars instead of pausing for a full meal. Where were the Harmer people? Nowhere! I’m not at all surprised that there was a McNerney surge at the end; we were working our hearts out!
And, Terry, your assertion that Jerry never answered his constituents is absurd. For example, Jerry had over 60 in-person town hall meetings in the district since he was elected, and he’s home every weekend to talk with people.
PS: I’m not a member of SEIU, or of any union. I’m a very senior-level, highly-paid engineer working in private industry who respects Jerry’s intelligence, competence, problem-solving abilities, devotion to his district, and moderate politics.
November 7th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Steve, Thank you for engaging in this forum. It isn’t a topic that lends itself well to sound bytes and a quick understanding. Your commitment to providing depth and breadth is really appreciated.
Here is one of the questions I referenced in #36.
I tried reading the Elections Code with your procedures in mind. I ran into some problems reconciling the two. Some of these problems are probably attributable to me never reading either of them before this last Friday. I wonder if you can shed some light on how the following procedure fits the Code.
Your procedure is to not let the observers close enough to read or compare the absentee envelope signatures and the signatures on file.
EC 15104 (d) “. . . voter observers shall be allowed sufficiently close access to enable them to observe the vote by mail ballot return envelopes and the signatures thereon and challenge whether those individuals handling vote by mail ballots are following established procedures, including all of the following:
(1) Verifying signatures and addresses on the vote by mail ballot return envelopes by comparing them to voter registration information.”
EC 2194 (c) (2) “An elections official shall permit a person to view the signature of a voter for the purpose of determining whether the signature matches a signature on an affidavit of registration or a petition, but shall not permit a signature to be copied.”
Thank you for all your help.
November 8th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
What I see:
Voter fraud is alive and well in CA. We have an SEIU candidate beholden to the unions with SEIU members counting ballots, comparing signatures AND in Santa Clara, they are “cleaning” ballots which constituted a pen at every desk and an ink eraser used to rub over every ballot. In some cases these workers rubbed pretty hard on top of votes. Would that be votes they did not like so the counting machine wouldn’t pick it up?
Thier other process of “enhancing” the vote is illegal as well. Let me see… what is the description of “enhancing” by the SEIU members? If I see a possible vote mark that looked remotley like someone wanted or tried to make a voter mark, I use the marker pen and vote on that ballot for the person.
Erasers erase pencil as well. Did you know when they come across a pencil vote, they will darken it with pen? Would if thier “cleaning” ballots process erases the pencil mark? Well then you can take that pen and make the ballot mark reappear anywhere on the ballot you want!
Why are the county employees whom are also SEIU union purple shirt members allowed to handle the ballots? Why are county employees who are SEIU union mebers allowed to pick who works at the polling places?
Why are SEIU members allowed to be hired as temporary workers in the ballot counting process?
November 8th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Re: #52 Voter Fraud is Alive and Well in CA
Them’s some pretty serious specific accusations and innuendoes. Have you heard of defamation laws? The internet isn’t as anonymous as you think. By the way, I believe Steve Weir previously indicated he doesn’t have any SEIU people.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
First, Jeopardy is coming on and I need to have that diversion.
Fraud. Pardon me, but, this is close race syndrome, BS.
I’m seeing it with the Starbucks strategy, “challenge everything”…
Please.
Put up or……
November 8th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Jerry, EC 2194, which deals specifically with the confidentiality of voter registration information (signature, and others) allows the close observation of signatures ” EC 2194 (2) “An elections official shall permit a person to view the signature of a voter for the purpose of determining whether the signature matches a signature on an affidavit of registration…”
Do you think this allows you to challenge a signature? I respectfully assert the answer is NO. This allows you to see our process, which involves the viewing of confidential signatures, while we are processing our check.
I have to state again, the nexus is not with WC 15504. (b). As per my previous post; Look at EC 15105 and EC 15106. You do NOT have the right to challenge signatures of individual absentee voters, and the Judge agreed with my position today.
Once again, I ask, would you review these section and give me your opinion on what you think they mean?
November 8th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Why does this man Harmer think I should be disenfranchised? Why does he want any voter disenfranchised? Is it because he is a republican who wants as few votes counted as possible? For challenging my vote and any other vote by mail ballots, I want his apology NOW. And since he wants to disenfranchise vote by mail voters perhaps he needs to spend a little less time defending banks and running for office and a little more time studying our rights. And even if he should happen to win this election, a man who tries to steal my vote from me will NEVER represent me.
Thank you, Mr. Weir for standing up for those of us who vote by mail.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:31 am
Steve, I agree whole-heartedly with your “close-race syndrome” analysis. 90% of what I’ve read in this blog about possible or attempted voter fraud, ignores the realities of the protections that are built into the system. You better than anyone would know the weaknesses and strengths of the system.
I have time tonight and I’ll attempt to answer or respond to all your questions from #55 in the order you presented them.
I read EC 2194 to contain exceptions to the voter information confidentiality rules that allow you (the CCC Registrar of Voters) to let observers (and others) see the signature and other voter info. I have never thought that it allows or even speaks of challenges to signatures or your process. I see it as corroborating authorization to EC 15104 (d) allowing observers to be close enough to compare the ballot envelope signature with the voter signature on file. I believe the parties in court today were “nudged” in this direction by the judge and agreed to this approach on the remaining 1700 ballots that hadn’t been signature verified yet.
I’m thinking challenges are covered in EC 15104-15108, with additional sections referenced or applicable.
You mentioned for the second time “the nexus is not with WC 15504. (b).”, but I’m not sure what your are referencing here. While the section # is found in the election code, I can’t find any subparagraphs, nor does the content seem to match your point. I think the Water Code is referenced as WC, but don’t have access to this to confirm its applicability. I apologize, but I’ve exhausted my limited resources. If you could provide a copy, I’d be happy to reply.
I’ve read 15105 & 15106 and can’t find anything that creates a problem for me believing that the Elections Code authorizes observers to view and challenge VBM signatures that don’t match the voter’s signature on file. I’ve inserted these two sections as the following two paragraphs, just in case I have an outdated version. If you could let me know what you see in them that leads to observers not being able to challenge voter signatures that don’t match, I’d be happy to share my opinion of what they mean.
15105. Prior to processing and opening the identification envelopes of vote by mail voters, the elections official shall make available a list of vote by mail voters for public inspection, from which
challenges may be presented. Challenges may be made for the same reasons as those made against a voter voting at a polling place. In addition, a challenge may be entered on the grounds that the ballot was not received within the time provided by this code or that a person is imprisoned for a conviction of a felony. All challenges shall be made prior to the opening of the identification envelope of the challenged vote by mail voter.
15106. Except as otherwise provided, the processing of vote by mail ballot return envelopes, the processing and counting of vote by mail ballots, and the disposition of challenges of vote by mail ballots
shall be according to the laws now in force pertaining to the election for which they are cast. Because the voter is not present, the challenger shall have the burden of establishing extraordinary proof of the validity of the challenge at the time the challenge is
made.
When you wrote, “You do NOT have the right to challenge signatures of individual absentee voters, and the Judge agreed with my position today”, I was wondering when and in what manner the judge agreed to that position.
Like the many writers and readers of this blog, I do sincerely appreciate your participation here. I frequently finish a newspaper article with more questions than answers. I may disagree on a portion of the issues you and I discuss, but I understand your position and passion much better. If it’s OK for reasonable men to disagree, and since I’m not always reasonable, disagreeing with me is frequently a good thing – it helps me grow.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:54 am
And no one is suspicious that last minute ballots just seem to always show up in favor of the Democrat?
November 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Re #58
Suspicious in what way? It’s not like you can go to Kinkos and produce fake VBM ballots that would get by the registrar. If there is any room for funny business, it would be provisional ballots, which is why extra care is taken with those.
Fact is, Democratic candidates in every other office have won by comfortable margins in Contra Costa (AD 15 and the statewide offices). So, in a way, it’s surprising (oooh, maybe even “suspicious”) Harmer has a slight lead in the county.
In today’s newspaper story, the GOP attorney has already speculated about (a) having a voter demand a recount — presumbably with funds provided by the GOP; (b) going to court if the recount isn’t satisfactory; and (c) charging irregularities and turning it over the the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to seat Harmer.
I don’t think all this noise is about signature verification at all. Looks like it’s about creating a pretext to, at the very least, prevent McNerney from being seated for months even if he is declared the winner — as was done with Al Franken and the Senate seat in Minnesota. Turning it over to the House would be extreme, to put it mildly, and would stir a firestorm of protest. But anything’s possible. As the GOP has been saying, they want to “take back our country.”
November 9th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Re #58
Bruce, see my comment at #50. And although I can’t claim that my experience is a representative sample, the chatter I heard at the McNerney campaign offices was that very few of us were seeing Harmer volunteers in the streets. It seems that Harmer spent most of his money on media advertising; he didn’t have that many devoted volunteers doing the hard work in the last few days of getting his voters to the polls or encouraging them to mail in their ballots.
November 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Eric S,
My hat’s off to you and your fellow volunteers for such a remarkable get-out-the-vote effort. I share your respect for McNerney for the very same reasons you mentioned in #50, but I can’t claim to have invested any of the sweat equity you did.
If Harmer loses, he can also thank David Christensen, the AIP candidate, for siphoning off quite a few votes.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
#60
Sorry Eric, but the chatter you were hearing at the McNerney office was apparently very incorrect. I was one of the volunteers working at the Harmer HQ, and trust me, we had lots and lots of volunteers. Of course, there are never enough, are there? We were hearing chatter from moveon.org saying that McNerney was begging for volunteers. Funny how that “chatter” works, huh.
John W – I am stunned to hear that you have not invested any “sweat equity” in the campaign, especially since you always have so much to say, on every single issue. I think they call that arm chair quarterbacking.
Even though I strongly disagree with the candidate that Eric was working for, I respect the fact that Eric got off his fanny and worked for the candidate that he supported. I know that John W. is not the only person on this blog that also has a lot to say with no action.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
“especially since you always have so much to say, on every single issue”
Ya think?
November 9th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Patty O’Day #62 — Jeesh, try to pay somebody a compliment for their good work and get blasted in return! Guess, I should have just said kudos to Eric and not opened myself up to your self-righteous comment. Like others, I’ve done my bit before and, with luck, will do more in the future.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Someone once memorialized the saying (Chicago, 1968?) “The whole world is watching”.
At the Primary, February, 2008 election, we all now know about the Obama surge. Hilary Clinton won the VBM balloting. However, Obama surged to win the election day vote. He was not able to overcome the VBM effort of Clinton. This is a fact.
So, Clinton carried Contra Costa, despite the “Obama” surge.
What is obvious is that when a vote is cast makes a difference.
Harmer won big in the early vote by mail results Contra Costa.
Harmer was ahead in the early VBM totals. McNerney led in the election day totals. To no one’s surprise, we know that early VBM are different from the dynamics of election day numbers. (Let me tell you, regardless of persuasion, every one of the professional observers of the 11th CD contest, knows this issue of trends.) The early VBM ballots trended for Harmer, and the later ballots cast, both at the polls and the later VBM were trending towards McNerney. This is not a surprise, it is a fact.
Early VBM ballots have one dymanic, and if election day trends are shifting in one direction, the
VBM ballots cast later in the election cycle tend to move closer to the candidate who is doing well on election day. (If your candidate did well in the early VBM, and did well on election day, there is a very strong correlation with that candidate winning outright.)
What does all of this mean? Quite simply, if you are going to try and predict the outcome of the election based upon the early VBM ballots, you have engaged in a weak analytical endeavor.
It is the totality of an election (read, every vote counted) that constitutes the victor.
Having said that, we have yet to complete the canvass. Every Registrar must account for every legitimate vote cast. We have gone to legally reasonable ends to insure that the public has had the opportunity to observe our procedures.
The 11th CD is not the only close race in this election. Let me tell you about one race that is NOT close. A certain Mayoral race in a certain County Seat has generated attention, not because it is close, it is not. The apparent successful candidate holds a three to one advantage over the challenger. Regardless, the “runner up” continues to claim victory, absence electoral trickery. Claim: three precincts arrived with their vote card bag was broken. Remedy, any such mis-match is re-tallied. (We have your actual voted ballot and that serves as the base result in any contest.)
For any of you who have taken the opportunity to observe the Contra Costa count, you might notice a large number of observers (from both sides) who are here from places afar. In addition, we have enjoyed a larger number of observers from our Bay Area and many from Contra Costa.
Win-lose-or-draw, I would hope that those who have taken the time to observe our procedures will acknowledge our strengths in protecting your right to vote (even though, you are not present to protect your rights).
As of this writing, it seem that a vast majority of the vote has been tallied. However, we are not finished; allow us the time to complete the canvass. As a seasoned veteran, I can tell you that it takes as long to process the last 5% of the vote as it has taken to process the first 95%.
Thanks for allowing me to post on this blog. Respectfully, virtually no part of this post would make it in the traditional media reporting.
November 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Good job, Steve!
Stand up for what you know to be right!
November 10th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Thank you for the thorough explanation Steve. Your professionalism continues to shine through.