[CAVO] Report on real ballot observer problems

[Brent Turner]

In San Mateo County-

Hispanics and people of color were asked for ID's .. Whites were not

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> [To: CAVO. Below is an email from a local Mendocino County resident
> summarizing our post-election ballot counting procedures at the County
> Clerk/Registrar’s office. We should explain to the California Secretary of
> State that effective and reliable open source software can prevent ALL this
> ballot-counting crap. Voting is easy, but counting them is obviously
> untrusted in parts of California. /Larry Rosen]
>
>
>
> *11/14/16 Report regarding questionable voter observation practices*
>
>  Here is my quick summary and take away from 4 Ukiah Daily Journal
> articles about questionable observation practices. Link included.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the weird format, this is my worksheet about what to research
> further and documents/election code to assemble to support this effort.
>
>
>
> http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/general-news/20160827/
> primary-concerns-mendocino-county-election-observers-file-complaint
>
>
>
> Three Mendocino County residents are deeply troubled by the treatment they
> received while observing post-election ballot counting at the County
> Clerk/Registrar’s office in Ukiah. Their experience prompted them to file a
> formal complaint with the California Secretary of State’s Office.
>
> *Deborah Moore* is a Ukiah resident, a teacher and owner of Take Wing
> Tutoring. Moore observed for five days, beginning June 23. *Aleshanee
> Akin*, also from Ukiah, is a published author and teacher. Akin observed
> on an almost daily basis from June 16 until June 29. *Cynthia Raiser
> Jeavons*, a Willits resident, is a non-profit adviser and serves on
> several nonprofit boards Jeavons observed for three days beginning June 20.
>
> The three women were not acquainted prior to meeting at the
> Clerk-Recorder’s office to observe post-election activities. They
> emphasized they were not professionally affiliated with a political
> campaign and had no prior experience as voter observers.
>
>
>
> Their allegations include witnessing *inconsistent practices with regard
> to ballot counting procedures*, the promulgation of a “hostile” office
> environment toward voter observers and what they characterize as either a
> display of *abject ignorance, or a calculated effort to employ
> narrow-cast, questionable interpretations of California State election law,
> laws that unambiguously uphold the rights of California voters to observe
> nearly every aspect of pre-and post-election activities.*
>
>
>
> *BRING IN DOCUMENTS*
>
> Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s office provided *“County
> Clerk/Registrar of Voters Memorandum #16140,” the 2016 Election Observation
> Rights and Responsibilities document* used by California Voter Registrars.
>
> A post-election “canvass,” encompasses numerous activities, including the
> processing, counting and recording of precinct ballots, “vote-by-mail” and
> provisional ballots. State law clearly delineates that the canvass is open
> to the public, per *State Elections Code 15104.*
>
>
>
> During the reading and tallying, the ballot read and the tally sheet kept
> shall be within the clear view of watchers.” *(Elections Code sec.15272)*.
>
>
>
> Many counties clarify state guidelines by adopting local observer
> standards. Along with reviewing the California Elections Code and the
> Observation Rights and Responsibilities document, we studied observer
> guidelines drafted by eight other California counties to determine how
> other county registrars interpret election law in their jurisdictions, with
> the presumption that county-appointed attorneys have approved the contents
> contained in those documents.
>
>
>
> Susan Ranochak says that over the past eight years, only a handful of
> citizens have observed elections in Mendocino County.
>
>
>
> systematic effort to dissuade them from easily viewing the canvass, by
> keeping them at an inordinate distance from canvass workers. They claim
> that at times, visual barriers were placed between themselves and the
> workers, with workers stationed so far away that ballots were unreadable
> from their designated viewing areas.
>
>
>
> *ASK FOR A TOUR*
>
> “Within two minutes of signing in and standing at the tabulating room’s
> observation window, I was approached by Ms. Ranochak. I’d never seen her
> before and she did not introduce herself. She immediately ordered me to
> move further away from the window. I replied that I was a citizen observer,
> and that I was trying to see the ballots being processed. I was told by Ms.
> Ranochak that the blinds to the observation area would be closed if I did
> not move further away,” says Moore. “I stated that it was my understanding
> that I had a right to observe the canvass, and that I was going to sit
> right here in my chair, which I did.”
>
>
>
> “There were times when we were expected to see through the cracks in
> partially-opened blinds,” says Moore.
>
> http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/general-news/20160829/
> primary-concerns-part-2-troubling-challenges
>
> Asked why she kept observers at such a distance from canvass work areas,
> Ranochak indicated two Assessor work stations located near the canvass
> tables.
>
>
>
> Ranochak stated that for security reasons, the observers could not be
> located near those workstations because assessing work demands
> confidentiality. The observers state that Katrina Bartolomei, assistant
> clerk-recorder and assistant registrar of voters, told them that space
> restrictions, and not issues of taxpayer confidentiality, precluded them
> from being in the room, closer to the canvassers.
>
>
>
> IF YOU ARE TOLD TO MOVE OR HAVE YOUR VIEW BLOCKED DUE TO "SECURITY
> REASONS" ASK IF IT ISENT REALLY ABOUT SPACE RESTRICTIONS, LIKE KATRINA
> BARTOLOMEI TOLD OBSERVERS IN JUNE.
>
>
>
> Akin also stated that Ranochak told her that “Observers have no right to
> see ballots being worked on, only the general process.”
>
>
>
> Though state law gives elections officials latitude with regard to running
> their canvass in their own office, the intention of the law seems to favor
> close encounters with canvassers. *Elections Code 15104(d) states,
> “Observers will be permitted access to a designated observations area,
> sufficiently close to enable them to observe and challenge whether
> individuals handling vote-by-mail ballots are following established
> procedures.”*
>
>
>
> *FIND OUT WHAT ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES ARE FOR VOTE BY MAIL PROCESSING*
>
>
>
> The Sacramento County Election Observers Guide states that “Observers may
> get close enough to observe the information on the workstation and the
> reports pertaining to the workstation.”
>
>
>
> Ranochak to justify her decisions regarding their lack of proximity to
> canvassers was *California Elections Code 14291,* *which states, “After
> the ballot is marked, a voter shall not show it to any person in such a way
> as to reveal its contents.”*
>
>
>
> However, Lisette Mata, deputy secretary of state for special projects,
> disagrees with Ranochak’s view. Asked if this statute applied to the voter
> observation process, Mata asserted it does not. According to Mata, “That
> code section refers to Election Day procedures at the polls.”
>
>
>
> The Sacramento County Voter Observer Guide takes a clear but lighthearted
> approach, stating “If staff can hear you breathe, back up. You’re too
> close.” It is clear through researching other county policies that voter
> observers are not only allowed in the room with canvassers, but are
> expected to be standing directly behind them, so that they can easily tally
> votes and observe the canvass in real time.
>
>
>
> SANDERS CAMPAIGN VOTER OBSERVATION INSTRUCTIONS
>
>
>
> Ranochak acknowledged however, that the observers never identified
> themselves as Sanders supporters. “No, they did not. They were not (pause),
> but I guess he ran a grass roots campaign. There was a loose organization
> in each county. They were passing out information to them and over the
> Internet to do this. The questions that I was being asked, they were
> concerned about how ballots were going to be tabulated, which they watched,
> whether ballots were being rejected for any reason,* which we very seldom
> do,*” she explained.
>
>
>
> PROVISIONAL BALLOTS
>
>
>
> “We asked and were specifically told by Sue Ranochak that we couldn’t
> observe the processing of provisional ballots because there was personal
> information on the outside envelope of those ballots,” says Akin. Voters
> using a provisional ballot fill out information on a unique outer envelope,
> which includes their name, address, birth date and either the last four
> digits of their Social Security number or their California Driver’s License
> number.
>
> Ranochak insists it is a violation of both state and federal law to view
> personal information on provisional ballots, and that this was explained to
> observers numerous times. “Typically, Katrina goes through this with them.
> We have copies of the guidelines here, if they want them.”
>
>
>
> To explain her interpretation of this decision, Ranochak provided a page
> from the *Help America Vote Act, or HAVA. She cited section 15482-
> Provisional Voting and Voting Information Requirements, highlighting one
> sentence: “Access to information about an individual provisional ballot
> shall be restricted to the individual who cast the ballot.”*
>
>
>
> A search of the entire HAVA document did not result in the revelation of
> specific rulings regarding an observer’s right to view provisional ballots.
> The previous portions of the statute Ranochak cited refer to the
> establishment of “a free access system that any individual who casts a
> provisional ballot may access to discover whether the vote of that
> individual was counted.” The specific sentence Ranochak cites refers to
> establishing the confidentiality of this free access system, and does not,
> as she states, address any federal laws regarding voter observation
> processes.
>
>  Elections Code section 15350 provides that provisional ballots shall be
> processed and counted “in the same manner as vote-by-mail ballots.”
>
>
>
> Lisette Mata states that though counties have the ability to set up
> individualized processes to verify signatures and count ballots, *Elections
> Code section 15350 provides that provisional ballots shall be processed and
> counted “in the same manner as vote-by-mail ballots.”*
>
>
>
> Mata also stated that Elections Code 15104, noted earlier, upholds the
> right of observers to view the processing of provisional ballots.
> Sacramento County clearly addresses the presumption and the likelihood that
> observers might view personal information by stating that “Observers may
> take notes during the process, but may not record any voter’s personal
> identifying or contact information,” adding that “The Registrar of Voters
> reserves the right to read an observer’s notes prior to exiting the
> building.”
>
>
>
> WHAT TO LOOK FOR
>
>
>
> The observers also saw numbers of *opened provisional ballots which had
> been bundled together with what appeared to be unprocessed provisional
> ballots.* Regarding opened provisional ballots, Mata cited *Elections
> Code 3019(g), stating “A ballot shall not be removed from its
> identification envelope until the time for processing ballots. A ballot
> shall not be rejected for cause after the identification envelope has been
> opened.*
>
>
>
>
> *http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/general-news/20160830/primary-concerns-part-iii-loose-talk-in-the-office-and-no-invitations-to-the-parties*
> <http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/general-news/20160830/primary-concerns-part-iii-loose-talk-in-the-office-and-no-invitations-to-the-parties>
>
>
>
>  Ms. Ranochak said to us was, ‘I can ask you to leave, even if you are not
> a distraction to the process,’” says Akin.
>
> According to California Government Code section 12172.5, all California
> counties are required to create an Election Observer Panel event. Each
> county is required to develop an Election Observer Panel Plan that provides
> people with the opportunity to observe local elections processes.
>
>
>
> Mendocino County’s plan states it will “Provide the public with the
> opportunity to observe and make suggestions on ways to improve the election
> process, to help ensure the integrity of the election process and remove
> some of the mystery associated with the election process, in an effort to
> build voter confidence and encourage more people to take part.”
>
>
>
> It continues by stating that observers may “view absentee and provisional
> ballot processing, make notes and watch all procedures.”
>
>
>
> *UDJ Editor KC Meadows*
>
>
>
> Two sources went so far as to intimate that the extra-help canvass workers
> are related to upper-level staff currently employed in the county clerk’s
> office.
>
>
>
> “For years, virtually the same people are hired to work on the canvass. *Mendocino
> County is almost always among the last counties in the state to post
> election results.* It’s not much of a stretch to wonder if these two
> circumstances are connected in some way,” the source continues.
>
>
>
> Despite their frustration, the observers state they are ready to do it
> again in the fall.
>
>
>
> http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/general-news/20160915/
> mendocino-county-assessor-clerk-recorder-questioned-on-
> election-observer-process
>
>
>
> During public comment to the supervisors, the observers alleged they were
> lied to by Ranochak, and said Ranochak threatened one observer with
> intervention by law enforcement.
>
>
>
> Supervisor Dan Gjerde questioned extensively and at times somewhat
> contentiously on why 4th District election numbers took such a long time to
> report – so much so that in June, two coastal newspapers were given the
> inaccurate impression that the coastal voter participation had drastically
> decreased. They based their conclusion on the scant number of votes that
> were reported by Ranochak’s office during the week following the election.
>
>
>
> POINT OUT IF YOUR VIEW IS OBSTRUCTED
>
>
>
> *Alice Chan*, a longtime Sonoma County resident and respected political
> activist, said she attended the meeting because of the previous articles in
> the UDJ.
>
>
>
> *election observation is a right*
>
>
>
> “Aleshanee and I sat in the hallway, waiting for a break to end. We were
> in full view of the office.” They went into the office, asked “When are you
> resuming work?” and were told, “We are done. The process is complete.”
>
>
>
> “We were not given the feeling we could ask questions. We were simply told
> the process was done.”
>
> Moore states she was astonished they were told the canvass was finished.
>
>
>
> “Later, we came to find out, when the UDJ reporter came down and
> determined that* the canvass was not done, that we were lied to.*
>
>
>
> Moore also mentioned the need for a *Voter Observation Panel Process*,
> outlined in previous UDJ articles – an event that is required of all
> counties and which has not been recently convened in Mendocino County.
>
>
>
> Supervisors Dan Hamburg, Gjerde and McCowen, though polite and
> professional, each displayed, in their own way, a degree of frustration
> with Ranochak’s handling of the observer issues and more pointedly, with
> the ongoing problems with slow reporting.
>
>
>
> Hamburg said, “It’s pretty clear to me that a significant segment of the
> public is really interested in this.” He discussed the gap between election
> night reporting and final results, and noted the confusing online language
> which states, “100% of precincts reporting.”
>
>
>
> *SARAH REACH OUT TO HAMBURG*
>
>
>
> Addressing Ranochak, Hamburg said “I beseech you, and everyone involved,
> to try and figure out another way, if it involves a different use of
> physical spaces or if it’s a matter of trying to be more diplomatic with
> each other.
>
> “We don’t have, maybe, the physical setup we need, to do what the law
> requires, but I do think it’s important that these concerns be recognized
> for what they are. These folks really do care, and I really do care, as a
> representative, that people feel we have transparent processes,” Hamburg
> said, adding that he wants to see that Ranochak is “obviously complying,
> not only with the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, which does
> allow election observers a fair amount of latitude.”
>
>
>
> HOLD MCCOWAN TO HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS
>
>
>
> McCowen agreed. “To the extent that there are things we can do that tell
> the observers and the general public that we are adhering to elections code
> mandate –that people have the right to observe the actual ballots, and
> clearly see what decisions are being made, and why, with respect to those
> ballots – that’s the intent of the elections code section.
>
>
>
> “Anything we can do to assure people that we’re fully adhering to that
> would be beneficial. I do not question results reported by the Elections
> Office. We have a history of very meticulous attention to detail,” said
> McCowen, citing two previous, very close supervisors races.
>
>
>
> “Our challenge is to convince observers that it’s a completely open and
> transparent process.” McCowen told Ranochak, “I encourage you to review the
> complaints and see what can be done. I do understand there’s space
> limitations.
>
>
>
> “The separate issue is more timely reporting of results, even if they’re
> not absolutely complete.” He felt that there would be a “big public
> benefit” in weekly elections updates, adding that he would like Ranochak to
> review consolidating precincts.
>
> ###
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161114/94da8eb3/attachment.html>