Reply #24: A Response to All of Your Points

[autorank]

Your election law says::
NC State Law
§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.
(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.

I think that we should both call for a complete recount of District 8 regardless of legal requirements or other factors given what’s come up and what is discussed below. The state has “discretionary recounts” – this is the time. I’ll respond to all of your comments.

YOU COMMENT:
Some of the information for this article may have come from this website: The Mysterious Mecklenburg Undervote of 2006 In the November 2, 2006 election, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina had several very close results in both national and state races...http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06 / The website info was put together by Vinod Thomas, an observer for the Larry Kissell campaign. (This is very interesting)

None of the information in the article came from that web site. This is the first time I’ve seen it. Thanks. You say that since it came from an observer in the Kissell campaign, “(This is interesting)” as though there is some problem with that. Most everyone on DU is a Democrat (and I presume you are). Does that somehow disqualify them/us from making value comments on elections?

YOU COMMENT:
However, an examination of the data at the Mecklenburg County BOE website shows: the Mecklenburg County undervote was 4%. 150,952 of 157,252 voters, or 95.99%, cast a vote for a US Representative. Isn't that normal, more or less? From the summary http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html

Ii linked the three congressional races individually as reported on the Mecklenburg Board web site and I also show screen shots of those individual sites here. For each of the three races, there’s a figure for Voter turnout and then the Republican and Democratic candidate. That’s where the difference comes from. Here are the links to the Mecklenburg Board of Elections web sites for each race with the figures below 8th Dist. Results 9th Dist. Results 12th Dist. Results Please note this statement on the District 8 web page: “Contains Information for: Absentee by Mail, Early Voting, Election Day Machine, Provisional, Curb Side Results shown in this multi-county race are votes cast in Mecklenburg County only.” Seems clear to me, the voter turnout and vote totals for the candidates (and difference/undrevote) is vouched for by this statement.

Summary from the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections Links listed above:


Now, if they are telling people that they were not serious or accurate about the 19297 voter turnout figure and the 16,088 combined votes for Democrat Kissell and Republican Hayes, my response is that’s a reason to question everything. Here are the screen shots: Screen Shots of Districts 8, 9, 12 Mecklenburg

If there is some vote incorporation process where absentees get allocated arbitrarily, my response is that’s another reason to question everything. In San Diego, California 50th, there was an allocation of absentees in a way that made no sense. The ballots were not assigned to precincts weeks after the election. They lost any claim to validity. Same here.

I’m happy and justified to use their published figures until they open the whole operation up for a forensic examination…of everything. Otherwise, their race by race figures for Turnout stand and the undrevote/difference comes from the chart above. Presenting contradictory evidence is a sign of serious problems. The Board can’t give with the hand of individual reporting showing major differences between vote totals and turnout and take away with the other of cryptic reconciliation that makes no sense. The results are competently produced or they are suspect. And, of course, these are touch screens. For all anybody knows, they’re off in all different directions and there’s no way for us to tell.

If the county changes it’s reporting and numbers on their official report, they I’ll have to write a different article “County Changes Results in NC 8th. Which Numbers Can We Believe? .

YOU COMMENT:
Meanwhile - A few things not covered in the article. 1. NC has a different version iVotronic than Sarasota, and it has a "paper trail". 2. Larry Kissell (D) requested and obtained a manual recount of the VVPAT in Mecklenburg County. Larry Kissell's attorneys and observers were there, and reporters were there. In spite of what some say, at least some voters do check their paper printout, regardless of what others say. I know because I hear from people. The State Board of Elections advised me that - "instructions were also included (page 13) in the four million voter guides" (instructions on how to verify the vote on the iVotronic)

1. FL-NC “different versions” - I refer to the iVotronics as the “same class” of touch screens. I also say “North Carolina requires a paper trail for touch screen voting machines” and clearly indicate that Florida does not. This covers the difference that we see. Since we the source code is not open for examination, we can’t know how close the software is, although they’re both touch screens and both called iVotronicss. Same vendor, same brand, same functionality, one has a printer. , one doesn’t which was covered in the article. Would be nice to see the source code?

With regard to the recount, I produced the relevant section of your state law on recounts below. I have text and a link below.. He got an initial recount, which qualified him for a 3% “hand to eye” recount. Of course, there’s nothing to count on the touch screens, no ballots. I’m surprised you’re defending touch screens so adamantly. I thought you were a big optical scan fan and in favor of having those at 100% (the AccuVote right?). “End user” quality assurance, relying on voters actually checking their ballots thoroughly is not an accepted method of quality assurance. It’s part of it but tertiary. Primary and secondary QA is by the maker and customer through thorough testing. We just saw today that discredited (by the EAC) Ciber (with Wiley) had a role in approving Sarasota’s machines. Who tested Mecklenburg’s? .The paper receipts are not a fool proof test.

YOU COMMENT:
3. Carrie Levine, reporter for the Charlotte Observer stated that she observed
the recount and that it did follow protocol and the law completely. Levine answered my many questions thoroughly, because I had so many doubts. (I had heard doubts from an observer).clavinet @ charlotteobserver.com Levine, who has done some good writing on election issues was adamant that the paper was recounted as the law orders. Levine advised that the "paper trail" was extremely difficult to recount, because the iVotronic doesn't print a summary, but prints everything, and it takes longer to find the final selection in a contest. Counters had to go back and count some ballots several times because they were very very hard to read.

The reporter points out problems with the machines. Clearly they’re not user friendly for auditing and recounts. With regard to the statement that the county, as you say, “follow protocol and the law completely,” in every precinct, one reporter’s observations cannot support that district wide assertion. I don’t doubt that you “hear” from people but a formal system of checking is needed. Mecklenburg is no different than other places.

In 2004, the Voter Protection team from Duke found there were significant problems
.



Duke Voter Protection Team Report 2004

YOU COMMENT:
4. The Scoop article says that NC 08 was a stronghold for Larry Kissell,(DEM). How can the NC 08th be a stronghold for Larry Kissell, considering that Kissell is a high school social studies teacher and former textiles worker who never ran for office before, and who did not get serious backing from the democratic party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kissell

I make the statement simply on the numbers. Kissell won the Mecklenburg part of the 8th by 68% to 32% (see above). That’s what you’d call a stronghold I suspect his working class background as a textile worker and current work as a teacher helped him. Sounds like John Edwards a bit. But 68-32%, wow, those are some numbers.

YOU COMMENT:
Kissell's opponent, Robin Hayes (R) is also the incumbent, and has held the seat since 1999. Before that, Hayes served two terms in the NC House of Reps. Hayes was the GOP nominee for Governor in 1996. Kissell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hayes

Here’s how Hayes is described: Charles Cook, an even handed, long time political analyst, described the 8th as a split personality district – ½ Republican and ½ Democrat. He described Hayes as holding on rather than a powerhouse candidate. Incumbency isn’t what made him strong, it’s what allowed him to survive by a thread, if we believe the count. Here is Hayes latest comment from the Charlotte Observer “A weekly newspaper in Concord, Hayes’ hometown, quoted the congressman this week as saying that stability in Iraq ultimately depends on “spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men.” Hayes was speaking to the Concord Rotary Club. Guess being rich doesn’t make you smart (Hayes is an heir to a large textile fortune).

YOU COMMENT
Kissell did not get support from the Democratic Party: Dismissal of Kissell backfires. When Kissell called the Democratic bigwigs in Washington asking for a little help with his congressional campaign, he couldn't get his telephone calls returned, said Thomas Mills, one of Kissell's consultants. With little help from Washington, Kissell was outspent roughly 8-to-1 by Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes. http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/517366.html

Good point. I wish he had received more support but I’m not questioning Dean and Emanuel on this issue. They knocked it out of the park. At the same time, that action has little to do with the counting and reporting, the missing ballots or undervotes.

YOU COMMENT:
5. Incorrect ballots were given out in split precincts, and probably did impact the NC 08 contest to a degree. -"446 wrongly voted in razor-thin Black race Poll workers blamed; speaker stands to gain. Charlotte Observer, NC - Nov 15, 2006 Hundreds of voters who don't live in N.C. House Speaker Jim Black's district improperly cast ballots in the tight race, Mecklenburg election officials said Tuesday http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16014781.htm Additionally, NC has early voting, and this is another grand opportunity to give a lot of voters the wrong ballots.
Mecklenburg County would have at least 80 different ballot styles to offer at each early voting site. (About 1/3 of all ballots are cast early).

I read about of those incidents in that article. The problem is we can’t know what the impact of this was without a full forensic evaluation of Mecklenburg County. Are you saying that this system failure resulted in foul-ups in the allocation of ballots etc., etc. ? Why would the same Board of Elections be able to conduct a recount in full compliance of the law, as you said above, when the material recounted was jumbled up by the way they ran the precinct organization. Why would the same board that did this be able to handle touch screens that are, well, touchy? This does speak to systemic problems there and it also shows why the allocation of these and any other absentees is in question. That’s why I used the figures for each race as reported by the board. That’s where we start. .

YOU COMMENT:
6. Larry Kissell conceded halfway through the recount. Mecklenburg was the 5th of 10 counties to be recounted. Kissell concedes defeat News 14 Carolina, NC – CHARLOTTE With defeat appearing inevitable, Larry Kissell conceded Wednesday to GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in the state's 8th Congressional District, ending one of the nation's last unresolved races for a seat in the U.S. House. 5 of the remaining counties had not done a recount http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=95335&Sec...

Francine Busby conceded on election night on advice of a DC political consultant. Was that a good idea? No, because there were 10’s of thousands of uncounted ballots. Whether or not Kissel should have conceded has nothing to do with whether or not he won or lost. It’s the public right to now that those taking office were actually elected. The recount should have continued to protect the public.

YOU COMMENT:
If anyone would like to research this matter more fully, that would be great. But I am unable to confirm dishonesty in the vote counting teams that worked in Mecklenburg County.

There is nothing in the article about “dishonesty” or fraud. I used the same term Jennings and her attorney use regarding Florida’s 13th, voting “machine malfunction.” The issue centers on looking at the contradictory procedures and report and demanding a full accounting here or anywhere else the government can't convince us there's been a free and fair election.

END


===============================

Appendix: State Law Section and Articles

As you point out above, there are problems in Mecklenburg like all areas where there is electronic voting.

Problems with Mecklenburg County
Election Day 2004
http://www.flcv.com/Mecklen.html

From VoteLaw
http://tinyurl.com/y52er3
More on the Mecklenburg County decision to cut funds for Sunday voting sites
The Charlotte Observer reports: Mecklenburg County commissioners may reverse a controversial attempt to stop Sunday voting that prompted outrage from Democrats and accusations of voter suppression on Wednesday.

Commissioners Chairman Tom Cox has called a special meeting for Friday afternoon to reconsider a party-line vote from Tuesday night's meeting. Led by Republicans, the commissioners voted 5-3 not to accept a state grant for early voting because local elections officials planned to use part of the money for voting this Sunday.
Voting will happen Sunday as scheduled at four libraries and the Board of Elections. Elections director Michael Dickerson said his office will appropriate other funds until the commissioners make a final decision.

Tuesday's action has sparked a partisan, racially charged debate and interrupted the plans of many groups -- including several black churches -- for a "Souls to the Polls" effort after services on Sunday. -- Board rethinks Sunday voting (Charlotte Observer)
This article contains more details than the article I carried yesterday.
Posted by Ed on October 21, 2004 07:01 AM | Permalink


446 wrongly voted in razor-thin Black race Poll workers blamed; speaker stands to gain http://tinyurl.com/y38bn6
CARRIE LEVINE 11/15/06
[email protected]
Hundreds of voters who don't live in N.C. House Speaker Jim Black's district improperly cast ballots in the tight race, Mecklenburg election officials said Tuesday.
The news throws the already too-close-to-call race -- and the future of one of the state's most prominent politicians -- into more doubt. Election workers at a southeast Charlotte precinct that straddles two districts gave the wrong ballots to 446 voters, wrongly allowing them to vote in the Jim Black-Hal Jordan race.
Election officials said there's no way to separate the 105 votes correctly cast Nov. 7 at McClintock Middle School from the improperly cast ballots, and the tainted results could force a new election.
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=130408

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2005=
SESSION LAW 2005-323
SENATE BILL 223

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S223v7.html

§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.
(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.
(b) Mandatory Recounts for Ballot Items Within the Jurisdiction of the County Board of Elections. – In a ballot item within the jurisdiction of the county board of elections, a candidate shall have the right to demand a recount of the votes if the difference between the votes for that candidate and the votes for a prevailing candidate is not more than one percent (1%) of the total votes cast in the ballot item, or in the case of a multiseat ballot item not more than one percent (1%) of the votes cast for those two candidates. The demand for a recount must be made in writing and must be received by the county board of elections by 5:00 P.M. on the first day after the canvass. The recount shall be conducted under the supervision of the county board of elections.
(c) Mandatory Recounts for Ballot Items Within the Jurisdiction of the State Board of Elections. – In a ballot item within the jurisdiction of the State Board of Elections, a candidate shall have the right to demand a recount of the votes if the difference between the votes for that candidate and the votes for a prevailing candidate are not more than the following:
(1) For a nonstatewide ballot item, one percent (1%) of the total votes cast in the ballot item, or in the case of a multiseat ballot item, one percent (1%) of the votes cast for
§ 163 182.7A. Additional provisions for hand to eye recounts.
(a) The rules promulgated by the State Board of Elections for recounts shall provide that if the initial recount is not hand to eye, and if the recount does not reverse the results, the candidate who had originally been entitled to a recount may, within 24 hours of the completion of the first recount, demand a second recount on a hand to eye basis in a sample of precincts. If the initial recount was not hand to eye and it reversed the results, the candidate who had initially been the winner shall have the same right to ask for a hand to eye recount in a sample of precincts.
That sample shall be all the ballots in three percent (3%) of the precincts casting ballots in each county in the jurisdiction of the office, rounded up to the next whole number of precincts. For the purpose of that calculation, each one stop (early) voting site shall be considered to be a precinct. The precincts to be recounted by a hand to eye count shall be chosen at random within each county.If the results of the hand to eye recount differ from the previous results within those precincts to the extent that extrapolating the amount of the change to the entire jurisdiction (based on the proportion of ballots recounted to the total votes cast for that office) would result in the reversing of the results, then the State Board of Elections shall order a hand to eye recount of the entire jurisdiction in which the election is held. There shall be no cost to the candidate for that recount in the entire jurisdiction.
(b) Recounts under this section shall be governed by rules adopted under G.S. 163 182.7(d).
(c) No complete hand to eye recount shall be conducted under this section if one has already been done under another provision of law."