Pages

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Shennanigans in Attorney General Election - Suspiciously High Number of Provisional Ballots Belie Massive Voter Disenfranchisement

The Secretary of State's website must be getting more hits than its ever seen before, as anxious followers of the Attorney General election log on hourly to get the latest results.


As of  4:14pm today, Friday, November 19, 2010, Kamala Harris holds a seemingly unassailable 43,050 vote advantage as Steve Cooley's election night lead has gradually been chipped away by a record number of "uncounted ballots," often referred to as provisional ballots.

Uncounted ballots arise in four situations:
  • Vote-by-mail ballots handed in at poling places instead of being mailed in,
  • Provisional ballots issued to voters whose name does not appear in the electoral register,
  • Write-in ballots where the written-in name has to be verified, and
  • Ballots damaged or unclear due to failures with the "Ink-A-Dot" system.
Typically, those uncounted ballots do not change an election as they are not numerically significant and tend to follow the general trend of the votes counted. However, in this year's election there were an unprecedentedly high 2,342,664 uncounted ballots statewide and, significantly, 411,960 came from Los Angeles County. Why?

Last night, KRLA 870AM talk show radio host, Kevin James, was the first to report that sources close to the Cooley campaign were focusing their attention on Los Angeles County, where what appears to be a disproportionately large number of uncounted ballots will likely hold the key to this election.

An observer at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office in Norwalk, where the uncounted ballots are being verified, reported seeing some disturbing trends amongst the ballots being processed.

The observer (who spoke on condition of anonymity) said that he saw numerous Provisional Ballots issued to elderly voters who indicated in the "comments" section of the Provisional Ballot Envelope (see below) that they had voted many times in the past, yet their name was "not in Roster."

This is the envelope that has to be fully completed by persons who either
hand in a Vote-By-Mail Ballot, or whose name cannot be found in the roster.
The trend was troubling because, coincidentally, about a month before the election, the observer's mother had asked him why she had not received any information about the election, despite the fact that she was a registered voter and had voted "religiously" many times previously, but she had not received a Sample Ballot and Voter Instructions (see below), as she normally did.

Many elderly voters reported that they
did not receive their Sample Ballots.
 The observer checked his mother's status on the LA County Registrar-Recorder//County Clerk's website: www.lavote.net and found that his mother was not registered to vote. He advised her to go to the local office and register a complaint and insist on being re-instated on the register of voters. He also advised her to obtain some explanation for her removal, however, the mother related that the clerical officer she spoke to could offer no explanation.

There being no earthly reason why a person who votes regularly, indeed, "religiously" should be summarily removed from the register of voters, coupled with the observation that there seemed to be many elderly voters who were in a similar situation, can only lead to a number of possible explanations. A conspiracy to remove elderly voters, who are typically Republicans, or some massive failure by the Registrar-Recorder's computer system leading to the deletion of many elderly voters.

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, so we doubt (hope) that this was not an intentional act. However, the possibility must exist that something like a computer crash corrupted information, and caused the deletion of voter records, and that there was a cover up.

The resulting disenfranchisement of voters must surely cast doubt as to the validity of this election. If indeed many elderly voters were somehow removed from the register of electors, it is highly likely that many may not have persevered to assert their right to vote and gone to a poling place to cast a provisional ballot. Equally, there remains doubt that their provisional ballots will be counted if their records have been expunged and their signatures cannot be verified.

Another troubling trend in this election is that many voters were forced to Vote-By-Mail as, for some unknown reason, there was no poling place for them to vote.

This is not a matter of voters living in some remote area of Los Angeles County, but we know of at least one central Los Angeles area where voters who bothered to check when they failed to receive their Sample Ballots, found this:

The man responsible for administering this election is LA County Registrar-Recorder Dean C. Logan.

LA County Registrar-Recorder, Dean C. Logan was appointed by the LA County Board of Supervisors
despite grave fears as to his abilities following his performance in a similar role in Washington State.
 To say that Logan is a controversial figure is an understatement. He came to Los Angeles from Washington State where his performance as Registrar-Recorder was questioned by Protect California Ballots when he was being considered for appointment by the LA County Board of Supervisors. More recently, the Wall Street Journal posed the pertinent question about Logan "Look Who's Counting Votes in California."

There was a time when elections were "fixed" by phantom voters and union thugs producing ready stuffed ballot boxes to order. Times have changed and perhaps Los Angelenos need to ask some pertinent questions of Mr. Logan as to why so many elderly voters disappeared from the register of voters, and why so many poling places disappeared?

One thing is certain in this election. Whether Steve Cooley is elected as Attorney General or not, he is the one man who will not let this apparent massive voter disenfranchisement go unquestioned. He will find the answers to the questions that need to be asked. If Logan covered up some computer glitch, he will rue the day he accepted that $175,826 salary, as will those on the Board of Supervisors who appointed him.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Cooley Widens Lead - Harris Starts 'Steal The Election' Campaign


Results of votes cast in the November 2, 2010 Mid-Term Election mysteriously disappeared from the Secretary of State's website this evening, as earlier reports showed Attorney General candidate Steve Cooley had a 36,800 vote lead over opponent Kamala Harris.

All election result data vanished from the Secretary of State's website as of 11:20pm on Monday, November 8, 2010
During the course of Monday, November 8, 2010, data gleaned from the Secretary of State indicated the Cooley's lead at one point had fallen to 19,138 votes, but had then rallied to just over 40,000.

Centrist conservative  blog "What Would Reagan Do?" conducted a detailed statistical analysis of uncounted votes and individual county voting trends, and projected that Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley would clinch the election as valid uncounted votes would break in favor of Cooley by  9,119, to add to the lead he originally held.

Some believe the "What Would Reagan Do?" projection to be overly conservative (no pun intended), and that Cooley would win by a much larger margin.

Curiously enough, support for the notion that Cooley's margin of victory could be bigger comes from the liberal democrat blog "Swing State Project," where they have been following the results by individually tabulating reports from all 58 counties. Today they reported that "Kamala Harris is actually down 62,258 votes thanks to a large number of votes of San Diego and Orange Counties."

Significantly, they also commented that "Santa Clara's reported an extra 86k votes since their last update. That means, well, Kamala doesn't stand to gain as much. Revised, we're saying Kamala will gain about 55,000 votes...leaving her about 7,300 short. Hate to pull the roller coaster on y'all, but I'd rather be realistic than unrealistically optimistic."

Further belief in democrat despondency at Harris's failure to capitalize on her "Female Obama" image comes from a panic email sent out via BarackObama.com:
An email from BarackObama.com urges "volunteer" attorneys, law students,
and those with legal knowledgeto "monitor the process," whatever that means.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Harris's panic email has garnered over 1,000 "volunteers" who may, or may not be allowed to observe or monitor the counting process, depending on local rules. 

The Cooley campaign has retained experienced lawyers to monitor the process, and hopefully also keep a watchful eye on the BarackObama.com "volunteers" lest the temptation to "protect the vote" (which some might interpret as politically correct double-speak for "Steal the Election"), proves too much for them.

The results of the Mid-Term Election must be certified by December 3, 2010, and only then will candidates have the opportunity to challenge the results by requesting a recount. There is certainly much cause to suspect irregularities, given that Cooley appeared to poll poorly in Los Angeles County where he had previously bested democrat challengers handsomely three times in District Attorney elections.