“Dick In A Box” Nominated for Emmy  |   Home  |   Gig ‘Em, Mike

Rules are for Suckers

Wow.  Check out how sloppily and illegally the Milwaukee election officials handled the ballots in last year’s election.

 

Kudos to John Washburn and Nick for their excellent watchdog work.

Posted by Owen at 2052 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Kudos belong to John on this one… I only helped for a couple hours with editing.  He’s the one who’s been on this like a rabid dog for more than two years.

   Posted by Nick on July 19, 2007 at 2146 hrs
   
   
   

2. Did y’all not hand this over to the elections commission?  Or the media??

   Posted by Mpeterson on July 19, 2007 at 2227 hrs
   
   
   

3. Unbelievable, whoever filmed this did such a poor job that I doubt any of this can be used.  Suggestion for the future, when monitoring elections and there are obvious mistakes being made due to incompetence, do not confront the workers and make the situation worse by handling election materials, pestering the workers, and getting in the way.  The city can now claim the workers were being harassed and that is why the mistakes were being made in the chaos this guy was causing.  That is would claim. 

   Next time just observe and document.  Then bring the evidence to the city.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2007 at 0835 hrs
   
   
   

4. I did bring this to the city.  I reported it to Neil Albrecht that very night.

   The items on the tape are not isolated instances nor are they confined to the City of Milwaukee.

   On both November 2, 2004 and April 5, 2005 for Germantown District #1 the optical scanner had a similar software fault as on the video.  The number of ballots cast as reported by the machine did not match the number of ballots given to voters according to the poll lists. In both cases the election officials positively identified the discrepancy as an error in the machines ability to count.  Locked in the ballot box beneath the scanner were the 3426 ballots the poll list stated were handed to electors not the 3415 total ballots the scanner claimed to have scanned.  But after proving the easiest number for the machine to count (how many pieces of paper went under the scanner lights) was absolutely, positively incorrect, the municipal clerk in boths cases then accepted every other number on the poll tape as if it were correct.

   I reported the illegal poll worker for Milwaukee city ward 13, from the February 15, 2005 election to the city election commission in writing in March 2005, the Wisconsin State Elections Board, and Officer Saxton of the joint task force.

   I saw the same failure to reconcile the number of ballots cast (as reported by the machine) to number ballots distributed (as reported by the poll books) in the April 5, 2005 election for ward 188/189.  I told the Election Commission of this in writing at that time.

   In city ward 181 for the November 2, 2006, voted ballots were not secured and this fact was not discovered until three months later during the first ever random audit.  During that meeting Mr. Albrecht explained to the staff of the state election board about a fascinating extra-legal entity called the “stray ballot bag”. It is the bag into which all the “stray ballots” are put.  Stray ballots are voted ballots marked by electors which are found in voting machines bins by the county warehousing personnel as the voting machines are broken down for storage.

   This recurring mis-canvassing of elections is part of my complaint before the Wisconsin State Election Board which has been on hold for two years because the City Election Commission hid the records with the Joint Task Force.

   What more would you suggest I do? 

   I taped because all of these prior incidents slip into the quietly into the dark waters of officialdom without a ripple.  Then those same official publicly proclaim: “There is no evidence of problems with the machines or the canvassing.  Move along, Citizen, there is nothing to see here.” 

   I refuse to “move along”

   Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 0930 hrs
   
   
   

5. A few points.  Video says “Cudahy YMCA.”  That could be clarified that it is not the Y in Cudahy but the one in northwest Milwaukee. 

   Appreciate this effort—and that you are looking at election procedures beyond the city of Milwaukee.  Your experience suggests, as we can guess, that problems can occur anywhere.  It’s what then is done or not done about them—and it would be worthwhile to organize others to follow your same procedure in several municipalities in several counties to see if that may need to be a significant focus of fixing this sort of problem.

   That is, the focus on voter ID may be ineffective, if the focus needs to be—or at least to include—pollworkers’ procedures.

   Btw, could you clarify what a pollworker is to do if a machine jams during the day from too many ballots?  Not get into the box, not allow it to be used again or opened until 8 p.m., etc.?  What about those wards where many machines malfunctioned?  If so, what are we the voters to do to ensure that ballots are not compromised—but also that we get to vote?  Thanks.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2007 at 1054 hrs
   
   
   

6. As I understand the procedures, if the ballot bin under the scanner gets too full the ballots are to be transfered to another secured box.  I would hope one with a lock; preferably one which requires two keys to open.  Blue bags with zippers which are lying about on a table seems insufficiant to me.

   If the box needs to be opened, it should only be opened in the presence multiple inspectors and the opening of the box and transfer of ballots should be noted in the inspectors’ report.  (I will get a copy of the inspectors’ reports for those three wards).

   BTW, given he depth of the bin beneath I find it hard to believe 576 ballots stack so high as to case the 577 ballot to jam.  But I was not there, so if jams are an issue, that is my amatuer opinion on how to clear the jam.

   My main problem is the bovine sense of curiousity here.

   The first step in a canvass of votes is to reconcile the numbers.  But, as the video shows one of those numbers (the number ballots cast in to the box) is unavailable or more precisely two conflicting numbers are available.  Two values for the count is the same no value for the count.  You don’t know how many ballots were cast into the box.

   When the machine can’t count, I believe the proper procedure is to find out the true count for youself. The Germantown pollworkers did this twice.  They hand counted the number of ballots found in the locked box and proved the machine failed to count the number of ballots cast correctly.  Once the Germantown inspectors proved the total count was incorrect, they then accepted every other number on the poll report tape as if it were correct.  The calculation of the other numbers such as: Total Votes for John Doe, is considerably more complicated than the simple number of how many pieces of paper went past this sensor. 

   They proved the simple number was incorrect, but accepted the complicated numbers as if they were true.

   I disagree with this last part.  My interpretation of 7.51(2)(h) is that at this point the presumtion of correctness of the paper report created by the machine has been fatally pierced.  The ballots must be counted by hand because the machine has obviously and clearly faulted and any report it generates is worthless.

   But, as my village clerk has right pointed out to me, it is not for me to tell her how to run the election or to interpret election law for her.  It is the job of the WI State Elections Board (soon to be the job of the Government Accountability Board) to tell her what to do when the machine makes such an obvious fault. 

   To date the staff of the SEB has failed to promulgate and rules or guidelines to the clerks on this matter.  I am going to press the new government accountability board to provide election officials with guidelines of how to obey 7.51(2)(h).

   Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 1328 hrs
   
   
   

7. That is incredibly detailed, thoughtful, and helpful—thanks.  It tells me, when I go to the polls, to look around for secured boxes, bags, etc., or if they’re not secured, to ask why.  (That’s because I go to one of the busiest polling places around, and I bet that in big elections, they have to empty the bins . . . so it’s entirely possible that our couple of machines have to handle thousands of votes.  Plus, if they’re like copiers, they do jam sideways or in other odd configurations that could mean one piece of paper blocking others, even if the bin isn’t full, etc.)

   However, I have no idea what you mean by “bovine curiousity.”  Maybe I’m supposed to be insulted.  But since you replied so civilly and fully, I prefer to think you need to look up that adjective. . . .

   I do wish I had suggestions on how to get attention to this.  Heck, once I’ve been civil with middle managers and get nowhere, I go to the top.  Send a copy to Mayor Barrett (or email the URL)—or get it past a staffer and into his hands by checking his calendar.  He’s out and about the city almost daily, last time I looked at it.  And then it’s in public, and you have witnesses, perhaps including the press (the JS rarely covers his out-and-abouts, but community papers do), that you did so.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2007 at 1432 hrs
   
   
   

8. bovine = of or related to cows.

   I was refering to the lack of interest by the chief inspector in the machine miscounting by counting differerently on the two separate counters.  There was not even a call downtown to ask what to do.  I just don’t get that.

   On the illegal poll worker the canvassing of ward 188/189, I have spoken and written directly to Ms. Edman, director of the city election commission. Neil Albrecht is the second in command at the election commission.  I am a regular at the WI SEB meetings.  The WI SEB meeting this week is probably the third I have missed in 2 years.  I gave a copy of this video to John Savage the chairman of SEB at the May 16, 2007 meeting.  Following the correct suggestion of my village clerk, I have spoken to the SEB legal council as to when 7.51(2)(h) comes in to play and the machine-generated numbers are to be distrusted?

   How much more to the top do I go?

   Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 1609 hrs
   
   
   

9. If you’re all so concerned about clean elections, VOLUNTEER to work the fourteen + hours on election day.  It’s lots of fun, especially when you’re closing up and some idiot keeps saying “i’m not supposed to interfer, I’m not supposed to interfer” and keeps interferring.

   Working at the polling place is so damn easy, any dope can do it, right?  I’ve worked at my polling place in every election since November 1984.  It’s long, tedious, monotonous, boring. Perfect work for someone with a lot of time on their hands (get my drift, bonzo?)

   In one February primary, 9 voters showed up.  Maybe we should appoint local offcials instead. Is that what you want?
   If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, so in February 2008 Presidential primary, put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to work at the polling place-OR-quit complaining.

   And don’t claim you can’t get off from work—THAT’S ILLEGAL!

   OR-move back to Texas since you like it so much.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2007 at 1812 hrs
   
   
   

10. I agree. Volunteer to work the polls.  Do this by contacting the Rebublican or Democratic party chairman of you county.  Do not contact the municipal clerk.

    I am a trained volunteer for Germantown District #1.  I have never been asked to serve yet, but I keep volunteering.  This is because I am a non-partisan volunteer and the village clerk has sufficient volunteers who have been nominated by the Democratic and Republican chairs of Washington County.  Party-nominated poll workers must be given staffing positions in preference to non-partisan volunteers or municipal employees.  This is preferential staffing requirement is found in WI Stats. 7.30(2)(a).

    If you want the day off it is like jury duty and the statute is WI Stats. 7.33(3).  You must give your employere a week’s notice and you must be able to provide proof of service from the municpal eleciton official. 

    Your employer is not required to make this a paid day.  Ask first.  My prior employer stated they would make day paid time off and to account for the time as ‘Jury Duty’.  My current employer says I must accrue the time as ‘vacation’.

    As for recruiting volunteers to work the polls, I was the state coordinator for a group called Poll Workers for Democracy, which was specifically targeting people in the 25-45 democraphic to volunteer as a poll worker for both the September and november 2006 elections.

    I like to think I do more than complain.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 2023 hrs
    
    
    

11. I was not aware that poll workers were nominated by parties.  Couldn’t that cause some conflict of interest issues?  Or is it to keep things even?  In that case, do they allow nominees from third party groups?  Pardon my ignorance, my husband is more into the inner workings of politics.

    Posted by Shana on July 20, 2007 at 2139 hrs
    
    
    

12. Poll workers are appointed by the parties who attained the requisite vote tally in the previous election.  If a 3rd party gets enough votes, they get to appoint poll workers too.  Te goal is to make sure that members of all significant parities monitor the election in an equal manner.

    Posted by Owen on July 20, 2007 at 2159 hrs
    
    
    

13. I can see that to a degree, but I would think it could cause issues, especially in cases like this where a few people want the vote to go a certain way.

    Posted by Shana on July 20, 2007 at 2201 hrs
    
    
    

14. For populating polling sites it is only Democrates and Republicans parties allowed at the moment.  The requisite number is defined as the top two vote getters in the last state-wide partisan race (Governor, US President, or US Senate).

    The next cut off that I know of is 10% for nomination to the WI SEB.  That is why the Libertarian state party chairman was able to nominate a member of the WI SEB for the last two years.  The term begun by the Ed Thompson campaign ended this summer.

    The next cut off I know off is 1%.  This gets your party ballot status and voters can vote a straight party ticket for you.  The parties are ordered by vote totals.  This list is currently: Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Consitution.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 2215 hrs
    
    
    

15. Wow, Constitution Party actually made it on?  Good for them.  It seems as though third party groups might actually be making some leeway finally.  One can hope anyway

    Thanks for the info.

    Posted by Shana on July 20, 2007 at 2217 hrs
    
    
    

16. As for bias, no getting around it. Elections are political and about power. 

    If I had my druthers, I would prefer to have reps from all five political parties.  I trust the results from arising from an atmosphere of mutual distrust where the only common ground is running a straight election.

    Imagine Consties watching Libs watching Repubs, watching Dems, watching Greens watching Consties. 

    Imagine. It’s not hard if you try.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 2229 hrs
    
    
    

17. My reference on the palitical parties was the Wisconsin Blue book Chapter 9.  Something is tickling the back of my memory that only parties with ballot status have their platforms published in the blue book.

    Also those five parties are listed on this State Elections Board page.

    But, I must admit other links I found claim the Constitution party lost their ballot status in Wisconsin.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 20, 2007 at 2306 hrs
    
    
    

18. I find it very telling that you refuse to address the point that you were interferring with the canvass, as you clearly were.  And if you weren’t so selective as to which election laws you reference, you would know that only Democrats and Republicans are appointed, which exceptions for non-partisan inspectors.

    The “Constitution Party”? A bunch of right wing kooks.  I had to laugh when I was on the bus the other day and some grumpy old fart got on at the Sentry store wearing a Constitution party button.  Those crackpots are against public transportation (and a whole lot else).  So dream on.

    If the right-wingers of the past had won the American Revolutionary War, our enemy would have won.  That’s right: Rightwing=enemy 1776.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2007 at 1652 hrs
    
    
    

19. Wow, Marc, real grown-up there.  Just because you don’t believe in the same things that the Constitution party does, doesn’t mean they’re all kooks.

    Posted by Shana on July 21, 2007 at 2243 hrs
    
    
    

20. I only cited the statutes I thought were broken.  Which were:

    1) Failing to check for write-in ballots which the machine missed.
    2) Signing affidavitts prior to their completion.
    3) Not determining the number of ballots cast in the election.
    4) Adjourning the canvass to a non-disclosed location (WI Stats. 7.41)
    5) Not securing the ballots.

    As for staffing the polls the statute (7.30) is very clear.

    Polls must be staffed with partisan nominees in preference to all other applicants. 
    If there are not enough partisan nominees, then, and only then, may the municipal clerk use non-partisan volunteers. 
    If there is still a staffing short fall, then municipal employees may be used.

    The other staffing consideration is that the poll workers should live within the same ward where they work, But, if needed the municipal clerk can shuffle party nominees, non-partisan volunteers or municipal employees to other wards within the municipality.

    If you doubt me call the Diane Lowe of the Wisconsin State Elections Board.

    The pollworker I cited from ward 13 of the City of Milwaukee from the February 15, 2005 election lived in City of South Milwaukee.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 22, 2007 at 2048 hrs
    
    
    

21. As a chief inspector, I don’t need a lecture from you on 7.30.
    And sorry about describing the “Constitution Party” as a bunch of right wing kooks.
    In their national platform, they propose going back to paper ballots that are manually counted.
    They want electors to vote for members of the electoral college, NOT presidential candidates.
    They want to abolish popular election of senators.
    They specifically do not want DC and Puerto Rico to become states.
    Oppose calling for Constitutional Conventions (even though this is legal under the Constitution)
    In Wisconsin, the want 72 state senators, each elected by the county board of each county, to be paid by the county.
    And get this: They support a strong defense yet oppose conscription—what some of my rightwing friends would otherwise call the freeloader effect.  I call it having your cake three times a day and expecting not to gain any weight effect. In other words, you live in FANTASY LAND!

    Someone needs to welcome the “Constitution Party” to the 21st Century. How about it, Shana!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2007 at 0634 hrs
    
    
    

22. As chief inspector do you ask the clerk to follow WI Stats. 7.30? 

    Because when the chief inspector from Milwaukee City ward 13 (in the February 15, 2005 election) did just that she was told by people in room 501 to mind her own business and continue to use the illegal (non-resident) poll worker. 

    That has to have a “chilling effect” on chief inspectors when it comes to fulfilling their duties.  Chief Inspectors are given the responsibility to see that everything runs smoothly and correctly.  That is why I agree with the near dictatorial power which statute grants to Chief Inspectors for 15-18 hours.  The chief inspector needs such power in order to fulfill those responsibilities.  Responsibility and authority need to be equal.

    Posted by John Washburn on July 23, 2007 at 0719 hrs
    
    
    

23. A Chief Inspector is the person in charge of the polling station; thus, the Chief inspector is supposed to “lay down the law”.

    I’ve had to do it many times when I’ve seen a poll worker act inappropriately, though the person is not behaving as such on purpose.

    Most poll worker are new, and are not familiar with procedures, and training is largely meaningless, since elections don’t occur on a frequent enough basis to develop a work pattern or habit.

    A Chief Inspector must be confident enough to discreetly point out incorrect patterns, or address the entire group of poll workers on procedure if necessary.

    If a poll worker, or anyone else told me to “mind my own business”, well it is MY BUSINESS and I wouldn’t get into a discussion; I’d call the city clerk—that’s why we are furnished with cell phones.

    If I am not familiar with a procedure, same thing, I call the clerk, I don’t make people wait for me to locate a statute in the book.

    I take my position as Chief Inspector seriously and believe that voters deserve nothing less than prompt, courteous service from us. Otherwise, we shouldn’t be serving.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2007 at 0808 hrs
    
    
    

24. Okay, so the Constitution Party wants to do things a little different, perhaps old fashioned.  That makes them kooks?  Most of the stuff you have issues with them on is peanuts compared to what the Republican and Democratic Parties want to and are doing.  At least I know where the Constitution Party stands, because they’ve been fairly consistent.

    And by the way, I’m not a member of that or any other party, so don’t try to lump me in with any particular group.  You’re sorely mistaken if you assume that about me.

    Posted by Shana on July 23, 2007 at 1006 hrs
    
    
    

25. Seeing as my original point was basically ignored and turned into a rant about the Constitution Party, I will make it again.

    1. There were obvious problems with the way the election was being conducted at the ward.
    2. Whoever was videotaping, took it upon themselves to confront the election workers.
    3. As a result, the videotaper caused as much chaos as he was observing.
    4. He has now caused the problems to be dismissed by the city as being caused by himself.

    Next time just observe, do not interject your self.  All you are going to do is allow the other side to accuse you of causing the problems. You could have released the tape without interjecting yourself into the situation.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2007 at 1634 hrs
    
    
    

26. Just a thought John: What do you think would have happened if a “bunch of black people” from Milwaukee would have descended on Germantown and started to tell the poll workers how to do their jobs like these white suburban “human debris” did in Cream City?

    I think I’d be hearing sirens in the distance.

    (Thanks to Rush Blimpo for the idea to refer to people as “human debris”)

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 24, 2007 at 1952 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.