It’s always something, at least when it comes to elections in the District of Columbia.

This afternoon, Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, who chairs a special council committee on elections, announced in a press release that her office had found several minor anomalies with the Nov. 4 results that “may indicate larger problems in the District’s election software.”

• In SMD 6B11, unofficial election results showed no precincts reporting and 5 undervotes.
• In SMD 5C09, which votes in a single precinct, 74, 15 votes were cast in Precinct 73.
• In SMD 6C09, three votes were recorded in that race in Precinct 1, when city registration records show that only two voters in that precinct should be eligible to vote in that race.

Here’s Cheh’s money quote: “We cannot afford to have these sleeper glitches, which can come to the surface unexpectedly like gremlins and damage confidence in the results the Board of Elections and Ethics reports.â€�

Cheh wants Sequoia to cough up the source code for their election-machine software, which the committee had subpoenaed after problems with the Sept. 9 primary election. Pro bono lawyers from firm Jenner & Block are helping Cheh enforce the subpoena.

The committee has a hearing scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m.

As we all have figured out by now, BOEE is not the most reliable. But according to their latest updates on election returns, notorious ANC Commissioner and Ping Pong Hater Frank Winstead has lost his re-election bid. He got thumped:

Tom Whitley: 460 votes.
Frank Winstead: 161 votes.
Write-In: 11 votes.

This may be a huge victory for Mr. Whitley. But it’s an even bigger victory for Ping-Pong enthusiasts (and folks who generally want to sit outside a coffee shop or book store or pizza place)….

With incumbent Republican Carol Schwartz running a write-in campaign to keep her at-large council seat, and with less than a week to Election Day, it’s a fine time for LL to run down how write-in votes are counted in the District of Columbia.

Yesterday, representatives from four of the seven council campaigns, including Schwartz’s, met with Board of Elections and Ethics Executive Director Sylvia Goldsberry-Adams and other staff to discuss what to expect on Election Day and beyond.

Like virtually everywhere else in the United States, the law on counting votes in the District is based on discerning a voter’s intent. If the elections board can determine that intent by examining a ballot, that is a valid vote. “Every ballot shall be counted for the candidate for whom it was intended, if the electors intent can be ascertained from the ballot itself,” D.C. regulations read.

The thing is, according to D.C.’s rules, the write-in votes are only tabulated if “the total number of write-ins reported…is sufficient to elect a write-in candidate.” That’s based on a machine count—more on that later.

If there’s enough write-ins cast to elect, the board plans to have pollworkers gather at BOEE headquarters at One Judiciary Square at 9 a.m. on Thursday, Nov. 6., to begin the tabulation process. “We’ll go until they’re done,” BOEE spokesperson Dan Murphy says; campaigns would be allowed to have observers on hand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sequoia Voting Systems may have sent as many as 126 misprinted ballots out to District voters, LL has learned.

The ballots, as LL posted yesterday, were printed for one Ward 2 ANC single-member district (2F03) yet included the Ward 6 school board seat while omitting the Ward 2 council and school board seats. In a press release yesterday, the Board of Elections and Ethics said that “Purely as a precaution, the Board is contacting all voters for whom we requested this particular ballot style.” That group—of all voters who were supposed to get that ballot design—is what the 126-ballot figure represents.

The way absentee ballots work, the BOEE sends a list of absentee requests to Sequoia, which prints the ballots then mails them directly to the voters. The board says that it had requested that the proper design be sent to the voter who received the bad ballot that came to light yesterday.

As for why the bad design was created in the first place, BOEE spokesperson Dan Murphy says, “We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of that.” The best guess at this point, he says, is that the board’s computer systems contained a “ghost” from a previous redistricting, where the 300 and 400 blocks of 13th Street NW were listed as being in Ward 6 rather than Ward 2. No voters are contained on those blocks, however, so no voter should have been given the ballots, Murphy says.

In other words, there was two errors here: An ballot-design error by the elections board that should have been harmless, and an error by Sequoia in sending out a ballot other than the one the board had ordered.

The 126-ballot figure, confirmed by Murphy, was provided to staffers in Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh’s office, who yesterday examined each of some 125 different ballot designs. Only the 2F03 ballot was found to include errors.

The following is an absentee ballot mailed to a Ward 2 voter recently, provided to LL by the D.C. Republican Committee:

Here’s your three things wrong. When you’re in single-member district 2F03, you…

1. Shouldn’t be voting for the Ward 6 school board slot
2. Should be voting for the Ward 2 school board slot
3. And should definitely be voting for Ward 2 councilmember

LL awaits comment from the Board of Elections and Ethics.

UPDATE, 5:55 p.m.: WTOP’s Mark Segraves posted a full story on the ballot a few minutes ago, complete with comment from BOEE and Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans.

Earlier this month, LL was contacted by a new neighbor, Maria Fernandez. She had moved to D.C. over the summer and had registered to vote here in mid-August, she explained. Six weeks later, she still had not received a voter-registration card in the mail or any other acknowledgment that she had registered.

On Oct. 3, Fernandez called the board of Elections and Ethics to inquire about her registration, where she spoke to two board employees, including executive director Sylvia Goldsberry-Adams. Her conversations did not inspire confidence. The other employee, Fernandez says, “told me that they haven’t been able to do anything since the [Sept. 9 primary] elections, and they hadn’t done anything [and] for me to wait a little longer.”

Goldsberry, she says, “basically said, ‘We’re overwhelmed. We’ve got tons of stuff and we’re understaffed.’ She said, ‘Well, we can’t fix it for this election; we’ll fix it for the next one.’”

Read the rest of this entry »

Today, LL asked Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles about the investigation he’s been asked to do by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty into Tuesday’s voting irregularities.

Nickles’ probe is in addition to those launched by the Board of Elections and Ethics itself and one announced by the D.C. Council.

Nickles says he has begin looking into the matter, having “had a number of conversations yesterday”—but with who, he wouldn’t say.

LL asked what the product of the investigation would be, whether a written report on what happened Tuesday would be released to the public. Nickles wouldn’t commit.

“At some point,” he said, “I’m doing something.”

Finally, a look inside the madness at the Board of Elections and Ethics headquarters Tuesday night. When LL arrived shortly before 10:30, about a dozen people had gathered, including Ward 2 incumbent Jack Evans, who was poring over the questionable tallies. Within an hour, 50 people were in the board’s lobby and in the hallway, including Evans challenger Cary Silverman and a gaggle of his supporters.

Just before 11 p.m., board spokesperson Dan Murphy appeared to inform folks that the tallies were being examined and news would soon come. About 45 minutes later, everyone was directed downstairs, tot eh One Judiciary Square lobby, for his official statement.

Dan Murphy, spokesperson for the Board of Elections and Ethics, was kind enough to pick up his phone a few minutes ago and chat with LL about a few outstanding issues from yesterday’s primary.

Can all of the electoral troubles be traced to Precinct 141?

Yes, according to the statement distributed by Murphy (pictured) earlier this afternoon. The board claims a single cartridge from an optical-scan machine there registered the faulty results.

Is that the precinct which was outstanding until a few minutes ago? Or is it another one?

There are no outstanding precincts, Murphy says. The official Web results were updated at 4:24 p.m., to reflect a full 143 precincts reporting, but the vote totals did not change; the results issued at 12:47 a.m. were complete. The issue with the precinct that seemed to be missing, he explains, has to do with cartridges issued to Precinct 4. That polling place, at the West End Library in Ward 2, was issued three voting machines—two optical scan, one touch-screen—with one cartridge for each. One of the three cartridges was initially not returned to BOEE headquarters for the count, but it was eventually retrieved and found to contain no votes. “It’s very likely that machine was not even used,” Murphy says. The 12:47 a.m. totals, though complete, did not register 143 of 143 precincts because of the missing, empty cartridge.

What exactly was the problem at the Reeves Center? Were the ballots rescanned? Or was data from the scanner re-downloaded?

Murphy could not say whether the ballots had to be re-scanned or not. He said he would provide an answer to LL. As for what exactly went wrong with the cartridge, Murphy declined to say, pending an investigation by the board and the system’s manufacturer.

Why weren’t the preliminary results given a once-over? Even a cursory glance would have turned up irregularities.

According to the board’s statement, “it is the Board’s standard practice to generate unofficial results reports, and to thereafter conduct an internal audit process to verify the accuracy of the results contained in these reports. During this process, it was determined that one defective cartridge caused vote totals to be duplicated into multiple races on the summary report issued by our office. The Board immediately caught and addressed this error, as is reflected in the last unofficial results report issued on Election Night.”

What was being discussed in the closed-door meeting that lasted most of the day? Who is in the meeting?

“What we were doing was looking at all the numbers, precinct by precinct,” he says. The meeting was attended by the board and its staff only, Murphy says; no one from the mayor’s office or from the attorney general’s office was there.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Read the rest of this entry »

LL has been trying to reach to reach anyone in a position of authority at the Board of Elections and Ethics all day to no avail. Spokesperson Dan Murphy has not answered or returned numerous phone calls made by LL. Just now, he was told by a very kind, very polite BOEE receptionist that, “I was told to tell you that they are in a meeting.” Asked when that meeting would be over, she said, “I’m not sure.”

The last official communication between the board and any media, near as LL can tell, was late last night, when Murphy briefed reporters in the lobby of One Judiciary Square. There he explained that an erroneous tally from one precinct, with its polling place at the Frank D. Reeves Center of Municipal Affairs, were responsible for bad numbers in citywide and Ward 2 races.

From LL’s point of view, the explanation might make sense, now that it is clear that the bad precinct, 141, was a Ward 2 precinct. (The Reeves Center is actually outside the precinct, in Ward 1, leading to much confusion.) Also, there is no evidence, as LL reported earlier today, that new numbers were issued this morning. The most recent numbers, posted on the BOEE site at of 12:46 a.m., count 142 of 143 precincts, with one outstanding in Ward 1 Ward 2.

Lots of unanswered questions:

• Can all of the electoral troubles be traced to Precinct 141?
• Is that the outstanding precinct? Or is it another one?
• What exactly was the problem at the Reeves Center? Bad optical scanner? Were the ballots rescanned? Or was data from the scanner re=downloaded?
• Why weren’t the preliminary results given a once-over? Even a cursory glace would have turned up irregularities.
• What is being discussed in the meeting? Who is in the meeting?
• Why has information been so scarce? Why is the spokesperson been behind closed doors all morning instead of being a spokesperson?

Headed down to One Judiciary! Throw your additional unanswered election questions in the comments.

UPDATE, 3:15 P.M.: Shortly before 3 p.m., Murphy emerged with a stack of statements. He was prompted to do so, LL is told, only after Channel 9’s Bruce Johnson stormed, with a cameraman, into the back area of the office here. (LL arrived after all this went down.) The statement essentially reprises Murphy’s explanation last night, that “one defective cartridge caused vote totals to be duplicated into multiple races.” The board stands by the most recent results, and board chair Errol Arthur says both the board and vendor Sequoia Voting Systems are reviewing how the error occurred.

After passing out written copies of the statement, Murphy retreated into the office, only to return to read the statement out loud before the cameras, LL is told. He answered a few brief questions then left.

A few minutes ago, a gentleman named Dan Rene of PR firm Impact Strategies left the board’s office suite. He directed reporters’ questions to his boss, who did not immediately respond to inquiries.

Are you a campaign pollworker in the District of Columbia? Are you curious about the restrictions on electioneering around polling places in the city?

Perhaps this illustration, furnished by the Board of Elections and Ethics, will help:

Or perhaps not.

LL wrote on Friday about the controversy concerning an ad in the Current newspapers for Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans that featured a photo of the candidate with his arm around police Chief Cathy Lanier, raising questions about the propriety of using a city official for campaign purposes.

Yesterday, Dupont resident and Evans foe David Mallof, along with fellow activists Ronald Cocome, Elizabeth Elliott, and John Hanrahan, sent a letter to the Office of Campaign Finance requesting an investigation of a “blatant violation” by Evans’ campaign.

Rather than press federal Hatch Act concerns, Mallof & Co. are alleging misconduct by Evans in “misusing government resources” for campaign purposes. The ad, Mallof writes, “implies a clear endorsement by the Chief of Police Lanier, but nevertheless also was produced by Mr. Evans for campaign purposes on D.C. Government property in the Wilson Building, likely on government time (in daylight and with the chief in full uniform on duty), and with the full powers, ‘brand,’ and directly implied resources of the D.C. Council and MPD Office of the Chief of Police.”

Mallof continues:

That this campaign chose the Chief of Police for the advertisement, not the chief dog catcher, is profound. The improper use of the image of our top public safety official portends a possible witches’ brew of civic implications for D.C. and its integrity of governance. Your office finding such an ad is acceptable will almost certainly set into motion many subsequent and likely more dangerous situations in the future.

All four signers have connections to the campaign of Evans’ challenger, Cary Silverman. Mallof and Elliott were listed among Silverman’s endorsers in an press release earlier this month. Mallof has contributed the maximum $500 to Silverman’s bid; Cocome and Elliott have donated more modest amounts. Hanrahan’s wife, activist Debby Hanrahan, has donated to Silverman’s campaign and has is listed in the press release as an endorser.

UPDATE, 2:05 P.M.: Evans campaign chief Keith Carbone responds: “This is nothing but the Silverman campaign trying to cause a distraction because they can’t defend the fact that Cary Silverman is a lobbyist who has spent the last eight years advancing the Bush administration’s agenda from pharmaceuticals to tobacco to Tom DeLay’s cheeseburger bill to guns. While the Evans campaign is about the progress we are still making in Ward 2, I can’t help but wonder why a Bush Republican is trying to sneak onto the D.C. Council through a Democratic primary.”

Full letter after jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

A friendly LL reminder to you prospective District voters: Today is the deadline to register to vote in the Sept. 9 local primaries.

So go REGISTER NOW to have your vote counted in races for at-large councilmember, councilmembers in Wards 2, 4, 7, and 8, shadow representative and senator, and local party leadership slots.

And, if you do it online, you get to enjoy the Board of Elections and Ethics’ sweet new Web site!

It’s that time of the election season: When political candidates gang up on each other and try to knock the competition off the ballot.

How does this happen exactly? Well, to get a ballot position, you’re required to collect the signatures of a certain number of registered voters. Anyone can challenge those signatures by claiming they don’t belong to a registered voter, are forged, or that there were irregularities in the collection process. Most of the challengers are typically associated with a rival campaign.

Today, preliminary hearings on petitions for the Sept. 9 primary ballot were held at the Board of Elections and Ethics headquarters at One Judiciary Square. Ward 8 council candidate Sandra “S.S.” Seegars disputed the petitions of no fewer than four of her fellow Barry challengers, and managed to knock off at least one, economic-development consultant Yavocka Young.

The issue with Young’s petitions was that the date of the circulator’s signature was dated prior to the dates of the collected signatures, indicating that the circulator signed off on the completed petition before collecting the signatures—a no-no.

Young says she’ll run instead on the general-election ballot as an “indepedent Democrat.” She picked up new petitions after her primary petitions were ruled invalid.

“It gives me much more time to reach out to the people of Ward 8,” she says. “I’m excited.”

Then there’s Ward 1 resident and state committee candidate Lynn C. French, representing the “Obama’s Ward One Democrats” slate, who is challenging four candidates on the competing Obama4UnityBeatsMcCain slate. Among the challenged candidates: Ian Martinez and Jason Barry, who happen to be actual live Obama staffers! Also noteworthy is that one of the signatures that French is challenging belongs to Cecily E. Collier-Montgomery, director of the Office of Campaign Finance. She forgot to fill in her address, French alleges. The initial word is that French’s challenge will not stand.

The real show, though, is in the shadow senator race. Current Shadow Sen. Michael D. Brown and former Shadow Sen. Florence Pendleton are challenging the petitions submitted by Phil Pannell, the ubiquitous Ward 8 activist who is challenging two-term incumbent Paul Strauss.

Brown, who is not up for re-election until 2012, says the effort is about making sure that Pannell’s signatures are “up to snuff,” and says that the challenge was led by Pendleton.

“Florence wanted to do this, and I wanted to back her up,” he says.

Strauss, both Pendleton and Brown report, had nothing to do with the challenge, though Brown has no trouble admitting he has a horse in the race. “I’d like to see Sen. Strauss re-elected,” he says. “I’m not hiding my loyalties.”

Pendleton, for her part, says her challenge was motivated by not only what she sees as faulty petitions, but her distaste for the candidate who submitted them. “I think Phil Pannell lacks the qualities that are necessary for him to be the senator. He just lacks what I think he should have. But I don’t want to go into it.”

Brown speaks in similarly oblique terms: “This is not something that I enjoy doing, but I think this is an important thing. It really has to do with the personalities involved as much as anything else.”

Allow LL to parse their words: Pannell is enjoying a taste of his own medicine. Two years ago, when Pannell ran for a shadow senate seat, he challenged incumbent Pendleton’s petitions and managed to knock her off the ballot, clearing the way for Brown’s victory.

Pannell says his efforts against Pendleton in no way resemble what she’s doing to him. “The thing about my stuff is that my stuff is very well-based. Mine wasn’t to throw out charges and hope something sticks,” he says.

The initial ruling today held that Pannell has the requisite number of signatures to get on the Democratic ballot, but word is that Pendleton and Brown will press further in a public hearing tomorrow, trying to prove charges of forgery on the part of Pannell’s circulators.

“This is really adversarial,” he says. “They still want to push it. They just want to mess with me.”