An Unrealistic Solution
By Greg L | 4 June 2007 | 51st HOD District | 70 Comments
I hadn’t intended to write about the 51st until there were some official statements available to talk about, but this latest attempt to quell the rancor by enticing Julie Lucas to post a last-minute challenge to Toddy Puller needs to be addressed.
A mass meeting or caucus to select a Republican nominee in the 36th would have to be announced in the papers tomorrow in order to meet the deadlines required under the party plan. That’s quite a stretch, since deadline for publication was probably about two hours ago in order to get something in tomorrow’s edition. Unless heaven and earth are forcibly moved and the stars are aligned perfectly, there is just no way to have an official Republican nominee in the 36th District. Independent candidates could file up until the 12th (or possibly the 14th), and nothing would prevent an independent candidate from receiving the Republican endorsement, but that candidate would still officially be an independent candidate.
Now there’s this sudden concern that we’re not mounting a challenge to Toddy Puller. I guess the Ham Sandwich campaign has satisfied the powers that be since no one is pushing for any other candidate to take on Paul Ebert, who has no Republican challenger. And who exactly is the Republican challenging John Jenkins this year? That’s right, there isn’t anyone.
To the extent that some have suddenly realized that Toddy Puller is somehow vulnerable, nothing really has changed since last November’s election, and there already was considerable pressure on Julie to run in the 36th in order to clear a path for Faisal Gill in the 51st District. I would assume that since Julie chose to run in the 51st House District rather than the 36th, her evaluation was that she wasn’t likely to be strong enough in the 36th to have a good chance at winning. The only thing that’s changed is that Julie now has an opportunity to appeal to the 11th Congressional District Committee in regards to the widespread problems with the 51st District convention. Toddy Puller hasn’t become more vulnerable, and Julie really hasn’t become much stronger in that District. So how this is supposed to be in the best interests of Julie Lucas isn’t clear.
It clearly is in the best interests of a lot of other people. The 36th District hasn’t recruited a candidate, and that looks bad for the FCRC and the PWCRC which failed to even convince someone to run as a placeholder candidate. Faisal Gill and his supporters would benefit, because this might be a chance to avoid lots of questions that I’m sure they’d rather not be asked. Unless there was some remarkable change in the calculus since the beginning of the year which I’m not seeing, the only people who stand to benefit from this idea are the very people who were opposed to her candidacy in the 51st District in the first place. I wonder what they’re willing to offer Julie Lucas so that she’ll get on board with this unusual idea.
Here’s someone who just got shafted in a convention that had problems from the beginning right up until the end, and she’s the one being called on to make a sacrifice and keep herself busy tilting at a windmill in the 36th Senate District rather than helping to call some folks to account for the debacle in the 51st House District. That’s quite nice. Get abused, and then get asked to take one for the team and help clean up someone else’s mess. I think I can summon a phrase that might describe how I’d feel in this position, but I’m pretty sure readers could imagine what that would be without me having to say it.
Julie Lucas has an important job to perform right now helping to ensure that the process for selecting nominees will be improved, which will either allow consequences to be delivered to those who haven’t acted in good faith, or will clear away the clouds that darken the legitimacy of Faisal Gill’s nomination. Nothing should dissuade her from that task, which is probably more significant than the candidacy which demonstrated the need for it. Running in the 36th District isn’t her only option, one of which is going back to the school board for another term and seeing what develops.
In 2009, the political landscape will be very different than it is now, and lots can happen between now and then. Jumping right now in order to help a lot of other people out of their problems, many of which were the very ones who did their best to make her life as difficult as possible this primary season, just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. There’s a lot more important work to be done, and I hope cleaning up this mess figures much more highly than taking on Toddy Puller. While it’s good to talk about different scenarios where we might be able to solve real problems, this scenario, while well meaning, just isn’t very realistic, nor does it help solve the underlying problems here which must be addressed.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
70 Comments
Views: 1934
Loading ...
I’m convinced that Julie is one of those people who has the courage to do what is right and will continue that appeal process so that this never happens to another candidate again. The Kopko/Gill cabal has, by allowing a cloud to cover the 51st District Convention, divided the Party and, if any good is to come of it, the underlying causes must be addressed. The damage is already done for this election season but, if the Republican Party in Prince William County is to recover from it after this election season is concluded, this process must be seen to its conclusion. In other words Greg…you’re absolutely right.
Geesh…I’ve gotta start using spell check. ^words, not works.
[Ed note: fixed.]
It’s a distraction and a strategy to hold on to GOP votes. Why can’t we all just get along, right? Why is Julie being encouraged to run in the 36th when they accused her of being pro choice and having an affair with a man while he was still married. Very fishy, was then, worse now.
Republican’s are pissed. Gill’s a bad candidate, and he is NOT electable. We’ve handed the seat to the Dem’s thanks to Kopko. Stewart’s supporters are dropping like flies, the Dem’s may take that too.
Let’s not forget to send thank you notes to Kopko and Gill when PW turns blue and our taxes get increased.
If Julie asked me for my advice, I’d have to say run as an INDEPENDENT in the 51st because they’ve backed you into a corner by shorting you on time to act.
If Julie ran as an INDEPENDENT then she would split the anti-Gill vote and Gill might actually get elected. I think Julie should do what Greg suggests, make sure that there is never an overvote-ridden convention again.
She is still on the school board. After she finishes off Kopko et al she can run against Nichols in 2009 and get her seat finally.
How do Kopko and McQuigg explain the overvotes? Do they even care?
JM:
Lucas’s term on School Board ends in December. The entire School Board is up for election in November.
JM-
Why are McQuigg and Kopko responsible for the overvotes? Kopko is Chairman of the Party, McQuigg was Chairman of the Credentials Committee. The voting was handled by a separate Elections Committee, Chaired by Ruth Griggs and made up of reps from both campaigns. Am I missing something here? By the way, JM, were you at the convention?
I would advise Julie to carry her appeal to the end, and if unsuccessful, bide her time. She will get another crack at the seat in 2 years. I see the scenario as Gill getting his clock cleaned in November, and the seat going Dem. Julie, having never lost a race in a General election, will still be considered a viable candidate by Republicans. This will not be true if she runs as an Independent, or runs in the 36th and loses to Puller (although I think she could beat Puller).
The bigger question is, can Kopko survive all of his gaffs and mistakes? First he made an ass out if himself with his statements to the MJM/PN after the 50th convention (i.e. “the Democrats are nothing but a fringe party”). However true this statement may be, it’s not something you quote to the press. Then there was his immature outbursts at the 11th CD debates, where Davis had to publicly apologize on behalf of Kopko. Then there was the loss of the US Senate race in PWC, which cost Allen the election. Kopko chose to throw all of the party’s resources behind the BCOS race. Then we have the clerk of court convention debacle. Lot’s of bad press there. And now we have the goat-rope of a convention in the 51st, with all of its problems. If this seat is lost, the blame rests mostly on Kopko.
A smaller question is, how will all of the divisions with the PWCGOP impact the BCOS and Clerk’s race?
November ‘08 is right around the corner. If the PWCGOP is giong to be ready to do battle, in what will be a tough election cycle, some serious house-cleaning needs to be done, starting at the top.
Let’s just call this PrinceGate. To resolve it and put it behind us, confession is expected. Forgiveness is possible. But, consequences must happen. Those responsible for the debacle in the 51st should resign so that those interested in honest campaigns, integrity and honest means to the GOP end will remain active in the party. Please don’t force a “no confidence” vote.
“”"JM-
Why are McQuigg and Kopko responsible for the overvotes? Kopko is Chairman of the Party, McQuigg was Chairman of the Credentials Committee.”"”
We know that there were at least five people voted who should not have voted. That is because in three of the precincts the number of voters was larger by five than the number of properly credentialed delegates.
There could have been far more than five illegal voters. The only reason that we know about the illegal voters in those three precincts is that in those three precincts there were more people who voted illegally than there were who went home without voting.
If the number of illegal voters in the other twelve precincts was less than the number of people who went home without voting then no overvotes would have been recorded, yet there still would have been no overvotes in those twelve precincts.
Did those five or more illegal voters have false credentials? How many illegal voters were there? Where did they come from? We don’t know enough to say that the Credentials committee was guilty or innocent as of this moment.
My sense is that no one is going to investigate this matter unless Julie complains strongly. Even then Kopko, McQuigg et al will drag their feet, perhaps afraid of what they might find.
McQuigg is running for Clerk of Court. She was involved in running the Convention. McQuigg should be the first one fighting for an accounting of where those five or more extra votes came from.
“”"The voting was handled by a separate Elections Committee, Chaired by Ruth Griggs and made up of reps from both campaigns. Am I missing something here? By the way, JM, were you at the convention?”"”
Where did the five or more illegal votes come from? It had to be someone’s fault. Was it the fault of the Credentials Committee? The Elections Committee?
Why are McQuigg and Griggs not pushing right now to find out where the five or more illegal votes came from?
I think Julie should hold the Party accountable and then run to be Chairman of the PWCRC. Having been on the losing end of corruption, she would have a great reformers platform to run on. Plus, it would be nice for the first time in a long time to have a PWCRC Chairman who had actually run a successful campaign.
Lucas for Chairman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if the same people suggesting that Lucas jump in at the last second and run against Puller are willing to pony up the $$$ to put Lucas within range of Puller. About $100,000 should do it.
I suspect, as usual, PWCRC leadership & most members will be long on promises and short on cash.
Doesn’t McQuigg have the delegate forms in her hands right now? If so, why doesn’t she release them?
Let’s keep this in mind…Julie lost by less than .05% of the vote….05%, people. Faisal had supposedly outfiled her by over 200 delegates, it has been claimed that there were by far more Faisal delegates (or at least signs) then Lucas supporters. The Convention was HEAVILY tainted towards Faisal winning. And Julie lost by less than .05% of the vote.
It’s time that people step forward and put the pressure on ALL interested parties and get this resolved and if it DOES NOT get resolved, do 2 things. First, whenever McQuigg, Kopko, et.al. speak at an event - turn your back on them. Just stand up and turn your back - show them what you think of them and their antics.
Then, when November comes, remember how THEY voted and what THEY did to Julie. We need to get someone to mount a challenge against Tom (how about Ham’s cousin Bologna???…kidding). Flood his inbox with letters of disgust. Don’t EVER forget what they did. Do NOT become complacent.
The PWCGOP has just given mouth-to-mouth to the PWC Democratic Party. We have found the enemy and he is us! Let’s take back our Party, people. It would be TOO EASY to quit the PWCGOP right now. But, what do you do when your child or loved one gets sick? Do you let him/her die? No, you take them to the doctor and cure them of their ill. If your child commits a crime, do you hate him/her? No, you love them no matter what and do what you can to mend them of their ways. It’s time that we did the same to the PWCGOP.
Yeah, God forbid that the Gill-haters here should accept a “solution” which does not split the GOP and hence, reduces Greg’s “hits.”
It’s abundantly clear to some who have been around for awhile that this is about raw political power, and taking it away from those who have it. You couldn’t get the votes out to elect your preferred candidate.
Get over it!
I am on the GOP committee in the City of Manassas. I was part of the convention committee for the 50th district last year, which included Manassas, Manassas Park, and PWC.
I do not defend or support what happened in the convention of the 51st; and the city had no involvement in that. However, I think it would be helpful to understand a few things about such a convention.
1. The chairman of the convention is the one ultimately responsible for the conduct of the convention, not the chairman/chairmen of the GOP parties.
2. “Overvoting” can happen in several ways that are not caused by “illegal” voters:
a. Someone arrives to register, gets his badge/pass, and the person registering him fails to mark him down as present (registered).
b. Someone arrives and gets properly registered; but, when he votes, he stands in the wrong precinct line, and, the person receiving his vote fails to notice the voter is voting in the wrong precinct.
c. A convention worker, who has come early to set up, is given a badge/pass early so he doesn’t need to stand in line, and no one sees to it that he is marked as present (registered).
The system is is not foolproof. If you want better checks and safeguards, you need enough people present to help out. If not enough people volunteer to help, you suffer the consequences. Nonetheless, even with enough helpers, there is still possibility for helper error.
The problem with the above explanations is that they all assume that the staffers at the ballot boxes were working without a list of eligible voters who had registered. Failure to maintain such a list means that the system is wide open to ballot stuffing. Anyone with a badge can dump ballots into the cesspool, I mean, ballot box.
“”"a. Someone arrives to register, gets his badge/pass, and the person registering him fails to mark him down as present (registered).”"”
Are you saying that all that was needed to vote was a badge/pass?
If that is true then perhaps someone had some extra badge/passes laying about.
You know when I vote in government-run elections I can only vote if I am on a list of eligible voters. No badge pass is needed.
“”"”b. Someone arrives and gets properly registered; but, when he votes, he stands in the wrong precinct line, and, the person receiving his vote fails to notice the voter is voting in the wrong precinct.”"”
Umm, isn’t the staffer supposed to look up the name on a list of eligible voters for that precinct? I mean, how hard is that? What did Gill pay Kopko $2000 for if the man is such a nitwit that he fouled up this badly?
“”"c. A convention worker, who has come early to set up, is given a badge/pass early so he doesn’t need to stand in line, and no one sees to it that he is marked as present (registered).”"”
What is the point of registering someone as present if the list is then thrown out and not used to screen voters at the ballot box? This is the most unholy moshed-up system I have ever heard of.
“”"Yeah, God forbid that the Gill-haters here should accept a “solution” which does not split the GOP and hence, reduces Greg’s “hits.””"”
It does not appear that Julie wishes to run against Toddy Puller in my senate district.
Is anyone who thinks that it is a bad idea for Julie to run therefore a “Gill-hater?” Julie herself seems to think that it is a bad idea for her to run.
Are you calling Julie a “Gill hater?”
If only the Lucas campaign had done its mailings sooner. I received the first lucas mailing to google Faisal Gill after the deadline to register as a delegate. I thought that could be the biggest error of the Lucas campaign. Because the brochure did seem persuasive.
Gill sent out his mailing very early, but it probably backfired on him in some respects. Gill is going to have to expand his voter base because the convention looked like he had 100 per cent of muslims that live i the 51st. backing him but not many other people.
Okay, I’ll take the blame for putting this whole notion forward, but to clarify, I have only suggested that whoever ultimately is not the nominee run in the 36th — I’ve never said Julie should just let this all go and run in the 36th. I want to wait and see how this all plays out with whether Julie files an appeal and what the 11th Cong. Dist. Cmte or RPV does. Perhaps the one post I put up highlighting one of our commenter’s listing of Julie’s strengths in such a matchup against Puller was interpreted by some as giving up on any appeals Julie might make. That is not the case.
http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/point-of-clarification-on-the-51st/
At the very least, we need to get to the bottom of these procedural errors so they never happen again.
Don’t look for Gillespie to side with Lucas. His lobbying firm makes money from the middle east as well. According to this month’s Washingtonian Magazine, Gillespie’s lobbying firm got money indirectly from Iran by helping Mark Rich get a Clinton Presidential Pardon.
Mark Rich made much of his money helping Iran avoid sanctions by selling Iranian oil on the black market.
Also, I have not heard such overtures coming from the party (not that it isn’t happening, I just don’t know whether or not they are) for Julie to run in the 36th. I’ve only seen some support in the blogosphere for the proposal I’ve put forward (which was neutral as to whether the candidate for the 36th would be Julie or Faisal.) Has anyone heard anything beyond that?
Much as I would like to think that Julie could get a fair shot at another, properly run procedure for choosing a nominee, I don’t think she can.
Greg has posted information showing that it is now too late to change the Republican nominee. The state’s deadline for putting a nominee’s name on the ballot is coming up within a few days.
I hope that Julie will press forward for an investigation of what happened last Saturday and why there were so implausible many overvotes (which should never happen) and undervotes (which were at least ten percent in many precincts, an impossibly high number.)
Such an investigation would not be run by Kopko and McQuigg, since they produced this unholy mess to begin with.
If it is possible to get a reliable nominating procedure in place then Julie is well-positioned to run against Delegate Paul Nichols in 2009.
Riley,
Yes, there has been some pressure from local party leaders and elected officials on this. I may have more to say about this later on.
Riley wrote: “At the very least, we need to get to the bottom of these procedural errors so they never happen again.”
This can be EASILY cleared in the future. McQuiigg, Kopko, et. al. have shown that they were serving their own self interests. That being said, the BEST way this COULD HAVE been avoided was if Kopko had listened to Julie back in January when he asked her if she wanted a Primary or a Convention. She had told him Primary, not realizing that he had just been paid $2000 by Faisal Gill. She took it on faith that he would consider her position.
Well, he didn’t. Instead of deferring to the one who already was in office out of respect, he went to where the money was. That was his downfall as far as every honest person in Prince William County is concerned.
Fairfax County GOP had voted back either earlier this year or towards the end of last year, memory seems to fail me (sorry, I do not have the 15 year memory as some on this blog do) but it was about that time, that elections would be held via a Primary to prevent that which happened in the 51st.
Conventions have their purpose but when it comes to nominating candidates, it is a dinosaur worth burying. Somehow I doubt that if we were using the Debolt (sp) voting machines, that any tampering would have taken place.
Another HUGE bone of contention which RPV needs to step up to the plate and fix is, do we or do we not allow NON REGISTERED VOTERS to vote for our candidates??? We as Republicans make SUCH a huge stink (Charles and Jim made VERY strong arguments that Dems would be voting for Julie if a Primary) of Democrats voting in our Primaries that in THIS VERY CONVENTION the credentals committee argued amongst themselves who to accept and who not to.
So, RPV, which is it??? Can non registered voters vote/sign up to be delegates or not? This was a SHINING example of how NOT to run a Convention.
It appears some “party leaders” are suggesting Julie run against Puller. Probably another scheme by the Kopko Keystone Kops. Puller has too much dem support and you can bet the only reason the “leaders” are doing this is to marginalize JUlie in the event she wants to go on to bigger and better things.
John Light:
Don’t expect the RPV to get off their a$$ and do a damn thing. I don’t recall them ever doing anything that would set in concrete proper procedures. Their classic answer is “let the local leadership make the decision”. Well, we just experienced what that leads to.
I don’t believe that they’re going to be able to sit on this one CONVA. They’ve already had to step in and reorganize one unit in PWC (Manassas Park) and they must realize that if the current leadership in the PWCRC is allowed to continue, it won’t be long before they’ll have to come in and do the same there. This is not something that will go away, be ignored, or allowed to be swept under the carpet…the incidents being cited from the convention were too blatant.
Jonathan Mark said on 5 Jun 2007 at 1:43 pm:
“The problem with the above explanations is that they all assume that the staffers at the ballot boxes were working without a list of eligible voters who had registered.”
*
No, the explanations assume nothing of the sort. It is a given that the staffers doing the registering have a list of the names of those who have pre-registered. No one who is not on the list can register. The problem occurs when a staffer finds the registrant/delegate on the list, gives him his pre-printed badge (with the registrant’s name on it), then gets distracted and fails to cross that person’s name off the list.
Also, when casting votes, a staffer is at the ballot box seeing that voters are voting in the right precinct as voters walk by and cast their ballot. Another staffer should be marking the voter’s badge to indicate he already voted. If the staffer is not paying proper attention as voters stream by, he can miss that someone is voting in the wrong precinct.
These are human errors that can cause overvotes.
*
Another human error can occur if someone pre-registers and does not get put on the list. If there is proof he pre-registered (i.e, the committee has his paperwork and payment), and he is a verified registered voter (at the Registrar’s office), then he must be given a badge/pass. At that point, if someone fails to enter him on the master list, his vote can make the tally show up as an overvote.
*
Furthermore, there is a challenge with the time frame of pre-registering for a convention and the time frame of being a registered voter. Unlike elections conducted by City or County where you must be registered 30 days in advance of the election in order to vote, the registrant of a party convention simply needs to be a registered voter before the convention. So, an unregistered voter can apply for the convention and actually wait until the Friday before a Saturday convention to register at the Registrar’s office. This means the convention committee must check with with the Registrar’s office after 5 PM Friday to see if any people who’ve not been qualified did become registered voters at the last minute. Then there needs to be communication and coordination to get those persons on the committee’s list for Saturday. There is nothing impossible about this, but it’s just another factor where human error can occur.
*
However, there is a check to see if more people voted then were given badges at the convention: simply count the left-over badges from pre-registered delegates who did not come, and subtract them from the total that were printed out for the convention. Actually, this could be done before any voting.
*
Now, I must caveat all this explanation to say that it’s not complete, but hopefully it is enlightening. There are a few more details, but it should be apparent that non-fradulent errors can occur regardless of who is runing the show.
*
Yes, if you do a convention, you may have some errors, though it’s possible to have none. And yes, if you do a primary there will be much greater possibility for non-party members to influence the outcome. Choose your poison.
“”"”"”"“The problem with the above explanations is that they all assume that the staffers at the ballot boxes were working without a list of eligible voters who had registered.”
*
No, the explanations assume nothing of the sort. It is a given that the staffers doing the registering have a list of the names of those who have pre-registered. No one who is not on the list can register. The problem occurs when a staffer finds the registrant/delegate on the list, gives him his pre-printed badge (with the registrant’s name on it), then gets distracted and fails to cross that person’s name off the list.”"”"
If the system was run properly then those at the ballot boxes would also have that same list of delegate who have received badges. Those who possessed badges but are not shown as having received them would be sent back to re-register or not permitted to vote at all.
The system Jack describes has no feedback at the ballot box. A delegate’s name is checked off at registration time as having received a ballot. So far so good. But no one later checks at the ballot box to make sure that those voting appear on the list of those receiving ballots for that precinct.
“”"Also, when casting votes, a staffer is at the ballot box seeing that voters are voting in the right precinct as voters walk by and cast their ballot. Another staffer should be marking the voter’s badge to indicate he already voted. If the staffer is not paying proper attention as voters stream by, he can miss that someone is voting in the wrong precinct.
These are human errors that can cause overvotes.”"”
Again, it sounds as if the staffer at the ballot box does not have a list of who has registered and received a ballot for the precinct in which he voted. If the staffer at the ballot box had such a list he would see that the voter was not on the list for that precinct and not allow the person to vote. This is a glaring deficiency.
“”"Another human error can occur if someone pre-registers and does not get put on the list. If there is proof he pre-registered (i.e, the committee has his paperwork and payment), and he is a verified registered voter (at the Registrar’s office), then he must be given a badge/pass.”"”"
My understanding is that in its wisdom the RPV has waived the requirement that delegates be registered voters.
“”"”At that point, if someone fails to enter him on the master list, his vote can make the tally show up as an overvote.”"”"
Again, the staffers at the ballot box do not have access to this “master list,” allowing those who are not on the master list to vote once they, or somebody, has received a ballot.
“”"*
Furthermore, there is a challenge with the time frame of pre-registering for a convention and the time frame of being a registered voter. Unlike elections conducted by City or County where you must be registered 30 days in advance of the election in order to vote, the registrant of a party convention simply needs to be a registered voter before the convention.”"”"
Julie said that the PWCRC and RPV were permitting non-registered voters to vote anyway, and that 17 such persons voted. If the above is correct then all 17 ballots cast by unregistered voters were illegal. Faisal’s nominal margin of victory was 10, which is less than 17.
“”"So, an unregistered voter can apply for the convention and actually wait until the Friday before a Saturday convention to register at the Registrar’s office. This means the convention committee must check with with the Registrar’s office after 5 PM Friday to see if any people who’ve not been qualified did become registered voters at the last minute. Then there needs to be communication and coordination to get those persons on the committee’s list for Saturday. There is nothing impossible about this, but it’s just another factor where human error can occur.
*”"”"
The above confirms the seriousness of Julie’s complaint that 17 unregistered voters (that she knows of) cast ballots at Saturdays convention. According to the above those 17 would-be delegates should not have cast ballots. Faisal’s margin of victory was 10, which is less than 17.
This is an absolute outrage. Why did unregistered voters vote if according to the above they weren’t allowed to under the above rules?
“”"However, there is a check to see if more people voted then were given badges at the convention: simply count the left-over badges from pre-registered delegates who did not come, and subtract them from the total that were printed out for the convention. Actually, this could be done before any voting.”"”"
This check is WORTHLESS. What if a delegate gets tired of waiting and goes home without voting? Someone else can vote improperly and the numbers will still work out. No rational person would rely upon such a check.
“”"”*
Now, I must caveat all this explanation to say that it’s not complete, but hopefully it is enlightening. There are a few more details, but it should be apparent that non-fradulent errors can occur regardless of who is runing the show.
*”"”"
Whether the overvotes are fraudulent or merely invalid doesn’t matter. Only people who were on the master list of registered delegates for each precinct should have voted for that precinct. Period. That did not happen at three precincts where there were overvotes.
Furthermore, there would be nothing to prevent additional invalid voters from having voted in the other 12 precincts as well. But at three of the precincts the number of invalid voters was so large that it was greater than the number of delegates who went home and did not cast ballots, producing the overvote.
“”"Yes, if you do a convention, you may have some errors,”"”"
Apparently that was an inside secret that those of us on the outside just found out about now. Did Julie know that up front? Did Kopko tell her? I read BVBL and the other blogs religiously. No one seemed to know that staffers at the ballot box do not have a list of registered delegates, and that errors and overvotes were expected.
The system you have described is WORTHLESS in cases of close elections.
“”"though it’s possible to have none.”"”
Would you like it if you went to a bank to deposit money, and the teller told you that the bank is going to have errors in accepting your deposit, “although it is possible to have none.”?
Would you feel any better if someone told you that the errors were human errors and unintentional? You would be hopping mad. You would not deposit money at that bank anymore.
“”"And yes, if you do a primary there will be much greater possibility for non-party members to influence the outcome. Choose your poison.”"”
“Poison?” Poisonous for the loser in a close election, that is for sure. The margin of victory is less than the likely margin of error.
At this point no one can have confidence that Faisal actually received more legal, properly registered delegate votes than Julie. Maybe he did. Maybe he did not.
Apparently there are no consequences for those (Kopko, McQuigg) who put on this poisonous convention.
Jack Slimp: Clearly you have been to few conventions or other party nominating processes. Your arguments that these processes are usually full of “human errors” is a little ridiculous. I have been to numerous conventions, both as a participant and a worker, and those have gone off without a hitch — tho’ they sometimes make for a long day. And I take exception to your insinuations that somehow volunteers who work these conventions aren’t smart enough to understand what’s at stake and pay attention.
I won’t bother to deal with all the excuses you made of why this is all so “common” and “no big deal” (Jonathan Mark pretty much covered it and Jonathan you are right on almost everything except that I think the blurb about RPV allowing unregistered voters to participate doesn’t sound quite right) but I will address a couple things that should be pointed out.
As I understand it, there were numerous challenges of delegates filing forms before the convention. The “solutions” to several of thess challenges was, instead of disqualifying them, special forms and affividavits were created for them to sign. This is highly irregular in a party nominatin process (other than signing the GOP pledge I mean). In general elections there are instances of people having to sign a special statment, but it doesn’t happen often and those become provisional ballots that i don’t believe are counted until the statement they signed is verified. I wonder just how many at this convention would’ve been considered provisional?
As I understand it the check-in sheets from registration of the delegates who had shown up that day were NOT given to the elections committee to make sure that (a) the people asking for a ballot were legitimate participants and (b) they were obtaining a ballot in the correct precinct. This is a common procedure, so the fact that it wasn’t handled this way is questionable. Also, according to people i’ve talked to that voted, the ballot “boxes” were large plastic bins with NO LIDS. Anyone could’ve waited until the elections volunteers weren’t looking and dropped in a ballot or ballots. That serious lack of ballot security is likely, in and of itself, reason to toss the election results… or if nothing else casts a huge cloud of doubt on the entire process.
Perhaps, respected co-bloggers, the wrong assumptions are being made here. Some allege that the over-votes were intentional to sway the election toward one person. Another way to look at it is by improperly voting the perpetrators could’ve been trying to get the result tossed (or at least make it challengable) in fear of losing…? While it’s fine to talk about how many people each person pre-filed and how many supporters were in attendance, all that really matters is how many DELEGATES, actual people, showed up to participate for each candidate. Presumably the candidates kept track of that. Anyone have those numbers?
As a party stalwart, I feel I must speak out in defense of the party and its processes and remind people that conventions are not bad, they DO work even in close elections, it is the perversion of the process that hurts the party. And no matter what happens between these two candidates, this should be scrutinized at every level. there must be accountability and consequences…
Oh, and Jack Slimp, I forgot to mention that you need to brush up on your voter registration laws. Once the books close for the primary (30 days out) one can APPLY for voter registration but they CANNOT be registered. The rule in the party plan is that if credentials can VERIFY via the voter registrar’s office that an application is pending, then those people can participate. Thus the 17 people mentioned in several posts were able to participate. Your notion that one could make application on Friday 6/1 to participate in saturday’s convention is incorrect. One because it can’t be verified (what government office do you know of that’s open on Sat.?) and two because in accordance with the party plan, the day one is “elected” as a delegate to a convention, in this case the date of cancelled mass meeting (or was it a party canvass?) is when these statements must be true.
Furthermore, when someone signs a form you would expect the statements they are signing to be TRUE and ACCURATE as of the date they sign them. Go back and re-read the delegate filing form. It doesn’t read “I plan to eventually apply for voter registration”…
‘Nuff said.
Yes there were no lids on the ballot boxes. It seemed like security was tight, but then again I wasn’t there for the early mad rush to vote.
Now that I think about there being no lids, I just tossed in my ballot. I was in one of the overvote precincts. That seeming lack of security is actually worse than most raffles I have been to.
It is possible people could have tossed in extra ballots from behind. Or someone could have pulled out ballots but that would be tougher to do.
The box was about eighteen inches or two feet in width. It was not a small box. The Lakeridge ballot box was on end of the row so you could toss in ballots from the front, the side or the back. The box was exposed to people leaving and entering the room from the one entrance.
If one could distract the two poll workers to look to their right, someone on their left could toss in extra ballots.
What would stop someone from putting the ballots on top of each other (2-3 max) and dropping them in. Heck, even if they did it with the person looking right at them, if they turned and made a hasty exit, that alone would distract the poll worker so even more duplicates could be tossed in.
One would think that this is the first time a Convention was ever done!!!
You could put two or three ballots together and you would never notice. It was a secret ballot, however you had to mark the ballot on table near the people.
On the one hand I wanted privacy to mark the ballot, but on the other hand you could mark two ballots and it would be hard for the poll worker to detect without looking like a snoop to see who I voting for.
What a second. The ballot was handed to the voter by the elections volunteers (one from each side) AFTER they looked at the voters credential and ID. So, in order for this to happen, the volunteers would have had to hand a person multiple ballots. The volunteers would have had to have been part of the conspiracy. And that’s exactly why there was a volunteer from each side at each polling station–to watch the other side. There were not extra ballots just lying around to be filled out, so the only way this multiple voting could have occurred was with the assistance of the poll worker. And I don’t see this as a possibility given the fact that there was a rep from each campaign there. Moreover, even if this did somehow occur (which I do not think possible), how do we know which campaign is responsible for the ballot stuffing anyway? It’s a secret ballot, so isn’t it just as possible that either campaign stuffed the ballot box, if that is, in fact, what happened?
GOP Stalwart said, “Also, according to people i’ve talked to that voted, the ballot “boxes” were large plastic bins with NO LIDS.”
Ok, this is soooo insane!!! This convention makes FLORIDA and CHICAGO look honest!!! The “Washington Compost ” had said that PW residents were a bunch of country bumpkins. Why did Tom Kopko, Michele McQuigg, and Gang have to prove them right!!!
No name, I understand that one incident cited by a delegate with concerns was witnessing Faisal Gill’s young son (I believe he’s only about 10 years old) handing out ballots at one of the precincts in question (I believe it may have been Lake Ridge) indiscriminately. When questioned by this delegate his reply was, “Don’t worry about it” (fresh kid). Fine lesson in Civics he got that day. I guarantee you that the boy would not have been either on the Elections Committee or a qualified volunteer in a properly run convention. He’s not even old enough to be a Teenage Republican, for crying out loud!
Prior to the election, ballots were in boxes close to the Pakistani food bazzar.
Whoa — as I said when first commenting on this blog, I’m not defending or supporting what went on at the 51st convention. I wasn’t there. And the last thing I said was that there are other details and aspects that could be considered. I’m not trying to add to the cacophony, merely attempting to shed some light on why/how things can go wrong without any intentional malfeasance. Furthermore, I never said the procedure is usually full of human errors; again, I just wanted to explain some ways that errors can be made by simple human failings.
I am not going to discuss exactly what processes were conducted at the 51st — like I said, I wasn’t there. And, I’m not inclined to further discuss the RPV policy vis a vis the 51st convention. However —
*
“GOP Stalwart said on 6 Jun 2007 at 9:21 am:
Oh, and Jack Slimp, I forgot to mention that you need to brush up on your voter registration laws. Once the books close for the primary (30 days out) one can APPLY for voter registration but they CANNOT be registered.”
This is true, and this does apply in the case of the 51st convention this year.
However, that law is not applicable to a convention when there is no State Board of Elections (SBE) election (such as a primary) that is held on a date that would affect the convention. E.g, if there were no primary in this case.
Also –
“…Your notion that one could make application on Friday 6/1 to participate in saturday’s convention is incorrect.”
Please look again. I did not say that. I said a person could register to be a voter on Friday. Given the example above (no primary), that would be correct.
“… it can’t be verified (what government office do you know of that’s open on Sat.?)”
Answer: The Registrar’s office if the party requests. It should be noted that a SBE primary costs the registrar’s office a lot more time and effort than a party convention, and, a primary costs the city/county $$$ whereas a convention does not.
*
My dialog was only to help shed some light on why/how possible human errors might be in the mix at a convention, as opposed to fraudulent malfeasance. Unfortunately, however, I seem to have added to the cacophony; therefore, please accept my apologies as I humbly bid you adieu.
“”"hy/how possible human errors might be in the mix at a convention, as opposed to fraudulent malfeasance.”"”
I don’t think it matters whether the errors were due to incompetence or corruption. There were only 800 votes. Each and every one should have been exactly accounted for. There should have been zero overvotes. Not five.
How would you like it if you deposited about $800 and the bank lost track of at least $5 that you know of, and didn’t seem at all concerned? Would you trust that bank?
What if the bank teller explained that the bank often lost money due to human error, and it is no cause for surprise?
The tellers often get distracted, we are told, and money appears and disappears with no record of it.
Would it even matter whether the $5 was lost or stolen?
Does anyone think a good liberal candidate isn’t picking up signatures for a run for the Neabsco School Board seat now that Julie Lucas has turned face from positions privately espoused just last year (isn’t that a called a flip-flop or is it just hypocrisy). In this race she came out for guns, “sanctity of life,” and tax cuts? She is supporting Home Schooling against the Public School system and privatizing health care to sell more policies. You should note that Lucas admits on her site that she sells Healthcare policies and lobbied the State legislature for them.
Lucas has shown that she is a self-aggrandizing turn-coat who greedily accepts praise from morality bigots and a person who will do anything to achieve her personal goals. Both her supporters and her own Convention speeches are on the NotLarrySabato.com site. It didn’t take long for her to abandon John Jenkins who threw his support to her in 2002 and pulled many good Democrats into her School Board Campaign.
Which way will she turn next? If there isn’t someone else currently running for the Neabsco seat, there should be. Goodbye Lucas, if we’re lucky.
I think it was ten overvotes for Lakeridge and the other two districts had less. It gets really suspicious that these numbers seemed to change that day.
There were one or two security guys near the door close to the Lakeridge voting table, however I was not there the whole time and the security people are actually watching the main door and not the table.
All it takes are some minor distractions to pull something off.
What is the status of any official appeal? Has one been filed or not?
The Convention Chairman and all the Committee Chairpersons were nominated by the Lucas Campaign in meetings which Lucas attended. There were two Sgt. at Arms (one from each campaign) watching the doors. There were two credentials officials at each registration point (one from each campaign). There were two election officials at each precinct ballot (one from each campaign). There were several election officials and observers counting the votes (equal numbers from each campaign and a representative from the RPV and the 11th District Chairperson - a Julie Lucas endorser).
The 17 Delegates voter applications who were of concern to Lucas were officially accepted (time stamped) by the Board of Elections by the filing deadline thus fulfilling the requirements of the Qualifications for Participation according to the Convention Call and Pre-filing Form. A Lucas representative was at a meeting with the Board of Elections to verify the applications.
Might it be that since the Lucas Camp was far behind in filings so Lucas supporters had the most to gain by stuffing the ballot boxes? Indeed, Gill may have won by a wider margin. Now Lucas supporters cry foul. Indeed, which camp can be seen to protest too much!
Jack Slimp: Sorry if i was overzealous in defense of the party and conventions. I get frustrated when the party gets bashed for actions of just a few people. I have seen a lot of disinformation flying around the blogs so i like to correct it when i can. no offense intended.
Jonathan Mark: great analogy.
Nothing funny: Some clarifications…. RPV Rep and 11th Dist Chair were in attendance observing, but have no say so in the process, unless asked for input. The operative word here is “observer”. Perhaps if an appeal is filed their observations will come into play, otherwise, they had no direct authority other than to offer advice on proper procedure. AND there’s no requirement for the convention people to take their advice so really the fact they were there has little bearing on whether the convention was run properly. As an aside, i wasn’t aware the 11th Dist Chairman had endorsed Julie. Did I miss something somewhere?
As i understand it, the challenge of the 17 applications in question was over once it was verified their applications were indeed pending. Not sure why this 17 keeps coming up. Though, i disagree with whatever rules allowed paricipation by people whose applications have not been processed as there is no guarantee they will ever be registered as their application won’t be processed until the voter rolls reopen. But the rules are the rules until they are changed.
And yes your alternate scenario could be right. For all the groaning on the blogs by Lucas supporters, it very well could’ve been the Lucas folks who monkeyed around — and that my friends IS the problem. No one really knows. It’s the spectre of doubt that is causing all the anger and frustration.
“”"Might it be that since the Lucas Camp was far behind in filings so Lucas supporters had the most to gain by stuffing the ballot boxes? Indeed, Gill may have won by a wider margin.”"”
Or maybe Gill won by a lesser margin than the ten nominal votes, or maybe Gill didn’t win at all. You are missing the point. There are two related problems here:
(1) One explanation for where the five known overvotes/invalid votes came from is that someone was issuing ballots to putative delegates without recording the fact that the delegate had already received a ballot. If that was occurring it means that such a delegate, if dishonest, could then have gotten a second ballot later and voted twice.
(2) Another problem is that staffers at the ballot boxes did not have a list of which delegates had actully registered that morning and received a valid ballot.
Persons who had arrived late, for instance, and gotten ahold of an invalid ballot (using the method described in problem #1) could then vote in violation of the rules.
Remember that while every overvote is an invalid ballot, not every invalid ballot is an overvote. An overvote is only recorded when the number of invalid votes is so large that it is greater than the number of delegates who went home without voting.
For this reason many if not most invalid ballots may not have been detected. Those who issued or acquired invalid ballots may never be detected. There is no one in a position of authority at the PWCRC who wants to detect them.
Nothing funny — you are dead wrong. The Lucas campaign did NOT nominate all the chairpersons. It was Tom Kopko who brought up Michèle McQuigg for Credentials Chairman, after it was agreed to by both campaigns that the Chairman would be neutral. The Lucas campaign questioned if McQuigg was really neutral and Mike Wooten said, “Michèle is neutral”. Wooten then suggested there be 2 chairs for the credentials committee.
The Lucas campaign then suggested Grant Lattin to be the co-chair, but Grant was withdrawn after the meeting because Lucas wanted him to speak on her behalf at the convention — thus making him NOT neutral. Lucas ran her entire campaign above board and by the book. Mike May’s name was then brought up to be co-chair (not sure by whom).
It was Pat O’Leary who brought up Ruth Griggs to be one of the Chairman and it was Mike Wooten who brought up Wes Girvin as a Chairman. The only suggestion Lucas made was Pat O’Leary to be the PROXY and 51st District Convention Chairman per Michele McQuigg’s suggestion.
So, O’Leary was NOT someone that was in the Lucas camp, in fact, he had signed up to be a Faisal Gill delegate!
“”"The Lucas campaign questioned if McQuigg was really neutral and Mike Wooten said, “Michèle is neutral”.”"”
Michelle McQuigg spoke from the podium at the 3/31/07 Faisal Gill campaign kickoff. She told the crowd that she would vote for Faisal to be the Republican nominee. That doesn’t sound very neutral to me.
Nothing funny- wow with all those measures in place and working great, I bet the convention went off without a hitch.
btw, i’m not sure how time stamped equals qualified voters.
It should be noted that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the Legislative District (or Congressional District or Unit Committee) Chairman to coordinate, conduct, oversee, and establish the policies and procedures for a convention in his/her district… PERIOD.
The Chairman of a convention (mass meeting, canvass) is more honorific than organizational. Most are chosen because they are popular with the constituents and are capable of facilitating the meeting. As I recall, Sean Connaughton (2000), Tim Hugo (2002), and Corey Stewart (2004) chaired the 11th District Conventions… would they be to blame for any flaws in the procedures… i think not.
This passing of the buck and blaming Mr. O’Leary, who was gracious enough to agree to serve as the convention chairman, is shameful. Ms. Griggs also should not be taken to task too much, because she was probably given little or no guidance on procedures. Ms. McQuigg and Mr. May are more culpable for their complicity in questionable credentialing procedures and may eventually have to answer for that if an appeal is filed. But the bottom line is, there’s really only one person to blame for this apparent fiasco… Relinquishing his proxy to give the appearance of neutrality does not excuse him from from doing his job. Furthermore, having had similar problems in previous conventions you would like to think that something would have been learned and changes would’ve been made to ensure it didn’t happen again. Sadly, it seems like things were worse this time.
Why would Michelle McQuigg, who by most standards has been generally thought of as a person of integrity, throw all those years of goodwill away over this crooked convention?
Why would she think being a part of a fixed convention that would nominate an unelectable nominee, thereby losing her seat to the Democrats would help her politically?
Why does she think being part of the Kopko “crap” will get her into the Clerk’s job with it’s very cushy state funded VRS retirement she will enjoy if she ever gets elected?
Why would she give Lucy Beauchamp an opening that you can drive a Mack truck through for the general election campaign now?
Who does she think is going to come to her rescue politically now that she has given the electorate cause to rethink whether she’s a person of integrity who can be trusted in the Clerk of the Court position?
What makes her so naive that she thinks the Kopko/Gill nuts will have her back now that she’s put herself in a bad position and given her opponent a prime issue to use against her?
And finally, why doesn’t she think she’ll be thrown under the bus now that she’s been “used” for their purposes?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Maybe she does realize she’s been “thrown under the bus” by now…and she can’t say she wasn’t warned.
Beauchamp could point out that representatives of McQuigg’s Credentials committee were supposed to be at the ballot boxes for each precinct. So why did three of fifteen precincts have overvotes?
“She can’t run a simple election…don’t trust her with the county’s legal documents. What if she creates extra, unaccounted for documents like she created extra, unaccounted for voters at her convention?” I can imagine it now.
I would also be concerned about Sapenita LLC lobbying clients getting access to the courthouse through McQuigg and her pal Faisal.
McQuigg’s lack of reported activity regarding the overvotes and her endorsement of Faisal already show that she lacks integrity. Not the sort of person one wants in a court clerk position, actually.
Gillespie may step down as chairman of the Virginia Republican Party.
Robert Novak is reporting this
here.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21056
Gill may not have that many nuts in his corner. It looks like every muslim came out for Gill and not many other types of people at the convention.
From a practical matter, I am not sure how scores of volunteers dressed in headscarfs walking precincts is going to help the Gill campaign. If these ladies campaign door to door in burkas with face coverings, many voters will not be pleased.
It’s hilarious to read the caricatures here. If you people had spent just a little more time djinning up delegates for Julie than in constructing elaborate fantasies, she might have prevailed.
If James Young ate less he wouldn’t look like the Goodyear Blimp. So, what does that have anything to do with what is right and what is wrong with rigging a convention?
Does anyone know if the credential committee checked citizenship, proof of residence in the 51st, picture ID for the 17 who turned in the voter registration paperwork in time?
I wonder because the rules specifically state that you are not yet registered SOLELY because the books are closed.
If those items weren’t checked by credentials, then we really have no way of knowing if the “late” paperwork would be the only reason they weren’t registered.
Also, I’ve heard that the credentials committee said that they were being very “lenient” with errors on forms so as not to violate the Voting Rights Act. If they were indeed being lenient, then they were, in fact, violating the Voting Rights Act. There is no room for discerning the “intent” of voters such as went on in the Florida debacle. There are precisely proscribed procedures and they must be followed to a ‘T’, lest one violate the Voting Rights Act.
The idea anyone was concerned with the VRA is laughable, given the widespread irregularities that were observed. The elections committee actually certified a vote where more people voted in three precincts that were eligible to vote.
Once the convention starts, there is no law but that of the jungle in a party primary. Whoever can fix the outcome the best wins, pure and simple.
Some other thoughts on preventing over-votes: Once registration is closed, credentials KNOWS exactly how many people showed up to participate. Why would there be more ballots provided to elections than there were people who registered? In other words if they know there were 50 people who showed up for X precinct, then there should only have been 50 ballots available at that precincts ballot box.
Another way to do it is only reslease one precinct (or 2 or 3 if they are small turn-out) at a time to vote. cuts down on the wait in line and any confusion. Of course the elections folks should’ve had the registration sheets to check people off as having received a ballot (that they didn’t is simply ridiculous).
In other conventions i’ve attended it is common practice to have people go back to the credentials check in table to receive their ballot (thus the double check by their name) and then their badge is hole punched (or marked with a permanent marker on the badge, not the plastic where it can be rubbed off) when they put their ballot into the box.
Bottom line, the over-voted precincts should NOT have been counted. If there is 3 over-votes, why not 23? or 33? No way to know, so they have to go. You hate to “disenfranchise” the legitimate voters, but that’s what should’ve been done. The disenfranchised voters should be angry at those who bungled the process.
Greg L — you’re right on the law of the jungle, but that’s why there’s an appeal process. Once an appeal is filed (has there been??) the wheels will turn and I do believe that the party (that i love so much) will ultimately right the wrong here. However, I’m hearing that there are those who are insisting that the appeal process doesn’t start at the next level above (i.e. 11th District) but at the Legislative District Committee level, which in this case is a committee of one. I don’t know if that’s true - it would seem ridiculous in this case - but that’s the rumor. So while the wheels may turn, they may be very slow…
“”"Does anyone know if the credential committee checked citizenship, proof of residence in the 51st, picture ID for the 17 who turned in the voter registration paperwork in time?”"”
They also would have needed to check whether the unregistered voter was a felon, since felons can’t vote.
That is a good question.
No, johathan, that (citizenship or felon status) is still not known on the 17 who got their stuff in late…
What about many of the other delegates. Are they legal?
Can there average citizen get the list of delegates to double check that they are registered and legal?
The campaigns (including Julie’s) should each have a list…be a lot easier than getting anything from Kopko.
Jonathan said…
“McQuigg’s lack of reported activity regarding the overvotes and her endorsement of Faisal already show that she lacks integrity. Not the sort of person one wants in a court clerk position, actually.”
…and so, jonathan, what we gonna do about that?
I don’t know what to do about it. Do you have any ideas.
A lot of people are fighting mad. I’m one of them. I’ve sent a letter of angst to the chair of the 11th but I’m not sure what other steps I can take other than having signed a petition along with some other enraged delegates.
It’s so very infuriating to see all the signs about the primary coming up on Tuesday and to realize that we could have done it so much more honestly if we had just joined in with the primary. But then, the people who wanted things to go “just their way” would not have been as pleased as they are now.
At the very least, we need to make sure McQuigg is not elected to office again.
Mr. Young, I’m curious to know what you think should’ve been done about the over-voted precincts? The general consensus is that they should’ve been thrown out, would you agree?
Jonathan said….
“I don’t know what to do about it. Do you have any ideas.”
Yep, sure do, Jonathan….but aside from talking to others between now and then, we really can’t act until November…