Lou’s really going to need big eyes next week! Metaphorically.
[Given the potential significance of Lou Correa’s request for a recount, and what it says about OC politics, it is surprising that apparently no one has actually published it in a form that others can cut and paste. OJB will fix that, as well as adding other documents of interest.]
2/2/15 STATEMENT BY LOU CORREA REGARDING
REQUEST FOR RECOUNT TO ENSURE INTEGRITY OF ELECTION
SANTA ANA, CA—Senator Lou Correa today announced that he has requested a recount of ballots for the January 27th special election for Orange County Board of Supervisors, District 1 seat. Sen. Correa issued the following statement:
“Earlier today, I sent a letter to Orange County Registrar Neal Kelley formally requesting a recount of the January 27, 2015, First District Supervisorial special election. As you know, the final vote tabulation by the Registrar on Friday night declared Andrew Do the winner by 43 votes out of more than 48,600 ballots cast – a margin of less than 1/10th of 1%.
“I do not necessarily expect that this recount will change the outcome of the election. If ballots were cast illegally in the election and were erroneously counted in the original canvass of the votes, a recount cannot “undo” those votes and remove them from the vote count. Conversely, a recount generally cannot result in adding any votes to the tally that were erroneously rejected in the original vote count.
“Rather, the primary purpose of the recount is to allow for my campaign -‐-‐ and for the public generally – to obtain the assurance it deserves that the election was conducted fairly and legally: that every person who was entitled to cast a vote in the election was able to do so, and that only those persons who were entitled to cast a vote in the election did so.
“My campaign has received a number of reports over the past week or so contending that people who did not really live in the First Supervisorial District registered to vote and cast ballots in this election. We have also received reports regarding irregularities in the handling and processing of vote-‐by-‐mail ballots, with campaigns collecting (and even paying for) voted ballots and returning them to the Registrar’s office or at the polls. I do not personally know whether any of these reports are true or not. But I owe it to my supporters and to the integrity of the electoral process to do whatever I can to make sure that the results of this – and other, future elections in Orange County – are not tainted or affected by illegal conduct.
“A recount will allow my campaign and all other interested parties to review all of the ballots and other election records relating to the January 27th special election to ensure that the election laws were properly complied with. Last week, my campaign and Mr. Do’s campaign were given the opportunity to observe and monitor the “Registrar’s office’s processing of provisional ballots and some of the vote-‐by-‐mail ballots received on or after Election Day. During the course of that review, we observed several questionable occurrences: provisional ballots being counted even though they were not signed by the voter; ballots cast by voters who appeared to have attempted to vote more than once; and voters who claimed to have moved into the First Supervisorial District just prior to the election without actually re-‐ registering at their supposed new address. This recount will allow us to investigate and determine the scope of these and any other irregularities, to analyze whether they might have affected the outcome of the election, and to decide whether further action is warranted, either in the form of a judicial action or the District Attorney’s investigation.
“I have great respect for Registrar Kelley and for his staff at the Orange County Registrar of Voters’ office. I know that they have made transparency one of their guiding principles and that they will cooperate fully in making all relevant information available for examination during the course of the recount. I hope that Mr. Do’s campaign will likewise cooperate and join me in using the recount as an opportunity to assure ourselves and all of the residents of Orange County that the recent First Supervisorial election was held and conducted fairly, in full compliance with the election laws.”
[Registrar’s Notice of a Recount]
Public Notice First District Recount
February 3, 2015 – Pursuant to California Elections Code section 15628 the Orange County Registrar of Voters will be conducting a recount of the ballots cast in the 2015 Orange County Board of Supervisors’ First District Special Election.
The election was conducted on January 27, 2015. The recount process will begin at the Registrar of Voters office,1300 South Grand Avenue, Building C, Santa Ana, on Monday, February 9, 2015 beginning at 9 a.m. Details on the recount status will be located on our website at ocvote.com.
[Registrar’s “Recount FAQs”]
Who Can Request a Recount?
Any voter may file a request for a recount.
When Can a Recount Request Be Submitted?
The request must be filed within five calendar days after the election is officially certified.
Where Do I File the Request for the Recount?
The recount request must be filed in the office of the elections official responsible for conducting the election.
What is the Cost for a Recount?
The voter requesting the recount must deposit, before the recount commences and at the beginning of each day following, such sums as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. The fee is $600.00 per day for a four-member counting board. If upon completion of the recount of all precincts, the results are reversed, the deposit shall be returned.
What Must Be Included in the Request?
The request must be made in writing. It should: • Specify the contest to be recounted; • State on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed; • Specify the order in which precincts shall be counted (optional). • Specify the method of counting to be used (electronic, manual or both)(optional); and • Specify any other relevant material to be examined.
How Does the Elections Official Notify the Public That a Recount is Occuring?
A notice stating the date and place of the recount will be posted by the elections official at least one day prior to the recount and the following persons shall be notified in person or by any federally regulated overnight mail service: • All candidates for the office being recounted; • Proponents of any initiative or referendum or persons filing ballot arguments for or against any initiative, referendum or measure to be recounted; and • Secretary of State if the recount is for candidates for any state or federal office, delegates to a national convention, or any state measure.
What is the Recount Process?
• A recount is open to the public; • A recount must start no later than seven days following the receipt of the request and shall be continued daily, except for weekends and holidays, and for not less than six hours each day until completed; and • A manual recount must be conducted under the supervision of the elections official by recount boards, consisting of four voters of the county, appointed by the elections official.
How are the Recount Results Handled?
The results of a recount are declared null and void unless every vote in every precinct in which the contest appeared is recounted. Upon completion of a recount, if a different candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure receives a plurality of votes, the results of the official canvass will be changed. A copy of the results of any recount conducted shall be posted conspicuously in the office of the elections official.
A detailed status of the recount will be available at this page.
It’s past 5:00 and I’ve been talked out of intervening in the recount — for now. Sooooo tempting, though! We’ll just have to hope that Lou does the job right — and right until the end! He has a good statement up there to live up to!
The hits keep rolling on in from the day I told the DPOC that Janet was the real threat and Not Van Tran
Isn’t it possible that they were BOTH threats to do this sort of thing? Sometimes there is no right answer.
In terms of election fraud… yes. But Janet has proven more wantonly destructive in other ways than old Van could ever have dreamed of being.
I believe the wanton destruction was at the hands of Diamond – his dem committee vote to not support Correa cost the him election.
That reminds me Skallywag – is your buddy Lou Correa a racist now too? Because, like Diamond, he wants to see if there is “fire” behind all the “smoke” reported in Little Saigon elections?
No – Lou is basing his recount on personal observation of improper vote processing.
“During the course of that review, we observed several questionable occurrences: provisional ballots being counted even though they were not signed by the voter; ballots cast by voters who appeared to have attempted to vote more than once; and voters who claimed to have moved into the First Supervisorial District just prior to the election without actually re-‐ registering at their supposed new address.”
“We observed.” Just like many people who have talked to me and Greg both – this year, and over the years. Hummina hummina, you got nothing.
The difference being direct observation of improperly cast ballots vs. hearsay.
Lou said “we” not “I.” Enough hearsay warrants looking into.
You are very tiresome Vern – you know that in this case Lou’s “we”, even if it does not include him personally (though it likely does) incorporates his “crew.”
Called tiresome by skallywag, what is that like? Contest…
Called “unethical” by Dave Ellis? Called “profoundly misleading” by Dave Gilliard?
“We?”
Maybe Lou’s got a mouse in his pocket.
Is this the writer who accuses me of being self-aggrandizing? Wow, even I wouldn’t claim credit for Lou’s, uh, scalp.
If Lou’s victory depended on every last Democrat fixing a rictus grin on their face and ignoring his ongoing betrayals of Democratic candidates and values, then he was a lousier candidate than I had imagined. Demanding that the party fall into lockstep with someone so often out of step with the party would be one of the few things worse than Andrew Do on the Board of Supervisors.
What I said and did had to be said and done. Others agreed with me, but didn’t want to face the abuse that would inevitably come from taking such a stand. That said, I STILL hope that Lou replaces Do on the BoS. I’m a Democrat in OC; I have to support lots of “not as bad” alternatives.
As for what “you believe,” Mr. Wag, we can make room for it on the shelf for all of the other things you believe that range from just “dreadfully wrong” to “batshit insane.”
*Just check the dates on the absentee ballots Lou……check the dates! They could be
votes that arrived two to five days late.
the way the law reads, nobody is going to find nothing because there are no real enforcement provisions in the law lou passed. lou is doing a perfunctory challenge to keep the dems happy but will do nothing close to burning any bridges.
janet is the natural result of van tran who is the natural result of general ky and the others that originally came over from vietnam. given the demographics, janet, and andrews, power will simply continue to multiply
loretta will be next
*When Alberta Christy lost in 1994, the SFD camped out at the Registrar’s office and watched every vote. After determining that Alberta had lost….they looked at the Absentee Ballot covers that were thrown in the corner in a pile. As they went through….just determining the dates they were mailed….they found over 1000 that were sent….a week after Voting Day. Just saying…if Neal could see that…….in this election, it might not matter what enforcement issues there are. Perhaps, the entire election might be thrown out and a complete re-vote would be called for.
Diamond: “I’m a Democrat in OC; I have to support lots of “not as bad” alternatives.”
A bit too late with this epiphany Diamond.
It’s not an sudden “epiphany,” dork. It’s a long-held understanding. This reinforces my view that you never actually read my pieces — at least with any comprehension.
So why did your long held understanding of “not as bad” not apply to Correa?
It did: he’s not as bad as Do.
That’s a different question from whether he should receive a (pretty much inconsequential) party endorsement soon after supporting opponents of a party-endorsed candidate.