“The City of Santa Clarita should initiate a recount immediately to quell any questions that may surround the ballot counting process,” he writes.
I suspect and hope this kind of thing will be kept to a minimum. For the doubters, here’s what KHTS says about the composition of the final batch of 641 ballots:
During Wednesdays count only 608 ballots were counted, which were adjusted down from the originally reported 641.
In the City Clerk’s election canvassing process, a total of 33 ballots were determined to be invalid. Specifically, 17 provisional ballots were determined to have been returned by voters residing outside of the incorporated City limits. The remaining ballots were invalidated for a variety of reasons including non-registered voters, missing signatures, non-matching signatures or voters that had already returned a vote by mail ballot.
Copies of some of the ballots were sent to the County of Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder for verification while the original ballots were kept locked away in City Hall.
The verification process was completed Monday and 208 provisional ballots, which when added to vote-by-mail ballots, make up the 641 uncounted ballots, were returned to City Hall.
So even if those 33 ballots weren’t invalid, nearly every one of them would have to be for Gauny with no marks for Ferry. It probably wouldn’t make a difference, in other words.
As for the rest of the remaining ballots? A sour grape for the first person who says the City rigged the count of the ballots. I know this town is fond of conspiracies, but come on.
Loading ...
All 33 ballots would need a Gauny vote and no votes for Ferry. In other words, 33 straight bullet votes for Gauny. Whatever! Bossert will childishly jump at any opportunity to attempt to paint Santa Clarita as a hapless banana republic and to promote LA County as a model for rightious governing. He is the Matthew Drudge of Santa Clarita.
All im saying is that Gauny lost by 32 votes and 33 ballots were invalidated. Coincidence? I think not. Obviously all 33 ballots were for Gauny and they were thrown out to keep the powers that be in office. Why 33 and not say 50. I don’t know but there is probably some sinister reason behind that too.
I don’t argue for a recount, but I would like to see the final vote totals for all 5 of the top finishers as of the close of today’s vote counting activities.
As of 4:15PM on Wednesday April 21, 2010 votesantaclarita.com still had up the vote totals from April 13, 2010.
As of 4:15PM no media outlet had “today’s final vote totals” for the top 5.
Seeing the numbers trend upwards, candidate by candidate, between 4/13 and 4/21, in a consistent way, would certainly lend some level of comfort to those who are not totally comfortable with the factual (as opposed to mathematical) result.
Coastal Sage:
They were updated for the new totals several hours ago, and certainly are updated now.
Perhaps they just didn’t bother to change the titles above their numbers.
With less than 1000 votes between 1st and 5th it does show we are not happy with stats quo!
McLean 6550 281
Weste 6432 266
Ferry 6256 255
Gauny 6187 291
Boydston 5587 255
Apparently the majority of voters are happy with the status quo.
If Bossert really thinks that he should use his “power” to raise the $12,000 that Gauny will need to fork over to the County Registrar IN ADVANCE (no refunds) to start the recount process.
Or he can think about not being slim……
Final Vote Late Ballot Count
McLean 6550 281
Weste 6432 266
Ferry 6256 255
Gauny 6187 291
Boydst 5587 255
And the Reason for a Recount with No Hanging Chad ballots? There are approximately 60 ballots who did not qualify. Gauny should understand why those ballots were not counted, but even Tim could not find him make up the marchine there.
LSC:
On a recount aren’t you in for a penny in for a pound, and have to “hire” the County to recount everything?
Tim, yes for a voter-requested machine or manual recount, every precinct has to be recounted in order for the recount to be “official” and change the actual outcome of the election.
The voter requesting the recount can pay for a recount of just a few precincts he chooses, to “test the waters”, and they quit paying for the recount if the voter decides that the mathematic trend in recount results is not going the way he wants it to go.
In a manual recount the rejected ballots are specifically examined to see if they qualify to be counted under California Elections Code case law. As a result, in a manual recount, the aggregate vote total goes up, because many votes the machines “could not read” are counted, and because the Elections Official’s decision not to count certain ballots are often re-examined and overturned.
Under the California Elections Code the “Election Official” for Santa Clarita is the City Clerk, based upon resolutions of the City adopted long ago and continuing to this day. That is why the count occurs at City Hall under her supervision. That is why the City Clerk signs the election related resolutions.
So, under the Elections Code she is the one who would receive a demand for a machine or hand recount, and conduct it, unless (1) the City’s elections procedure resolutions specifically state that recounts will be done by the Registrar-Recorder’s office, or (2) the City’s Elections Official decides to contract with the Registrar-Recorder to do the work rather than having her staff do it.
Coastal Sage:
I got conflicting info that the County Registrar makes an estimate of what it will take to count the entire election, and the requesting party as to give them that estimate in the form of a nonrefundable deposit, so in for a penny in for a pound.
To be more precise, the Elections Code says the deposit is made on a day by day basis.
“15624. The voter filing the request seeking the recount shall, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each day following, deposit with the elections official a sum as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. The money deposited shall be returned to the depositor if, upon completion of the recount, the candidate…for which the declaration is filed is found to have received the plurality of votes cast which it had not received according to the official canvass or, in an election where there are two or more candidates, the recount results in the candidate for whom the recount was requested appearing on the ballot in a subsequent runoff election or general election who would not have so appeared in the absence of the recount. The depositor shall be entitled to the return of any money deposited in excess of the cost of the recount if the candidate…has not received the plurality of the votes cast or, in an election where there are two or more candidates, the recount does not result in the candidate for whom the recount was requested appearing on the ballot in a subsequent runoff or general election as a result of the recount. Money not required to be refunded shall be deposited in the appropriate public treasury.”
The Elections Official conducting the recount is the one who quotes the price for each “day” of recounting. Elections Code Section 15626 says that the recount shall be held for 6 or more hours each day, weekenda and holidays excepted.
Recounting by hand is more expensive and more accurate than a simple machine recount. The daily price for a recount is determined by the Elections Official based upon how many employees they will devote to a recount on any particular day. The Registrar Recorder calls it “staffing tables”.
I expect that a Registrar-Recorder recount in this election would be more expensive than a simple yes/no ballot measure recount, because the recount would go much slower, based on the number of candidates.
As previously indicated, the voter requesting the recount gets to specify the order in which the specific precincts are recounted, and the code section quoted makes it possible for the voter requesting the recount to stop it before all precincts are recount (and thereby save money). A thrifty voter demanding a recount stops the recount before it is finished if the numerical trend is not shifting in the requesting voter’s candidate’s favor as each precinct is counted.
Bossert wants donuts.