The first 100 wards
Here is the table of the paperwork and ballot numbers for the first 100 wards of the City of Milwaukee from the November 2, 2004 general election.
The six wards with the largest variances between the number of ballots counted by the scanners and the number of ballots handed to electors are wards 1, 12, 44, 54, 59, and 76.
Ward 44 had 470 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 54 had 449 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 1 had 148 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 59 had 144 fewer ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 76 had 79 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 12 had 75 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
This is a variance of 1365 ballots (1077 net), confined to only six wards in the City of Milwaukee.
Keeping records this poorly is in and of itself a clear violation of WI Stats. 7.51(2)a which requires that the number of ballots counted (in the scanner lock box) and the number of ballots distributed to electors (from the poll list) MUST be reconciled. This required reconciliation is described on pages 63-70 (PDF pages 69-76) of the official Election Day Manual.
Again, how do you miss this after "investigating" for TWO YEARS? At some point, someone should demand to see the billing records for the personnel of the task force.
Whether from malice or incompetence, these election officials clearly cannot be trusted to administer an election and should be barred from election work for five years as provided by WI Stats. 12.60(3).
The six wards with the largest variances between the number of ballots counted by the scanners and the number of ballots handed to electors are wards 1, 12, 44, 54, 59, and 76.
Ward 44 had 470 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 54 had 449 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 1 had 148 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 59 had 144 fewer ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 76 had 79 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
Ward 12 had 75 more ballots scanned than handed to electors. Here is the paperwork.
This is a variance of 1365 ballots (1077 net), confined to only six wards in the City of Milwaukee.
Keeping records this poorly is in and of itself a clear violation of WI Stats. 7.51(2)a which requires that the number of ballots counted (in the scanner lock box) and the number of ballots distributed to electors (from the poll list) MUST be reconciled. This required reconciliation is described on pages 63-70 (PDF pages 69-76) of the official Election Day Manual.
Again, how do you miss this after "investigating" for TWO YEARS? At some point, someone should demand to see the billing records for the personnel of the task force.
Whether from malice or incompetence, these election officials clearly cannot be trusted to administer an election and should be barred from election work for five years as provided by WI Stats. 12.60(3).
posted by John Washburn | 2:18 AM
6 Comments:
So:
Does the "scanned" total reflect military and absentee ballots which were scanned by poll workers but NOT handed out on election day?
These election results were certified as "true and correct" in a signed affidavit of the inspectors of election. The results do not pass even the most basic audit (the numbers do not add up) and are on their face "false and incorrect."
What is the meaning of these affidavits and why are the inspectors not liable for submitting a false affidavit?
Some consequences for incompetent or fraudulent actions must be imposed on the inspectors. In cases like these there should also be consequences for poll workers where the inspectors cannot certify the results as "true and correct."
What am I missing?
Who benefitted from these extra ballots?
Yes, scanned includes military and absentee ballots.
To Headless:
I agree as to the worthlessness of the affidavitts, if no one actually takes them seriously or checks them later.
At this point in time the question which bugs me is What has the Joint Task Force (US Attorney and Milwaukee Clounty DA) been doing for two years? Have election officials (either the election inspectors or the staff in room 501) been ask to explain this?
How do you miss this?
To Anonymous:
Cui Bono?
Excellent question. First, is this just an accounting error? I don't think so, but, to be thourough, I will have to count and examine the ballots in the the ballot bag and examine the detail pages of the two poll books.
But, even if the the detail exam affirms there are 148 more ballots in the ballot box than the poll book indicates, the ballots are anonymous. It is not possible, once in the ballot, box to determine which ballots should or should not be there.
That is why the statutory remedy is to remove excess ballots at random until the number in the ballot box equals that of the poll book. It is the best you cna do at that point.
Post a Comment
<< Home