CALIF: "The scale of disenfranchisement is huge – 94,500 of 189,000 decline-to-state votes."

[dailykoff]

from "'Double bubble' trouble," Sacramento Bee, Friday, February 8, 2008:

Voters in Los Angeles County who belong to no party ("decline-to-state" voters) and who wanted to vote in the Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday got a raw deal.

Where most counties simply give nonpartisan voters a party ballot at their request, Los Angeles County gives nonpartisan voters a separate ballot that requires voters to fill out a bubble for the presidential candidate of their choice – and a second bubble for a political party.

Many voters do not see and do not fill out the second bubble – and, thus, their votes do not count.

The scale of disenfranchisement is huge – 94,500 of 189,000 decline-to-state votes. That's half of the nonpartisan ballots. By comparison, in the infamous Florida "butterfly ballot" debacle in the 2000 presidential election, 19,120 Palm Beach County ballots went uncounted because of the bad ballot design.

Worse, acting Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Dean Logan told county supervisors that the county had used the same "double bubble" design in 2004 and 2006. In those elections, only 40 percent of the county's decline-to-state voters' ballots were counted. It is outrageous that the county knew of this massive disenfranchisement and did not make changes. This calls for an investigation.

County election officials knew that the decline-to-state vote in the Democratic Party primary Feb. 5 would be huge. Yet they failed to establish a system that would ensure that nonpartisan voters' votes would count.

Gee, could Logan be a Clinton apparatchik?

Link: http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/696773.html

[blm]

1. This does not bode well for the future. More people register as Independent these days

and some of them HAVE TO because of their line of work - like my spouse who works in a newsroom.

[LisaM]

7. But in this case you didn't have to REGISTER

Just declare and they hand you a ballot. It's anonymous.

[dailykoff]

18. Are you sure about that?

I haven't looked into it but on Tuesday somebody posted language from the Calif. election code to the effect that the registration deadline is three weeks before an election.

[dailykoff]

41. Here we go: "You must register to vote by the 15th day before an election

in order to be eligible to vote.

"If you register or reregister at least 29 days prior to the election, you will receive a Sample Ballot in the mail from your county election office; if you register between 29 and 15 days prior to the election, you will receive a Sample Ballot only if the county has time to process your registration before mailing the Sample Ballots.

"Extra Sample Ballots will be available at all polling places. Your registration form must be signed, dated and postmarked by the registration deadline."

http://www.calvoter.org/voter/faq.html#reg

[Kittycat]

2. Regardless of the Clinton or not association - are they going to do something about this?

I mean really, this is awful.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

25. Florida is COMPLETELY disenfranchised, yet you protest this? PATHETIC!

[dailykoff]

29. If FL voters were permitted to vote, they were not disenfranchised.

Seating delegates is a different issue.

[seybor]

37. Totally illogical - If you held mock elections in your basement

and let me vote in them, that wouldn't -enfranchise me as a MI voter. Getting to vote in what will amount to a mock election that is now alternately now being used for humor and for negative political rhetoric does not leave me feeling empowered.

[dailykoff]

42. If they didn't vote, what was Hilly bragging about?

:shrug:

[seybor]

48. Huh? My point is that voting empowerment

When the vote is discounted - whether the DNC or the state was right is moot and, apparently, so is my vote. Given that FL and MI are big swing states - 44 combined electoral votes - it does worth noting in a campaign that seems to be boiling down to electability - that Clinton appeals to us. Bragging? I consider it stating a truth that has significant relevance. I'd say it's a matter of perspective. Clinton organized a babysitting brigade for migrant farm workers when she was 14. I'm sure you can find some vitriole to spew on that topic, too.

[dailykoff]

50. There may have been disenfranchisement in FL,

and I have no doubt that they found ways to throw out Obama votes, but enough of Hilly's votes were counted to give her a sham victory.

[seybor]

58. OK, captain paranoid

Hillary sweeps the elderly vote, so Florida is all her. Like it or not, Obama would have had a really tough time competing there. By the way, she didn't campaign there, but he did run regional ads that happened to play in FL leading into the primary. This may not have been a technical violation, but it certainly stretched the ethical bubble, and it certainly gave him a one-up.

[Barack_America]

3. This was clearly a ballot problem, not voter error.

End result, sorry election officials, but you shall be punished by counting those votes BY HAND.

Maybe next time you'll get it right.

[LisaM]

4. Why are non partisan voters helping pick the parties' candidates?

If you decline to affiliate with a party, I don't think you should get to help pick the candidate.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

9. agree. Who cares if they don't count

[sandnsea]

14. To get candidates who represent the country

I tend to support parties picking their own candidate too. But if this is what the majority in a state decide, then that's the choice. The hope is to get candidates who can appeal to a wider array of voters in the GE.

[sidwill]

5. Will they actually count?

nm

[dailykoff]

19. They're going to "look at" the situation

which probably means no, unless a judge forces them to. Here's what the articles says:

County election officials knew that the decline-to-state vote in the Democratic Party primary Feb. 5 would be huge. Yet they failed to establish a system that would ensure that nonpartisan voters' votes would count.

Registrar Logan now has said that the county will look at the 94,500 uncounted ballots to see if they can "clearly identify the voters' intent." A clear mark for a presidential candidate should be enough.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. I think this needs CLARIFICATION

[dailykoff]

23. Election rights groups are talking about litigation.

Since the rules were on the books and Logan did nothing illegal, even though he knew voters would be disenfranchised, I sincerely doubt he'll trouble himself without being ordered to by a judge.

[rox63]

6. Considering that independents are much more likely to vote for Obama

This probably cost him some delegates, even if it wouldn't have changed the total vote count by all that much.

[Iceburg]

10. Ah... but Clinton won more of the independents in CA /nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

I couldn't care less if non Democratic voters don't count in Democratic primaries

[no name no slogan]

16. Even if they're voting for Hillary?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

52. they probably are, she won more indys. I don't care.

[sniffa]

8. K&R

That's fucked up. It's not even a butterfly ballot. :nuke:

I don't understand why they need separate ballots? Here, both Bi-Baby and are unenrolled, and we get the same ballots that everyone gets.

[Yossariant]

32. And, here unenrolled voters are not permitted to vote in the primary at all.

Da roolz is da roolz -- even though this almost certainly hurts the candidate I support.

[dailykoff]

36. I think California voters have to be registered in advance to vote,

and if they haven't declared a party when they register, they vote decline-to-state.

I'm Googling right now to confirm whether this is actually so.

[Yossariant]

51. I'm sure you're right. Different states have different names for "unenrolled" voters,

but they still must register to vote some time before the election.

"Unenrolled," in some states, is what "decline-to-state" is in California.

In my state, they are "unaffiliated."

Most of these voters like to call themselves "Independent" but the states' electoral boards don't call them "Independent" because there is an Independent Party.

In South Carolina, none of the voters register an affiliation with a Party.

I just threw that in because I learned it during this primary and I wonder if any other state has that practice.

[msongs]

11. gee it could be people who cannot read a ballot? nt

[sandnsea]

12. Uncounted ballots in New Mexico

Pretending MI & FL were legitimate elections. Intimidating student voters in IA. NV disenfranchisement. It just never ends with those two. I don't understand why anybody who is paying attention still supports them.

[MADem]

13. What a shitty little comment there, at the end--smooth and sleazy move.

Gee, could Logan be a Clinton apparatchik?


Gosh.... NO WAY those disenfranchised voters could POSSIBLY be Latino Clinton supporters, who sometimes cross party lines depending on issues...NOOOOOO, they have to be POOR VICTIMIZED OBAMA voters...and of COURSE some CLINTON APPARATCHIK has CHEATED THEM!!!

It's getting tiresome, this "CHEAT! CHEAT!" cry every time Obama can't bring it.

For all you fucking know, CLINTON or EDWARDS got cheated.

But the REAL bottom line is this--Logan is gonna make it RIGHT. You didn't MENTION that when accused him of being a CHEAT ENABLER, and you conveniently left the most IMPORTANT paragraph out, because it ruined that playing of the VICTIM card:

Registrar Logan now has said that the county will look at the 94,500 uncounted ballots to see if they can "clearly identify the voters' intent." A clear mark for a presidential candidate should be enough.

[dailykoff]

22. "looking at" ballots is not a recount.

If Logan was interested in conducting a fair election he wouldn't have pulled this crap.

[MADem]

33. If this has been going on since 2004, you'd think SOMEONE would have mentioned it BEFORE NOW

This is the THIRD election with these ballots, and only NOW it's a big BOO HOO/WOO WOO? And of course, it's the Society of Perpetual Victims who are whining.

Sorry. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me THREE TIMES, I am a fucking idiot who deserves to have my right to vote taken away from me for SHEER FUCKING STUPIDITY.

What, after 2000, and 2004, not ONE FUCKER in LA made an issue of this? Not ONE?

Please.

I actually read an article about the bubble ballot--TWO DAYS BEFORE THE PRIMARY.

I didn't EVEN vote there, but I was aware of the requirement to fill in both bubbles. The article even had a pic of the ballot and pointed out the two places where one would have to fill in the oval.

If Californians don't get off their ass over the course of three elections to FIX this issue, they DO get the government they deserve. This isn't a one-time butterfly ballot, this is the THIRD ELECTION over four years where they've used this ballot.

[dailykoff]

34. County election officials DID know. That's the smoking gun.

According to the article, they knew, they knew who would be disenfranchised, and yet they allowed the same confusing ballots to be used. Sneaky, and part of a pattern.

[MADem]

56. SNEAKY? Once is sneaky. Twice is mean. Three times is VOTER APATHY.

Sorry, I have very little sympathy. Why didn't the voters DEMAND a new ballot four years ago? Two years ago?

If the voters can't get off their asses and DEMAND, after 2004 and 2006, a new ballot for 2008, they DO get the government they deserve.

And the fact that I read about the matter BEFORE the election suggested that the word WAS out there.

It's a stupid ballot, but the "pattern" here seems to be that California voters put up with shitty ballots every two years for three elections running.

[seybor]

59. Thank you for bringing in that last paragraph

It is kind of the crux of the story.

[durrrty libby]

15. Are you crying and outraged by the disenfranchisement of 1.5 million voters

in Fl? Hmmm

[dailykoff]

20. They weren't disenfranchised if they voted.

Florida funny business aside, seating delegates is a different issue.

[durrrty libby]

45. If they are not counted they are disenfranchised. It will be rectified

[dailykoff]

47. They were counted. Remember Hilly's "victory" speech?

Seating delegates is a separate issue from not counting votes.

[sniffa]

55. Of course he does

Do you know who you're talking to?

[marlakay]

17. Also the young folks didn't know about

decline to state. My daughter and my step daughter both in 20's signed up independent but not decline to state because they never heard of it, shit I am on this blog for years and I never heard of it before. Then we all hear independents can vote for dems and so they think they can, go down to vote and find out they are the wrong kind of independent to vote.

I think CA should have months ago sent out a mailing explaining to people what decline to state is.

I just wonder how many others that happened to, not just people filling it out wrong but people who signed up for the wrong party to begin with.

[huskerlaw]

24. You had me until the last sentence

How do you figure that Clinton had anything to do with this? Especially if the ballots were fucked up in 2004 and 2006 as well?

It really is too bad that you had to add that one little dig. The rest of your post was important.

[dailykoff]

26. Because it was widely known which voters would be disenfranchised

i.e. Obama's. It's been a subject of polling and topic of discussion (not in this context) for months.

[huskerlaw]

40. Got anything to back that up?

I'd like to see some solid evidence of that assertion.

Although, you know what? Don't bother. Because unless the person who designed the ballot back in 2004 had a crystal ball, there is no fucking WAY that the design was intended to fuck over Barack Obama.

[TexasObserver]

27. If it's an election, and Hillary won, you have to know that there might be

voting fraud somewhere in play

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

30. Like Florida? Yeah disenfranchisement! Its BAD say Obama fans,,,unless....

It helps him.

[wnslnadu21]

31. bullshit, this really doesn't disturb you? really?

[seybor]

43. I'm a Clinton supporter & it disturbs me, though

It also disturbs me that there's so much vitriole toward one human being, and that this travesty is being turned into an opportunity to sling mud. Let CA work it through. If these voters are discounted, that will be a sad statement on an already dismal process. And remember, these are primaries in which none of us has a constitutional right to participate - the process stinks, all around - but it's up to the state nominating committees and a state's board of petitioners to ensure fair state primaries. If there's a villain here, let CA take care of them during their next election cycle.

[wnslnadu21]

49. I totally agree with you, it is a state problem.

[wnslnadu21]

28. It doesn't matter who is most likely to get the votes, this should disturb all of us

[polichick]

35. That's OUTRAGEOUS!

Are these people marching in protest?? Hell, I feel like getting on a plane and marching out there!

[K Gardner]

38. Rut roh. Is this getting any traction in CA? Is there any way to "retrieve" those votes?

[K Gardner]

39. Nevermind, found the answer to my own question. Somebody from CA please keep us posted on this.

[rodeodance]

44. Get your brain in gear instead of your Clinton hate!!>

Gee, could Logan be a Clinton apparatchik?

[dailykoff]

46. That's how it worked in Nevada.

There's no argument about that. Harry Reid's son is the Clinton state co-chair. California is a lot bigger than Nevada, so why would the Clintons rely on Nevada apparatchiks to deliver the vote and not California's?

[still_one]

53. I thought they were going to manually recount those nonpartisan ballots /nt

[calteacherguy]

54. Or, "How Clinton won California" nt

[Zorro]

57. If you can't read and comprehend a simple ballot

you're too fucking ignorant to have your vote count.

I have no sympathy for anyone who can't use their brain when filling out a ballot; it's not rocket science.

[K Gardner]

60. Wow, FLASHBACK ! That's what the Republicans said in 2000. Are you even old enough to remember that

.. what a horrible horrible comment.

[Zorro]

61. Not the same case

The California ballot was a model of simplicity.

I have a very low tolerance of dumbasses. It was dumbass votes that put the current regime in power.

And oh yeah, I remember 2000. Especially since I've been voting since 1970.