[
After Kootenai County Clerk Cliff Hayes’ press release titled County Ensuring Accuracy of Elections & Registrations was published one day before its release date, I received phone calls from some readers who expressed disappointment in the understated tone of the release. Apparently, this close to Independence Day, they were hoping for more fireworks.
A close reading of the press release and some analysis may help folks understand that there was really quite a bit of information in the words and also between the lines.
The release’s first paragraph used the word “recount” (or some form of it) twice. In election parlance, “recount” usually refers to some statutorily prescribed process of examining the ballots cast in an election to determine if each candidate was credited with the correct number of votes cast for him. An election recount can change the outcome of an election.
However, what the County Clerk undertook was an action to verify the accuracy of the tabulating equipment his office uses. Quality assurance in election accuracy is one of the County Clerk’s jobs, and the most logical way to do it was to pick a canvassed election and compare the ballots cast with the tabulating equipment’s results. Notice that what the Clerk did as a quality assurance check could not have affected the election’s outcome — neither candidate had requested a recount or initiated an election contest.
The quality assurance process is one that should have been regularly done, independent of any maintenance and inspections done by the equipment manufacturer or vendor. If, after the tabulators had supposedly been properly maintained, the Clerk’s independent examination revealed tabulation errors, it could indicate a manufacturer’s defect or the need for change in election materials. In any case, the outcome would be to improve the accuracy of the tabulating equipment and reassure the public of the integrity and accuracy of the process.
Plaintiff Jim Brannon’s investigation associated with the election contest lawsuit in the 2009 Coeur d’Alene city election identified one elector who had been improperly instructed by then-Clerk Dan English and current Secretary of State Ben Ysursa’s office to use the address of a county administration building in Coeur d’Alene as if it were the elector’s residence address for qualifying to vote in the Coeur d’Alene city election. As a result of Brannon’s and his attorney Starr Kelso’s diligence, the Secretary of State was forced to acknowledge the impropriety of this practice and direct that it be changed.
County Clerk Hayes’ press release, though, said that in a spot-check of voter registrations, his office had identified eleven more people who had been improperly instructed by the State. If the Clerk found eleven more in a spot-check, how many more would his office find if every voter registration card were examined? To his credit, the Clerk is contacting those people and explaining what they must do if they intend to properly register.
The third paragraph addressed a practice also uncovered in the election contest lawsuit investigation by Plaintiff Jim Brannon and his attorney and supporters: Voters who illegally register using a commercial address rather than the statutorily prescribed residence address. Former election administrator Deedie Beard said that the County Clerk’s office “is not the residency police.” If not the Clerk, then who is? The answer, of course, is that the County Clerk has the authority and the responsibility to diligently try and determine that all registered voters have registered lawfully and in full compliance with state statutes. To do less is nothing short of a failure of duty. County Clerk Cliff Hayes and his staff are diligently trying to determine the level of compliance and are fulfilling their duty to help electors become compliant.
If I were a non-compliant voter but with no intent to circumvent the prescribed process, I would appreciate Hayes’ and his staff’s efforts to point out my error and help me correct it.
County Clerk Hayes, a former police officer and chief executive law enforcement officer, is keenly aware that he and his staff must be extremely circumspect so as not to jeopardize any investigations or possible prosecutions of election law violations. If I were someone who had successfully exploited administrative incompetence and laziness or had illegally manipulated election outcomes in the past in Kootenai County, I would be very concerned that my efforts will be uncovered. The decision to charge and prosecute rests entirely with the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney whose decisions may be based as much on social, economic, and political considerations as on the quality and content of the evidence.
Through the process of informing the public about the operations and activities of his office, Kootenai County Clerk Cliff Hayes and his staff are working very hard to avoid politicizing the office. Pointing out corrections his office is making to the elections administration process is important. As Clerk Hayes suggested in the last line of the press release, voters and candidates must have trust and confidence in the integrity and accuracy of the election process.
The CdA Press article said this about the 65 voters whose addresses are in commercial areas:
And remember, this was just a “spot check” that turned up 65 voters from suspected business addresses. Thank goodness Cliff Hayes is looking into the honesty and integrity of our elections. How many votes did Mike Kennedy “win” by? Oh yeah, TWO VOTES.
Comment by mary — June 21, 2011 @ 9:55 am
I hope that John Cafferty in Barry McHugh’s office doesn’t accuse clerk Hayes of being on a “Witch Hunt.” Do you think McHugh will actually prosecute this matter if a concerted effort to defraud is uncovered? The way he hands off everything to the Bonner County Prosecutor makes me want to register in Bonner County so that I can vote for the person actually handling Kootenai County matters.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — June 21, 2011 @ 10:41 am
I am curious as to the relation to those 65 and those currently in office.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 21, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Mary,
I think each elector who failed to register properly from his residence will have to be looked at separately. Each set of circumstances will be different, so the remedial, legal, and punitive action will be different.
2c3i,
Here’s a brief message for John “Witch Hunt” Cafferty from one of those (me) whom he denigrated: We found the witches.
I don’t know whether McHugh has the political will to charge and prosecute, particularly if the alleged offender(s) are socially, economically, or politically prominent in the community. The concept of “prosecutorial discretion” gives a prosecutor a great deal of latitude that can rarely be successfully challenged. The jury trial of Susan Harris and Ronald Prior, now scheduled to begin on July 25, 2011, may be an indicator. Both Harris and Prior are charged with violation of IC 18-2322, illegal registration by a voter, a misdemeanor.
Comment by Bill — June 21, 2011 @ 11:58 am
One thing is for sure, Cafferty has a large credibility problem.
Comment by WannaBe JD — June 21, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
Names. List names please.
Comment by Pariah — June 21, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
Pariah,
We don’t have the names; they weren’t in the press release. Eventually we’ll probably get them, but I’m in favor of waiting until after the Clerk’s office has completed its survey and has referred any appropriate names for law enforcement action. As I noted above, each name, each person’s actions, need to be examined individually to determine the most appropriate remedial action. Posting all the names now would lump them all together, and that would be inherently unfair to some and prejudicial to others.
Comment by Bill — June 21, 2011 @ 4:40 pm
Bill,
Inherently fair to some and prejudicial to others. Yep, one wouldn’t want to start acting like the city, county, and cafferty now would one.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — June 21, 2011 @ 5:33 pm
Joe Six-Pack,
No, I expect better from public officials worthy to serve those who give them their trust and confidence.
Comment by Bill — June 21, 2011 @ 7:38 pm
HA HA HA HA HA Bill. This is the city of CdA you are talking about. Thanks for the laugh.
Comment by concerned citizen — June 21, 2011 @ 8:41 pm
I disagree. Facts are neither unfair nor prejudicial, they are simply FACTS. Post the names Mr. Hayes, all of them.
Comment by justinian — June 21, 2011 @ 10:06 pm
justinian,
Names by themselves are just names, but they become relevant facts in this issue only in the presence of context explaining why the person’s name shows up on a list of names.
In his press release, Cliff Hayes gave an example of how some people’s addresses reflect they live at commercial addresses yet they could lawfully register from that address: They actually live at assisted living facilities. Those are commercial enterprises but their enterprise is to provide living facilities.
Mixed use buildings like Parkside have commercial addresses, because they have businesses on lower floors but condos on upper floors. If Hayes puts a Parkside condo resident’s name only (no address context) on a public list solely because of the street address, then it will mislead the public, suggesting that the condo resident registered illegally from a commercial address.
Putting up a name list of “possible” illegal voters without context would be somewhat like putting up the entire Coeur d’Alene telephone directory and saying it contains possible illegal voters. That’s why I think just naming names and implying each person may have voted illegally would be unfair.
Finally, I think it is possible that some additional criminal investigations and possibly charges may result from his preliminary inspection of voter registration information. I would not want to see that undermined by the premature release of a name list, even with some context. Neither would I want to see some intentionally illegal voter walk simply because he was able to persuade our prosecutor or one of our judges that the premature release of his name somehow prejudiced his case.
Comment by Bill — June 22, 2011 @ 7:05 am
Absolutely, Bill. Mr. Hayes must be sure of his facts, Justinian, before he publishes any names.
Comment by mary — June 22, 2011 @ 7:59 am
For those of you who may be interested, I have some bumper stickers being printed. They say
One resident, one vote.
(except for CdA, 2009)
If you want one, go to a R. Republican meeting, or ask around, several people will have them.
Comment by Larry Spencer — June 22, 2011 @ 4:42 pm
Geesh! What some people have to do for a bumper sticker!
I want one!
Also, this stuff is not just proprietary to CDA – I know of instances out of Bonner County that should also get looked out. Fortunately, because of this last city race (Brannon/Kennedy) and with the election of Cliff Hayes, CDA is under the microscope and they are going to get it right! I appreciate the work being done to protect my own vote, which I know is legal.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 22, 2011 @ 7:03 pm