Ellis issues announcement on elections for State Chair; still cannot overcome difference

There’s word from members of the credentials committee that errors discover might eliminate Ellis votes; still waiting on details.  Until then, there’s this:

OAKLAND, Calif. (June 21, 2017): Initial inquiries into nearly 300 questionable ballots in the unsettled May 20 contest for state Democratic Party chair show that Eric Bauman was named the winner based on ineligible votes and votes of dubious authenticity that may be set aside upon further review. Bauman benefited from several votes cast by non-Democrats, in clear violation of Party rules. Excluding the more than 200 ballots with signature mismatches and questions around dues-payment eligibility requirements, at least 47 ballots for Bauman in the chair’s contest were ineligible or bear the hallmarks of organized manipulation. More than 30 ballots for Bauman should have been, but were not, disqualified. Several Bauman proxy votes, or ballots cast in the name of Democratic delegates who were not present, came from people who were not qualified under Party eligibility standards to cast ballots, were not registered to vote, or who were not registered as Democrats. Ineligible votes credited to Bauman include:

* 2 votes from proxies who are not Democrats;

* 4 votes from proxies who don’t appear to be registered to vote in California;

* 14 votes by proxies without proper authorization forms available, which are required for voting in the Party;

* 16 votes on ballots with no signature on the credential sign-in sheet;

* 3 votes from proxy voters who are registered at a different place from information provided on their proxy forms;

* 5 votes from proxy voters who did not sign in at the convention, a requirement to vote under Party rules;

* 1 vote from a proxy residing outside the district of his assigning delegate;

* 1 vote from a proxy residing outside the county of her assigning delegate; and

* 1 person who carried a proxy and his own vote, in violation of state Party rules that limit members to casting 1 ballot.

In addition to these 47 ballots, another 134 ballots for Bauman show a mismatch between the signatures on the ballot and the sign-in rosters at convention credentialing tables. There are also more than 100 other votes for Bauman for which dues payment information or other required fees for participation in the convention cannot be verified. Because of the extraordinary reliance on lawmakers’ staff and former staff of the Party, the initial inquiry indicates that the usual dues requirements were circumvented in scores of cases, the lion’s share of them for Bauman supporters.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times called on Eric Bauman to allow the vote in the chair’s contest to go before a full, fair, and independent review. That call echoes those from Democratic delegates from throughout the state, including in the Spanish-language press. Some of the ineligible ballots cast in error but counted for Bauman involve serious violations of Party procedures. These include double votes, votes from proxy voters who flouted eligibility requirements for such stand-ins, and the proxy votes by unregistered voters and voters who are not Democrats, all of which are forbidden under Party bylaws. Tallies released the night of the vote, May 20, at the Party’s convention, showed Bauman edging progressive nonprofit executive Kimberly Ellis by a scant 62 votes, 1,493 to 1,431. Ellis and her team immediately raised questions about the balloting and its validity, refusing to concede the contest. If even 55 ineligible votes had been eliminated from Bauman’s total, a revote would have been called for under Party bylaws at the Sunday morning session of the convention. If 63 votes had been eliminated, the election outcome would be reversed. How did non-Democrats come to vote for Bauman — proxies for David Heywood and Alejandra Valles in L.A. County — or people living outside of AD 48 or Monterey County — proxies for Deborah Quintero and Linda Gonzalez — vote as representing Democrats in those locations when living elsewhere? These votes raise additional questions about the conduct of the election and its announced outcome.

in the meantime, I’ll add Kimberly Ellis no longer deserves the support of Democrats in California.  They cannot count and refuse to join Bauman at the table where they are actually able to shape policy.  It’s the opinion of TheLibralOC that Ellis has forfeited her place at the table and should be ignored.  If Ellis supporters wont support Democratic candidates in November 2018, we suggest they join the Republican Party.

Lenore Albert from the CDP Credentialing Committee responds to this release in her own opinion not on behalf of the Credentialing Committee with this:

This is a short response to Kimberly Ellises’ latest “press release.” First, during my review on June 16, 2017, there was substantial compliance supporting the election results. Kimberly’s release only contains four (4) names, not 47 and surely not 300.  She does not name any “non-democrats” and I hope you take those statements with a grain of salt because when she does name, names there is no legitimacy to her claims.

Initially she tried throwing a few names which ended up being people practicing their jewish faith who had representatives sign their ballots.

Now, she has named four voters, which like the religious voters, can be easily explained away. For example, according to my notes Lydia Chavez was the proxy for David Heywood who resides in Anaheim, California. There was nothing improper with Lydia Chavez casting her vote or David Heywood. Ellis states that the proxy was improper because David Heywood was in “L.A. County” but he is registered and resides in Anaheim, California which is located in Orange County, California.

The next name on her list is delegate Alejandro Valles.  According to my notes Luis Fuentes was Alejandro Valles’ proxy.  Alejandro Valles held a green proxy which means any registered democrat in the state of California could be his proxy.  Luis Fuentes did not have to live in Los Angeles County, California. According to my notes, I also checked the signatures and every checked out on this ballot during my review.

Unfortunately, I did not get to the ballot of Deborah Quintero who is listed as being from El Monte or Linda Gonzalez from Bloomington, California.

If I had gotten to review those ballots, I am confident that I would be able to show you why, once again, Kimberly Ellis is doing nothing more than screaming the “sky is falling” when actually everyone should be outdoors enjoying this beautiful summer day.

For those that are not delegates, I want to take a moment and explain what makes a vote count. In the bylaws, there are four elements to meet in order to have a vote count. The delegate or proxy must have:

(1) paid their dues to This Committee, or had them waived,

(2) registered for the meeting, if registration was required,

(3) obtained their credential prior to the closing of credentialing, if credentials were issued for the meeting, and

(4) completed and returned to the proper authority any ballot that may be issued

Please note, it does not state that the proxy form must be filled out in perfect order on the correct form.  It is the intent of the delegate that is the goal here and to allow that delegate represent his or her community, not disenfranchisement of voters. 

That does not mean that the process was not secure. No one just walks up and obtains a credential. They wait in line. They must sign their name on a registration sign in sheet and on their credential in order to obtain the credential which is a piece of paper that they wear around their neck in order to obtain their ballot. When they obtain their ballot, they sign their name again on a voting reg. sheet.  They also sign their name again on the ballot itself, then they go off and cast their ballot and put it in a box to be counted later.

Some people registered and then they gave a proxy to another person to do the actual voting, so it is impossible to try to compare the registration sign in sheet with the voting registration sheet or the ballot.  During voting the same person who signed the voting registration sheet also signed the ballot. This act was done simultaneously or at the voting table or at the table next to the box (for those of us that have to be reminded to do so). Even if the signatures do not look like that they match, it was the same person because there was one entrance, and one exit and they were different doors. That person was absolutely present to vote and it would make no sense to sign for your ballot and then take it outside and hand it off to someone else. There is no reason for that to happen.

All of these allegations by Kimberly Ellis really come down to misinformation that can be easily explained. Mounting this attack, is really an attack against the reputation of the people who work credentials. As a member of the Credentials committee, I can represent that I have seen nothing but the utmost professionalism by the committee in checking credentials in a very nonpartisan manner.

To date, nothing Kimberly Ellis has alleged with particularity has been true. It is only keeping the party divided by pouring gasoline on the fire that she will not let die where Bernie Sanders delegates felt mistreated at the DNC convention in 2016.

To Kimberly Ellis, responsibility to your constituents includes not creating, inciting or allowing negative rumors to run amok to the extent that the general public hears them and reacts in fear because that is how unsubstantiated fear is manifested. We should never rule or persuade from a position of fear.

As a final note, I am not saying there is no room for improvement. I think there is. One item directed at officer elections especially that I think we should change is the location. Since the election occurs every four years, it always takes place in Northern California, giving Northern California an edge with voter turnout. The next election should be in Southern California and then it should rotate between the North and South every four years, until we find a suitable place in central California, of course.