ABSTRACT: Selected Official Final Election Results for 2008 are presented. ANALYSIS, information about the Carmel-by-the-Sea ballot controversy, including a synopsis and link to the letter from the Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee to the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk, California Elections Code Section 13210. (e) and COMMENTS are also presented.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Official Final Election Results
Registration and Turnout:
Registered Voters: 2781
Total Ballots Cast: 1373
Precinct Ballots Cast: 329
Vote by Mail Ballots Cast: 1044
Turnout: 49%
Mayor (one seat):
Sue McCloud: 926
Dogman McBill: 312
Total Votes Cast: 1238
Member, City Council (two seats):
Karen I. Sharp: 784
Kenneth K. Talmage: 769
Michael LePage: 747
Total Votes Cast: 2300
ANALYSIS:
• Turnout for the 2008 election was 49%, compared to 48% in 2006.
• Nearly one half of the “Vote by Mail Ballots Cast” (1044) were cast prior to the City’s issuance of a correction to the ballot language.
• Of the total ballots cast in 2008 (1373), 1238 votes were cast for Mayor; 135 voters did not vote for Mayor.
• The number of votes for Dogman McBill (312) and the number of people who did not vote for mayor (135) equals 447; 447 represents about one half of the votes cast for Sue McCloud.
• In 2008, Sue McCloud received 926 votes of 1238 total votes cast, compared to 995 votes of 1344 ballots cast in 2006.
• For City Council, 2300 votes were cast in 2008, compared to 2447 total votes cast in 2006. Since there were 1373 ballots cast in 2008 and voters could vote for two for City Council, the total ballots cast for City Council could have been 2746 votes if every voter voted for two candidates; 446 votes were not cast for a candidate (approximately 1 in 3 voters voted for only one candidate).
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BALLOT & CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE:
Letter from Vinz Koller, Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee, to Heidi Burch, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk
Synopsis: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s ballot for the 2008 Municipal Election for City Council had Spanish instructions, “Vote for no more than 2,” which is correct, and English instructions, "Vote for 2," which is incorrect. In a letter dated March 25, 2008, Vinz Koller wrote that the ballot for Carmel’s April 8, 2008 City Council election is “confusing and misleads voters. It is having a direct and material impact on a current election and violates the State Election Code Section 13120 (e)." Koller requested that the City “inform voters immediately of the error by mailing a correction notice to all registered voters in Carmel and by immediately placing a full page ad in a prominent location in the 3 newspapers” and conduct an investigation into the matter. The election results were certified by Monterey County on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 and Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage were sworn in on Tuesday, April 15. Representatives from the Monterey County Democratic Party said they will "reserve our right to challenge the results" of Tuesday's municipal election in Carmel; they or any voter or Michael LePage, the losing candidate, has 30 days, until May 9, to contest the results of the election. Last Monday, the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee advised the City it would “undertake preliminary steps to contest the election” in Monterey County Superior Court, according to The Carmel Pine Cone.
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS
CHAPTER 3. BALLOT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS
Article 1. General Provisions ................................13200-13220
13210.(e) In the case of all other candidates, each group of candidates to be voted on shall be preceded by the designation of the office for which they are running, and the words "vote for one" or "vote for no more than two," or more, according to the number to be nominated or elected. The designation of the office shall be printed flush with the left-hand margin in boldfaced gothic type not smaller than 8-point. The words, "vote for ____" shall extend to the extreme right-hand margin of the column and over the voting square. The designation of the office and the directions for voting shall be separated from the candidates by a light line. There shall be no line between the headings for federal or legislative offices and the designation of the office and the directions for voting.
COMMENTS:
• An argument for contesting the election results is that one group of voters received one set of ballot instructions and another group of voters received another set of ballot instructions; that is, nearly one half of the 1044 “Vote by Mail” voters voted prior to the City’s issuance of a correction.
• If previous City ballots have been similarly written, in violation of the California Elections Code, then that is not justification for the City's violation of the California Elections Code in 2008.
5 comments:
It is conceivable that the incorrect voting instructions did make a difference and that this is not merely a technical glitch. A number of people have said that they would have voted for only one candidate but believed doing so would have invalidated their ballot. Some others apparently held their noses and voted for McCloud as the lesser of two evils - feeling it was their duty to vote for someone but not wanting to waste a vote on protesting. Too bad we don't see more viable candidates like LePage and too bad he didn't start his campaign much earlier.
Go for it! I encourage the Dems to file a lawsuit against the City. As we saw with the Flanders Foundation lawsuit, it is the only way to get the attention and respect of this mayor et al. Clearly, it was a violation that could not be rectified merely with a correction after so many absentee ballots had been cast. Do it for now, and maybe just maybe LePage can assume office, and/or do it for the future. Really, it would be better for all concerned to change the date of the election to November.
Since local Democrats are stepping up to the plate on this to enforce the election law, I think Michael LePage, a Democrat, should be the standard bearer for this legal compliant. After all, from what the anedotal evidence suggests, Michael LePage would be the beneficiary of a victory in court. He should be a stand up guy and not act as if he is passively seating it out on the sidelines.
None of the five candidates excited a majority of voters to vote. Sue got fewer votes this year than two years ago. Call it Sue fatigue. But, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Dogman. Who is this guy anyway, a not so subtle Sue supporter? Apathy reigns in Carmel, me thinks.
What is the status of the Democrat's legal challenge to the election? Please let us know as soon as possible. I hope they file soon. A little agitation wouldn't hurt and a challenge would represent the voters well. And don't listen to the editor-intimidator of the Pine Cone, Paul Miller just doesn't want his establishment friends made uncomfortable or uneasy.
Post a Comment