Democracy for New Mexico

Heather Wilson: Naive & Simplistic (Redistrict Now!)

This is a guest blog by a New Mexican who goes by the name 'Land of Enchantment' that is cross-posted here by permission. It was posted originally as a diary at Daily Kos:

Congresswoman Heather Wilson (NM-01) - a member of the House Intelligence Committee - has criticized the Iraq Study Group report as disappointing, with some of its suggestions naive and simplistic, and others blindingly obvious.  I have not found any more specifics as to which parts she ascribes these various characterizations.

Of course, the basic idea that the whole business isn’t working hardly comes as news to anyone whose IQ is greater than their shoe size.  Houston Chronicle cartoonist Nick Anderson, for example, illustrates what should have been "blindingly obvious" long ago:

The plain spoken Russ Feingold has more sense in his little finger than Heather Wilson’s exhibited in her entire political career.  From the Detroit News:

"Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn't working, but the American people are way ahead of this report."

An interesting question, and one I don’t know how to answer, is why Heather Wilson is perhaps the widest-quoted member of Congress about the report.  From the International Herald Tribune (the Paris-based NY Times affiliate via the AP), to Imus in the Morning, to NPR.  I’m guessing everyone’s going with AP coverage, as I’ve not found any statement on Wilson’s official website.  But NPR’s site carries quotes from sixteen members of the House & Senate sourced to AP.  So it might just be a case of tit-for-tat journalism, and Wilson gave the most pointedly critical quote.

Wilson’s been a "stay the course", rubber-stamp kind of Republican.  From the Albuquerque Tribune:

Now that she's had the electoral scare of her life, Donald Rumsfeld's out and President Bush is talking options, has Heather Wilson's view on Iraq changed?

No, and here's why.

"Elections are about choices between candidates. They don't change policy positions," the Albuquerque Republican said Tuesday after returning to the House for the postelection session of Congress.

We do know that Wilson hasn’t used the expressions "naive" and "simplistic" about policies in Iraq before.  Not about:

• The insurgency is in its "last throes"
• They’ll greet us as liberators, with candy and flowers
• "Mission Accomplished"
• The purple fingers show it’s all successful
• The war wouldn’t last more than 6 months, max
• Iraqi oil revenues would pay for reconstruction
• Trumped up "intelligence" on Saddam’s WMDs

Just two months ago, Wilson was profiled for the midterm election by the Albuquerque Tribune:

What is your stance on the Iraq War and how the U.S. should proceed?

The U.S. military has done an outstanding job defeating Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi people have the first free election in decades. All Americans, including me, want American troops to come home from Iraq. My opponent wanted to immediately withdraw all U.S. troops almost a year ago - before free elections, before the Iraqi Army was ready to provide security, before the establishment of a unity government, and before we killed the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even now, if we immediately retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will see it as a sign of weakness, and it will embolden them to commit more terrorist attacks.

I believe our troops should be reduced through an orderly transition to the Iraqi Army as Iraqis take more responsibility for governing and security in their own country. I also believe that decisions on troop withdrawal schedules should be driven by U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq, not politicians in Washington. The Iraqi Army is starting to stand on its own. We can't cut and run. We need to finish the job.

This looks like formulaic, simplistic pablum to me.  Look at all that’s happened since this statement was published on October 10.  It strikes me as a tad naive to assert that the Iraqi army’s "starting to stand on its own".  Even the most hawkish guy around, John McCain, says American troops shouldn’t be embedded with the Iraqi military due to "questionable loyalties" - just heard reported on MSNBC earlier this morning.

On the occasion of her vote for war authorization in 2002, Wilson said the following on the House Floor:

I am voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq because it possesses and is further developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons and because I believe that Iraq intends to use those weapons against Americans.

At that time, she stated that other reasons were not adequate to go to war: Having WMD without the intention to use them against the US, oppression and human rights atrocities against minorities in Iraq, or violations of sanctions.  Considering that she serves on the House Intelligence Committee, she was in a position to ask penetrating and skeptical questions about those WMD and Saddam’s intention to use them against the US.  She did not.

Since then? According to a Wilson press release of 11/18/05, things were going so well in Iraq that we could expect substantial troop reductions through out 2006.  Perhaps a bit "naive"?  (Again keeping in mind that she’s got an inside track on intelligence...)

I expect U.S. forces will continue to stay in Iraq through December's elections at roughly their current level.  But as I’ve said, if political and security progress continues on roughly the course we are on, American forces should be able to start being drawn down in significant numbers during the course of next year.  These redeployments should be based on conditions in the field.  As the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down.

Wilson also voted against benchmarks for success in Iraq.  From the DCCC:

In 2005, Wilson voted against an effort to require President Bush to submit a plan for success in Iraq, supply the military with adequate equipment and other resources to complete their mission, and provide veterans with adequate health care services. Had the plan passed, it would have required the president to outline benchmarks for success in Iraq - including the adoption of a constitution, free and fair elections, and a plan for economic development - that could be used to determine when Iraq is sufficiently stable to allow for the return home of American soldiers. The motion also noted that the lack of a clear strategy for success in Iraq could undermine the morale of U.S. troops.

TIME FOR REDISTRICTING
I think it’s time for a little redistricting in New Mexico.  We’ve got a Democratic Governor, and both chambers of the legislature are Democratic.  Election results this time around:

• NM-01 . . . . Rep - 50.2% . . .  Dem - 49.8%
• NM-02 . . . .  Rep - 60% . . . . . Dem - 40%
• NM-03 . . . . Rep - 25% . . . . . Dem - 75%

Statewide: Rep - 44% . . . . Dem - 56%

With those numbers statewide, there’s really no excuse for only one out of three seats to be held by a Democrat.  A little tinkering with the districts could make NM-02 65% Republican and NM-03 70% Democratic.  Which would add ten points of Democratic clout to NM-01, and settle the whole business to better match the electorate.

This is a classic case of Democratic votes being concentrated in a way that reduces Congressional representation.  Since the State Legislature has been Democratic in both Houses for as long as anyone can remember, and Democratic Governor Bill Richardson has just been re-elected to a second term, this could easily change.

Latest on Bernalillo County Minimum Wage Hike Bill

From Terry Riley:
We almost made a terrible mistake! We missed an important political action, one that affects us all. We missed the Bernalillo County Commission meeting where they were going to vote on raising the minimum wage.

We all put a lot of time and energy into the election and a whole lot of people put a lot of energy into the counting of the absentee ballots by hand. It is unfortunate but just because we put a lot of time and energy into one direction we really need to be ready to work on others. I am referring to a very important County Commission meeting that was held this Tuesday evening. 

The minimum wage issue was to be voted on last night. I rushed down but I had planned poorly and was not in time to sign up to speak. There were about 20 people from ACORN. Some of the people who got up and spoke were prime examples of how terrible our low minimum wage is. The County Commission put off the vote until the December 12th meeting. This is very fortunate because there were nowhere near enough present to convince any councilors to support the issue if they were not already convinced that it is the right thing to do.

Political action requires that people stand up when the item of interest is being voted on. It looks to the councilors that only a very few people in Bernalillo County support raising the minimum wage. I really hope that there is a lot of support for it. 

We know that there are going to be minimum wage bills in the state legislature and in Congress this year. That is not a reason to just wait. There are a lot of times that legislators introduce a bill that they intend to not pass. They want to look good to the voters but they are only playing with us. 

If we push for and get an increase in the county we will have a better chance of getting it approved in the state. If a few more states pass minimum wage increases the Congress will consider passing a national minimum wage increase. We have to do what we can locally so that we can effect the national agenda.

Please make plans now to come to the Bernalillo County Commissioners meeting on December 12th.  If you can make it by 4:30 PM you can sign up to speak.  A well crafted short comment can turn the tide.  Please help make Bernalillo County a better place to live, a place where you have a better chance of making a living even if you are paid minimum wage. --Submitted by Terry Riley

Editor's Note: Today's Albuquerque Journal reported that three of the five Bernalillo County Commissioners have expressed support for the minimum wage bill:

In interviews Tuesday, commissioners Deanna Archuleta and Teresa Córdova said they expect to join Commission Chairman Alan Armijo in supporting the wage increase. Armijo is sponsoring the proposal.

"It's good for the community, and it's good to have consistency," Archuleta said. Commissioners Michael Brasher and Tim Cummins are expected to vote "no."

For contact information for the Bernalillo County Commissioners, . You're urged to contact your Commissioner and express support for the bill and then attend the Commission Meeting on December 12th to testify on its behalf.

Cowboy Up

This is a Guest Blog submitted by Ben, who runs the local blog Cyberquerque: While a lot of people are saying it’s nice to have the election cycle over, political junkies like me are preparing for the next group of elections in ‘08.  Especially out here in New Mexico.  Where the Congressional run for NM-01 is always a nail-biter!

Watching the results and the slow going in NM-01 afterwards reminded me of something that my dad, a Democrat in a sea of red in Denton, Texas, said a couple of years ago when I was bummed about the 2004 elections. (a paraphrase follows)

“What are you depressed about? Yeah the democrats lost. Bitch about it for a couple of days then cowboy up. You need to realize it’s less than two years until the next election and there’s work to be done!”

Especially for those of us in New Mexico, where NM-01 is always a fight, plus the possibility that Heather will jump to try and take St. Pete's seat in the Senate.  Dems, celebrate taking back the House and Senate and mourn this loss for now, and Reps, vice versa - celebrate Heather winning and plotting her move to the Senate next year and cry about losing Congress for a few days.  Then it's time to get back to it.  Politics are moving at the speed of, what I call, the 24-7-365 campaign.  Unlike the hacks that sell the campaign by the same name, it's my personal belief, we need to be ready to take the fight to our opponents.  I kinda take Churchill to heart when he stood in the House of Commons and said:

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

So, for both sides of the political divide, celebrate or cry for a few days then start working for ‘08.  Like the old man said, "Cowboy up. There's work to be done."  And this time (not working at the paper), I hope to take a place in the trenches.

This post is by guest blogger Ben of Cyberquerque. If you'd like to submit a post for consideration as a Guest Blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link in the upper left-hand corner of our main page.

Support Voter Action Investigation of Missing Votes in FL

Submitted by Terry Riley: Please take a few minutes to read the following message about a nonpartisan investigation of Sarasota, Florida undervotes. I fully endorse this organization and this action. I have given a donation and ask that you please consider doing the same. The actions of Voter Action are in no small way connected to the success of the paper ballot issue in the NM Legislature. Please go to their web site and click on the donate tab on the left side of the web page. This is a great opportunity.

From Voter Action:
Voter Action Co-Director and election law attorney Lowell Finley has been in Sarasota since November 9th, investigating the 18,000 missing votes from Florida’s District 13 congressional race in that county. Today, Voter Action is pleased to announce that the People for the American Way Foundation, the ACLU of Florida, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Common Cause are joining this effort on behalf of the voters of Sarasota County, regardless of party affiliation. Based on previous experience and success in the courts to block the use of electronic voting systems across the U.S. and the strength of our new partners, Voter Action is well poised to move this investigation forward and , if as it increasingly appears will be necessary, to file suit to get to the bottom of what happened.

The purpose of this investigation and potential legal action is to 1) Get to the bottom of what happened through legal discovery 2) File legal action on behalf of the voters of Sarasota challenging the validity of the election if need be. 3) Protect the integrity of future elections in Sarasota County, the State of Florida, and the nation.

But in order to do this we need your help. Voter Action needs to raise funds very quickly to continue its work in Sarasota. Even with the legal and organizing assistance of our new partners, we must raise an estimated $45,000.00.

This is an unparalleled opportunity to shed light on the continuing election crisis that plagues Florida, to expose the problems inherent in electronic voting systems, and to demonstrate the harm that can be caused by elections officials with a pro-vendor and anti-voter bias.

Please donate now and share this email with your friends!

Because we are working on behalf of voters and not a candidate or political party, all donations are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by law and can be made through our fiscal sponsor, the International Humanities Center, a 501(c)(3) organization through the Voter Action website.

Voter Actionemail: info@voteraction.org
phone: 206-723-1941
web: https://www.voteraction.org

Serious Counting Irregularities at Bernalillo County

THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BY TERRY RILEY.  ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THIS POST IS ANNE KASS AND CARTER BUNDY OF WHAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED AT THE ELECTION COUNTING WAREHOUSE:

(please note this is posted by mary ellen, not as pretty and organized as what the webmaster would put up but we have got to keep the info going, people are working hard down at the warehouse and we should hear what is going on)

FROM TERRY RILEY:

I worked on Monday opening absentee ballots at the Bernalillo County election warehouse.  I worked on Wednesday counting absentee ballots.  After about two hours of work our table of four noticed that we had a tally sheet that had two votes for each ballot position and only one ballot had been counted. 

On Wednesday morning the tally packs consisted of groups of ballots that had already been tallied, tally sheets and ballots that had not been counted yet.  Our procedure was to spread out a tally packet into a stack of already counted ballots, the tally sheets and the ballots to be counted.  The pre-counted ballots had a sticky-note with the number of ballots counted, the date they were counted and signatures of the ballot reader and the tally marker.  We checked to see that the number of ballots equaled what the sticky-note indicated.  We then added a tally of the ballots that had not yet been counted.

We were on our fourth packet and we noticed that there was only one ballot yet there were two vote tallies on the tally sheet.  We then rechecked the packets that we had already processed and found that every one of them had votes marked and not enough ballots to support them.

We called the presiding judge and asked what to do.  She had a difficult time understanding the problem.  After we managed to explain it she tried to explain it to all of the workers.  She finally allowed me to explain the problem and we decided to recount all tally packs.

I am concerned that we did not recount all of the tally packs, I feel that the process went too quickly.  I spoke with a friend of mine Wednesday evening after he finished working at the warehouse and he said that he had found two packs with the same problem.  I do not trust that everything has been done correctly.

I am terribly concerned that so many, it looked like all, tally packs had extra votes marked.  I believe that in order to have confidence in the tally we need to recount the absentee manually counted ballots.  I believe that this should be treated as election fraud.  In the event this is election fraud I then have to ask for the central tabulators to be audited.  If someone could have been so bold to have marked tally sheets how can we believe that they didn’t also manipulate the tabulators.  As a computer technician I can tell you that they can be manipulated.  I would like to ask for an audit of a percentage of the ballots run through the central tabulator to confirm the accuracy of the tabulator.  I witnessed the certification process of the tabulators prior to the election and have absolutely no confidence that the machines accurately counted the ballots that were inserted for the certification. 

The certification process consists of running a stack of pre-marked ballots, provided by the machine manufacturer, through both machines and seeing if they totals match between both machines.  On the second try they did.  My concern is that the sample was only 100 ballots and that the test was created by the manufacturer.  Anybody can design a test that their machine can pass.  An audit of 2% of the ballots that were run through the tabulator should answer the question of the accuracy of the count. 

A complete manual count of all of the ballots would be very time consuming and expensive. The process in the warehouse area was poorly managed.  Many times there were four people at each table.  One to read the ballot, one to confirm that the reader had not misspoken or misread a vote, one to mark the tally sheet and one to watch to see that the marker makes the correct one mark in the correct space for each vote.  Many tables had only three people, that compromises accuracy.  For a time I was asked to work with only two people.  There was no way to check either of us.  That should have never happened.

We need to take the time pressure off of the count and allow the process to take as long as it needs to take.  There need to be more people working in the warehouse for the count and nobody should be allowed to work more than eight hours in a 24 hour period.  This should hold for all people who work there, from county clerk staff to challengers and observers.  I noticed several people who were there as challengers who looked absolutely dead.  There is no excuse for making anybody work that long and without sleep.

Terry Riley      United Voters of New Mexico      899-6275       Terryactivist@aol.com

THE FOLLOWING IS WRITTEN BY ANNE KASS:

Terry,

I recognize that your opinion is that something worse than sloppiness has occurred with the absentee ballots, and that you are also preparing a report of what you saw and your views about it.  My observations and opinions are offered to you as well.

My recollections and opinions:

On Saturday or Sunday, before the hand counting started, Jan told me and Corley Anderson, another Dem. challenger, that the hand counting would be done by teams of four.  One party reading, the opposite party marking, each being watched by someone from the party opposite to theirs.  She also said that the reader and marker would swap jobs regularly and frequently.  She asked us to find 16 Democrats who were alert and good with numbers and precision work because she planned to work 8 tables.  We called for 16 Democrats, who arrived Sunday afternoon because Jan said she was about to begin the counting.  Instead they were put to work opening envelopes because Jan would not listen to us when we told her there were 500 ballots ready to be hand counted.   She insisted there were only a hundred or so, and that she wouldn't start the hand counting because until she had enough ballots, "it wasn't worth it."  We tried to tell her that we thought it would take at least 2 minutes per ballot, and at that 500 ballots would take 16 hours for one table of four to count  and we tried to extrapolate to the 5,000 ballots we anticipated would need hand counting.  She insisted that there would be a very few ballots for hand counting.   (As of Tuesday afternoon, when the 16 to 20 tables of hand counters were more than half through with the first 1,900 ballots, she was still in a state of denial, claiming that hand counting was almost done.   I tried to tell her that there were another 2,000 ballots that needed hand counting stored in a group of black boxes near the counting machines.  She told me I was mistaken, but she did not look in the boxes--until Jim showed up at 7 p.m. Tuesday night, and called her attention to the 2,000 ballots in the black boxes.)

As 5 p.m. Sunday neared, I asked Jan if she was going to start the hand counting that day.  She said no.  I said it was going to be difficult to get another 16 Democrats to make sure the teams of four plan could be implemented.  At that point Jan said that she was not going to use teams of four, indeed she insisted that she had never said any such thing and had never used teams of four.  Rather, she would use pairs of two and the partisan challengers would serve as the honesty/accuracy check, even though we were only allowed 6 challengers (12 total) on the floor, and one of them from each party had to watch the machine counting.  I understand that on Wednesday, the day after the election, and after numerous errors were found, the hand counting was being done in teams of four.  If nothing else, the hand-counted ballots were counted with no consistency in process, knowledge, standards...no consistency whatsoever.

On Tuesday when the counting actually started, by time I arrived at 2 in the afternoon, Jan had increased the number of tables from 8 to 16 or 20, in pairs of 2, and she had instructed the challengers that they were not allowed to "hover" over the workers.   That is to say, there was NO meaningful honesty/accuracy check, from the very beginning.

Later on Tuesday, when the envelope openers had nothing to do, she decided to put a third person at each of the counting tables, supposedly to watch for honesty/accuracy.  There, obviously, could not be party balance with three people at a table, the "independents" being few and far between.

When Jim took over Tuesday night and people started to walk out, or stumble out half asleep, he determined that three at the counting tables were unnecessary and not required by the rules and so even the 3rd person honesty/accuracy check disappeared.

In addition, on Tuesday morning, when Susan Conway was in charge of the process, they (the Dems. Repubs. and Precinct Officials) arrived as some agreements about how to interpret voter intent, including: 

If a voter filled in both ovals in any given race, that was an over-vote and would not be counted: UNLESS

If a voter filled in both ovals in any given race, but then put a check-mark through one, it was a mistake, as opposed to a "real" over-vote, and the check-marked oval would be counted as the voter's intent.

If a voter filled in both ovals but then put an X through one oval, it was a mistake, not an over-vote, and the oval without the X through it would be counted as the voter's intent.

   

They also agreed that because so many of the ballots had filled-in ovals for the "straight party" vote, but then proceeded to fill-in all the ovals under it, that the voters had been confused into thinking the ballot called for them to state their party registration rather than that they were voting a straight ticket.  I'm not clear how exactly that played out in the various specific situations that it came into play.  (My own thinking is that the straight-party-oval should have controlled, with only the votes for any opposite party-candidates to the contrary being counted as outside the straight ticket vote, although it is obviously a murky area.)

   

These agreements led to at least two ballots that I saw personally, and was told there were more, where the voter filled-in the straight-party ticket oval for the Democratic Party, then filled-in the oval for Jeff Bingaman, then wrote in Jeff Bingaman's name on the write-in line and filled in the "write-in" oval, (That is, the voter's intent to vote for Jeff Bingaman was without question.)  Those votes were disallowed because two ovals had been filled in without either one of them being either checked or Xed out.  It was considered a "real" over-vote.

On Monday  Jan, the presiding precinct judge, and Jim, her next in line (both Republicans) agreed that on election day they would share the day with 7 to 7 shifts.  Therefore, during the day, there were only three of the four required judges present, Jan, Republican and Claudia and Cecelia, Democrats.  Tuesday night, Jim arrived at about 7.  Jan left sometime after 8 and both Claudia and Cecelia left at 8 or 9.  Jan had pulled a Republican worker named Bruce off the tables and sworn him in as a judge.  He was a good enough guy, but he had told me on Sunday when he first arrived that he'd never been involved in the absentee process before.  How he could be considered "qualified" to be a precinct judge, I don't know.

Later that night Chris Papalio, a Dem. challenger, realized there were only two judges, and they were both Republican.  It was about 10 at night, people were tired, and there was chaos as people left and took a break and "new" workers arrived, many of them looking tired as well.  We asked Jim to close the precinct for the day (as the law allows him to do) but he refused to consider it.  We pointed out the two Republican judge problem, hoping that would force him to close the precinct.  Jim wandered around the room, found a "new" worker who had Democrat on his label, asked him if he wanted to be a judge, and then swore him in.  The man's name was Mark.  He talked to me when he had arrived a few minutes earlier, to determine if he would be a challenger or worker.  He told me he'd been at a precinct since 6 that morning and was tired.  When Chris asked him how he would interpret the standards to determine voter intent, Mark said he hadn't a clue.   Chris told Jim that Mark was not qualified to be a judge.   Corley Anderson, another Democratic challenger, agreed to serve as judge, and Jim then swore-in Corley Anderson.  At that point there were three judges, two Republican and one Democrat, with two of the four never having been trained to be a precinct judge.  Additionally, there were the inconsistencies that were an unavoidable consequence of Jan and Jim breaking the day into two shifts.  I think the law calls for four judges, two from each party.

At midnight Tuesday, with a new batch of workers, many of whom appeared to have come directly from a campaign party, judging by their attire, Jim pushed forward with the counting, and he apparently continued with counting through the night. 

It is my opinion that there were basically no fail-safe checks on the hand-counting process, from the beginning.  Indeed, the process, with too few people who were minimally trained and who were required to work too long hours, with too few supervisors, also inadequately trained, was practically designed to fail.  No one should have the slightest confidence in the accuracy of the hand counted ballot results. 

I also think that it would be appropriate to compel the County to do a complete re-count of the hand-tallied ballots, at the County's expense, under close supervision, with accuracy checks in place with teams of four or with a double counting by two pairs of two.  No counter should be allowed to work longer than 8 hours at a time, and with the standards about how to interpret "voter intent" to be arrived at by officials with due deliberation, not by partisan challengers, on the spot, ad hoc.  Making the County do and pay for such a recount may impress upon the County that accuracy is far, far more important than speed, and that in fact, speed decreases accuracy, and in the end, with a recount, the speed is lost as well.

Let me also note, just to make this report complete, that Patsy won the early vote 52/48.  Patsy, I think, won the election-day-in-person-vote by a narrow margin.  When it came to the absentee vote the margin was 55/45 in favor of Heather. 

It has long been claimed that more Reps vote absentee than Dems, but this year Dems requested a similar number of AB ballots.   At one point the numbers I had were: 23,577 to Democrats while Republicans requested 24,371 for a total of  47,948.  That's a 51/49 ratio.   I have a recollection that someone said that in the end there were almost 56,000 ABs requested, and roughly 51,000 returned, so I'm assuming that people were exercising their right to request ABs as long as the law allows.  I don't have the final ratio of Dems to Reps, but in any case, the AB ballots requested were not, as they had been in the past, overwhelmingly Republican.  So that explanation doesn't persuade me that the 55/45 split is of no concern.   The polls showed Patsy ahead.  The early votes showed Patsy ahead, in line with the polls.  The election-day vote was closer, but I think Patsy won it.  It is this puzzle about the absentee voting ratio that I think needs to be investigated, in addition to a complete re-count of the hand-tallied ballots.

Anne Kass

THIS LAST WRITE UP IS BY CARTER BUNDY:

To whom it may concern:

On Wednesday morning, November 8, I went to count Bernalillo County absentee ballots at the warehouse at 1551 Mercantile, Suite C, in Albuquerque.  I was sworn in quickly, and sat at a table with a Democratic ballot reader (Andrew V.) and a Republican tallyer (Robert Cushing, a Wilson staffer from Washington, D.C.).  Initially my job was to watch that the name being called was correct AND that the correct tally was made.  An obvious flaw of this system is that it is impossible to always watch the person tallying, so it is very easy for that person to change votes if s/he wants.  I don't believe Robert ever did that, and I did my best to keep track of total votes for Wilson and Madrid in my head, but it certainly is possible in a three-person system.

After doing just over one precinct with just the three of us, a fourth person (Steve, a Republican), joined us.  He watched the ballots being read by Andrew the Democrat, and I watched Robert Cushing tally--and also watched the pen and tally sheet exclusively.  This system was very fair, and very efficient.  I don't believe there was any election fraud committed by anyone at my table.  However, all of us had serious concerns about the packets which were being given to us.

Each packet has four tally sheets (to cover all of the elections on the ballot, including federal races, statewide races, local races, bond issues, retention votes, and constitutional amendments) and, we were told, ALL of the absentee ballots from that precinct which weren't counted by machine.  Several of the packets given to us already had tally marks on them.  Some of them had some ballots in front of the tally sheets with others in the back, while some had all of the ballots together either in front or back of the tally sheets.

The most troubling part was that there was no discernable rhyme or reason for the tallies.  In one packet, there were 19 tally marks for Governor (14 for Dendahl, 5 for Richardson, or something very close to that) and 19 ballots.  However, since we weren't sure if the tallies which were already on the tally sheets were meant to reflect those 19 ballots or others, our table (Dems and Republicans) did a brief audit of just the Governor's race.  The 19 ballots in fact had 11 Richardson, 5 Dendahl, and 3 no votes.  I'm pretty sure it was precinct 500, but we also did 502, 504, and 505, and it could have been one of those.  The judges told us to simply cross out the previous tallies and re-do the packet, and eventually got up and, in a very confusing way, tried to instruct all the tables to do that with any packets that came to them previously tallied.  In fact, one presiding judge, a Republican named Jan, did such a poor job of explaining the new policy that she asked Terry Riley to explain it (he did a much better job, but it was still confusing to some tables).

Other packets had more tally marks for some races than there were ballots.  One of ours (I believe it was one of the four precincts listed above) had nine tallies in some races, but there were only six ballots.  We asked the judges if some completed ballots had been put somewhere else, and they didn't have an answer (nor did they have any other explanation for the discrepancies).

All four of us--Democrats and Republicans--were left shocked at the sloppiness of the entire process.  A little after noon, one of the judges, an older gentleman wearing a blue shirt, told us to finish our packet that we working on because they had to stop the current process and start over.  We didn't push as to exactly what he meant, but it seems that there were so many problems and questionable packets given to the morning workers that had been worked on during the late hours of election night that none of the tally sheets from that period could be considered reliable.

I don't know if they re-started the process in a more disciplined way, but I would have extreme doubts as to the accuracy of any tally sheets compiled during election night or Wednesday morning.  Further, having been the observer with three people and with four people, I would make a strong case that no tally sheets done by two or three people should be considered reliable.  Only a four or more person tally process can be considered reliable, because it is only with that many people that you can have one person watch the ballot reader all the time and one person to watch the tallyer all the time.

While I am not accusing any particular person of fraud, the disconnect between the tally sheets and ballots in a few packets I saw were so obvious that I have no doubt that some election fraud occurred on election night, when there were apparently many three-person tables.

I am prepared to put any of the above into affidavit form and to swear and/or testify to any of the above.

Sincerely,
Carter Bundy
3:55 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 2006

Federal Agents Dispatched to Albuquerque for Election

Guest blogger Suzanne Prescott reports:
Bernalillo County Clerk election coordinator, Jeff Carbajal, confirmed that Albuquerque is among the 65 cities to which 800 election observers from the Dept of Justice will be dispatched on election day. As reported on Air America Radio, the agents are being sent to areas that have been deemed potential trouble spots.

The exact precinct(s) where agents will appear will not be known until the morning of the election when precinct presiding judges receive their precinct election material, according to Carbajal.

Some questions remain to be answered:

• How were so-called potential trouble spots identified?
• What evidence will they be looking for that confirms or denies the existence of trouble?
• Why can't we know beforehand where observers will be dispatched?

Suggestion: When you vote ask if any federal DoJ observers are present and if so record the time and leave a comment here to document your observation or email drhodgepodge@comcast.net

Bush Roast Challenge: Tip No. 2

From Suzanne Prescott: Still stumped in your search for the Bush Roast? Still interested in winning the $100 reward for your favorite Dem candidate? Here's another tip to guide you on your way:

TIP 2:
The ‘Bush Roast’ She saw
After she left the small crowd
Milling around at the entrance
Of a local restaurant.

Early Voting Tips: Bernalillo County

Guest post by Suzanne Prescott:
Early stories in the press and TV might worry some but if you play the odds, voting won't take that long. First - any registered voter who wants to vote early can vote at ANY of the early voting sites. According to Bernalillo count clerk, Mary Herrera, the sites with the shortest lines are at:

• BERNALILLO COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE City-County Government Building, One Civic Plaza
• RIO BRAVO SHOPPING CENTER 1698 Rio Bravo SW
• LOS VECINOS COMMUNITY CENTER Tijeras

So the best tip for many is to drive the extra few minutes to vote at one of those sites. (The heaviest voting yesterday took place at ACADEMY OFFICE PARK, 6739 Academy NE.)

Second - According to Herrera the least busy time is between 6 and 8 PM. Wait until after dinner and drive to an early voting location of your choice. Voting at a time when you don't have to be back at work is also bound to be less stressful.

Third -  take supplies with you.  Early voters could be seen with books, water bottles and magazines. We also suggest you might think about a folding camp chair and one of those TIVO or Dish mini screens (PVR or DVR) for a quick peek at your favorite show. Perhaps the most interesting activity would be to turn to others in the line and ask them what they think of the TV ads that have been playing, how many  voters they think rely on ads rather than more careful analysis of where candidates stand on the issues. That should make for lively discussion.

Lastly - think about this. Whenever a new system is introduced there is a learning curve and a period adjustment to work out the "bugs." Our old system was broken; it needed to be fixed in order for everyone to feel that the vote they had cast was being counted. Part of the reason voting is taking more than a couple of minutes is that the ballot itself is long. There are many races and a number of issues voters are asked to cast their ballot on. The ballot is printed in small type so we suggest that you take a magnifying glass if you have one, although magnifying glasses are available at the voting locations. You might also want to take a mini flashlight in case a brighter light makes the ballot easier to read. As always, any voter may request help with voting if needed. Use whatever help is there to get in and out as quickly as possible.

If you've voted early, what was your experience and how long did it take? What tips, if any, do you have to offer?

For your information early voting for the Nov. 7 general election is available at 13 locations throughout Bernalillo County:

• THE BERNALILLO COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE City-County Government Building, One Civic Plaza
• RIO BRAVO SHOPPING CENTER 1698 Rio Bravo SW
• LOS VECINOS COMMUNITY CENTER Tijeras
• SANDIA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER 11500 Menaul NE
• GLENRIO PLAZA 851 Coors NW
• ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CITY CENTRE 6400 Uptown NE
• 5024 FOURTH NW
• INTEGRITY PLAZA 1500 Wyoming NE
• PARKLAND PLAZA 1118 San Mateo SE
• PLAZA LADERA 5300 Sequoia NW
• 900 FOURTH NW
• ACADEMY OFFICE PARK 6739 Academy NE
• LOS RANCHOS VILLA 6601 Fourth NW

Editor's Notes:
Voting Hours at the Bernalillo County sites listed above are:
Tuesday, October 24 thru Friday, October 27: Noon - 8:00 pm
Saturday, October 28: 10:00 am - 6:00 pm
Tuesday, October 31 thru Friday, November 3: Noon - 8:00 pm
Saturday, November 4: 10:00 am - 6:00 pm

For info on early voting sites in other counties, contact your County Clerk. You can find contact information for them here.

Take the Bush Roast Challenge

This is a guest blog by Suzanne Prescott:
You're driving through a nearby precinct and something catches your eye. You do a double take. Embedded in someone's fence is a 'Bush Roast.' A closer look reveals that a rotisserie is embedded in a driveway's fence and Bush is, well ... roasting. Can you find the Bush Roast? It looks like this:

If you're the first person to find the 'Bush Roast' before the election, we will donate $100 to your favorite Democratic candidate. And we think the person most likely to find a roasting Bush will be a die-hard canvasser. Go Canvassers! We’ll announce the winner here. Keep tuned for tips to his location. Email at drhodgepodge@comcast.net

TIP 1: 
“An old Hispanic neighborhood had concerns and fear
That before Bush is done, another war would be near.”

Editor's Note: This is a guest blog by Suzanne Prescott. If you'd like to submit one, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link at the upper left-hand side of this website.

Clean Energy Group Organizes in Las Cruces

This is a guest post by Ed Fulmer a renewable energy advocate who blogs at Alternative Comment:

Every day there is growing consensus that fossil fuel based transportation, energy generation and agriculture is not sustainable into the future. A new group has formed in Las Cruces to explore clean renewable affordable energy solutions. The Southwest Energy Alliance meets the first Wednesday of each month, 6 p.m., at the South West Environmental Center on the Mall in Las Cruces.

The group brings together energetic, capable and imaginative citizens dedicated to public education, citizen action and the installation of renewable energy production facilities. If you attend one of their meetings you will find a full agenda of energy related topics. Biofuels, geothermal energy, solar installation, wind energy technology, government incentives, community education and clean energy capitalization are some of what you’ll hear. The Alliance is a discussion group, a government watchdog and a community advocate for clean energy. In addition, there are field trips to renewable energy facilities.

The group was in action on Thursday October 5th when two members met with the City Project Administrator for the new city hall. The topic was Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification for the facility. The way this building is constructed will determine it’s effect on the wallets and the health of Las Crucens for decades to come.

The South West Environmental Center is an appropriate venue for Energy Alliance meetings. SWEC is poised to become a focal point of clean energy in southern New Mexico. The New Mexico Legislature passed and the Governor authorized funding for the installation of a solar electric system and a solar energy education exhibit at the center. However, New Mexico State University, tasked with installation, has reportedly reneged on fulfilling the intent of the legislation to include an educational exhibit.

As we continue to move toward the tipping point, whether it is the economic impact of high energy prices or the environmental impact of global warming, pollutants and resource extraction, the South West Energy Alliance will be working on solutions.