Incumbent Sumi Kailasapathy, who was first elected to the city council in 2012 and is seeking re-election, has taken out petitions and had 102 signatures verified by city clerk staff as valid.

Adams serves on the PTO Council of the Ann Arbor Public School District. The PTO council is an umbrella organization of PTOs for the district. He’s described  on the PTO council’s website as having a background in health administration. Kailasapathy is an accountant.

Like all candidates for city council,  Adams will have until April 22 to submit at least 100 signatures from voters in the ward in order to appear on the ballot. Mayoral candidates must submit 50 signatures from registered voters in each of the city’s five wards.

Adams’ entry into the Ward 1 race means that four out of five council races will likely be contested in the Democratic primaries, provided those who intend to submit signatures do so. All prospective candidates so far are Democrats.

In Ward 2, the council race looks to be between Ann Arbor District Library board member Nancy Kaplan and current planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

In Ward 3, a race will likely unfold between former park advisory chair Julie Grand and University of Michigan student Samuel McMullen. And they might be joined by downtown barber Bob Dascola, if his lawsuit asserting this eligibility to run is successful. Today, on April 14, the city filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and a response to Dascola’s motion for summary judgment that would find Dascola eligible. The city contends that Dascola does not meet city charter durational residency and voter registration requirements for council candidates. The case is being handled on an expedited schedule so that the question can be settled by the time ballots are finalized in June.

In Ward 4, Graydon Krapohl, who currently serves as vice chair of the city’s park advisory commission, is the only candidate to take out petitions so far. The incumbent, Democrat Margie Teall, has stated that she does not intend to run for re-election.

In Ward 5, incumbent Chuck Warpehoski is seeking re-election and faces a challenge from Leon Bryson.

No incumbent is running in Ward 2 or Ward 3 because Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are running for mayor, instead of seeking re-election as councilmembers representing their respective wards. Joining those two for mayor are Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere and Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman. Briere and Kunselman would serve out the remaining year of their two-year terms on the council if not elected mayor.

For a comprehensive update on the status of petitions and filings for city council and mayoral races see previous Chronicle coverage from last week.

The decision came after the state Bureau of Elections indicated late Friday afternoon that a determination made by county clerk Larry Kestenbaum earlier in the week was inappropriate. Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle on Saturday that Borregard had been apprised of the situation, and will be officially informed in writing on Monday, when his name will be removed from the list of candidates on the county’s election website.

Republican Dan Smith, shown here chairing the May 16 meeting of the Washtenaw County board's ways & means committee, represents District 2 on the board of commissioners. He will be the only candidate on the ballot in District 2 for the Aug. 7 primary. (Photo by the writer.)

Borregard, a Dexter resident, had originally filed to run in District 1, which is the current district in which he resides. However, because of redistricting that takes effect for the upcoming election, his home will be located in the new District 2. Shortly after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, the county clerk’s office was alerted to this error by Kent Martinez-Kratz, a Democrat who’s running in District 1 against incumbent Republican Rob Turner. Acting to correct what he deemed a clerical error, Kestenbaum, a Democrat, approved an amendment to Borregard’s paperwork to allow him to appear on the District 2 ballot.

On Friday afternoon at 2 p.m., Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that he had talked with the county’s corporation counsel [Curtis Hedger] earlier in the week, as well as to staff in the state Bureau of Elections, and that he was comfortable that the change was within his authority to make. He said it was important not to create barriers to running for office. “There’s no trickery here,” he said.

Later that afternoon, Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams told The Chronicle that staff were reviewing the situation and would potentially weigh on in it early next week. The Bureau of Elections is a division of the office of Secretary of State, a position held by Republican Ruth Johnson.

But just a few minutes before 5 p.m. on Friday, an official from the Bureau of Elections contacted the county clerk’s office, according to Golembiewski. The state’s view is that it was not appropriate to accept changes to the filing after the 4 p.m. deadline. As a result, Borregard’s name will not appear on the ballot. Kestenbaum left town Friday afternoon to attend an out-of-state funeral over the weekend and could not be reached. Golembiewski said that Kestenbaum had previously indicated he would abide by the state Bureau of Elections decision.

Borregard, who ran for county commissioner in 2010 but was defeated in the Democratic primary, has the option of challenging the decision in court. He could also choose to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

In another county board race, two Ypsilanti Township candidates who had previously filed to run for the commissioner seat in District 5 – Rick Roe and Michael White – have withdrawn from that Aug. 7 primary race. The deadline to withdraw was 4 p.m. Friday, May 18. That leaves incumbent Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr. unchallenged in the primary.

For a list of county candidates in the Aug. 7 primary election, see Chronicle coverage: “Last Minute Filings: Washtenaw County Races.”

District 2 Ballot

Eric Borregard filed his affidavit to become a Democratic candidate for the Washtenaw County board of commissioners on March 8, 2012. He has run for office several times in the past, most recently in 2010 for the District 1 county board seat. In that race, he lost in the three-way August primary to Adam Zemke, earning 15.06% of the vote compared to 69.98% for Zemke and 14.69% for the other Democratic candidate, Reid McCarthy. Zemke was subsequently defeated by Republican Rob Turner in the general election.

When candidates file their paperwork to run for office, the county clerk’s staff checks to confirm the accuracy of information submitted by candidates by using the Michigan Qualified Voter File, a database maintained by the state. Initially, county clerk Larry Kestenbaum told The Chronicle that the day after Borregard filed for the 2012 election, the clerk’s staff checked the QVF and found that it listed Borregard as a resident of District 1. Kestenbaum explained this by saying that the state had not yet updated the QVF to reflect the new county districts.

But on Friday night, Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy county clerk and elections director, told The Chronicle that the state disputed that claim and that the QVF had been updated by the time that Borregard had filed in March. Golembiewski said he checked the county’s records again on Friday night and found that, in fact, the QVF had been updated at the time of Borregard’s original filing. It now appears that the candidate filed to run in the incorrect district, and the county clerk’s staff didn’t catch the error when reviewing Borregard’s paperwork.

The error came to the attention of the clerk’s staff a few minutes after the 4 p.m. filing deadline on Tuesday, May 15, when Kent Martinez-Kratz, the only other Democrat running in District 1, contacted the clerk’s office. At that point, Kestenbaum decided to offer Borregard the opportunity to amend his affidavit to reflect the correct district – District 2. Borregard submitted that amendment at 5:22 p.m. on May 15, more than an hour after the filing deadline.

Dan Smith, who was first elected in 2010 for a term beginning in January 2011, is unopposed in the Republican primary. And other than Borregard, no other Democratic candidates filed in District 2. Kestenbaum reported that Smith had inquired about the timeline of events regarding Borregard’s filing, and on Thursday, May 17 the county clerk’s staff prepared a written timeline at Smith’s request. [.pdf of timeline from clerk's office]

In an interview with The Chronicle early Friday afternoon, May 18, Kestenbaum said that he had consulted with the county’s corporation counsel and staff at the state Bureau of Elections, and “as far as I’m concerned, it’s settled.” Borregard filed in a timely matter, and filed in the district he believed was correct – and the clerk’s staff had confirmed that information, Kestenbaum said. He said it wasn’t the candidate’s fault that the QVF hadn’t been updated. [At the time of his conversation with The Chronicle, Kestenbaum asserted that the QVF had not been up to date.]

Kestenbaum said his general philosophy is to err on the side of letting people run for office so that voters can decide, and not create barriers to getting on the ballot. He noted that there was a special election on May 8 based on the current districts for the county board, while at the same time candidates were filing for races in the new districts. [Democrat Felicia Brabec won that May 8 election against Republican Richard Conn – a special election prompted by last year's resignation of former commissioner Kristin Judge.]

Regardless, Kestenbaum said, his office should have checked the candidates’ addresses against a map of the new county board districts, but they didn’t. Borregard relied on confirmation by the clerk’s office that his filing was accurate, Kestenbaum said.

[By way of background, Kestenbaum – a former county commissioner who represented one of Ann Arbor's districts – chaired the county apportionment commission, which developed and approved the county board redistricting plan in May of 2011. Other members of the apportionment commission were county treasurer Catherine McClary; county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie; Cleveland Chandler, chair of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party; and Mark Boonstra, then-chair of the Washtenaw County Republican Committee. See Chronicle coverage: "County Board Loses 2 Seats in Redistricting."]

Redistricting occurs every 10 years, in connection with the U.S. Census. So it would be rare for confusion about the district boundaries to arise in connection with candidate filings. Kestenbaum characterized it as a clerical error, and did not recall encountering any similar cases for this type of race.

Before the state weighed in, Kestenbaum had said that if Smith was aggrieved by the decision to include Borregard on the District 2 ballot, he had the option of filing a lawsuit in the 22nd Circuit Court. Now, Borregard would have that same option. Kestenbaum was uncertain whether there is a deadline by which such a filing would need to occur. Golembiewski noted that the ballots will be approved by the county board of election commissioners, which meets on June 11.

Kestenbaum, as county clerk, also serves on the board of election commissioners. Other members are the county treasurer (McClary) and Donald Shelton, chief judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. Kestenbaum and McClary were elected clerk and treasurer as Democrats, and are both running for re-election this year. Shelton was elected judge on a non-partisan ballot, but in the past has run for office as a Democrat. This group is also responsible for ruling on the clarity of ballot language for recall petitions, for example.

Ballots for the Aug. 7 primary elections will begin to be created as early as next week. The county contracts with Government Business Systems (GBS) to do its ballot programming.

Borregard also has the option to run as an independent in the Nov. 6 general election – the filing deadline for candidates who are not affiliated with a political party is July 19 at 4 p.m.

When asked about the partisan implications of this situation, Kestenbaum said he would have done the exact same thing if Borregard had been a Republican. “In fact, I wish it were a Republican,” he added, so that the partisan question would be irrelevant. He said he detests political considerations being a factor in what goes on the ballot, citing his disagreement with a recent decision by the state Board of State Canvassers as an example. That board denied approving petitions to put a repeal of the state’s emergency manager law on the ballot because the petitions weren’t circulated with the font size required by law. That decision is being appealed.

In a phone conversation with The Chronicle on Friday afternoon before the state weighed in, Smith had said he wasn’t prepared to make a statement on the issue. He had planned to talk with people about it over the weekend at the Republican state convention in Detroit – Smith is a delegate from Precinct 3 in Northfield Township.

Update: Late Sunday night, May 20, Dan Smith emailed this statement to The Chronicle: “Mr. Kestenbaum has jeopardized the transparency and integrity of the Clerk’s office; undermining the hard work of the dedicated public servants under his supervision. However, a detailed accounting at this time would do little to advance the concerns of those in the 2nd district. My focus remains on the residents of Washtenaw County: providing for their public safety needs, being accountable for their tax dollars, and ensuring the long-term financial stability of their government.”

Map 1. Michigan 2012 presidential primary election – Democratic participation as a percentage of total turnout, by county. Details after the jump.

For Democrats, President Barack Obama was unchallenged in the Michigan primary this year, amid a political scuffle about whether the Democratic primary should even be held. With little at stake in terms of the choice of the Democratic nominee, it’s not surprising that the 2012 Democratic turnout was light, compared to 2008.

This  year only 16% of participants in the primary voted on the Democratic side compared with 40% in 2008. That year Obama’s name did not appear on the Michigan ballot, which resulted in about 41% of Democratic voters selecting the “uncommitted” option, compared to roughly 55% who voted for Hillary Clinton. Part of the diminished Democratic turnout this year could have been due to Democrats crossing party lines to vote for Rick Santorum – based on the idea that Santorum would have less of a chance to defeat Obama in the general election.

In Ann Arbor, however, absentee Democratic voters participated in far greater relative numbers than their counterparts who went to the polls in person. Even in the more strongly Republican wards – Ward 2 and Ward 4 – almost 40% of the total primary turnout for absentee voters was on the Democratic side. In the other three Ann Arbor wards, Democratic absentee turnout was closer to 50%.

For readers already familiar with the general geographic distribution of voters who mainly vote Democrat or Republican, the results of the 2012 presidential primary in Michigan likely offer little to refute prevailing wisdom.

After the jump we take a geographic look at Democratic participation, as well as the performance of Romney, Santorum and Paul. We’ve mapped out results at the state level (by county), the Washtenaw County level (by township and city) and the city of Ann Arbor (by precinct). Statewide data is from the secretary of state’s office election results, while the data for jurisdictions within Washtenaw County is based on the county clerk’s election results. Mapping is done through geocommons.com with shape files available through the city of Ann Arbor.

Dynamic Maps

Maps created by The Chronicle include results for the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries – for Democratic turnout (and by implication Republican turnout), the performance of Romney, Paul and Santorum. (Santorum’s results are for 2012 only, because he didn’t run in 2008.)

Links to the dynamic maps generated on geocommons.com:

• Michigan, results by county
• Washtenaw County, results broken down by township and city
• Ann Arbor, results by precinct

For each map, different results are presented in different “layers,” which can be controlled on the right side of the screen. To view different results, first “uncheck” the box of the layer currently displayed, and check the box of a different layer.

Below we present a selected set of static images from those dynamic maps.

Michigan Dems

Compared to 2012, relative turnout among Democrats across the state in 2008 showed a geographic pattern similar to that in Map 1. Although the relative strength of Democratic turnout was roughly similar in those two years, many more counties were relatively week this year, compared to 2008, and fewer counties were relatively strong.

Map 1. Michigan 2012 presidential primary election – Democratic participation as a percentage of total turnout, by county. The darkest shade of blue (Wayne) reflects 33% turnout. The lightest shades (e.g. Ottawa and Allegan) reflect around 5% Democratic participation.

Map 2. Michigan 2008 presidential primary election – Democratic participation as percentage of total turnout, by county. The darkest shade of blue (Wayne) reflects 62% Democratic turnout. Neighboring Washtenaw had 50% Democratic turnout. The lightest shades correspond percentage-wise to the high-teens and lower 20s. Ottawa, on the western side of the state, had just 17% Democratic participation.

 Michigan: Republican Candidates

Map 3. Mitt Romney's performance in the 2012 Michigan presidential primary election, by county. Romney had a bit over 41% of the statewide vote. He was strong in the southeastern part of the state, in particular in Oakland County, where he received a bit over 50% of the vote.

Map 4. Mitt Romney's performance in the 2008 Michigan presidential primary election, by county. That year, Romney had about 39% of the vote statewide. As in 2012, he was strong in the southeastern part of the state, polling more than 44% in Livingston, Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties that year.

Map 5. Rick Santorum's performance in the 2012 Michigan presidential primary election, by county. Statewide, he received 37.9% of the vote. He received more than 49% of the vote in several of the western counties.

Map 6. Ron Paul's performance in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary election, by county. Paul received 11.6% of Republican votes statewide. Support was strongest in Lapeer and Wayne counties with around 16% of voters supporting Paul. On the low side were counties like Ottawa, where Paul tallied around 8.5% of the vote. Paul's support across the state was more uniform in 2012 than in 2008. (See Map 7.)

Map 7. Ron Paul's performance in the Michigan 2008 presidential primary election, by county. Paul tallied 6.2% of the vote statewide that year. He was strongest in Hillsdale County (in the south), getting nearly 17% of the vote.

Washtenaw Dems

The Democratic turnout in Washtenaw County in 2012 compared to 2008 was a similar story to the statewide picture. Both years, Democratic turnout was strongest where it would ordinarily be expected – in the eastern part of the county. But diminished participation translated into fewer townships at the strongest levels of support.

Map 8. Washtenaw Democratic participation in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary election as a percentage of total turnout, by township and city. Ypsilanti Township, with 28% participation, had the highest in the county. The city of Ypsilanti had 24%, while the city of Ann Arbor had 17%. Townships with the lowest Democratic turnout, like Saline Township in the mid-south, had low single-digit Democratic turnout.

Map 9. Washtenaw Democratic participation in the Michigan 2008 presidential primary election as a percentage of total turnout, by township and city. The city of Ypsilanti had the highest Democratic participation, with 65%, followed by the city of Ann Arbor with 63%.

Washtenaw: Republican Candidates

Map 10. Mitt Romney's performance in Washtenaw County in the 2012 Michigan presidential primary election. Countywide, Romney had 42% of the vote. He was strongest in the middle swatch of townships, and the city of Chelsea, where he tallied better than 50% of the vote. He was weakest in Ypsilanti, where he received 29% of the vote.

Map 11. Rick Santorum's performance in Washtenaw County in the 2012 Michigan presidential primary election. Countywide, Santorum had 37% of the vote. He was strongest in August Township (lower righthand corner) with 47% of the Republican vote. He had 45% of the Republican vote in Lyndon Township (upper lefthand corner). He was weakest in the geographic center of the county in Scio and Lodi townships, where he received about 31% of the vote.

Map 12. Ron Paul's performance in Washtenaw County in the 2012 Michigan presidential primary election. Countywide, he almost 16% of the vote. He was strongest in the city of Ypsilanti, where he received 29% of the Republican vote. He was weakest in townships like Saline, where he received just over 5% of the vote.

Ann Arbor Dems

Compared to the 2008 turnout in the city of Ann Arbor, when the outcome of the nomination process for both parties was somewhat uncertain, the Democratic turnout in the city of Ann Arbor is somewhat of a mixed bag.

Map 13. Ann Arbor Democratic participation as a percentage of total turnout in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary election. Democratic participation was strongest in Ward 3, Precinct 5 in the south of the city, with about 18% of the total turnout.

Map 14. Ann Arbor Democratic participation as a percentage of total turnout in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary election. In the strongest precincts, Democratic turnout ranged between 70-80%, while in even the weakest precincts, it was around 50%.

Ann Arbor: Republican Candidates

Map 15. Mitt Romney's performance in Ann Arbor in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary race. In the traditionally strong Republican precincts of Ward 2, Romney's support ranged from 54% to 63%. In other precincts, his percentage was mostly in the low 30s.

Map 16. Rick Santorum's performance in Ann Arbor in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary race. Santorum was strongest in precincts that as a whole do not tend to enjoy strong Republican support. In Ward 1, Precinct 10 in the central north of the city, he got 53% of the Republican vote, and in Ward 3, Precinct 6 he received 44% of the vote. In traditional strong Republican precincts of Ward 2, he received percentages in the low to mid-20s.

Map 17. Ron Paul's performance in Ann Arbor in the Michigan 2012 presidential primary race. Percentage-wise, Paul was strongest in the center of the city, where he tallied more than half the Republican votes – but the raw numbers were in some cases in the single digits. In the next-strongest areas, he typically had percentages in the mid-20s.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Before the Aug. 26 recounting got started, Conan Smith (left), a current county commissioner acting as one of Youself Rabhi's official "watchers," chats with Mike Fried (right), who'd asked for the recount. Shooting video for the Michigan Election Reform Alliance was Jan BenDor. Seated in the background is Alice Ralph, who came third in the balloting for the District 11 seat.

The process started around 12:30 p.m., and about four hours later in the lower level conference room of the county building at 200 N. Main St., the final ballots had been recounted – the last ones coming from Precinct 2 in Ann Arbor Township. [District 11 covers parts of southeast Ann Arbor and one precinct in Ann Arbor Township.]

Fried summed up the afternoon, conceding to Rabhi – who was still the winner after the recounting, with a relatively comfortable margin of two votes: “Well, congratulations!”

Fried continued with compliments all around for  the board of canvassers and the election inspectors who handled the recounting, saying he was amazed that they had finished in four hours.

The board of canvassers consists of Tony DeMott (R), Melodie Gable (R), Ulla Roth (D), and Carol Kuhnke (D). The news was first reported by The Ann Arbor Chronicle live from the scene: “Rabhi Prevails on Recount.”

The work might have been completed sooner, had it not been for a snafu with the Ann Arbor Township ballot box. Initially, the box for Precinct 1, not Precinct 2, had been delivered for recounting. Getting access to the correct box depended on tracking down someone with a key to the room in the township clerk’s office, where the ballots are stored.

Recounted totals for the four candidates: Yousef Rabhi, 999; Mike Fried, 997; Alice Ralph, 280; LuAnne Bullington, 108.

The afternoon included a range of scenarios that illuminated some of the more arcane aspects of the voting system. Also in attendance was Joe Baublis, who will be on the ballot for the Republicans in November for the District 11 county board seat. He posed a question at the start of the proceedings: How much will this recount cost taxpayers?

How Much Does a Recount Cost?

In response to the question from Baublis, Washtenaw County deputy clerk Matt Yankee, who is acting director of elections, noted that the election inspectors at each of four tables are paid by the hour, and that the documents related to payment are subject to the Freedom of Information Act – in the event that anyone was curious to get an exact figure after the payments were made.

There were four tables with two election inspectors apiece, paid at an hourly rate of $15. For a roughly four-hour afternoon, that would amount to a ballpark estimate of (4 tables) x (2 people) x 15 (dollars/hr) x 4 (hours) = $480. In fact, the cost was dramatically less than that.

Melodie Gable and Tony DeMott, members of the board of canvassers, walk election inspectors through part of the unsealing procedure for the ballot duffel bags.

The Chronicle followed up with Yankee, who responded by email to a query for a better-than-ballpark estimate. The main reason that it cost less was that of the eight people who served as election inspectors, five didn’t need to be paid extra: one was a full-time permanent employee with the county clerk’s office; two were already part-time temp employees with the county clerk’s office; and two were employees from local jurisdictions.

That left three people people who needed to be hired specifically to work the day of the recount. Two of them worked 3.5 hours ($52.50) and the third worked 4.5 hours ($67.50). Yankee also noted that parking validation would be paid for those workers. [Based on hourly rates at structures of $0.45 per half hour, around $15 would cover parking for those three workers.]

Yankee noted that the $160 deposit posted by Fried ($10 per precinct for the 16 precincts involved in the recount) wouldn’t be refunded, because the outcome of the election did not change.

Based on board of canvasser Melodie Gable’s remarks in response to Baublis’ initial query, the four board members present were also paid $25 per day for their work.

An estimate of the final accounting for the day’s expenses:

EXPENSES

$ 52.50  Election Inspector
  52.50  Election Inspector
  67.50  Election Inspector
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  25.00  Board of Canvassers
  15.00  Parking Validation

$287.50  Total

REVENUE

$160.00  Deposit

-

The Missing Box: Ann Arbor Township Precinct 2

It was a slightly longer day than expected, due to the delivery of the box for Ann Arbor Township Precinct 1 ballots instead of the box for Precinct 2.

Ann Arbor Township's ballot box for Precinct 1 showing the side with the temporary seal. The other side of the box also has an opening, with a permanent seal.

The mistake can be traced to the physical configuration of the metal boxes used to store the ballots. This style of box has a point of entry on each side of the box – one of which is required by the state of Michigan to have a “permanent” seal. The other side is the seal containing the information specific to a particular election, including the precinct number.

The permanent seal for the box indicated Box 2, which apparently was misunderstood to mean that it contained the ballots for Precinct 2. In fact, Box 2 contained Precinct 1′s ballots.

When the mistake was recognized, the call out to Ann Arbor Township indicated that locating the key to the room where ballots are secured might pose a challenge.

A combination of August vacations plus absences due to personal reasons had raised a brief specter of a door getting broken down by the fire department or sheriff’s deputies. When a key was successfully located, the resolution to the “crisis” proved to be far less dramatic.

The city of Ann Arbor uses sturdy duffel bags, not the older style boxes.

Does It Match? Ann Arbor City Ward 3, Precinct 3

Ann Arbor city Ward 3, Precinct 3′s ballots offered a chance to work through some of the more arcane aspects of validation and cross-checking involved in election recounts.

Ward 3, Precinct 3: Seal Matches Poll Book?

Before any ballot containers are opened, the first step is to confirm that the poll book number assigned to the container matches the number indicated on the container seal. In the case of the Ward 3, Precinct 3 duffel bag, the numerical sequence indicated in the poll book matched the sequence on the duffel seal – except that there was an extra number 5 tacked on the end in the poll book, compared to the sequence on the duffel.

Lyn Badalamenti was one of the election inspectors working the table who discovered the mismatch. Her name might strike some Chronicle readers as familiar, because she was the Ann Arbor city clerk staffer who supplied Steve Bean with his paper work, when Bean took out his petitions to file as an independent candidate for mayor of Ann Arbor.

Badalamenti observed that the extra 5 yielded an 8-digit number, but that the city of Ann Arbor has no 8-digit seals. That is, the number indicated in the poll book denoted an non-existent seal. Members of the board of canvassers were called over to rule and voted unanimously in favor of accepting the explanation that a 5 had inadvertently been added. Said Tony DeMott, “I prefer to see ballots counted.”

Ward 3, Precinct 3: Number of Ballots Matches Poll Book Total?

After opening a ballot container, and before the actual recounting of ballots begins, the total number of ballots in the container is counted and compared to the number of ballots recorded on the tape produced by the optical scanning voting machine and recorded in the poll book. If the numbers don’t match, the ballots don’t get recounted.

For Ward 3, Precinct 3, the total number of ballots in the container was counted twice as 831 – but the poll book indicated 830 ballots. One ballot was identified as possibly the “extra” ballot. It had the telltale folds indicating it had been sent through the mail – an absentee ballot. It had “Flawed #5″ handwritten on it – indicating a ballot that should have been run through the optical scanning machine with a manual override, but apparently was not.

A brief discussion unfolded at the table around the idea that the ballot should have been placed by poll workers on election day in one of two envelopes marked either “original” or “spoiled.” The two envelopes correspond to two kinds of scenarios. The first is when poll workers need to make a duplicate of a ballot in order to get the machine to accept the vote. This is associated with absentee ballots, which are typically processed on election day during the course of the day. Poll workers feed the absentee ballots into the machine on behalf of voters.

But suppose an absentee ballot is physically defective in some way. One example Melodie Gable gave was that sometimes absentee voters will put a really hard crease into the ballot when they place it into the envelope, which causes problems with the optical scanning. The solution to getting the machine to read and count that voter’s selections is to duplicate exactly on a “clean” ballot all voting choices and to feed that ballot into the machine, saving the original ballot for the “original” envelope.

A different scenario involves an in-person voter who tries to submit a ballot that the machine does not accept due, for example, to cross-voting – that is, voting in both the Republican and Democratic primaries on the same ballot. In that case, the voter can be provided with a new ballot, advised again not to vote in both primaries, and given another shot at voting. Their original ballot, however, is preserved in the “spoiled” envelope. The Chronicle stumbled across this kind of situation during primary election day coverage:

1 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 3: Second Baptist Church (850 Red Oak Drive).

[...]

Poll workers are handling a spoiled ballot from someone who apparently accidentally filled in votes for both primaries. The voter must fold it in half and place it in a special envelope, then re-try with a new ballot. Voting is a success.

When an absentee ballot is fed into the optical scanning machine and it’s rejected due to a physical defect in the paper, a duplicate can be made on behalf of the voter. But if the rejection is due to cross-voting, then poll workers are supposed to force the optical scanner to accept the ballot through an override, which the machine then counts as a ballot, though it does not count any of the selections.

Mike Fried’s wife Liz, who served as one of his official watchers at the recount, told The Chronicle at the recount that she knew of three people who had voted for Fried, but had also voted in the Republican primary, so their votes for Fried didn’t count.

The board of canvassers clustered around the table and determined that the “extra” ballot was adequately explained by the theory that it had not been inserted into the scanner with an override. Canvasser Ulla Roth lamented the fact that the poll workers had not made a note in the poll book explaining what had happened.

In the course of the deliberations and discussion about the extra ballot, canvasser Tony DeMott pointed out that there were people touching the ballots who were not authorized to do so: “Are we going to have rules, or not?” And the unauthorized touching did not persist.

The One-Vote Swing

The one additional vote for Rabhi came as the result of a ballot that was not counted due to an apparent crossover vote – the absentee voter had been analyzed by the optical scanner as attempting to vote in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

On manual inspection, however, the ballot indicated that the voter had started to fill in a selection on the Republican side of the ballot, had written the word “no” and then voted the Democratic side of the ballot. The instance fit the description of a “correction” described in the manual of guidelines for interpreting ballot markings and the selections on the Democratic side were allowed to count – that voter selected Rabhi.

Ballot Photography

Jan BenDor attended the Aug. 26 recount to shoot video for the Michigan Election Reform Alliance. In 2008, BenDor had run for Superior Township clerk in the Democratic primary. She lost to David Philips, and had requested a recount.

At the start of Thursday’s meeting, BenDor was told she could not shoot close-up video of actual ballots, but she stood her ground. She stated there was not a proscription against it and cited a Michigan attorney general opinion [Opinion No. 7247] from earlier this year stating that ballots are public documents subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

From the opinion:

Voted ballots, which are not traceable to the individual voter, are public records subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. The Secretary of State, in her role as the Chief Elections Officer, or the Director of Elections through the authority vested in that office, may exercise supervisory authority over local elections officials responding to a Freedom of Information Act request for voted ballots by issuing directions for the review of the ballots in order to protect their physical integrity and the security of the voted ballots.

BenDor was allowed to shoot video throughout the recount proceedings.

Links

For a breakdown of the recounted results by precinct, see this Google Spreadsheet: Rabhi-Fried Recount.

Previous Chronicle coverage of recounts:

• “Anatomy of a Recount“
• “Recount Confirms Kunselman Wins“

Photos

Conan Smith, Washtenaw County commissioner for District 10, greets city of Ann Arbor clerk Jackie Beaudry. Seated next to Beaudry is Lyn Badalamenti with the city clerk's office.

Dave DeVarti (left), former city councilmember and former Downtown Development Authority board member, was one of Yousef Rabhi's official watchers. Rabhi is standing on the right.

Standing are members of the board of canvassers: Melodie Gable and Tony DeMott. They were handling the Ward 3, Precinct 3 ballots, which provided two opportunities for board of canvasser rulings. Seated is Conan Smith, who was watching on behalf of Yousef Rabhi.

Yousef Rabhi and Peggy Rabhi.

Matt Yankee, deputy county clerk and acting director of elections, brought materials by the box full.