An Undemocratic Election: Taos County Precinct 21

NOTE: The following was emailed to me by a resident of Taos County and is published unedited.

What Tommy Tafoya doesn’t want you to know about the precinct election
in Talpa:

1. Twenty four of the 67 ballots cast at the Precinct 21 election in
   Talpa had the first name written on the ballot crossed out and a different
   name entered.
2. Only 3 of those 24 had matching handwriting for both names written on
   the ballot.  For the other 21 ballots, one person wrote the name on the
   ballot - and then someone else crossed that off and wrote in a different
   name.
3. Sixteen of the twenty-four changed ballots were written in the same
   handwriting.
4. Six names did not appear on the voter rolls, but voted in the election
   anyhow.  Of those, two were registered to vote in a different precinct,
   and three were not registered as Democrats.
5. A challenge to this crooked election was blocked from even being heard
   at the Credentials Committee meeting.

What follows is the text of that challenge:

I, redacted for privacy  am a registered Democrat in Precinct 21, Taos County.  This is a challenge of election results for Precinct 21, conducted last week on March 13, 2007.  I would like to petition the County Credentials Committee to invalidate the results of the election, due to several problems connected with its operation.  After I describe the problems, I have suggested remedies.

I was a participant in the March 13 precinct meeting at the Talpa Community Center.  I also served as one of three people who manned the sign-in table.  Further, I was elected for one of the Central Committee positions by ballot, and as Credentials representative by acclaim.  I also served as Credential representative in the previous term.  In 2005 and again in 2007, I was entrusted with safekeeping the ballots and sign-in sheets for 90 days after the meeting as called for in Democratic Party rules.

First, and this is a minor point: Mr. Tafoya skipped the part of the meeting procedure where he makes the offer for some other party to chair the meeting.  Since he was actively organizing and campaigning for his son, it would have been better to have a neutral party chair the meeting. (Rule 12-9-C-2.)

Second, related to sign-in and credentials: There was no formal credentials review included in the agenda.  There were six people who signed in whose names did not appear on the precinct sign-in rolls.  I checked with the County Clerk afterwards, and four of those six voters were ineligible.  Two of them had reported to the wrong precinct, being actually registered in Precinct 19.  And three were not registered Democrats.  Instead, one was decline to state, and two had checked “No Party” on the registration form.  There’s no way to remove those invalid votes, because we neglected to take provisional affidavits for them. (Rule 12-9-C-3)

Third, and to my thinking, the most serious error in the meeting involved the handling of the actual ballots.  I did not observe the vote-counting myself, and raised no objections at the time.  At the meeting, I was tasked with keeping the ballots for the required period after the election.  The originals are here, and copies are attached. [Added note: Tommy Tafoya took custody of the ballots at the Credentials Committee meeting, so I no longer have them.]

The day after the election, I received a call from one of the precinct voters.  She said she’d observed Mr. Tafoya and several others as they counted the votes.  She said they’d spread the ballots out, reviewed them, and then crossed out the candidate voted for and written in a new name on numerous ballots.  She encouraged me to examine them, something I had not done until then.  When I looked, I found that more than twenty four of the ballots had been altered - more than half of those, sixteen in all, in the same handwriting.  That challenger was unable to attend this credentials
meeting, due to a professional commitment out-of-state, but has submitted an affidavit.

My first reaction was to let the incident go.  My thinking was that Mr.Tafoya turned out many supporters, and so deserved to prevail in the election for that reason.  I was not inclined to engage in a confrontation about it.  The initial complainant expressed concern for her safety in raising any objections, and I have also received several cautions about my own safety for raising this challenge.  But having been entrusted with being the Credentials representative, I would be neglecting my duties to look the other way from these problems.

Upon reflection, I think this happened because Mr. Tafoya was trying to adjust the votes to win all six positions for himself, his son and their supporters, rather than just 5 out of 6.  That effort was doomed to failure, because it was a mathematical impossibility.  It is clear this wasn’t simply a matter of voters changing their minds, because more than half the changed votes are in the same handwriting.  All in all, 24 ballots were changed, with 16 of the new entries written in the same handwriting.

There is no rule stating that the vote counters are forbidden from changing the ballots after they are cast, while they are being counted, so I cannot cite a specific rule.  The closest fits are 18-2, which prohibits proxy voting - where someone is authorized to cast someone’s vote for them, and 18-5, which requires secret ballots.  Generally, Rule 12-3 calls for a new meeting to be held if there are
violations “of a nature to materially change the outcome of the meeting”, which seems to be the best fit for this situation.

Upon further reflection, I have had another thought about this matter.  In a regular public election, the alteration of ballots is a felony, with a prison term attached.  Mr. Tafoya disregarded proper rules and procedures to a major extent, and apparently doesn’t “get” that there’s any problem with it.

And so I have now revised my opinion: To win an office, one must get enough votes to be elected.  But that’s not enough.  To hold office, one must also follow the rules and procedures that apply to everyone.  For us to have a fair election which the community can have confidence in, the best remedy available under the rules is to conduct a new precinct meeting.  I didn’t like the idea of calling for a “do-over” meeting.  But after studying the rules, it appears it is the only remedy available.  So that is what I propose in this petition to the Credentials Committee.

Requested Remedies:

• Hold a new meeting.  The meeting should open with an explanation of why it has been called. 

• Copies of the altered ballots should be available there for inspection, so each voter can draw their own conclusions.

• Hold it in a larger room than is available at Talpa Community Center.  The largest room there was not big enough for the March 13 meeting, and probably contributed to the problems which occurred.  The crowded conditions and noise level also made sign-in more difficult.

• Have the meeting presided over by a neutral party from outside the precinct.  That could be an procedural expert from the state Party, or a more local person such as Probate Judge Andres Vargas.  The precinct would be better served if Mr. Tafoya could concentrate on mustering his voters, while the meeting is presided over by someone giving that task their undivided attention.

• During the caucus break in the meeting, it should be made clear that participating in a caucus is optional.

• The voting is by secret ballot, and no voter is required to declare their preference by joining a caucus group.

• Outside parties should preside over the sign-in.  And anyone who’s name does not appear on the voter roll must submit a provisional affadavit until their status as Democratic voters from Precinct 21 is confirmed with the County Clerk’s office.  Full confirmation would include affirming that they have not recently transferred to Democratic Party from DTS, No Party, or any other party (Green, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)

• These are not extraordinary measures, and would simply assure that only eligible Democrats from the precinct vote in the election.

• When voters are done voting, their ballots should be deposited in a ballot box.  Once deposited, the vote is final: No “adjusting” or “correcting” the vote after that point.

• Ballots should be counted by neutral outside parties, with representatives of any interested parties observing.

• Ballots should kept by an outside neutral party for safekeeping for the required period after the new meeting as required by party rules.

One last note: Mr. Tafoya called me Monday night, and asked me to turn the ballots over to him.  To my thinking, this as inappropriate, as there was already a challenged announced based upon his mishandling of the ballots during the meeting.  He asserted that it was a rules requirement that the ballots must be kept in the custody of the precinct chair.  I cannot find any such requirement in the rules.  I told him I’d bring the ballots to this Credentials Committee meeting.  However, I would prefer that the ballots be put into safekeeping with an outside entity, such as the State Party, rather than with Mr. Tafoya under the circumstances.  However, I was entrusted with this assignment at the precinct meeting, and am willing to continue as their custodial keeper.

Finally, and I don’t think this Credentials Committee has authority over this, but I would like to use this opportunity make a personal request of Mr. Tafoya to please refrain from running for any elected precinct position in the new meeting.  He made rather a mess of last week’s meeting, including some serious irregularities.  He has plenty of supporters who can run for and hold precinct office, and he can caucus the voting process.  But because of the problems that led to this debate, I would appreciate if he would decline from running this time.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts on this matter, and for your careful consideration of the requested remedy.

Technorati Tags: 2008elections, DNC, DPNM