-
'Lengths Officials Go To Not Count Votes': 'BradCast' 1/29/19
-
FL GOP Election Power-Grab In Advance of 2020!: 'BradCast' 1/28/19
-
Trump Caves & What He Hopes You Didn't Notice: 'BradCast' 1/25/19
-
BRAD BLOG's 15th Anniversary! (and Other Stuff): 'BradCast' 1/24/19
-
DoJ Ignored 2016 NC GOP Absentee Fraud: 'BradCast' 1/23/19
-
'Political Revolution', Step 2: Taking on the Lobbyists
-
Making Sense of BuzzFeed Report, Mueller Reply: 'BradCast' 1/22/19
Brad's Upcoming Appearances
(All times listed as PACIFIC TIME unless noted)
'Special Coverage' Archives
|
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
|
VA GOP VOTER REG FRAUDSTER OFF HOOK
Felony charges dropped against VA Republican caught trashing voter registrations before last year's election. Did GOP AG, Prosecutor conflicts of interest play role?...
Criminal GOP Voter Registration Fraud Probe Expanding in VA
State investigators widening criminal probe of man arrested destroying registration forms, said now looking at violations of law by Nathan Sproul's RNC-hired firm...
DOJ PROBE SOUGHT AFTER VA ARREST
Arrest of RNC/Sproul man caught destroying registration forms brings official calls for wider criminal probe from compromised VA AG Cuccinelli and U.S. AG Holder...
Arrest in VA: GOP Voter Reg Scandal Widens
'RNC official' charged on 13 counts, for allegely trashing voter registration forms in a dumpster, worked for Romney consultant, 'fired' GOP operative Nathan Sproul...
ALL TOGETHER: ROVE, SPROUL, KOCHS, RNC
His Super-PAC, his voter registration (fraud) firm & their 'Americans for Prosperity' are all based out of same top RNC legal office in Virginia...
LATimes: RNC's 'Fired' Sproul Working for Repubs in 'as Many as 30 States'
So much for the RNC's 'zero tolerance' policy, as discredited Republican registration fraud operative still hiring for dozens of GOP 'Get Out The Vote' campaigns...
'Fired' Sproul Group 'Cloned', Still Working for Republicans in At Least 10 States
The other companies of Romney's GOP operative Nathan Sproul, at center of Voter Registration Fraud Scandal, still at it; Congressional Dems seek answers...
FINALLY: FOX ON GOP REG FRAUD SCANDAL
The belated and begrudging coverage by Fox' Eric Shawn includes two different video reports featuring an interview with The BRAD BLOG's Brad Friedman...
COLORADO FOLLOWS FLORIDA WITH GOP CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Repub Sec. of State Gessler ignores expanding GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal, rants about evidence-free 'Dem Voter Fraud' at Tea Party event...
CRIMINAL PROBE LAUNCHED INTO GOP VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD SCANDAL IN FL
FL Dept. of Law Enforcement confirms 'enough evidence to warrant full-blown investigation'; Election officials told fraudulent forms 'may become evidence in court'...
Brad Breaks PA Photo ID & GOP Registration Fraud Scandal News on Hartmann TV
Another visit on Thom Hartmann's Big Picture with new news on several developing Election Integrity stories...
CAUGHT ON TAPE: COORDINATED NATIONWIDE GOP VOTER REG SCAM
The GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal reveals insidious nationwide registration scheme to keep Obama supporters from even registering to vote...
CRIMINAL ELECTION FRAUD COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST GOP 'FRAUD' FIRM
Scandal spreads to 11 FL counties, other states; RNC, Romney try to contain damage, split from GOP operative...
RICK SCOTT GETS ROLLED IN GOP REGISTRATION FRAUD SCANDAL
Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) sends blistering letter to Gov. Rick Scott (R) demanding bi-partisan reg fraud probe in FL; Slams 'shocking and hypocritical' silence, lack of action...
VIDEO: Brad Breaks GOP Reg Fraud Scandal on Hartmann TV
Breaking coverage as the RNC fires their Romney-tied voter registration firm, Strategic Allied Consulting...
RNC FIRES NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION FIRM FOR FRAUD
After FL & NC GOP fire Romney-tied group, RNC does same; Dead people found reg'd as new voters; RNC paid firm over $3m over 2 months in 5 battleground states...
EXCLUSIVE: Intvw w/ FL Official Who First Discovered GOP Reg Fraud
After fraudulent registration forms from Romney-tied GOP firm found in Palm Beach, Election Supe says state's 'fraud'-obsessed top election official failed to return call...
GOP REGISTRATION FRAUD FOUND IN FL
State GOP fires Romney-tied registration firm after fraudulent forms found in Palm Beach; Firm hired 'at request of RNC' in FL, NC, VA, NV & CO...
|
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|
|
MORE BRAD BLOG 'SPECIAL COVERAGE' PAGES...
|
Despite Party Designation on Provisional Ballot Envelopes, an Estimated 10 to 15,000 Democratic Votes Cast by Validated, Non-Partisan Registered Voters from 'Super Tuesday' Primary May be Uncountable by Registrar's New 'Supplemental Counting' Scheme...
By Brad Friedman on 2/29/2008, 4:57pm PT
I spent most of yesterday and today on the phone with attorneys and officials trying to sort out the continuing, disastrous mess concerning the "Double Bubble" ballot fiasco from Los Angeles County's February 5th Democratic Primary.
That, despite what we see as this week's premature declaration of "Victory!" on Tuesday from our friends at the Courage Campaign, followed by their "We won!" email on Wednesday, as they celebrated after the county's acting Registrar announced his plan to count some (though by no means all) of the 50,000 or so still-uncounted ballots cast by Non-Partisan (NP) voters who had attempted to vote in the open Democratic Primary on "Super Tuesday."
During a late-night phone call from a local Election Integrity advocate last night, however, I was told that situation is even worse than previously reported or even known --- even by the county's elections officials --- to date, as another set of thousands of legal ballots may go uncounted, even under a new tabulating scheme being implemented by county officials...
Judy Alter, President of ProtectCaliforniaBallots.org, has been spending her days at the county's central tabulating office in Norwalk over the last several weeks since the election, observing tabulation, and working closely with the managers and technicians overseeing the ballot counting. She told me last night that there are thousands of validated provisional ballots cast by NP voters, which include a selection for a candidate in the open Democratic or American Independent Party Primaries, but which will remain uncounted according to the new counting scheme [PDF] announced this week by acting Registrar Dean Logan.
On Wednesday, I reported on the problems with the partial, unfair-to-candidates, "supplemental" counting scheme proposed by Logan, along with my solution to the problem which would count nearly all of the so-far uncounted ballots, 100% accurately, and in accordance with provisions of both the California election code and its Constitution. Though my suggestions have been ignored by officials to date, Logan is set to begin the "supplemental count," according to his currently proposed scheme, on Saturday morning.
Alter, however, reports that a set of ballots, from among an estimated 10 to 15,000 currently uncounted NP provisional ballots, will also not be counted by the county's new tabulating scheme. That despite the fact, Alter says, that the original provisional ballot envelopes specify on them whether the NP voters were attempting to vote in either the Democratic or American Independent Party primary.
Logan is set to begin his "supplemental count" of all of the NP ballots which went uncounted previously, tomorrow. Those ballots --- an estimated 50,000 of them --- had valid selections in the Presidential race, but no selection in a second bubble on the ballot used to specify which party, Democratic or American Independent, the voter was intending to vote in.
Due to the absurd ballot design implemented by the former Registrar Conny McCormack, who quit her post as the chief Election Official for the nation's most populous county just one month prior to election day, it was impossible for the county's optical-scan computers to read the Presidential selections on those NP ballots correctly, given that a number of the bubbles for Presidential candidate overlapped for each party's candidates. If neither the #5 or #6 bubble was filled in on the ballot, specifying either the Dem or AI party, there was no way --- short of a manual cross-check with the precinct poll rosters --- to determine which party's candidate the voters were intending to select if they voted for a candidate in the #8 to #10 bubbles where both parties had candidates listed on the ballot.
According to Logan's flawed plan for his "supplemental count," many of the currently uncounted non-provisional ballots, with votes for Democratic candidates lucky enough to be on the ballot in the #11 to #15 bubbles, will be tallied. But his plan will not tally votes cast --- even in the same precinct --- for any candidate in the #8 to #10 slots, if any NP-AI voters were noted in the poll rosters as having voted at the same precinct. The candidate ballot positions were rotated randomly in each different Congressional district.
The plan, as bad as it is, according to Alter, is even worse than previously known, since thousands of provisional ballots without the #5 or #6 party bubble filled in will go uncounted due to yet another bad decision by the Registrar's office.
Alter explains that many of the provisional ballots cast were "remade" after the voter was validated as a registered voter. The remaking of the ballots is said to have been done when voters cast their provisional ballots at precincts different than their own. If they did, their ballots were "remade" by hand, by county officials, on the appropriate ballots for the voters' correct precincts.
That notion is bad enough, but worse, when the ballots were "remade," if no selection was made by the voter in the #5 or #6 party bubble, the voters' selections for President were not included on the remade ballots!
Therefore, when those ballots are processed again, via Logan's "supplemental" method, they will not be seen by the tabulator machines as containing votes for President, and thus will remain uncounted. More disenfranchised voters in Los Angeles County.
We have several calls in to the Registrar's office to confirm these details and to get more information. However, given that Logan's "supplemental" count is now set to begin at 7:30am tomorrow morning, according to this notice [PDF] posted by the county, and with the local certification deadline set for next Tuesday, we thought it best to get this information out immediately, based only on Alter's description of the problem for the moment.
How Many Voters May be Affected?
According to an informal guesstimate, based on previously known percentages of NP ballots containing selections for a Presidential candidate, but without a choice selected in one of the two party bubbles, Alter estimates that some 10,000 to 15,000 such ballots may be affected and mixed in with the 136,000 existing, already-validated provisional ballots cast during the Election.
Of that estimated 10 to 15 thousand, a smaller set of those would have been "remade" without transferring the voters' selections for Presidential candidate to the new ballot, though Alter did not want to hazard a guess as to how many that might be. Our call has so far not been returned by the official she recommended we contact to get harder numbers on this issue.
Late this afternoon we spoke again with Alter, who is again at the Norwalk counting facility today. She reports that she has now shared her discovery, and accompanying concern, with nearly half a dozen of the officials and technical managers there. She is hopeful that they understand the problem, and are currently taking action to find a way to include those ballots for accurate tabulation in the "supplemental count."
Alter suggests that the quickest and most accurate way to do that count, at this point, would be to examine and count, by hand, all of the original (un-"remade") provisional Non-Partisan ballots.
Though I caution again that I've been unable to confirm any of these details, up to this point, with officials, Alter's description of the problem, as well as her understanding of the ballots and counting processes currently underway in Norwalk, is quite detailed. Alter says she originally discussed the matter yesterday with the head of quality control for provisional ballots and the supervisor of the "remake" room, whose nickname is "Tray" (she doesn't know his last name). She confirmed the issue with him again today, and also reported the problem to Alex Olvera, Tray's supervisor, and at least two other officials at the facility.
The time issues in play lead me to run this story earlier than I normally might, without getting confirmation from an official, but it certainly sounds like the always-vigilant Alter has likely got it right.
All of which underscores again the importance of tangible, voter-marked paper ballots that can be transparently counted, examined, and recounted again, as needed, as well as the importance of oversight, and the ability of the public to do so in all aspects of our public elections.
The voters of L.A. County, and L.A. County officials themselves, owe Alter a great thank you.
Previous BRAD BLOG "Double Bubble" coverage...
2/7/08: The Debacle Explained
2/12/08: County Registrar Says 100k Ballot 'Impossible' to Count
2/14/08: How to Count Them All Accurately
2/18/08: "Condoleezza Registrar"
2/18/08: SoS Bowen Intervenes
2/26/08: Registrar Announces New Counting Scheme, 1000's of Legal Ballots Set to go Uncounted
Please support The BRAD BLOG's Fund Drive and our continuing coverage of your election system, as found nowhere else. Click here for a number of cool new collector's edition Premium products now available for new contributors!
Reader comments follow below ad...
READER COMMENTS ON "L.A. County 'Double Bubble' Trouble Gets Worse, as Thousands of 'Remade' Provisional Ballots Set to Go Uncounted as Well, According to Local Activist" (14 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 2/29/2008 @ 5:04 pm PT...
I got their two bubbles hangin ... dumb and dumber ... and if they keep it up I am going to call Larry "third bubble" Craig (R-Closet) and ask him to take a break from "interviewing" interns to come over and pop one on the acting (that is for sure) registrar.
You would think arithmetic would be within their friggin grasp wouldn't you?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Robert Earle
said on 3/1/2008 @ 12:19 pm PT...
I'm not clear on what you (and Judy Alter) are saying.
Are you saying that on the unremade ballot, the voter marked Bubble #5 or bubble #6, but when the ballot was remade, the 'remaker' failed to properly mark #5 or #6 in the same manner that the voter had?
Or are you saying that the voter failed to mark bubble #5 or #6 on the original (and the remaker accurately reflected that failure on the remade ballot), but there is some indication on the voter's provisional envelope which - much like the notation in the Roster books, can be used to infer the voter's original intent?
If it is the second, I am not aware of any such 'checkbox' or other field to fill in on a provisional envelope. (Though I admit I am less familiar with provisionals than I am with the rest of the process at the polling place; I have managed to avoid being the 'provisional clerk' in my time working the polls.)
If it is the first: 1) I cannot imagine that such a mistake could happen 10 or 15 thousand times. A handful of times, sure. But thousands of times. No way. Or 2) I cannot imagine that be refusing to correct such a mistake.
Can you get a clarification from Judy?
- Robert
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Robert Earle
said on 3/1/2008 @ 12:53 pm PT...
Oh, and on the "notion" that provisionals voted out of precinct being remade as "bad":
I worked at a precinct located in a car dealership (Power Ford on PCH in Torrance). We had several - maybe as many as a dozen - employees of the car dealership come in and vote out of precinct. It is my distinct impression that had they not been allowed to vote 'at work', out of precinct, at the dealership, they would not have voted at all.
So, if you are in favor of as many people voting as possible, allowing people to vote out of precinct cannot be viewed as 'bad'.
After that, remaking the ballot is a necessity.
The provisional voter, voting out of precinct, has voted in precinct A, on a precinct A ballot. But their ballot has to be counted with the other votes in their home precinct, precinct B. And, as we know, the order of the candidates' names on the ballot were likely to be different, precinct A vs. precinct B. So if you feed a precinct A ballot into the counting machine set up to count precinct B ballots, either the votes are going to credited to the wrong candidates, or not be counted at all.
So these ballots must be remade. A necessary step in the process.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
confabulator
said on 3/1/2008 @ 1:07 pm PT...
What are we to make of Debra Bowen's decision to take no action to prevent the Logan scheme from being implemented?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2008 @ 1:52 pm PT...
Robert Earle -
To answer your question (and my apologies if it wasn't all crystal clear in the original article. As you know, this is damned confusing to figure out, much less make clear when writing about it), neither of the two options you offered is what happened.
If a voter voted provisionally, outside of their precinct (and their ballot was accepted because they were properly registered etc.) it was remade for their specific precinct. If on the original provisional they didn't mark the party bubble #5/6 then the remade ballot didn't include that bubble either. But worse, the remakers also didn't bother to include the Presidential selection on the remade ballot, under the presumption that it wouldn't be counted anyway because the voter hadn't selected a party bubble!
Make sense now?
As to the "necessity" of remaking, I appreciate your point. But it seems to be the dumbest (and most dangerous) of all possible ways to handle the issue. I think it's ridiculous that anyone should ever be allowed to "remake" anybody's ballot by hand, unless absolutely necessary.
It's also a huge time waster.
If they have these wonderful machines they are so thrilled to use, then there is no reason that a provisional ballot couldn't have an identifying mark that it is a provisional when it is scanned, and should therefore be recorded as part of X precinct (that part could be input by the "remakers") and factored into that precincts numbers.
If you're going to use computers, that's the sort of thing that they (should) excel at!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/1/2008 @ 1:55 pm PT...
Confabulator -
I don't know what you are to make of it. But as you're an opponent of Bowen's, as demonstrated time and again through your anonymous BRAD BLOG comments, I suspect you hope to use it against her politically.
As to what I make of it, I think it's a disappointment that she wasn't more outspoken about Logan's horrible plan, but at least she didn't give "concurrence" to it as he requested. As you well know, she has no actual final say over how LA County counts their votes or not.
I certainly wish she had stood up to have ALL of the votes counted, and this certainly isn't a mark in her favor. But if you suspect it's evidence that your guy Bruce McPherson or his ilk should ever be allowed in the doors of the SoS office ever again, I'd suggest you are horrible mistaken.
Not that it won't keep you from continuing to try to play politics with such things in any way that you can. That's what you're paid for after all, eh?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Robert Earle
said on 3/1/2008 @ 2:32 pm PT...
Brad
First, thanks for the clarification.
Second, while it seems utterly presumptuous - and a bad, bad idea - of the remakers to not have reproduced all valid marks (see what I mean by 'valid' below) on the ballot they are remaking, under the Registrar's current (and previous) counting schemes, they are correct: provisionals with the 'double-bubble' problem are in one sense even less countable than regular double-bubble ballots, in that there are no notations in the Roster to make the inference that the Registrar is currently relying on (in the 8-through-10 range; in the 11-through-15 range, this is simply an inexcusable mistake that the Registrar's office should correct).
Yes, in your subtraction scheme, they would also be counted. On the legality of that, we're going to have to agree to disagee.
(The language fails me here: by valid in this context, I mean recognizable markings on the ballot. That set of markings might still render a ballot 'invalidly voted' in the 'double-bubble' sense. Another reason ballots sometimes get 'remade' - besides the out-of-precinct remaking - is that the ink mark made in a attempt to fill a given bubble gets smeared, such that the card reading machine might have trouble with it. That is, a smeared bubble #8 might be recognizable to a human, but not to the machine. Such ballots will often get 'remade'.)
Third, just to be clear on one other point:
"there is no reason that a provisional ballot couldn't have an identifying mark that it is a provisional when it is scanned, and should therefore be recorded as part of X precinct (that part could be input by the "remakers") and factored into that precincts numbers."
"Provision ballots" are - currently, at least - just regular ballots that get put into pink provisional envelopes instead of directly into the ballot box. That is, once out of the pink envelope, they are just like any other ballot. So, if you are suggesting that there be separate provisional ballots that are pre-printed differently from regular ballots, that could be done...but it would drive up the County's costs, and give the pollworker even more ballot variations to handle. This time around, the ballot clerk had seven different types of ballots to keep track of; next time it will probably be nine (with NP ballots becoming pre-printed NP, NP-AI and NP-DEM ballots). If you throw in 'provisional vs. regular', that will be 18(!) types of ballots.
Or are you suggesting that there be a 'provisional' bubble somewhere on the ballot, to be filled in by the voter, or pollworker, or the remaker? What could go wrong with that?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
confabulator
said on 3/2/2008 @ 7:49 am PT...
Brad said #6: "As you well know, she has no actual final say over how LA County counts their votes or not."
Your position is consistent with the position taken by San Diego County (joined by Kern, Riverside and San Bernardino counties) in its lawsuit against Debra Bowen over her new "Post Election Manual Tally" (PEMT) requirements.
The counties' lawsuit asserted that, when issuing her directives the Secretary of State failed to follow the requirements of California law, specifically, the Administrative Procedures Act (Government Code sections 11340 through 11361). And, because Bowen's directives would nullify laws enacted by the California Legislature regarding PEMT, which established the PEMT requirements, the lawsuit contended Bowen's directives infringed upon the Legislature's authority to set policy.
The Secretary of State argued, successfully, that she does have authority to tell, not only San Diego County, but all CA counties, how to count the PEMT ballots.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2008 @ 11:51 am PT...
As you well know, Confab, post election audits are a different beast entirely from counting the actual ballots in the first place.
Once processes are set, the SoS can't order a specific county to change that process, or otherwise have the final say on those processes. The county Registrar's act on their own in that regard, with the cooperation of the County Board of Supes.
Issuing directives for audits and/or certifying voting systems overall is a different matter, and clearly within the SoS' purview as was confirmed again by the court in the decision you refer to, as San Diego et al, surely must have known before wasting their tax dollars on such a ridiculous lawsuit.
The spirit of Bruce McPherson's shitty reign still permeates throughout the worst of the Election Directors in California, beginning (but unfortunately not ending) with San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino, Kern, Confabulator County et al.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
confabulator
said on 3/2/2008 @ 12:55 pm PT...
A couple of questions for you, Brad
If you believe the authority of California's Chief Elections Officer concerning the double bubble episode is as limited as you describe, what did you expect Bowen to do about the double bubble?
In the world of negotiation and arbitration a "consensus" is reached when none of the "stakeholders" voices a "strong disagreement." There doesn't have to be universal agreement, but the absence of an expressed "strong disagreement" means a consensus has been reached.
Don't you agree that it appears that Bowen, LA County, and the Courage Campaign have reached a consensus on the Logan scheme, and that may be the reason Bowen has neither publicly objected to, nor taken any steps to stop, the Logan scheme?
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2008 @ 1:12 pm PT...
While Bowen doesn't have the final authority over how LA County will count the votes they failed to count, she has both the bully pulpit and was specifically asked for "concurrence" by Logan for his plan.
I agree that her not speaking out against his plan means that she passively approved of it. I believe that was a terrible mistake on her part. No question.
It was similarly a mistake by Courage Campaign to not only passive agree with Logan's plan, but in fact to applaud it. It was, however, based on the opinions of their attorney who, I believe offered them some very very bad advise. That, based on my discussions with other attorneys concerning this matter.
To say, however, that the plan was developed by Bowen and Logan (as Logan has been suggesting to newspapers) would be a misrepresentation, big time, of the situation.
I have no problem being critical of her lack of action at the end of this scheme. To use it a political bludgeon against her, as most of your anonymously posted comments here at The BRAD BLOG attempt to do, is a different matter entirely.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 3/2/2008 @ 1:22 pm PT...
Robert Earle #7 -
(Missed this one previously, sorry)
provisionals with the 'double-bubble' problem are in one sense even less countable than regular double-bubble ballots, in that there are no notations in the Roster to make the inference that the Registrar is currently relying on
I will take your word on that, since I haven't dug in to find out. But my understanding is that a notation of the intended party is written on the envelope itself, so there wouldn't even be a necessity to go back and figure out the intended party in the poll roster.
if you are suggesting that there be separate provisional ballots that are pre-printed differently from regular ballots, that could be done...but it would drive up the County's costs, and give the pollworker even more ballot variations to handle.
Hmmm...Let's see. What would have been more costly, printing a ballot variation for provisionals (essentially, as with the others, the same ballot, but with a different colored strip on the back), or going through the process the county has been going through to deal with this prob since the election.
In any case, if it meant yet another possible ballot that needed to be handed to the voter, I'm confidence the poll workers could have handled it. Particularly if there was just one ballot for Provisional voting, and notations were made on the outside of the envelope (or something) by poll workers to specify the type of ballot it was on the inside, or some such.
Haven't thought it through, but I'm quite sure a scheme such as that would have been preferable to what has happened. And I understand (though have yet to be able to confirm), that the provisional ballots referred to in the original article above are now to be hand-counted as Judy Alter had suggested.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Robert Earle
said on 3/2/2008 @ 3:28 pm PT...
Brad -
"But my understanding is that a notation of the intended party is written on the envelope itself, so there wouldn't even be a necessity to go back and figure out the intended party in the poll roster."
The type of ballot issued is indeed indicated on the provisional envelope. But that would just mean 'non-partisan' in this case. I don't think there was any discussion whatsoever of pollworkers marking the provisional envelope 'NP-AI' or 'NP-DEM', which is what would be needed to make the inference. As for an indication in the Roster book, one of the reasons - perhaps the main reason - that someone was voting provisionally is that their name didn't appear in the Roster book.
So no cross-over indication in the Roster and no indication on the envelope means no way to make the inference necessary for the 8-through-10 bubbles.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Robert Earle
said on 3/2/2008 @ 8:00 pm PT...
|
Support The BRAD BLOG
Please visit our advertisers
Support The BRAD BLOG
Please visit our advertisers
|
All Content & Design Copyright ©
Brad Friedman unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved.
Advertiser Privacy Policy |
The BradCast logo courtesy of
Rock Island Media.
Web Hosting, Email Hosting, & Spam Filtering for The BRAD BLOG courtesy of
Junk Email Filter.