In my work with 16 precincts on Tuesday, no significant problems were observed and the procedures designed on the fly by Mary Kiffmeyer and Mike Hatch, for supplemental and absentee ballots, were successful in reasonably accommodating all voters and in attempting to reasonably establish and tabulate their intent. During the day, the biggest issues were temporary shortages of supplies, specifically new registration cards, supplemental ballots and those damn "I Voted" stickers, which voters seem to cherish and they feel cheated when precincts run out. This positive reaction from the citizenry makes me think other government agencies should consider adopting a similar tactic, like the IRS sending out "I Paid My Taxes" stickers or the Corrections Department in Massachusetts using "I'm On Death Row But Currently Out on A Week End Furlough" stickers.
There were a couple of instances of strangeness and curiosity, all of them occurring toward the end of the day. The first situation happened toward the time of the polls closing (8 PM CDT). Upon my check in with a certain precinct, I was informed by the head judge that a poll challenger from the DFL wanted to order some pizzas for the judging crew, to "thank" them for all their hard work. (What immediately came to my mind was the scene from Caddyshack where Rodney Dangerfield slipped a few bills to the referee before his money match with Judge Smails, along with the exhortation "keep it fair ref, keep it fair.") This head judge mentioned she didn't think it was appropriate, but that the other judges were hungry and she wanted to know if they could do it. I of course told her this suggestion was absurd and confirmed that in no way should election judges be taking gifts supplied by a member of any politidcal party. She glumly agreed. Then as I was walking out, she pointed out this DFL challenger and I overheard him on his cell phone, calling down to the Ramsey County Elections Office. He was appealing the case to the higher authorities, and, believe it or not, was using an emotional appeal. His voice was shaking with righteous indignation as he wailed "these people are working their hearts out and they're not getting anything to eat, why can't I order them 2 large Green Mill pizzas--they deserve it!" Fearing I was witnessing the birth of a new entitlement program (the "No Judge Left Hungry" bill?), I simply shook my head and continued on my way.
After the polls closed, the poll watchers descended upon just about every precinct I encountered. Legally and justifiably, the counting of ballots is a public act and anyone can observe as long as they don't interfere with the process. For the most part, these individuals were good-natured, respectful, and were acting in good faith. But everyone, observers and judges, were kind of leery about the process for hand counting the supplemental ballots, as no one had ever done this task before, and everyone was referring to their list of instructions throughout the process. This led to a kind of solemn and formal tone throughout. At one precinct I checked in with, the sorting of these ballots had just begun, into piles designated for each Senate candidate and piles for unusable ballots (that would be over votes and blanks). This precinct had several hundred ballots and after they had sorted only the first 5 or 6, in an attempt to lighten up the mood, I barked out to the head judge in a media jackal type tone "Are you projecting a winner yet?!" Everyone laughed, except for the observer from the DFL, who literally sneered at me. The GOP observer then jokingly read me a statue (printed on his direction sheet, provided by the Republican party) about the prohibition on early release of results, which again drew laughs.
At the final precinct I visited (which ended up occupying me for the next 6 hours!) very little laughter was being engaged in. Given the very high turn out at this location, they had an enormous job ahead of them and they were still slogging through the preliminary tasks of sorting the ballots. Confounding this process were 2 women observing the counting. As I later learned they had also been aggressively questioning the judges on procedure, consistently making unfounded accusations and sarcastic comments on decisions being made and chronically using the technique of the "heavy sigh" anytime something happened they disagreed with. Not knowing this when I came in, I approached them in the friendly spirit that was established by others at the other poll locations. Even though I was using my oh-so-sincere, Norm Coleman-style smile, I was greeted with glares and then the exasperated rolling of the eyes. This reaction struck me as odd, since they didn't yet know me and usually it takes a least at least 20 minutes before I provoke this reaction in my acquaintances. I didn't take it personally and just figured that they were members of that small segment of the population which doesn't have the nasal sophistication to appreciate my scent (Brut...by Faberge). They then brusquely and rudely asked me for my identity, and upon telling them I asked them for their names, just in the spirit of personalizing the interaction. Acting very defensively, and in an exaggerated kind of hyperactive/psychotic manner, they caustically laughed and refused saying they were "just citizens" and implying that it was none of my business. As election judges aren't yet in the fraternity of government employees commonly known as "jack booted thugs," I guess it wasn't any of my business. To ease out of this combative exchange, I said "all right then, Jane Doe and Madame X, good to have you here," which only soured their dispositions further.
At this point, the amazing and dedicated head judge (whom I've already celebrated in a previous post--and to whom I'm dedicating a week long photo enhanced tribute to, starting on this site next Monday) called me aside and gave me the run down of their behavior so far. She asked me to verify that her procedures and materials were in good order so far (and believe me--they were). I did just that, and then said in a voice loud enough for all to hear--"I think you’re doing a fine job and everything you've done so far is well within the law." My two hours of training for this position and skim reading of the cliffs notes version of the relevant election statues may or may not qualify me to make such a statement--but it seemed to be accepted by everyone.
It also apparently qualified me to be the target of the two quarrelsome women's wrath about the tabulating process. Between their taking of outraged notes in their little notebooks, they'd turn to me and blurt out various suspicions and allegations. Which is all well and fine, and if they did have legitimate observations about procedural errors occurring, then I would have genuinely appreciated their input. But they didn't have any feedback about was what actually taking place before them or our interpretation and execution of the law, rather they were doing nothing more than criticizing the law and the procedures themselves. Issues like the use of a cardboard box for holding the supplemental ballots. They felt it wasn't secure enough and were asking me what I was going to do about it. The answer was--nothing. It's the legally provided and official receptacle, and whether or not it's a good idea to use it, we have no choice. They then blasted out a heated diatribe about the fact that students and others walking through the polling place (which was in a student union building) could have been stuffing the ballot box all day long. I asked them if they'd seen any specific instances of malfeasance. They said no. I then confirmed with the head judge that the ballot box was under the control of an election judge at all times and then informed our interregators that all ballots are initialed by two judges before being distributed to voters and that these ballots will be checked for initials before being counted--thus preventing anyone from stuffing the box with any nonofficial ballots. This reasonable explanation only resulted in more huffing and puffing and furious scribbling in their notebooks.
Later on they pointed out a sweet, old lady who was one of the judges, and they claimed she was incapable of counting and sorting properly and that she could easily lose things like ballots. I again asked if they had seen any specific instances of impropriety (their answer was "no"). Then, uncharacteristically wrapping myself in the shroud of anti-ageism and taking the diversity high ground, I indignantly asked them if I should disqualify this person just because she happens to be older? They stammered and harrumphed something about me mischaracterizing their allegations, but they didn't clarify them for me and attempted to drop the subject. I then asked them to closely watch this specific judge and if they saw anything out of the ordinary, they should let me know right away. More glares and sighs and whispering between them, but then amazingly not a single other complaint the rest of the night. Which for them went until 1:30 AM--they didn't quite have the stamina to ride it out the additional hour it took us to wrap it up.
In retrospect, I think these observers were probably Republican partisans. This guess is based upon the fact they were at a location that was destined to lean DFL (the final counts were about 4 to 1 in favor of Mondale) and their specific concerns about abuses from people working in that area. Their comments also mirrored almost exactly the types of reports that were coming into KSTP-AM all day (as I was driving around for most of the day, I was able to hear a lot of their coverage). So my guess is that these two (or their overseers) were whipped into a frenzy by the overheated and hyperbolic rhetoric of Jason Lewis and Joe Soucheray and also by the typically erroneous and incomplete reports that come in from the callers (Be aware, I'm a regular listener and generally a fan of both of these shows. But it just goes to show you that the format of political discussion as entertainment can and does lead to exaggerated conclusions and inappropriate calls to action.). These women came in to "observe" already assuming the process was flawed and they felt compelled to personally intervene, despite their lack of any evidence of problems based on personal observation.
It was disappointing to see this behavior from Republican partisans. This is behavior I'd expect from the DFL. In fact, this exact process--that of acting based upon incomplete information, logical paralysis, and the subordination of intellect to that of feelings, is how most Democrats decide their vote in the first place. Perhaps these women were from the "Democrats for Coleman" movement?
No comments:
Post a Comment