Somebody Needs to Take Charge
During the hearings over the referendum petitions, the lawyer for the Montgomery County Board of Elections argued that it isn't the Board's job to make sure that the signatures on the petitions were not forgeries. Their job, he said, was just to check that signatures matched names in the voter-registration database. The judge didn't buy that, in his ruling he said, "While the Board does not consist of a group of handwriting experts, its role is something more than that of bean-counter."
Sitting in the courtroom listening, I was wondering, what is the Board of Elections' role?
To get a referendum on the ballot, a sponsor has to get signatures of five percent of the registered voters of the county. The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever didn't do that. They needed 27,615 signatures and they got 26,813. As Judge Greenberg wrote, "Plainly, MCRG [CRW] did not gather enough signatures to meet the five percent threshold."
But it's close enough for the Board of Elections, they're going to put it on the ballot anyway.
I can't swear this is true, but it is my understanding that members of the Board did not themselves look at the petitions at all or oversee any of the process of verifying them. They didn't even meet during that period of time, they were busy putting together the primaries. They won't meet again until September 15th.
One person certified all those bad signatures. That was Montgomery County Election Director Margaret Jurgensen. She's the one who wrote the letter to County Executive Ike Leggett telling him that they had enough verified signatures, that they looked fine.
The Board of Elections reports to the County Executive. Members are appointed by the governor with approval by the state Senate, and their terms expire in 2011. The Board appoints the Election Director. Ms. Jurgensen was appointed to that position in 2001. After the debacle of the 2006 primary elections, then-County Executive Doug Duncan called for her to be fired, but apparently that was easier said than done, as she's still here.
The Election Director reports to the Board of Elections who appointed her, she represents them -- for instance, the letter to Leggett certifying the petitions was signed:
In all the days of hearings, I never heard Ms. Jurgensen's name or position mentioned, just "the Board." It was the Board of Elections who got sued, and they didn't have anything to do with this mess, they didn't know anything about it.
It seems to me that perhaps the Board has some responsibility to oversee their appointee. As it is, the November election may include a referendum that did not have enough signatures, because nobody will take the authority to obey the law. The Board made a mistake, there is no doubt, they gave the CRW the wrong number. They used active instead of registered voters, they didn't check it and they didn't ask where the number came from.
There are two main questions. The first one is simple: who's in charge here? Who runs our county's elections? Who certifies that enough petition signatures have been turned in to put a referendum on the ballot? Is it the Board of Elections, or the person who works for them? The second question is a little trickier: what does it take to get them to enforce the law?
There's time. The ballots aren't printed, we're waiting for an appeals court to make some decisions. The Board should meet with their Election Director and come out and say, this referendum did not have signatures of five percent of registered voters as required by law, we are hereby de-certifying it.
You've got an organization with the County Executive at the top, the Board of Elections reporting to him, the Election Director reporting to the Board. The person at the bottom of the totem pole is making all the decisions, embarrassing everyone above her, and, indeed, the whole county. Montgomery County, Maryland, of all places, is going to vote on whether to keep discrimination legal, as if citizens here wanted to keep it legal. Now we may have a referendum on the ballot even though the sponsors did not get enough signatures, in clear violation of the law.
Will someone please claim responsibility for this mess?
Sitting in the courtroom listening, I was wondering, what is the Board of Elections' role?
To get a referendum on the ballot, a sponsor has to get signatures of five percent of the registered voters of the county. The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever didn't do that. They needed 27,615 signatures and they got 26,813. As Judge Greenberg wrote, "Plainly, MCRG [CRW] did not gather enough signatures to meet the five percent threshold."
But it's close enough for the Board of Elections, they're going to put it on the ballot anyway.
I can't swear this is true, but it is my understanding that members of the Board did not themselves look at the petitions at all or oversee any of the process of verifying them. They didn't even meet during that period of time, they were busy putting together the primaries. They won't meet again until September 15th.
One person certified all those bad signatures. That was Montgomery County Election Director Margaret Jurgensen. She's the one who wrote the letter to County Executive Ike Leggett telling him that they had enough verified signatures, that they looked fine.
The Board of Elections reports to the County Executive. Members are appointed by the governor with approval by the state Senate, and their terms expire in 2011. The Board appoints the Election Director. Ms. Jurgensen was appointed to that position in 2001. After the debacle of the 2006 primary elections, then-County Executive Doug Duncan called for her to be fired, but apparently that was easier said than done, as she's still here.
The Election Director reports to the Board of Elections who appointed her, she represents them -- for instance, the letter to Leggett certifying the petitions was signed:
Sincerely yours,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BD. OF ELECTIONS
Margaret Jurgensen
Election Director
In all the days of hearings, I never heard Ms. Jurgensen's name or position mentioned, just "the Board." It was the Board of Elections who got sued, and they didn't have anything to do with this mess, they didn't know anything about it.
It seems to me that perhaps the Board has some responsibility to oversee their appointee. As it is, the November election may include a referendum that did not have enough signatures, because nobody will take the authority to obey the law. The Board made a mistake, there is no doubt, they gave the CRW the wrong number. They used active instead of registered voters, they didn't check it and they didn't ask where the number came from.
There are two main questions. The first one is simple: who's in charge here? Who runs our county's elections? Who certifies that enough petition signatures have been turned in to put a referendum on the ballot? Is it the Board of Elections, or the person who works for them? The second question is a little trickier: what does it take to get them to enforce the law?
There's time. The ballots aren't printed, we're waiting for an appeals court to make some decisions. The Board should meet with their Election Director and come out and say, this referendum did not have signatures of five percent of registered voters as required by law, we are hereby de-certifying it.
You've got an organization with the County Executive at the top, the Board of Elections reporting to him, the Election Director reporting to the Board. The person at the bottom of the totem pole is making all the decisions, embarrassing everyone above her, and, indeed, the whole county. Montgomery County, Maryland, of all places, is going to vote on whether to keep discrimination legal, as if citizens here wanted to keep it legal. Now we may have a referendum on the ballot even though the sponsors did not get enough signatures, in clear violation of the law.
Will someone please claim responsibility for this mess?
posted by JimK at 3:38 PM
25 Comments:
As I suggested here a little over a month ago, the Board of Elections is plainly guilty of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance in carrying out its duties to the citizens of Montgomery County. Aside from the impending Court decision, any one of our elected officials (County Council, Senate/House representatives in Annapolis) should demand an investigation of the woeful lack of and denial of responsibility of the Board of Elections and its obviously incompetent Director, Margaret Jurgensen. She and the Board might turn out to be responsible for thousands of wasted taxpayer dollars because of this farce.
RT
Wow, Jim, you are accusing CRG of fraud essentially - and EM got ADF (CRG's attorney) dismissed by saying they weren't going to accuse CRG of fraud. Not really fair, but whatever.
There were approximately 40 signatures challenged for fraud. Most of those looked like the husband signed for the wife or vice versa. A couple looked like the handwriting was the same, or like someone had filled out all of the information but the signature to make it easier for their friends to sign. In a couple of cases, the handwriting for the address was the same for two lines in a row, but the signature was different. I noticed one of those, and the second person (based on birthdate provided) was 91 years old. Hmm, perhaps the daughter filled out all the information but the signature for her mother (who very well could have been tottering around on a walker) ....
there are LOTS of reasons that handwriting can be similar... come on, have you NEVER EVER signed your wifes name ? clearly, the circulators should have caught it, and if a husband signed for a wife or vice versa, one of the signatures shoudl be thrown out....
But to imply that the circulators were guilty of fraud as you clearly do....
I would think someone could sue you for that assertion.
I would be careful what you say.
What you don't seem to appreciate (or, more probably, don't want to appreciate) is that there is little urgency to tighten up the rules for qualifying a referendum because a referendum on a Council-passed bill doesn't change anything per se and if it does, because the voters reject the Council's judgment, that proves it was valid all along.
Of course, this is also what TTF fears, that the voters of MC don't actually hold the positions that TTF always presumes they do.
Why do they fear that?
You be the judge.
"is going to vote on whether to keep discrimination legal, as if citizens here wanted to keep it legal"
This is untrue. 23-08 doesn't outlaw discrimination. It only protects one class of individuals whose claim to deserve protection against discrimination is very dubious.
All kinds of discrimination will remain illegal despite the outcome of the referendum. Fat people, grouchy people, people with bad memories or bad taste in clothes, people with oily hair, people who pass alot of gas and so much more regularly get the short end of the stick.
Why do sexual deviants deserve greater protection than them?
No laws provide these other people with special protection against social consequences.
Discrimination will still be legal regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
“Wow, Jim, you are accusing CRG of fraud essentially”
Shocking. Next he’ll be accusing the solar system of having a star at the center of it that emits light!
“Wow, Jim, you are accusing CRG of fraud essentially”
The only one using the term "fraud" is Sybil, who should follow their own advice: I would think someone could sue you for that assertion. I would be careful what you say,
23-08 [sic] doesn't outlaw discrimination. It only protects one class of individuals whose claim to deserve protection against discrimination is very dubious.
Bill 23-07 does not just protect "one class of individuals," it adds one group to all of these classes of individuals that are already protected from discrimination:
A franchisee must not deny, delay, or otherwise burden service or discriminate against subscribers or users on the basis of age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, national origin, or marital status, except for discounts for the elderly and handicapped
Corrected link:
Bill 23-07
Andrea- not anon
"someone could sue you for that allegation"- hmmm sounds familiar- where in CRC history have I heard that threat before? Blah, blah, blah- can't they think up anything new?
The Board of Elections director doesn't do anything because (as I think I heard the excuse over the mess made of the voting machine cards) it is not a position that pays much. However, there are many people who are appointed to Boards and Commissions in the county that take their unpaid positions seriously.
Rigby's second corollary to Godwin's Law: the first person to refer to his/her/its opponents as "deviants" loses the argument.
rrjr
"Rigby's second corollary to Godwin's Law: the first person to refer to his/her/its opponents as "deviants" loses the argument."
Sorry, the unstable slimeball rule doesn't work. Down South said the proposed law protected sexual deviants. He didn't say they sought the protection. The proponents of the law are acually bored and restless liberals for the most part.
"(Aug. 19) - If you want to boost your teenager's grade point average, take the kid to church. Or, a new study suggests, find some similar social activity to involve them in.
Researchers found that church attendance has as much effect on a teen's GPA as whether the parents earned a college degree. Students in grades 7 to 12 who went to church weekly also had lower dropout rates and felt more a part of their schools.
On average, students whose parents received a four-year college degree average a GPA .12 higher than those whose parents completed high school only. Students who attend religious services weekly average a GPA .144 higher than those who never attend services, said Jennifer Glanville, a sociologist at the University of Iowa."
“All kinds of discrimination will remain illegal despite the outcome of the referendum. Fat people, grouchy people, people with bad memories or bad taste in clothes, people with oily hair, people who pass alot of gas and so much more regularly get the short end of the stick.
Why do sexual deviants deserve greater protection than them?”
To help protect them from people like you who would arbitrarily refer to and define them as “sexual deviants.”
facts aren't arbitrary
opinions are not fact
come on, have you NEVER EVER signed your wifes name ?
I'm not saying that anyone who did that lacks integrity, merely that they were dishonest, once.
I am saying that anyone who sees nothing wrong with it, and assumes that everyone else sometimes does it, has no concept of what "integrity" means.
I don't sign other people's names: that would be dishonest.
I don't shoplift: that would be dishonest.
I don't rob banks: that would be dishonest.
I may be in error, mistaken, do or say things in the heat of the moment that I regret later and are wrong, and generally be no better than anyone else on the planet. A sinner.
But at least I know what honesty is, unlike some who are so proud of the piousness and sanctity.
There has been a thread on Topix involving "eva" and "theresa", both of the NotInMyShower group.
As Eva says:
I think the law, and all similar laws should be repealed.
On moral grounds.
"opinions are not fact"
deviance is not an opinion
something either deviates from normality or it doesn't
Is it normal for people to post comments on this blog calling LGBT people "deviants?"
Most of the commenters, especially those who use an identifiable name like JimK, Robert, me, Emproph, Zoe Brain, Andrea, Tish, RT, Priya, Derrick, etc., do not. Only Anon does.
Do most Americans think of LGBT people as deviants or do they think we should tolerate each other?
The Boston Globe reports a study of Americans' religious beliefs and practices is the second analysis of an unusually detailed study of faith in America, a Pew poll of a representative sample of 35,000 Americans interviewed by telephone last year....On gay rights, Buddhists, Jews, Catholics and mainline Protestants are the most likely to say homosexuality should be accepted, while Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say homosexuality should be discouraged. Overall, 50 percent of Americans said homosexuality should be accepted by society, while 40 percent said it should be discouraged.
Who's the deviant, Anon?
Ok Zoe.
You must not have kids.
I notice Jim did not reply.
Trying to kids ready for school, running out the door, you notice that the permission slip for the school field trip (which you didn't look at until that am because you work full time and run a household) needs two signatures, not just one for some silly reason.
You think it is dishonest to sign your husbands name or your wifes name in this circumstance.
CRG's written instructions say don't do this specifically, and certainly all the circulators were informed DON't DO this, DON'T LET PEOPLE DO THIS... as is obvious by the fact that there are only 0.13% or under 1 in 1000 where it appears that might have happened (hey, not a handwriting expert).
But Jim keeps implying here, QUITE DISHONESTLY because he knows better (IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS), that most of the petitions were challenged for fraud and bad signatures. That is clearly false, if you look at the public filings, which Jim is privy to ....Most of the signatures (about half) were challenged because people didn't put their middle initial, which the judge dismissed. So for Jim to keep shouting and implying that folks were guily of fraud when they were not, is not ethical.
So who is more dishonest ? I think Jim is.
It's true I didn't respond, because I don't see the sense of it. This post says nothing about fraud, it doesn't accuse the CRW of anything. It says the Board of Elections is being derelict by not enforcing the law, which is another topic entirely.
Some of the signatures were clearly fraudulent and the judge threw them out. As for people not signing their middle initials, I am sympathetic with the judge's belief that it's a dirty deal to throw a signature out because of that, but on the other hand I understand that the law was passed in such a way that it requires a match. I never said a missing middle initial was fraud, and your assertion sounds silly here.
No one disagrees with this fact: the number of valid petition signatures was less than five percent of registered voters. That's partly because the Board screwed up and gave CRW the wrong target number, and that's the kind of thing I'm complaining about in this post. Many signatures failed to meet the legal requirements, in my opinion, a judge felt otherwise about them, whatever, he's a judge and I'm not -- as a law-abiding American I accept his ruling. It's under appeal, maybe another judge will see differently, in either case the law is being followed and I'll accept the result.
The Board did certify clearly fraudulent signatures, including at least one where there wasn't a name or signature at all, just a wavy line. I have my issues with the way CRW misrepresented the law, but that's not part of this post.
My complaint here is that the Board of Elections is allowing this referendum to go forward even though they know the petitions did not have the necessary number of signatures. They should be enforcing the law, instead they are managing the breaking of it.
JimK
You must not have kids.
I notice Jim did not reply.
Trying to kids ready for school, running out the door, you notice that the permission slip for the school field trip (which you didn't look at until that am because you work full time and run a household) needs two signatures, not just one for some silly reason.
You think it is dishonest to sign your husbands name or your wifes name in this circumstance.
Yes, I do. Of course it is.
When something similar happened, I dropped the little bloke off at school, then drove the 50km to my partner's workplace - I'd phoned beforehand - got the permission slip signed, drove back, and then drove to work.
Some people take oaths and promises seriously. We don't give them lightly. We don't break them just to save ourselves some minor inconvenience.
I'm Intersexed with a Transsexual history, and thus seen by some as by definition a pariah, a pervert, as immoral. What they think doesn't matter, my personal honour is something no-one but I can compromise.
I find it... rather hilarious.. that some of those accusing me of the most terrible sins are themselves so lax in their personal morals that they hold opinions like yours.
You might like to see my posts on this thread.
Morality to me is doing the right thing, even when no-one is watching and you wouldn't get caught.
Both when all it is is forging a signature, or betraying one's country.
Someone who does the first will do the second. Yes, I have a clearance.
"Who's the deviant, Anon?"
Homosexuality is deviant.
And only a closeted gay man would make that statement over and over again, to cover his sins of the heart, if not of the flesh
someone with a clearance shouldn't be flaunting that on the internet, Zoe, or did they neglect to mention that during your security briefings ?
It's a little difficult staying in the background when your work has had as much publicity as mine has.
It's a matter of public record that I've worked on defence systems, satellites, and diplomatic comms systems. I didn't publicise that, others did. Government ministers and the like. Professional achievement awards too. So it's already in the public domain.
Otherwise yes, you don't talk about it.
OK - now I wasn't aware of the middle initial thing previously... so where does that leave me? I don't use my first two names on non-leagal stuff. I guess for a petition I would use all four names, but irrespective, my SIGNATURE is the same -- and unreadable. It's a signature, as I once had to argue with a bank clerk.... "no one says you have to be able to read it, I certify it is my signature and it matches every piece of documentation on your records and mine."
My signature has no recognizable letters except perhaps the first one (which often confuses people who only know me by my 2nd middle name)... If the signature is entirely unreadable who could tell if my middle initial is present? What a dumb rule. In any case, isn't the signature of a person who uses an "x" equally valid? I thought that had long history of standing up in court... of course, I guess much harder to prove via handwriting experts?
Such interesting things we learn!
Anyway, I'm looking forward to needing to help vote down the stupid repeal thing - make sure your signature is in order!
I don't use my first two names on non-leagal stuff.
Voting is "legal stuff." You have to be registered, show ID, and sign your legal name to vote.
The proposed wording of the referendum is:
"Shall the Act to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity become law?"
Vote YES to make discrimination on the basis of gender identity illegal.
Post a Comment
<< Home