I did some volunteer work for the DFL, mostly on behalf of Jim Oberstar, in the 2010 elections. I happen to believe that Mr. Oberstar was an exceptional congressman in representing his constituency, and for our state. The measure of his loss has yet to be appreciated. Because I had been a volunteer during the past election, I was contacted when the DFL was looking for volunteers to assist with the recount.
To be a recount volunteer, attending one of the 2 hour training sessions was required. From my own conversations with Emmer recount volunteers, along with the shared experiences of other Dayton recount volunteers, and media coverage, it was clear that the Emmer campaign did not similarly either field an adequate number of recount volunteers, but more importantly the campaign and the GOP did not provide any training whatsoever as a condition of participating in the recount. For those few who had previously been part of the Franken/Coleman recount, a very acrimonious recount in comparison to this one, it was especially important for volunteers to be aware of the changes to the law between 2008 and 2010 elections. In all, the DFL reported (in their 'thank you' email) that there were 3,345 of us who volunteered.
The Emmer campaign was properly criticized for their generation of frivolous ballot challenges. This was, quite properly, viewed as an obstruction and delaying tactic, not a good faith participation in the recounting. In contrast to the those volunteers, Dayton recount volunteers were told to be always calm and polite, and to be careful NOT to make frivolous ballot challenges. That is why we went through actual 'role playing' sessions where we were shown a stack of sample ballots, containing ballots which shouldn't be challenged - they were fine, but also examples of ballots which the Emmer campaign should have challenged, as well as ballots we should be challenging. We were expected to use them for practice, to hone our skills at recognizing what was - and was not - an appropriate challenge. We were also give a presentation specifically on what had changed since the 2008 recount according to Minnesota law, and an explanation of why those changes were made so we could understand them as fully as possible.
We were directed not to allow anyone to provoke us into losing our composure. We were directed who to ask for help - there were site coordinators on hand who had a greater level of expertise than our own, and we were provided attorneys to observe the process and advise us as well. If we believed a challenge was legitimate, we were told to hold our ground and insist that it be bumped up the ladder to the canvassing board for a final decision. It was emphasized to us that this was not about 'winning and losing'; the determination of each ballot's status would ultimately be by other people. I believe that emphasis on final decisions being out of our hands made a significant difference in how we approached the recount process, a difference for the better from the approach of the Emmer campaign volunteers.
From a larger perspective, I think this also reflects in a practical application the political differences of philosophy, the conservative notion that no one needs any training to participate in government activities, just 'common sense'; while the liberal political position does believe that expertise makes a difference. It certainly made a difference here, a difference which should concern all of us.
Common sense did not generate all of those time consuming frivolous ballot challenges, nor did training and expertise. Those frivolous ballot challenges, and the delays and antagonism they caused in the recount process is reflected in the cost of the recount process to taxpayers, not just to the campaigns. This tied up a LOT of resources from the auditor's departments of the 87 counties, and the office of the Secretary of State. Some of that expense and effort was appropriate, but by the Emmer campaign acting in bad faith in generating thousands of frivolous ballots, much more was not legitimate. This is, and should continue to be, an embarrassment to the Emmer campaign and to the GOP.
On to the morning of the first day of the recount - we finished in one day, as did many of the smaller counties. I had signed up for the entire day; many of the other volunteers signed up for shifts. There were far more of us from the beginning than there were Emmer volunteers - several times more. This permitted us to participate in the recount in shifts, which helped us a lot. Recounting is tedious, and it requires a very tiring focus. I don't envy those few Emmer volunteers not having the option of resting their eyes or taking as much time away from the recount tables. Their job was harder than ours for that reason.
Before the recount started, we were given little blue 4"x6" cards to wear hanging from an elastic cord around our necks, identifying us as Dayton recounters. Emmer volunteers had similar red cards. The auditor and staff had white cards with green bands top and bottom.
In the beginning, all the Dayton volunteers stayed to one side of the room; the Emmer volunteers on the opposite, and the auditor staff along the wall at the back of the room. We had coffee and doughnuts; but no one was speaking to each other, and everyone eyed the other groups apprehensively.
The auditor at the appropriate time called everyone to attention, and explained what was going to happen and what our role would be in the process. We were invited to ask questions, and the first question came from someone on the Emmer side - a question that occurred to me as well. I joined in that I wanted to know the same thing, and that was the beginning of the ice breaking between the various groups.
The room was hot, which made us all sleepy, the provided coffee not withstanding once we started - beginning with the unsealing of the boxes of ballots in front of everyone. The first thing we all agreed on was to please! turn down the heat! so we wouldn't all fall asleep. (You may laugh - but this was important.) We were each given a sheet which had the different precincts listed on it, and the number of votes - total votes, as represented by the tape and the voter signature book; and the vote totals by candidates.
We only had three tables operating at one time, as this made the best use of available work space, and was the most considerate of the fewer number of Emmer recounters - as well as being considerate of the number of auditor staff. We began with the precincts which had the largest number of ballots to be counted. One volunteer from each campaign sat on either side of the audit staff member, observing the ballots as they were sorted into piles for the candidates - Dayton, Emmer, other, legitimate challenge for each, and frivolous challenge for each. Another audit staff member sat opposite the audit person who handled each ballot, and made the sorting decision. The auditor circulated between the tables, answering questions and supervising the process; we had an additional retired county auditor helping with that, who was also very experienced. I believe that extra person specifically made a big difference in why we were able to be as efficient as we were in completing an extraordinarily tedious process.
Within the first ten minutes of actually looking at the ballots, Emmer volunteers made frivolous challenges. The auditor patiently explained why the challenges were frivolous, providing copies of the statutes, copies of guidelines from the Secretary of State's office, and sample ballots provided to demonstrate what was legal and what was not. The Emmer volunteers were initially rather contentious, but in the face of rational evidence, and especially the statutes, eventually relented -- reluctantly -- and withdrew the first frivolous challenges.
Those of us not actively engaged in the recount had seats behind a barrier that separated us from the recounters, staff and ballots. The biggest change to have an impact on how the recount proceeded happened away from the ballots. Some of us - like the Emmer volunteer who asked the same question that I had - began talking with each other, regardless of which group we belonged to. Guardedly at first, but as it became obvious what a really long, boring day it was going to be doing this, more animatedly, and with more warmth.
While this might seem a very trivial development to another observer, I found this to be the beginning of a sea change. This relaxation of tensions and suspicion was the turning point in our recount experience being a cooperative effort between people who ALL wanted an honest and fair outcome. That was important, very important.
After each table had sorted their precinct's ballots into the appropriate piles, the part of the process I performed began - counting the respective stacks. Only the audit staff were allowed to touch the ballots; we had to watch from opposite sides of the table, counting with them, sorting the stacks into group of 25 ballots that were then laid across the previous 25. At the end, the cross-piled stacks of 25 were counted, the odd ballots if any that were less than a stack of 25 were added to that count. Frivolous ballot challenges were given a label, and a number, and the auditor marked them (I don't know if it was with a signature or just initials). Ballot challenges went into their respective envelopes to go to the canvassing board. The other ballots went back into boxes. Numbers of each kind of ballot - Dayton, Emmer, etc. were recorded and compared with the numbers for the categories from election night counts. Not that readers care - but counting to 25 over and over is tedious.
As the day progressed, the times in between counting stacks, where piles were shifted to make room for the next ballots, became opportunities for pleasant if trivial conversation. And while I doubt that either campaign had anticipated this, ballot challenges became surprisingly a matter of consensus, and so did the stack counts.
Good will and camaraderie replaced suspicion and latent hostility.
We got into a rhythm, a pattern, that improved how efficiently we could evaluate and count ballots. The numbers were matching up, with the exception of one precinct where there had been a brief jam in the vote machine. As it turned out that jamming affected very few voters, at the beginning of the day - and two of them were among the Emmer recounters, and they vouched for the accuracy of the problem as it was reported. The expectation was that the jamming required those ballots to be run through again, because of not completing properly the first time, and that if there was an overage, that would match those jams. It did. There was no contentiousness; just relief for everyone that issue was resolved so amiably and efficiently.
By the afternoon, I found myself high-fiving my Emmer opposite number every time we completed all the recounting for a precinct. People were laughing and telling jokes in between the times we had to concentrate on observing the ballots.
The only even remotely serious ballot challenge involved a ballot that was properly marked, with the little circle filled in neatly, but the words 'Rin Tin Tin', 'Hitler', and 'Frank Sinatra' were additionally written in on the write-in candidate line, BUT the circle indicating this was a candidate selection was NOT filled in. It might be surmised that the selection of a 1950's children's dog hero, and the two humans indicated suggested something about the age of the voter, but did not appear to meet the criteria of either an 'over vote' ballot, or identifying marks (initials, name, numbers, etc.); rather they were very dated alternatives to the ever-popular 'Lizard people'. This is important - copies of this challenge ballot were made available to both campaign teams. ANY ballot challenged resulted in copies being made available to the recount teams for both campaigns.
When the recount was ended - earlier than expected, people were shaking hands with each other before leaving. I made a point of thanking the auditor personally for how even-handedly he performed his job, and for the refreshments. He volunteered to me that the 2010 recount went very differently than the far more hostile 2008 recount. And then he added that probably no one had as much fun at a recount as I did.
I don't know about that - the nice, outgoing, energetic and very charming man from the Emmer campaign had at least as much fun as I did; maybe more.
We ended up with at most 1 frivolous ballot challenge, and 1 legitimate challenge, although I think at the very end they were withdrawn. We had an excellent match up of counts and recounts. But the most important result was that opposing sides acted in good faith, cooperated, and even managed to enjoy each other.
It is a damn shame that wasn't the case in every county. Because it COULD be and SHOULD be how we handle all recounts.
No comments:
Post a Comment