|
|
|
|
Testimony of Pat Foster State Senate Committee Hearing on Elections Plainfield Township Hall Belmont, Michigan June 18, 2007
I am Pat Foster, a Certified Public Accountant in the State of Michigan and resident of Ganges Township in Allegan County. I also serve as treasurer of the Michigan Election Reform Alliance and as a member, I offer the following from my direct observations of election related events during the primary and general elections in Allegan Co. in 2006.
Case 1 During the August 8th primary, I was involved with a group of citizens that sought to recall the Township Board in Lee Township. The initial election results indicated that a Supervisor and Trustee were both recalled and three Board members were not. There was a recount requested and I was part of the recount group. During the recount process, the Board of Election Canvassers of Allegan County indicated their intention to use one of the electronic tallying machines to total the ballots, one of the same machines that had been used to count the ballots originally at the precinct level. One of the recall group, Neva Tice, read to the Board of Canvassers a portion of Michigan law[1] which states quite clearly that members of the recall group, as public observers, had the right to observe each ballot as it was being counted. The Board of Canvassers denied this right and prevented the recall group from observing the ballots as they were fed into the electronic tally machine. The episode was recorded on video tape.
Case 2 After the November 7th General Election, a group consisting of two candidates (myself and Karen Wellman), election challengers Roy Hebert (attorney), Al Weener, and Bonnie Wilkens, met at the Casco Township Hall and made a request to the Township Clerk, Julie Cowie to physically count the ballots as provided for under Michigan Law[2] under the law. The Clerk called the Bureau of Elections in Lansing and had Roy Hebert read the Code Sections of the law to Peter Allegrenie of the Bureau the sections of the law allowing viewing and counting the ballots. Nevertheless, we were still denied the right to look at the ballots. The episode was recorded on video tape.
Two criminal complaints were filed by myself and Ira Deemar with the State police Department in Wayland regarding these incidents. The complaints cited the election laws that we believe were violated and referred to the video tape evidence available. To date, we have received no answer to those complaints.
Case 3 On December 7, 2006, I was part of a group involved in recounting the State Representative’s race in Kalamazoo. With the group’s permission, I recounted at that time the Secretary of State’s race in three Precincts. These were my recorded results:
Precinct 4 Hand count 1: 162 for incumbent Hand count 2: 161 for incumbent Actual votes to the incumbent by the machine tally was 168 Difference 6 or 3.6%
Precinct 15 Hand count: 97 for incumbent Machine count: 100 for incumbent Difference 3 or 3%
Precinct 5 Hand count: 254 for incumbent Machine count: 268 for incumbent Difference 14 or 5.2%
Case 4 On December 8th I was a member of a recount group in Allegan County on behalf of Neva Tice, candidate for Lee Township Trustee. Again I recounted the Secretary of State’s Race in this precinct. The result of the hand count of the paper ballots was 435 for the incumbent. The machine totaled 450 votes for the incumbent, a difference of 15 votes or 3.3% of the total.
I also observed and noted at the time that at least 50 ballots had been voted by using a printer of some sort to mark the vote on the paper ballot. When I inquired about the AutoMark machine in that precinct, I was told by Linda Reynolds, the Democratic challenger in that precinct and others that voted that day, that the AutoMark machine in that precinct had broken down early on Election Day and was never used. Both I and Ira Deemar brought these facts to the state police. There has been no indication since of any action taken on this complaint.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you! |
|
|
|