Portsmouth Township Clerk Judy Bukowski, right, and Deputy Clerk Maryanne Adams perform accuracy tests of voting machines.
Voters Still in the Dark on Primary Election Results Despite FOIA Request
County Clerk Cynthia Luczak Has Yet to Explain Spoiled Ballots from Polls
October 31, 2010
By: Dave Rogers
Three township clerks have told the news media that voting machines in the August primary election kicked out "crossover" ballots.
The "crossovers" (actually split tickets with votes cast for candidates of both parties), were not accepted by the machines, clerks Judy Bukowski of Portsmouth Township and Pamela Wright of Hampton Township told MyBayCity.com. Also, clerk Kathy Bremer of Merritt Township told Brian Wood of WNEM-TV, Channel 5, the same story.
County Clerk Cynthia Luczak explained in an interview with TV-5 that 2,251 crossover votes cast on absentee ballots could not be corrected and were deemed "spoiled."
However, Mrs. Luczak has not yet furnished an adequate explanation how 8,484 votes cast at polling places could have been processed by townships and small cities and listed as "spoiled ballots" on county election results.
The township clerks said each had a handful of spoiled ballots from voters who would not bother to re-vote after their crossover ballots had been rejected by the machines. Those ballots were placed in sealed envelopes.
But all the clerks were totally at a loss to explain how an average of 208 spoiled ballots per precinct were recorded on county tallies from the primary election.
A total of 10,735 crossover votes are listed on primary election results, representing 48.54 percent of the 22,116 votes cast.
"We just can't figure it out -- it's impossible for crossover votes to go through with this system," said Mrs. Bukowski. Hampton's Mrs. Wright agreed.
Other county officials have noted that in 2008 just 856 crossover votes were recorded, representing 1.06 percent of the total of 16,163 votes cast. And, in 2006 the crossover total was listed at 4.24 percent.
A Freedom of Information (FOIA) request filed by MyBayCity.com is still unanswered, although the county clerk has estimated the cost of furnishing the information at $120 and a $60 deposit has been paid.
The request was filed with Bay County Corporation Counsel Martha Fitzhugh on Oct. 5 and on October 10 a 10 day extension was sought and granted. Therefore, the FOIA is overdue since Oct. 20, according to state law.
Public officials who do not respond to FOIA requests can be subject to misdemeanor charges. The only recourse for non compliance would be to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
MyBayCity.com has filed another, more detailed FOIA request, seeking additional information about meetings and communications by the clerk regarding the election, how the ballots were recorded and by whom, verification of computer programming of the voting machines, etc.
##