McCaw Continues to Amaze

Craig Smith reports that the Santa Barbara News-Press wants to hold the 3rd District election over again -- I guess she thinks students don't read newspapers.

Pappas Legal Challenge to Return? Wha!?!

The Santa Barbara News-Press covered the actual final day of former-Supervisor candidate Steve Pappas legal case against Supervisor Doreen Farr. Although I felt it was a little long on supportive statements from the Pappas camp -- there was a key set of quotes from Pappas fan and Santa Ynez Valley Journal 's Nancy Crawford-Hall:

In her newspaper column on Thursday, Mrs. Crawford-Hall essentially said, "It's not over."

"I can't say that anyone was terribly surprised at the outcome of this first phase of the pursuit of legitimacy," wrote Mrs. Crawford-Hall, who attended almost every day of the proceedings. "It seemed fairly evident even before the trial began that the court was not inclined to give much credence to the Pappas attorneys, while all manner of latitude was afforded the opposition.

It was a bit mind-boggling to see the group of people whose names you knew but weren't aware of, just how cozy they all were. I guess it should not be a surprise as this election effort has been perfected probably by the same group over many years."

She added that it was good to see that the "same script has been followed and now that that has been discovered, future litigation will have an easier time to expose it."

Does this mean this spurious litigation is not settled? or does it mean we should assume any election that involves UCSB and Isla Vista will be targeted by Ms. Crawfor-Hall? Did she think she set some sort of precedent? What a waste of money on her part. It's nice some people have money to burn in a recession but the public suffers too as there are definitely costs associated with the defense.

Pappas Legal Challenge All But Over

Saying “It’s over” to the Santa Ynez Valley News -- County Supervisor Doreen Farr's attorney Phil Seymour pointed out that Steve Pappas wasn't able to disqualify a single vote in the last supervisorial race. The judge in the case denied a last challenge yesterday by Pappas to prove that voter fraud occurred in the 3rd District race. A formal judgement is expected in the coming days but it looks like the weight-challenged opera singer sang -- ergo the opera is over.

The Santa Barbara Independent has an article about the case as well and quotes Farr's attorney other attorney Fred Woocher referencing Shakespeare's Macbeth -- "saying the election contest from the beginning had been “a tale… of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I wonder if Nancy Crawford-Hall, rancher and owner of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, might feel like she had wasted her money. Even Pappas' attorney at one point strangely stated that he didn't think it was up to him to bring cases of fraud before the judge. Excuse me? Sounds like a legal stimulus package paid for by Crawford-Hall.

Community Post: Pappas' Case Lacks Merit

This letter was submitted to the Journal -- we'll see if it is published on Thursday considering the publisher's bias ($195K to the Pappas campaign). Kudos to UCSB student Liam Keene for writing an intelligent, well organized letter. A similar letter was published in the Daily Nexus this morning. -- Sara

Letter to the SYV Journal, Submitted February 18, 2009

Dear Editor,

I would like to respond to a number of recent articles in your publication regarding the ongoing court case Pappas vs. Farr. I understand that the publisher of this paper has contributed a significant amount to the Pappas campaign (Lompoc Record, Feb 8. 2009), and so I imagine this is an issue close to heart for this newspaper. However, I do recall reading that this paper welcomes dissenting opinions and that its mission is to provide a forum for better understanding, which I commend you for. In the spirit of full disclosure, I would like to state that I am from the Santa Ynez Valley (my family lives in Solvang), I attend UC Santa Barbara, and I live in Isla Vista. I walked to my polling place on election day and voted in one of the precincts Mr. Pappas now seeks to invalidate. Like Mr. Pappas, I am not a registered member of either party.

A number of claims have been made since the election regarding widespread election fraud in Isla Vista. One issue that has been raised was first-time voters providing IDs with regards to the Help America Vote Act (Journal, Nov. 27, 2008). It seemed as if this newspaper believed that voters were required to show their driver's license at the polling place. However, HAVA requirements are met by putting one's driver's license number on one's voter registration form. Further, any doubts regarding the sufficiency of identification presented are resolved in favor of the voter.

Another issue raised was concern that students had provided a P.O. Box address instead of their dorm room number and that these addresses were sequential. At UCSB, no mail is delivered to dorms and every student who lives in campus housing is issued a PO Box in the UCEN. Roommates share boxes and they are issued sequentially.

When the elections office defended the legitimacy of the process, the publisher stated this was “no assurance to those who feel that the UCSB student population for the last 30 years has been used to dictate policy... to the residents and property owners of the Santa Ynez Valley” (ibid). There seems to be two sentiments here. One, that students should not be able to vote because they live in a place for a temporary amount of time. The Supreme Court ruled in Symm v. United States that students who reside in an area are indeed residents. Further, military personnel at Vandenberg are also allowed to vote and are considered full-fledged residents and members of our community; students should be afforded the same respect. The second sentiment, is that the legitimate votes of liberal students are somehow unfair to those who disagree with them. This would make the contention one of gerrymandering, not of fraud.

In court, Pappas has claimed that because Box 12 on a registration card was not filled out, the vote should be discounted. Regardless of whether registrars were required to complete that box, California Elections Code 2158(b)(1) makes it clear that failure to complete Box 12 “shall not cause the invalidation of the registration of a voter”. Pappas and his attorney knew of this section and yet they proceeded to make this claim in court. As they knew would happen, Judge McLafferty dismissed this claim.

Pappas also claimed that because volunteers did not turn in registration cards within three days of collecting them, the votes should be discounted. However, Elections Code 2107(a) states that the county shall accept registrations “at all times” during the registration window. The sections that state that cards must be submitted in three days and the sanctions they discuss apply to the volunteers and not to the voters. The code makes it very clear that any minor technicalities are not to invalidate a vote; again, Judge McLafferty acted appropriately.

With these issues addressed, it remains to be seen what Mr. Pappas intends to claim. Until Mr. Pappas provides real evidence, I am forced to question the motives of the suit. In the Journal, the publisher wrote “Our election process is too precious to cavalierly distort even a single vote.” However, Mr. Pappas' selective targeting of precincts intends to silence a community. Everyone is concerned with improper registrations but some number of irregularities are likely to be found county wide. To insinuate that Joe Holland or Doreen Farr have done anything wrong is irresponsible. All too often, political elements make cavalier claims of election fraud (see http://TruthAboutFraud.org/). Many would like to eliminate the voices of minorities or young people (demographics present in the 18 precincts Mr. Pappas targets).

We certainly don't want votes to be cast improperly, but looking at the laws and the facts as they stand, it almost appears that the contesting of the election outcome is more of a dog and pony show designed to drum up support for future redistricting of the Third District than a case based on legitimate concerns of fraud. Instead of rallying the base against “the activist courts” or some vast left-wing conspiracy, I hope that those involved can stick to the facts and will examine the law as it's written. And if Mr. Pappas does have legitimate evidence of improper voting, I am eager to see to see it.

—Liam Keane
Isla Vista

Pappas Now Faces Uphill Battle

Last night I was craving coverage of the Pappas-Farr court case -- there were finally articles about it today. One of them was at The Daily Nexus who actually serves the people whose votes could be stolen by Pappa's lawyers.

Superior Court Justice William McLafferty ruled that he would not consider much of the evidence that Pappas’ llawyers planned to use against first-time voters in Isla Vista and UCSB from the last election. Lucky for voters, evidence related to late registration cards or without help signatures will not be allowed in next week's trial.

I know it ain't over until it's over but to think of all the ways this money could have been spent.

No Word on Pappas/Farr Court Case

The Daily Nexus had an article this morning, but there isn't any word in the mainstream print and internet media as to the results of today's court hearing. Although I missed KEYT News tonight -- it looks as though The Palm filed a report that will hopefully be shown on the KEYT website later.

Santa Barbara County 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr Comments on Challenge to her Election

Community News from Friends of Doreen Farr

Today Santa Barbara County 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr issued the following statement about the lawsuit Steve Pappas has brought against her:

"In response to numerous calls and emails that I have received about this lawsuit, I would like to clear up any possible confusion about what has happened, and why I am confident that the will of the voters will not be overturned by this suit.

In November 2008 3rd District Supervisor's race, I won by more than 800 votes, about 52% to Steve Pappas' 48%. Rather than concede, Mr. Pappas has so far paid over $11,000 for a recount of only the votes cast in all 18 UCSB and Isla Vista precincts. The recount resulted in his gaining one vote. On January 6, I was sworn in and seated as the 3rd District Supervisor.

On January 7th, Mr. Pappas filed an amended suit against me personally, seeking to invalidate the majority of more than 9,700 votes cast solely in UCSB and Isla Vista precincts and seeking to declare him the winner. Mr. Pappas has publicly stated that my campaign did nothing wrong, but that election laws require him to file against me, even for actions he alleges were done by others.

I'm committed to ensuring that this suit does not disenfranchise legitimate voters nor create divisiveness among 3rd District residents. At the same time I'm determined that Mr. Pappas' lawsuit will not distract me from addressing the issues and challenges facing all the residents of the 3rd District and Santa Barbara County.

I also want to express my confidence in Joe Holland, Clerk-Recorder, Assessor and Elections Chief as well as the integrity of the voter registration and elections process. Mr. Holland was elected by the voters, and has demonstrated the high degree of professionalism and independence that voters have a right to expect. It's most unfortunate that in these difficult economic times, substantial Santa Barbara County staff time and resources must be spent on Mr. Pappas' lawsuit.

I'm confident that the court will uphold the actions of our county's elections officials, the rights of the voters, and the results of the 2008 election."

Pappas Lawsuit Explained....

Mea culpa -- I had a really bad day for typos yesterday. Let's see if I do better today :) -- Sara

There are a few things about the Pappas lawsuit over the Third Supervisorial District election which bother me but I'm not so sure I've been able to communicate them effectively in prior posts. The following is a list published over at Black Box Voting which succinctly states what is problematic with the lawsuit from a small-d democratic point of view:

(1) Candidate Steve Pappas proposes to eliminate the votes of entire precincts based on the contention that a few voters were ineligible. This would set a horrific precedent. Of course, you can't purge just the votes of any voters found to be ineligible, because votes are anonymous. Therefore this candidate proposes purging ALL the votes in certain precincts, eligible and ineligible, which would not only wrongfully disenfranchise legitimate voters, but would set a precedent that could allow tampering with elections by injecting a few ineligible voters in key precincts as "poison pills."

(2) This lawsuit illustrates how the Help America Vote Act can be used against voters. This kind of litigation imposes what is probably an unsustainable burden of diligence on poll workers and election officials to research every voter registration and voter who shows up to vote.

(3) Alleges "potentially improper" registrations. We don't want ineligible people voting, but we certainly don't want registering to vote to cause voter intimidation through personal investigations or harassment.

Whether Democrat or Republican, at least some of the above should bother you. Would you want your vote invalidated because of a few bad registrations for instance? Do we want county employees spending time on this so far after the fact? Finally, aren't "improper" registrations more relative to the intent of the person registering than whether the registrar signed the card as well? Maybe....but are we willing to throw away votes based more on the precinct one votes in (that happens to be filled with liberal students) than on someone's ability and intent to vote? I don't think so....

Note to Steve Pappas: Nothing Changes on New Year's Day.

First of all, Happy New Year to you all. I was thinking of taking a BlogaHoliday today but this news is too rich to pass up.

In an end of the year move sure to rankle taxpayer advocates, Steve Pappas is asking Superior Court to contest the November 4th Third District election. Interestingly enough, the only place the story seems to be available is over at the Santa Ynez Journal -- home of his uber-supporter Nancy Crawford Hall. A relatively even piece written by SYVJ Staff writer Leah Etling tells us the story, including a quote from Doreen Farr, but also strangely includes a full copy of Pappas' press release afterwards. Objective enough?

Pappas has already cost the Elections Office a good amount of time and money in asking for a recount for which he only gained one vote.

What's different this time? In this action, he is saying that a very specific group of voters were improperly registered and therefore their votes should not be counted. If you know anything about 3rd District politics, you are probably shaking your head right now in understanding as it is often "those damned students" who take the brunt of the losing side's ire in 3rd District contests. According to Pappas, some registration cards were turned in late, improperly filled out and represented re-registrations. There are also rules around turning in registration cards within a certain amount of days and not holding on to the cards. He also points to a Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”) which requires that a person's ID be cleared through something called the Calvalidator system -- I'll have to do some research on that as I've never heard of it.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I'm not sure what the opposing side arguments will be other than despite any timing issues with registration cards, for instance, voters registered to vote expect to be able to vote on election day. I'm not clear a court would take that right away from them on a technicality. This effort also seems so student-centered when there were plenty of registrations accepted in Goleta and the Santa Ynez Valley during a major election as well.

Why Pappas would invest so much in a losing battle seems only centered on the fact he has a financial backer willing to spend the money. Although it seems that he has convinced himself that he is championing democracy, it's hard to think that this effort will get very far.