|
Examined thought is how critical thinkers test their reasoning process against logical standards. To reason well, you must know the parts of the reasoning system and know how those parts interact to make a sound conclusion. In addition, you need the will and the motivation to follow sound reason principles persistently.
|
|
|
|
| January 14, 2008 | ||||
|
Vallejo’s contested mayoral election process stumbles to conclusion. Gary Cloutier filed legal papers in Solano Superior Court to contest the results of the recount of votes for mayor of Vallejo. His lawsuit opens the fourth act of an election process to elect a mayor that only should have been a three-act drama. The first act in Vallejo’s mayor election drama ended with voters seemingly selecting Cloutier their mayor by a slim margin. However, Osby Davis opened the second act with a lawsuit for a recount vote that ended with him certified as mayor. Then, Cloutier tried to write a different third act script than the one outlined in the election code. A Solano County Superior Court judge rejected this attempt to void the recount vote by using an injunction that would have kept him as mayor despite the results of the recount tally. Now, Cloutier exercises his legal right to contest the recount vote before a Superior Court judge. However, he still asks for relief outside what the election code prescribes. It is a shame that Cloutier did not just file his legal claim and let it speak for itself instead of continuing to make public claims. His claims only confuse the issue and inflame the public. Many of his supporters already believe he should be mayor except for fraud. Cloutier wants the court to reinstate him as mayor, but he does not want a recount. This seems a strange request outside normal election procedures that is similar to his attempt to use an injunction to keep the mayor’s seat. He claims the original machine vote count is the only proper vote tally. However, this remedy violates the election law that says the manual count is the official count unless replaced by a later recount by a superior court judge. More importantly, it violates Davis’ legal rights under election code to contest election results with a recount of ballots. The Times-Herald quotes Cloutier saying the machine count was the only one “not tinted by human error.” He is mistaken, because humans fed the ballots into the vote-counting machines and humans interpreted the counting machines’ error alarm codes. The Registrar of Voters’ December 20, 2007, Review and Analysis of Vallejo Mayor Machine/Manual Count Ballot Discrepancies credits many of the discrepancies to machine operator error. Cloutier claimed in his lawsuit that the court should void the recount vote results, because election officials did not conduct it publicly as required by law. Then, he claimed in a public statement that the Registrar’s analysis lessened Davis lead to one vote. Conveniently, he ignored that this was an unofficial analysis based in part on the results from Registrar of Voters staff members’ in-house, non-public recount of ballots and votes. He decided that the Registrar’s analysis was reliable when it confirmed an added vote for him, but unreliable when it confirmed Davis still the overall winner. The Registrar’s review and analysis used a scientific based method and its conclusion about the recount vote seemed accurate. However, it is unofficial and only a recount by the Superior Judge counts. I suspect that Cloutier made this same conclusion and this is why he did not ask for a recount. Instead, he searched for other claims to overturn the recount vote. He had the right to do this. What is important is that a superior court judge will eventually rule on Cloutier’s claims based on standards of law and not based on arbitrary standards of fairness. Then, Cloutier will regain his position as mayor, Davis will keep the office, or the judge will vacate the office until Vallejo fills the position with another election or by another method. Elections and ballot counting are fundamental parts of our democratic culture. Voters should not have to endure this outdated, slow and inaccurate vote recording and counting system. Nevertheless, problems with vote counting machines plague the nation. Our nation uses advanced technology to track millions of store and internet sales daily and instantly subtract millions of dollars from personal bank accounts using secure lines and procedures. Federal and state government agencies track millions of payroll tax deductions monthly. Government agencies tap and record millions of private telephone conversations. Still, voters tolerate the government wasting millions of dollars on vote machines designed by private firms that are inadequate for the purpose even when they work as designed. Where is the leadership and where is the outrage?
Contact Kenneth Brooks at P.O. B 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. opinion@ethicalego.com
|
|
