Open Letter To Vermonter Voters,
I have complained here at ibrattleboro.com during the fall of 2014 that my vote count was lowered from the “unofficial” vote count to the “official” vote count four days later. This never happens to major party candidates. It happened to me in 2010, and it happened to me in 2014. I want some positive, constructive changes made! Because this never happens to major party candidates, I am now complaining that I believe the Constitution of the State of Vermont is being violated.
The following information is a bit lengthy, but if you are interested in the Vermont State Constitution, and the Legislative vote for Governor of Vermont on January 8, 2015, then you might want to read this. I was on the ballot for Governor of Vermont 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and I believe that I’m being denied equal protection of the laws.
From Cris Ericson
To: Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos,
My point is that the statute you have been relying upon is in violation of the Vermont State Constitution and should be repealed, voided, stricken from the books, and the Vermont State Constitution should be immediately put into full force and effect on January 8, 2015, and the General Assembly should receive the original voting ballots and chose a committee out of the members of the General Assembly, and count the ballots and the votes for Governor themselves. “out of the Senate and House of Representatives” does NOT mean “out of the Secretary of State’s Office”. It means they have to do it themselves!
Furthermore, your committee of ONLY major party representatives does NOT give equal protection under the law to minor parties and independent candidates.
Just because you have been relying upon a statute that violates equal protection under the law and violates the Vermont State Constitution for YEARS, does not mean that the General Assembly should not recognize its errors
and immediately change their ways on January 8, 2015.
Just because dark skinned people were Slaves in the United States for many years was no reason for the people to not realize that the laws allowing Slavery were in violation of the United States Constitution whereby all men are created equal.
Constitution of the State of Vermont AS ESTABLISHED JULY 9, 1793, AND AMENDED THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 2010 § 47. [ELECTION OF GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR AND TREASURER] “and at the opening of the General Assembly, there shall be a committee appointed out of the Senate and House of Representatives, who, after being duly sworn to the faithful discharge of their trust, shall proceed to receive, sort, and count the votes for Governor,”
Ms. Ericson,
The response to your question about following the constitution in the Legislative action regarding the Governor’s race is one of practice by the legislature over many years. 17 V.S.A. § 2592 (2014) states that the Canvas Committee (the 4 major parties and the SoS) which convened after the general election to certify the election, is to prepare a certificate of election (which we did), ;the committee does not sign it, and forwards to the official Legislative canvas committee. It further states that this certificate is considered sufficient credential of the election (unless a court order rules otherwise). Here are the pertinent sections of the statutes.
17 V.S.A. § 2592 § 2592. Canvassing committees; canvass of votes in general or special elections
(a) For all State and national offices and statewide public questions, the Secretary of State and the chair
of the State committee of each major political party (or designee) shall constitute a canvassing committee
to receive and tally returns and issue certificates.
(h) (1) The canvassing committee shall declare the person receiving the largest number of votes for each
office to be elected, and it shall issue a certificate of election, signed by a majority of the canvassing committee…
(j) The certificate shall be a sufficient credential of such person’s election, unless superseded by a court
order as provided by subchapter 9 of this chapter.
(k) In the case of the Offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Attorney General,
and Auditor of Accounts, the canvassing committee shall prepare a certificate of election but shall not sign it.
The prepared certificate shall be presented to the official canvassing committee appointed by the
General Assembly, pursuant to Chapter II, § 47 of the Vermont Constitution, for their use if they desire.
The Secretary of State’s office has followed the statutes and now it is up to the legislature. As for whether you can address the Joint Session of the legislature, that is a question for the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate. 128 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05633-1101, p: 802-828-2148, f: 802-828-2496 e: jim.condos@sec.state.vt.us
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm
Constitution of the State of Vermont
AS ESTABLISHED JULY 9, 1793, AND AMENDED THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 2010
§ 47. [ELECTION OF GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR AND TREASURER]
The voters of each town shall, on the day of election for choosing Representatives to attend the General Assembly, bring in their votes for Governor, with the name fairly written, to the Constable, who shall seal them up, and write on them, Votes for Governor, and deliver them to the Representatives chosen to attend the General Assembly; and at the opening of the General Assembly, there shall be a committee appointed out of the Senate and House of Representatives, who, after being duly sworn to the faithful discharge of their trust, shall proceed to receive, sort, and count the votes for Governor, and declare the person who has the major part of the votes, to be Governor for the two years ensuing. The Lieutenant-Governor and the Treasurer shall be chosen in the manner above directed.
Cris Ericson
– – – – – – – – – –
RE: I think the vote results you certified are FRAUD.
Friday, November 14, 2014 9:47 AM From: “Condos Jim”
To: “‘Cris Ericson'”…
Dear Ms. Ericson,
I first must state unequivocally that there is no voter fraud taking place within the Secretary of State’s Office.
The mission of the Secretary of State’s office and specifically the Elections Division is to compile, and present accurate and truthful vote tallies to the Canvassing Committee. We work in conjunction with VT’s hard-working town clerks to run, manage, and report the results of VT’s elections.
Your question regarding the unofficial numbers being higher than the official numbers for some candidates was addressed by the Canvass Committee at the Canvass Committee Meeting, which was open to the public with many members of the media present. However, I am happy to explain the discrepancy between the unofficial numbers reported on election night and the official tally that is confirmed by the Canvass Committee and now reflected on our website.
Before doing so, I would like to first address your assertion that you were “not offered a seat at the table” for the Canvassing Committee. 17 V.S.A. § 2592 clearly sets out the members of the Canvassing Committee:
17 V.S.A. § 2592. Canvassing committees; canvass of votes in general or special elections
(a) For all State and national offices and statewide public questions, the Secretary of State and the chair of the State committee of each major political party (or designee) shall constitute a canvassing committee to receive and tally returns and issue certificates.
As you can see, who is on the Committee is not set by my office. However, again, any member of the public is welcome to attend the meeting and to view the results.
The election night reporting website was first created in 2012 to provide a “go to” place for the public and media to see what was occurring with the “unofficial” vote tallies on election night. It has always been and still is an “unofficial” tally of votes – these have never been represented as totally accurate.
2014 was the 1st year of mandatory reporting by town clerks to the website on election night. Please remember that on election day, many of VT’s Town Clerks have been up and in their offices or polling locations very early in the morning (before 5am in some cases); and they will work all day and into the night – many do not go home until midnight or later – some 15 to 18 hours or more.
On Nov 4th, the results showed that approximately 231 voting districts out of 275 had reported their unofficial and uncertified vote tallies as the night ended. Our office was clear and transparent that these results were unofficial and the numbers might change; this website carried a tag of “unofficial”.
During the night of the 4th the number of precincts reporting fluctuated, thus, ;individual candidate numbers fluctuated. This can be explained for several reasons, however, it is important to remember that this is raw data being entered by Town Clerks. An example of fluctuating precincts might be that a town may have mistakenly entered twice and our team noticed the error and removed one of their entries. Again, this is why the results are clearly listed as unofficial.
On Nov 5th, many of the remaining town clerks posted their unofficial tallies bringing the total reporting districts to 265 of 275. Later in the day, we locked down the website and posted a message that stated to check back over the weekend for updated results that reflected the Official Return of Vote (ORV) tallies.
On that day after the election (Nov 5th), the Town Clerks come back into their offices and review their tally sheets. They then correct, verify, and certify their results which they record on the ORV form. These ORVs are placed in an overnight mail envelope to our office. Depending on the mail service, we receive these forms generally on Thursday (Nov 6) and Friday (Nov 7).
The election division (consisting of only five members) creates a spreadsheet by inputting the vote tallies from the ORVs. The election team reviews the results, double checks for errors, and develops the final results to be presented to the Canvassing Committee.
This year, we completed our work on finalizing the vote tallies late on Friday night and immediately posted the results on the website by replacing all the previous “unofficial” data and adding a message stating these are considered “unofficial” until the Canvassing Committee meets.
On Monday Nov 10, we finalized the documents for the Canvassing Committee which included another review of the data.
The process as I have described is very manual and that is why ALL RESULTS are unofficial until the Canvassing Committee meets. There are checks and balances in place for verification of the official numbers to provide for their accuracy. This is not the case for the unofficial election night reporting, which, I believe is the issue at the heart of your complaint. This is why my office makes ;it abundantly clear that these numbers are not the official results.
If you wish to review the Canvass Committees report, you may do so on our website here: https://www.sec.state.vt.us/media/625908/2014GE-State-Canvass.pdf
If you would like to view the ORVs for yourself, our office makes the ORVs available for public inspection to anyone who would like to review them.
The goal and mission of the office is to provide Vermont citizens with the most accurate vote results possible.
Sincerely,
Jim Condos
Secretary of State
State of Vermont
128 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05633-1101
p: 802-828-2148
f: 802-828-2496
e: jim.condos@sec.state.vt.us
Votes for Matthew Andrews, Liberty Union, Major Party, REDUCED
Hi! I made one error, a major party candidate for Representative
to U.S. Congress, Matthew Andrews, Liberty Union Party,
did also complain about his vote count being lowered from the
“unofficial” to the “official” vote count. Basically, what he is saying
here is that three candidates for U.S. Congress, House of Representatives,
including me, Cris Ericson, Jerry Trudell, and Matthew Andrews,
each had our vote count reduced by about 800 votes or more,
and then, simultaneously,
the Secretary of State reported that there were fewer votes for
Representative to Congress,
even though that was the first item on the ballot,
and when you multiply 3 candidates times 800 votes,
that’s 2400 votes,
and I was personally suspicious,
because of the simultaneous strange situation of the total number
of votes for U.S. Congress being far less than the total number
for Governor, even though Representative to Congress was at
the top of the ballot,
I was suspicious that there might have been an error
of cutting and pasting 2400 votes total from U.S. Congress
over to Governor Peter Shumlin’s vote total for Governor.
Also, it should be clear as a bell that it is an unconscionable
conflict of interest
for the Vermont Secretary of State
to count his own votes, and certify his own vote count.
Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:16 AM
From: “Matthew Andrews”
To: “Cris Ericson”
Cc: jim.condos@sec.state.vt.us
will.senning@sec.state.vt.us
publisher@vermontjournal.com
editor@vermontjournal.com
lindsay@sover.net
more …
The night of the election the Secretary of State’s website said that I
had earned 2,948 votes.
By the weekend my vote count had been reduced
to 2,071.
That’s a loss of 877 votes, or almost 30%!
If the Secretary of State is going to make numbers public,
then change them,
you have a responsibility to account for those changes.
I understand that human error is possible.
But why would three of us in the same race all see such major reductions?
Are we really supposed to believe that town clerks accidentally
made up votes,
or took Welch’s votes (from the bottom of the list)
and put them in my column (at the top),
and Ericson’s and Trudell’s columns as well?
I don’t want more theories,
I just want the truth.
If the Secretary of States cannot account for what happened to the 877 votes,
why should we have any confidence that the official sum is more accurate
than the initial sum?
The Secretary of State has a responsibility to count every vote,
not merely coronate the incumbents every four years.
Matthew Andrews
Liberty Union
Preliminary vs official
Condos reply says you saw preliminary results first, then the official results later. Official results have the full count, the preliminary totals are close estimates but not final and can change, that’s why they are preliminary and not official.
In races that are not close, preliminary results can hint at who won; in close races it appears they cause confusion for candidates.
It sounds like you would like them to do away with preliminary results, and only use official results, to prevent future confusion.