Jon Mays and Jerry Lee have known since December 4, 2018 Board of Supervisor Meeting that San Mateo County Sherif Deputy Heinz Puschendorf was requesting a by hand recount of every ballot for Measure W which passed only in the last two days of reporting and by less than 500 votes.
Today’s article talks about Harvesting of ballots, no mention of Undervotes, Ballots Printed etc.
The San Mateo Daily Journal has 84,000 readers per day times 5 is 420,000 views not seen. Heinz Puschendorf is looking for 300 volunteers John and Jerry know that.
For many years election system security experts have been whistle-blowing on Microsoft based vendor sold voting systems that utilize proprietary “secret ” software rather than a publicly viewable ” open source ” code. Experts state plainly that to defend against outside ( or insider ) interference an open source environment is preferred. NASA and the DOD utilize open source for mission critical operations.. and now New Hampshire has deployed the better systems. The systems are far less expensive and eliminate vulnerabilities to the point of being referenced as ” unhackable “
San Francisco County, just north of San Mateo County, CA has done extensive studies over a ten year period and now started the build-out of their open source / paper ballot voting system. The current voting machine vendors do not want SF County to accomplish this effort, and pioneering watchdog groups like California Association of Voting Officials ( www.cavo-us.org ) and CAVO is actively protecting the project against the derailing effects that have befallen other jurisdictions ( Travis County , TX and Los Angeles ) attempting to move away from the previously :”locked in” price gauging vendors.
The scenario is historic Davey vs Goliath as Microsoft and those who” bob in their wake ” scurry to delay the public systems while setting up to sell another round ( at a price tag over eight BILLION dollars ) of the scientifically concluded insecure systems. Money in the form of political contributions continues to flow toward decision makers.. and activists accuse the blocking politicians of putting personal gain before country and the national security. Recently U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard worked with CAVO to put forth a federal bill advocating open source election systems
So what’s up with San Mateo County ? As the technology capitol of the world, it would be natural for SMC to lead the advancements .. or at least follow San Francisco’s lead as a next door county. Could it be San Francisco politicians are that much more intelligent than those in San Mateo County.. or is it rather just corruption ? Let’s look at the Supervisors and some other elected folks..
Many years back Supervisor Warren Slocum was a major player bringing in the flawed voting systems that are now notorious as a national security threat. San Mateo County Supervisor ( and former registrar ) Slocum sweated profusely while presenting his case for purchasing the ” corporate / secret ” voting systems and prompted the League Of Women to join his advocacy. Upon direct questioning by this writer the LWV lead Jackie Jacobberger confessed ignorance regarding voting system security and promised to never advocate at Slocum;s urging again. It appeared “business as usual” occurred during that initial purchase, and the Texas based Hart Company scored a windfall.
Slocum then went on to join the board at Verified Voting, a group notable for destroying an open source voting project in Texas,and also for absorbing millions of dollars ( with no results ) in grant monies from federal voting projects.
Supervisor David Pine may not be directly corrupted but is apparently suffering from the controlling “persuasion” of notorious staff. Burruto is a controller of party politics and has been a staunch political opponent of open source voting The other SMC Supervisors Groom and Horsley seem to blindly follow behind Slocum and Pine apparently oblivious to their duties to country and democracy.
Relief is available to San Mateo County but it takes courage. Silicon donors that make or break politicians do not like the election system security solution as it involves a free software that out performs what they are selling. With the spotlight now on San Mateo County to join San Francisco’s efforts to set voting system security precedent, it will be interesting to see how the San Mateo Board of Supervisors deal with this circumstance.
Brent Turner is a native of San Mateo County.Mr. Turner is recognized as a civil rights activist and a catalyst for sustainability
San Mateo County Sheriff Deputy Heinz Puschendorf will be filing for a RECOUNT of all the ballots for Measure W in the November 6, 2018 election.
San Carlos Councilman Mark Olbert was the first Elected official to call for a complete Audit of the Elections Office.
Mark Simon the self proclaimed “genesis” of Measure W and a personal friend of Kevin Mullin and now a contributor for the Climate RWC stated clearly 271,704 was the number of ballots received by the absolute deadline.
Tonight the number has grown to 286,247.
Did Measure W pass using the 271,704 ballots.
It looks like Heinz Puschendorf is going to find out, a recount was going to happen no matter who won, I think this will be a much more transparent process for the average taxpayer who might have just got obligated with the Supervisors and SamTrans using $650,000 of taxpayer money against the taxpayers to pass Measure W.
Based on the information from San Mateo County Election Office there was a total of 286,210 ballots received, of that amount 265,793 ballots tallied a total 249,288 voted either yes or no for Measure W. That also means that 16,605 votes were not tallied or didn’t vote either way for Measure W. = 6.24% of the 265,793.
With a total of 20,417 remaining ballots to be tallied, minus the 6,24% No tally or vote for Measure W average leaves 19,149 votes to be tallied. The Yes on Measure W would have to get 68.7% of the remaining ballots “and they are statistically unlikely to meet the necessary threshold”.
With that information We are calling Measure W Failed.
Total Registered Voters 399,591, 286,210 Voted = 72% Turnout
San Mateo County Elections Office should display:
Registered Voters 399,591 100.0%
Total Ballots Received (turn out) 286,210 72.0%
Vote by Mail 260,000 65.1%
Vote Center 26,210 6.7%
Total Ballots Counted 265,793 53.3%
Ballots received, damaged or challenged ##### ##.#%
Today November 21, 2018 The elections office shows a new and larger number of mail ballots that were received by 9:00PM November 9, 2018. The new number is 260,000 the previous number was 258,015. That is a 1985 ballot difference.
According to those numbers a total of 286,210 ballots have been received. When you add the 260,000 plus the 26,210 on Election Day . He is reporting that 247,256 ballots have been tallied that leaves 38,966 to be tallied.
The San Mateo Daily Journal which has a readership of 84,000 people per day has reported 12,744 ballots to be counted/tallied. Simply not true or accurate.
Measure W which has been failing consistently so far is now inching closer to pass.
Mark Church should be counting the ballots instead he takes time to write a public relations piece in the SMDJ.
I have received word that the SMC Elections office published election results a couple of days ago, which if true is a very bad thing.
Lets see what Mark Church says about this taken from his website several days ago.
County voter receives two election ballots
Apparent irregularity sparks concern, but top election official claims all is well
By Austin Walsh Daily Journal staff
William Holsinger received his official ballot in the mail and sent it back to cast his vote, per his usual process as a permanent absentee voter for about the last 10 years.
Then another official ballot arrived in the mail the next day. Caught off guard by the irregularity, Holsinger, who is registered in San Mateo, called county election officials who told him that he could discard the duplicate.
Seeking some peace of mind, Holsinger said his primary interest was receiving a guarantee that being issued a second ballot would not invalidate his initial one.
“I wasn’t planning on voting twice,” he said. “I just wanted to make sure that my first one counted.”
Officials in a phone conversation were initially unable to offer that certainty though, said Holsinger. For his part, Jim Irizarry, the county’s assistant chief elections officer, suggested the second ballot is likely due to the complex nature of operating a countywide election.
“Voters receiving two ballots is a common occurrence due to the complex and fluid nature of voter registration,” he said in an email, suggesting a second ballot can be issued when a voter changes their status with the county. Altering party affiliations, addresses or other details in the county’s record are examples of the type of action which would prompt issuance of a second ballot.
Holsinger though said he had not changed his status with the county recently, making his second ballot all the more perplexing.
“I was a little puzzled,” he said.
To get clarification on whether the ballot was counted, Irizarry said the county offers a service which requires voters to share information such as their name, address and birthday.
“With this information, we can determine the number of ballots issued, when they were issued, what types of ballots were issued, if any ballots were voted or returned,” he said.
He added changes to the county record may not be immediately apparent to voters, as activity at the DMV for example may result in prompting a second ballot.
“Voters may not associate a second ballot with a DMV interaction made weeks ago, plus the time for the ballot to reach them,” Irizarry said.
He took time to note though that issuance of a second ballot would not invalidate the first. He said the voting system is designed to flag ballots in the case of potential redundancies, which then requires staffers to check the voter’s record, rather than automatically render it uncountable.
But so long as Holsinger only sent his first ballot, Irizarry confirmed his vote counted.
“If the voter … sent in his first ballot, and only that ballot, it would be counted despite the issuance of a second ballot,” he said.
Irizarry also tamped down concerns raised by those who were alarmed to see mock election results posted on the county elections office website in late October. Some felt the outcomes shown were real and may affect the behavior of those yet to vote.
Irizarry though said the mock results were not actual outcomes, and instead only a standard system testing mechanism commonly used by officials in advance of an election.
“These results are labeled ‘test’ or ‘mock’ to distinguish them from the actual reports released on Election night. Every system tested worked correctly. Once the mock election testing is complete, the numbers on racetracker revert to zero in preparation for Election night reporting,” he said.
The issues raised follow a series of missteps county officials have endured during election season.
First, officials found the county Board of Education race was left off sample ballots, causing elections officials to postpone sending actual ballots one week from Oct. 9 to Oct. 15 while they addressed the error.
Elections officials incorrectly identified the race as a district election, resulting in only those living in District 1 along the coast receiving information about the candidates in their sample ballot. The Board of Education candidates are required to be residents of the district they represent, but members are elected by voters across the county.
Irizarry said the additional information originally intended for the sample material was included with the actual ballot in an addendum which required additional time to craft. Elections officials sent out ballots last month, and voters still received their material within the legal time requirements.
Later, officials found the sample material problems carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race. Officials were forced to scramble and assure those voters were offered ballots including the race.
For Holsinger, he shared fears that his experience could be a byproduct of a potentially dysfunctional system.
“I believe that good process makes for appropriate results. Bad process never has good results. And the ends don’t justify the means,” he said.
This is a perfect example of why I support elected official Sabrina Brennan she cares. If you know of any other San Mateo County elected official who has publicly commented on this subject let me know.
San Mateo County election irregularities:
1.) Why were multiple ballots mailed to individual voters…?2.) On Tuesday, Oct 30, 2018, Race Tracker was published on the San Mateo County Elections website with “mock” results. Voters discovered the Race Tracker results online when they Google searched a candidates name. The word ”mock“ was in fine print giving voters the impression the results were from votes cast in the Nov 2018 election. The “mock” results did not appear to berandomized.
3.) The *countywide* Board of Education election was excluded from the Sample Ballot pamphlet everywhere except the Coastside. Delaying the arrival of ballots by a week or more.
4.) The sample ballot problem carried over to real ballots, and dozens of overseas voters were sent ballots also omitting the Board of Education race.
Third-party audit needed of Elections Office
November 8, 2018
I just completed my official San Mateo County vote-by-mail ballot. In addition to a mistake involving a position on the County Board of Education (the correction of which I’ve been told necessitated delaying distribution of the ballots), the provided instructions are incorrect. Specifically, step 3 calls for the voter to “remove the strip to seal the envelope” … when in reality the envelope, or mine at least, is a traditional lick-to-seal one.
Granted, that’s not a big deal. But two mistakes involving a single ballot package? I can’t recall the last time there was any mistake on a ballot, and I’ve voted in every election for the more than 20 years I’ve lived here.
It may be unfair to give voice to this next concern. But it needs to be asked. What else went wrong? It’s the mistakes you don’t see which can cause the biggest problems.
The people of San Mateo County should insist on a thorough, top-to-bottom independent third-party audit of the Elections Office. Our hard-working county employees deserve not to work under a cloud, and county residents deserve a first-class election operation.
The letter writer is a member of the San Carlos City Council. The views and opinions expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the city of San Carlos or its City Council.
Mark Church has certified the June 5, 2018 Election results for San Mateo County.
The Sheriff Office race was an exciting one with three candidates. Mark Melville and Heinz Puschendorf both San Mateo County Sheriff Deputies and Carlos Bolanos the illegally appointed Sheriff who started his campaign over three years ago to make sure no deputy would run against him. That didn’t happen. Mark Melville told several editors including Jon Mays of the San Mateo Daily Journal in May that he watched a 3 minute video of Concerned Citizen Mark De Paula’s presentation to the Board of Supervisors on March 13, 2018. He described it as brilliant and clearly stated based on that presentation it proved that Greg Munks and Carlos Bolanos were liars. Heinz Puschendorf was a last minute write in candidate told several reporters including Dave Boyce that in 2007 when he was the President of the Deputy Sheriff Association DSA he was ordered by UnderSheriff Carlos Bolanos not to talk about or mention the FBI Human Trafficking Sting Operation Dollhouse where he was caught and detained as a customer on April 21, 2007.
Melville and Heinz were very brave to offer their services to the residents of San Mateo County. Look no further than the last write in candidate former deputy Juan P. Lopez.
Imagine what the outcome of this election would have been had Jon Mays printed the brave statement Mark Melville made in May. He and Jerry Lee didn’t think it was newsworthy, 83,500 readers didn’t know about a candidate deputy calling his boss a liar.
That is a big deal. Another big deal is that 100 voters spelled Heinz Puschendorf correctly.
To the 52,996 voters for Mark Melville, I recommend you send him your e-mail addresses so that he can keep you informed if anything bad should happen to him. Same for Mr. Puschendorf. Note Mark Melville has not conceded yet, with close to 30,000 votes in Carlos Bolanos favor 81,032.
In another race between Nancy Magee and Gary Waddell for Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Waddell conceded right away with less than 1% difference.
Magee 65,683 Waddell 64,485
For the record I believe SMC Sheriff Deputies Heinz Puschendorf and Mark Melville.