Double Standards = Election Interference

Happily sweeping a huge pile of dirt under a rug, versus dramatically hyperfocusing on a small dirt spot

OPINION

I guess it’s perfectly acceptable for the prior Assistant Registrar of Voters (ROV) on the last day of ballot tabulation to tell election observers that ballot counting was finished, escort them out the door at 5 p.m., and then continue counting newly discovered ballots until 9:30 p.m. with no citizen observers present.

I guess it’s fine for that same Assistant ROV to give a false answer to a Board Supervisor when directly asked whether she had received money from the CTCL organization (commonly known as Zuckerbucks).

I guess it’s all perfectly fine that the terminated Assistant ROV and at least one other unidentified individual allegedly hacked into the Election Office’s internal communication system.

I guess it’s really acceptable for the prior Assistant ROV to have allegedly called the DOJ and accused two Board Supervisors of “intimidating” employees simply because they showed up to observe ballot processing procedures.

I guess we’re not supposed to mention that dozens of citizens who came to observe ballot tabulation were treated like second-class citizens and denied meaningful observation — because apparently that’s acceptable too.

I guess it’s just fine that the former Assistant ROV kept open stacks of ballots in various rooms of the Election Office without proper chain-of-custody controls.

I guess it’s perfectly OK for Election Office employees to perform signature verification on mail-in ballots at breakneck speeds of less than one second per ballot, while observers were kept outside the room, forced to watch on screens, and unable to record the names of questionable signatures due to the pace.

I guess it’s fine for the former Assistant ROV to claim that all rooms at the Election Office were open to citizen observers, even though that was clearly not the case.

I guess it’s acceptable that the number of ballots counted did not match the number of voters who voted.

I guess it’s fine that Republicans were systematically not hired for positions in the Election Office or as poll workers, and that a job applicant was questioned about wearing red, white, and blue clothing.

I guess it’s perfectly OK to write on ballots in a corner of a room, away from meaningful citizen observation.

I guess it’s fine that the Secretary of State’s procedures for the alpha-draw were not followed regarding the order of candidates’ names on the ballot.

I guess it’s OK to blame others when, as the person in charge during the relevant election, the required paperwork for the county charter was not filed with the Secretary of State.

I guess it’s acceptable to maintain dirty voter rolls containing dead people, individuals who have moved out of the area, nonexistent addresses, business addresses, and post office boxes — even though these people voted according to the Secretary of State’s records and a Deputy Sheriff’s report indicates voter fraud is occurring in Shasta County — all while insisting that voter fraud is rare.

I guess it’s perfectly OK to lobby in Sacramento for banning hand-counting after your own County Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate Dominion voting machines in favor of hand-counting.

I guess it’s fine for an Election Office worker unhappy with the new ROV and new employees to aggressively throw heavy stacks of paper at a new employee or yell at them.

All of these things must be acceptable to the Board of Supervisors, because they never called for an investigation into any of them.

However, the Board did request a full investigation into the new ROV, who was working to ensure complete transparency in the ballot tabulation process. After all, we wouldn’t want real transparency, would we? Better to return to the old system, where critical steps occurred out of sight of meaningful citizen observation.

What exactly triggered the investigation? The new ROV allegedly said, “It’s so easy, a monkey could do it,” while referring to routine tasks for election workers. He also allegedly joked, “I’ll slap you if you don’t get that right.”

Yes, let’s ignore the blatant insubordination and undermining by some staff toward the new ROV (attested to by half a dozen new workers). Instead, let’s focus on those offhand remarks, launch an expensive investigation, deny him a proper chance to defend himself, issue vague accusations labeled as “sustained,” and place a censure item on the agenda, just weeks before an election. Let’s dramatize it with language like “infliction of verbal abuse” or “physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating.” After all, it must be harassment, right? Or is the new ROV the one actually being harassed? Are certain employees trying to force him out so their former boss can return? Are some Board members, Support Services staff, or County Counsel seeking to smear him right before an election?

From a bird’s-eye view, it’s clear there were plenty of far more serious issues that should have been investigated but were swept under the rug. The double standard is blatant. Not to mention that the investigator, the Oppenheimer Investigation Group, has been sued by an Oakland teacher for conducting a deeply flawed investigation. In my opinion, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used in the investigation is especially weak when the accused is not allowed to prepare and present a defense.

That’s my two cents.