Wednesday, November 14, 2012



 
CHIRINOS BESTS GILL-MARTINEZ
BY 4 VOTES

UPDATE:  Word is there is a lot of postering going on over the new numbers.  At this moment it is anyone's guess what numbers will be reported to BISD before tonight's meeting.

The Herald is now officially reporting the results as provided by Roger Ortiz.  Ortiz has made clear they are not final until posted by 5 p.m. today.  This will be in time for the BISD Board to swear in new trustees and officers at today's special meeting.

I think it is in the best interests of the children and our community that Chirinos joins Gill-Martinez in calling in the SOS to conduct a recount at no cost to either candidate.  Confidence in our system is far more important than any one candidate.

A lot of people want to blame Roger Ortiz for the change in  results, but the fact of the matter is, Roger Ortiz has no control over the events which lead to this result.  A key discussion will be the missing ballots.  My question is, why did Linda Gill-Martinez either choose not to have a poll watcher at Perkins, or choose to put someone who had no idea what they were doing at the Perkins poll.  The system builds in checks to insure a fair election.  If any candidate chooses to not take advantage of this check on the system, exactly how is that the problem of Roger Ortiz?  When ballots were being improperly placed, it was for the poll watchers to contact Roger Ortiz's office.  They did not.  Roger Ortiz cannot be at every polling place at once.  The system depends on competent poll watchers appointed by the candidates. 

On the issue of the military ballots and provisional ballots, again Roger Ortiz has no control.  The law defines how long Roger Ortiz must wait for military ballots before he can issue a final count.  The law defines what constitutes a provisional ballot and when they are counted.  People want to blame Roger Ortiz for these issues, but he is nothing more than the person tasked to carry out the law.  He does not make the rules.

Now, Roger does get an "F" in communication. 

On the Perkins ballots - the problem is a lack of process.  Whenever ballots come up missing, some form of chain of custody needs to be established before those ballots are reviewed.   Each person who had contact with those ballots needs to sign an affidavit stating their part in the chain of custody.  The affidavits then  need to be reviewed by a county attorney along with the elections administrator to determine if the ballots are trustworthy. 

An election contest has merit in this case.  I hate Texas law on this issue.  The election belongs to the people and not the candidate.  Under Texas law if the candidate cannot afford a recount, or election  contest an election can be stolen, or accidentally awarded to the wrong candidate.

The people of Cameron county need to know the results are correct.  In order to know this, we need the SOS to conduct a recount at no cost to both sides, and to review affidavits establishing a chain of custody of the Perkins ballots.  The SOS needs to issue a clear opinion about whether the Perkins ballots are valid.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting the facts on this mess!