Madeline

DEC 07, 2016pretty unremarkable, although it did seem like most of the overvotes had Clinton + others, not Trump + others. But I was not able to characterize as they appeared only sporadically and went in the machine fast. I clicker counted twice, once with Liz, once by myself. by myself, I counted Clinton and undervotes.  For town of Dover, 1963 total per machine, 517 for Clinton both per machine and my count. 28 undervotes per machine, 22 per mine, but I may well have missed a few as they were fed in as a batch. My tabulator was very efficient.

Stephanie

Sending recount totals for:North Bay City of Racine Ward 32 City of Racine Ward 22 City of Racine Ward 21 City of Racine Ward 25

Stephanie

DEC 07, 2016The tally sheets my husband Tom and I used are copies of the Dems’ google docs. We did not have copies of the Stein forms. We would like to note that much of the information asked for on the Stein forms was actually difficult to get from the County Clerk. Eagle OptiScan (without modem, I think) and Edge DRE touch screens were used in Racine County Note: there seemed to be many issues with election judge initials on Absentee ballots Note: early voters were counted as Absentee ballots in the poll books I am sending photos of:Village of Union Grove City of Racine Wards 18, 14, 12 Village of Mt Pleasant Wards 10-12 City of Racine Wards 16, 15

Stephanie

DEC 07, 2016I am sending photos of recount rally’s for:Town of Yorkville Town of Waterford Town of Dover**the Town of Dover may be missing ballots as compared to the poll books.

Stephanie

Sending recount totals for:
North Bay
City of Racine Ward 32
City of Racine Ward 22
City of Racine Ward 21
City of Racine Ward 25

Tom, Racine Count

The Recount started smoothly this morning. The Clerk-designee, name is Joan, I believe got 8 Wards out and had many Tabulators working. She also got out some Ward ballots that had been counted then sealed back into their original bags the previous night for scanning today. 
I had heard that some scanners had been overheating in the previous days and Tabulators were hoping that did not happen today.
Then something went awry with the ballot counts in the City of Burlington Wards 1 through 4 and 5 through 8.
These were two separate sets (polling places?) of ballots. The total number of ballots counted at the tables exceeded the previously Certified Vote totals by 
about 90. That is, approximately ninety or more ballots were recounted than the poll books for both sets of Wards had entries. Eventually some Supplemental poll books were brought into the room, reviewed by Tabulators, and the numbers of voters listed in them were added to the original totals which were posted in the room for comparison to recount totals. 
I went for a break at 2:30 and when I returned at 4, the City of Burlington Wards 1-4 and 5-8 ballot counts had supposedly been reconciled with the poll books and Supplemental poll books. The ballots were re-sealed in their original bags and put away for scanning on Tuesday the 6th. 

The Clerk-designer was quite upset about the disparity in the totals and all recount momentum was lost. The mood in the room was so(m)ber and tense. 
A Stein Observer had arrived at 3 PMish with other volunteers and was trying to observe the scanning process and clicker-counting the votes for Clinton and Trump while ballots were being fed into the Scanners. The Clerk-designee and the Tabulators felt this was disruptive to the recount operation due to the proximity of the people and the close quarters of the area. A contributing friction point was the occasional misdeed of a ballot, remedied by the Tabulator by turning the ballots face down so the scanner might better take it in. Of course, this would affect the clicker totals. 
The stated purpose of the clicker count was to compare the votes on the ballots being scanned with the totals for Clinton and Trump and the Undervotes recorded on the final tape. 
The Stein Observer entered a Challenge to the tape counts and Undervote totals saying that many of the Undervotes were actually valid votes for one of the Presidential candidates. The Observer asked for a hand count of that particular Ward (I don’t know the #). The Trump Observer countered saying that a judicial ruling prevented hand counting. The Board of Canvass called a vote and the vote was 3-0 against a hand count. 
The Clerk-designee was quite upset at this point in time with various frustrations and told the Challenge Observer that she was being disruptive and would be asked to leave and would be refused further Observer priveledge if she continued to harass and disrupt the recount. 
Recount work then continued until about 6PM. 
I am attaching photos of recount totals for City of Racine Wards 13, 23, 24, and 25.

Liz, Racine County

Observed Scanner Recount of Elmwood Park, Ward 1, Racine County, Wisconsin. Three observers were click counting, as the ballots were being put into the scanner. One clicked for Clinton, One clicked for Trump, and One clicked for “undervotes”. At the end of the ballot run, the totals on the tape matched those recorded on election night, exactly. However, the click counters recorded 5 more votes for Clinton, 10 more votes for Trump, and 15 fewer “undervotes”.  
Please see attached photos.

I informally requested a hand count of this small ward, to determine the discrepancies. This request was denied. I then submitted a formal, written objection (also in photos). Although two Board of Canvassers stated they did not understand the objection and request, they voted “no” on the hand count, without allowing further explanation to clarify our request. In the attached video you can see and hear how contentious the situation has become. They threatened to kick me out for any further disturbances when I tried to speak.

Please see video.  youtu.be/Xn-djBTK_JYwireports

Stephanie, Racine County

I am sending photos of tally sheets for:
Town of Norway*
Village of Waterford
Village of Windpoint

Note: The totals for Town of Norway seem to be inconsistent with officially reported totals. Even the recount numbers do not coincide with the poll book totals – there appears to be a 100 vote variance in ballots scanned for recount and the poll books.

Tom

Sunday was more of a ‘practice’ day for me. I took some counts and mainly tried to get a feel for how the entire process was proceeding. The Clerk (Wendy) seemed anxious and perhaps may have been getting overwhelmed with the amount of attention everything and everyone of the Tabulators seemed to need. 
There were few Stein Observers. There was one Trump Observer. There were several Clinton Observers. 
A ‘Lead’ Stein Observer was frustrated by the inability or refusal of the County Clerk to answer questions regarding the procedures and what had been continual disparities in the recount results and growing problems with reconciling the poll book totals with the recount totals. 
I observed discrepancies with the ways various Wards were handling “Remade” ballots. 
I am including photos of 5 tally sheets of Certied vote totals and Recount vote totals. These should be City of Racine Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Dave

I observed the first day of the recount in Racine County. The Board of Canvass voted unanimously to conduct the recount by Optiscan rather than by hand. I filed an objection on behalf of the campaign, arguing for a hand recount. The objection was recorded in the official minutes.

No votes were counted on the first day of the recount. Tabulators reconciled poll books, while the Board of Canvass reviewed absentee ballot envelopes.

I observed reconciliation of poll books from Caledonia and Mount Pleasant. I did not see any major discrepancies in the numbers, but Mount Pleasant had an unusually large number of absentee votes.  

Furthermore, voter numbers for many absentee voters in Mount Pleasant appeared to have been written in the poll book using pencil, rather than pen.

I contacted Village of Mount Pleasant Clerk Stephanie Kohlhagen via email about this and received the following response:

“When printing out additional pages of entries that was created after the poll book was printed the first time, the extra pages were printed in only one set not two like it should have. Once we realized that the second set of pages for the poll books was not copied but were already written on, we color copied the poll book pages that were missing so we would have identical poll books with identical pages and identical numbers. That is why one set; the Village’s set looks like pencil when in fact it is a color copy.”

Using photocopied poll book pages may possibly have violated the requirement of Wis. Stat. 6.79 (1m) to maintain two separate poll lists.

I’m not sure whether anyone from the campaign wants to challenge this, but I have it in writing from the responsible official that this was done.