DEC 12, 2016No discrepancies observed


DEC 09, 2016This was the last day of the Racine machine recount and, as lead observer for Stein, I had made an objection the previous day about a click-count we (Madeline and I) had done the day before for Racine Ward 36, click-counting Trump, Clinton, and undervotes as ballots were fed into the scanner, to compare to the scanner tape. Our results showed Clinton with 9 more votes and Trump with 1 more vote than the scanner tapes.  Our counts may have been off by 1 or 2, but the undervotes we recorded were 8 less than the scanner recorded.  So we suspected that there were actual votes that were not being read by the machine and therefore being recorded on the tape as undervotes.  In fact, as they were fed through the machine, we did notice some oddly marked ballots, marked in a different color, lightly, or incompletely.  The first time I made an objection about this same situation (see my previous report), I was chastised for it because I asked for a hand-count of that small ward just to verify our results.  They quickly and harshly refused that request, so when I told the clerk (Wendy) that I wanted to submit another objection of the same type, she told me she wouldn’t even accept it because she already refused all hand-counts.  So after consultation with a Stein lawyer, I submitted the objection without asking for a hand-count, just “for the record,” and quoted the statute language that required my objection to become part of the minutes.  They read it on Tuesday at the end of the day and then dealt with it on Wednesday morning.  By that time I had a professional video person there to record, but I believe she purposely started dealing with the objection after I stepped out of the room for a moment.  We therefore do not have the reading of the objection on film, but we do have her reaction and I believe I was allowed to talk a bit about it for once.  (In previous objections I was not allowed to speak.)  So I believe the objection made it into the minutes but, of course, a hand count was never done to prove us right or wrong.  Later that morning I talked to a Racine Journal Times reporter who asked me how things were going and I described these situations.  He briefly mentioned my objections in his article:  http://journaltimes.com/news/local/recount-wraps-up-in-racine-county/article_742b76cd-2f1f-506b-85b6-4b787271058b.html       The Trump representative tried to correct the article in the comments section, and said that I was merely reporting data, not participating in these click-counts.  I replied to his comment, stating that I did in fact click-count in each case where I made an objection.  I also asked him why he wouldn’t have wanted a hand-count because in the first click-count we did–the one described in the article–his candidate would have benefited from our click-count numbers.  To have had any hand-counts, though, would have shown machine errors which would have cast doubt on all the machine counts.  So later that night I was interviewed by a documentarian/filmmaker about everything I had witnessed during this recount, for possible inclusion in a documentary or for more immediate release online.  I probably said more than I intended, but the public really needs to know how slipshod, inaccurate, nontransparent, and contentious this whole process has been.  The defensiveness and hostility shown toward me makes me even more suspicious of what they are doing.  Although I was supposed to be able to ask clarifying questions of the Clerk and the two Board of Canvas ladies, the two ladies had been told not to speak to me, and I could speak with the Clerk only when she allowed it.  I was constantly shut up and called out for minor infractions, some of which were not even infractions.  They threatened to have me leave several times, even when I complimented them on certain parts of the process and thanked the Clerk for the times she did explain things to me.  All they would have had to do to resolve discrepancies we discovered would have been to hand-count a single ward here or there.  They would not do even that.


DEC 09, 2016From my observations, there were no discrepancies noted in the votes observed.


DEC 08, 2016I was in Richland county from 12-1 through 12-3. They were able to account for any discrepancies and they were very few in the recount. The numbers recorded from the county match and no glitches while I was there.


DEC 05, 2016Monday report after returning from Waukesha WI Recount HQ.- The ballot counting is now done by one very fast and seemingly accurate ESS stack feeder that separates questionable ballots onto 3 levels, including “Blank” ballots (those without a vote for any presidential candidate).The Blank vote ballots are now visible and double and even triple checked. And easy to see by observers.All the work is now going very quickly. The people who up to today had to hand feed each ballot, are now at tables doing the ballot accounting work. There is no problem with the one (1) ESS machine keeping up with the table work.The ESS unit, I’m told is the same as used in Milwaukee, were I’ve not heard of any problems.However, because many wards did not zero out, there are quite a few that need “draw downs”. One was had 128 ballots to many. But it was caught.summary – All now seems well in Waukesha. (may be all the vigilant reporting & ph calls helped)But I’m not there every hour. We need more people to report.


DEC 05, 2016I observed at Columbia County today. The process seemed very professional and in keeping with expectations. They worked diligently to reconcile one-ballot issues in Lodi and WI Dells. There was a question of another single ballot and whether it belonged in Portage, Wards 1,9,10 or Portage, Wards 2,3,5. This was not reconciled by the time I left. The only official counts that occurred during my time there were from Portage, Wards 4,6-8. They were Clinton: 673; Trump: 582. Clinton gained 2; Trump lost one. There were likely to wrap up all recounts today by end of day, but I left at 2.


1) Delafield 1,2,5,6 while counting the ballots there was pile in question, it contained following count 

________ 744 +28

Tabulator could not explain the count. Reflected by first two photos

The counts were miscalculated by 6, it was resolved by removing the rejected ballots and then removing 4 random ballots (2 Tramp & 2 Clinton), but then it looked like they drew more then needed.

2) Town of Lisbon W 1,6
Two different ballots were not separated and webt through the same machine. They were accepted with the argument that they only were different by one referendum question. But it is enough difference to trigger any existing on machine malware, that would not present itself otherwise.

General observation – too many ballots with just one signature instead of two (all such ballots are accepted per board decision)

3) Town of Lisbon W3
11 envelopes in question accepted. Those envelopes did not have right top signature, but were addressed from Town hall, so the were accepted as possible early vote

Also, the number of votes was corrected several times on the inspector sheet, photo 3 & 4

4) Town of Lisbon, W 4,5
4 absentees rejected, one of them “changed their mind and voted in person” per county official – this was not checked and rejection accepted

there was 10 more voters per inspector list then actually cast ballots

5) Town of Lisbon W1
Several absentee ballots in the pack taken from regular votes envelope. Those ballots were flat, not folded like absentees

6) Machines 2 & 8 were switched on the floor. Reason was given machine 2 will be used in place of machine 8 to count ballots. When I asked if machine 8 is not working I was told “it is working, just not used” the serial number of machine 8 is #DS0315380301



DEC 03, 2016Waukesha County WI recount is not verifying “Blank Ballot” votes for president.When a “Blank Ballot” message comes on the screen, the tabulator person is hitting the “Accept Blank Ballot” button without 1st hitting the “Remove” button and checking the ballot.It seems about one in 50 ballots is generating this procedure.ps – Under voting in the USA has always been a contentious issue.* * * rc’vd msg 3pm 12/4 – Milwaukee is programmed to reject “Blank Ballots”.


DEC 02, 2016Arrived at 8:35am on 12-02-16 in Ellsworth, for Pierce County. There were approximately 10-11 observers (GOP-4, DPW-5, Green-1, one additional GP arrived at 12:30pm) during my shift 9am-2:30pm.I observed the final count of HRC’s paper ballots for Town of Martell Ward 1-2 (all other candidate ballots were counted on 12-01). I noticed nothing unusual during the count; final 369 Trump, 260 Clinton with no changes in final totals.The Village of Elmwood Ward 1 resulted in a “lost ballot” for Darrell Castle; one additional tape ballot for Clinton; and one additional tape ballot for Trump. The ballots were counted by FOUR people (Joyce –, Gene –, Linda –, and lead Cindy (last name not known) FOUR separate times. The adjusted count was determined to be: 247 Trump; 121 Clinton; 1 Castle. Martell was packed with the changes noted.The final portion of my observation was City of River Falls, Ward 1-3, Bag #2 of 3. It appeared to me that most all of the tables were taking on sections of the City of River Falls, spreading out duties, sorts and counts to various tables. I observed only the matching of the two record books, where there were many mismatched “A” between the two books, in that one book had an “A” and/or Voter Number that did not match with the name on the other book. All issues appeared to have been resolved by looking at the Absentee Ballot envelope.


DEC 01, 2016My notes mainly reflect a few bumps in the process of getting started. The staff and Board were extremely careful to include observers in the decision making process concerning protocol, counts and recounts, and justification of numbers when they were off.The attached report sheets are from Thursday, although they were not obtained until late Friday evening.