Conclusions

 

There are certain items that need to be looked at not only from a data/record keeping perspective but also a legal standpoint.  Among them are:

 

·         There are over 5,500 questionable items.

·         258 people had a ballot but no application.

·         669 voters or 38% of the absentee vote filled out an application but didn't submit a ballot - where are those ballots?

·         226 people had no KEY or voter registration number (IDNUM).

·         832 people or nearly 48% of the absentee voters claimed to be out of the county.

·         98% of the absentee voters applications and respective ballots had questionable items.

·         One precinct (12) had nearly 47% of the voters vote absentee - nearly 21% had NOKEY or voter registration number (IDNUM).

·         594 people in DB do not have birthday entries - why create a data field if you're not going to use it?

·         523 people have duplicate names in DB but different IDNUM's.  Many are one in the same person with all the data being identical.  And, since this is the data for those that did vote, it suggests that several individuals may have voted more than once.

·         507 voters in the combined list did not have any AV_CODE's.

·         Judges accepted ballots without verifying information.  In 96 cases ballots were found with a person's  initials on it suggesting that someone assisted in filling out the ballot but did not fill out the required information on the ballot.

·         Incomplete applications were accepted by the Chicago Board of Elections and processed.

·         Incarcerated inmates applications were accepted by the Chicago Board of Elections but not a single application had a voter registration number (KEY or IDNUM).

·         236 incomplete ballots were accepted by the judges of election.

·         216 people filed an application but the Chicago Board of Elections did not put any code on the applications.

·         855 people submitted an application without dating it and the Chicago Board of Elections accepted it and processed it.

·         226 people did not have a KEY or IDNUM but yet the Chicago Board of Elections processed the data.

·         170 people did not provide a reason for voting absentee yet the Chicago Board of Elections processed the data and provided ballots.

·         419 people had different printing on the application and/or ballot.  If a ballot was involved this implies someone else filled out the application but very few ballots had the information filled in.

·         289 people had questionable signatures.

·         69 people provided two reasons on the application.  The application was still processed by the Chicago Board of Elections.

·         126 people had used their middle initial inconsistently.

·         6 people used their social security number in place of the Disabled Voter's ID # but yet the applications were still processed.

·         231 people provided questionable reasons that should have been substantiated.

·         7 people printed their signature and had the application processed.

·         178 people have questionable signatures which should have been looked at by the Chicago Board of Elections.

·         135 people signed an application before or on the date the application was released.

·         10 people submitted a ballot from another election.

·         7 people submitted an application and the Chicago Board of Elections processed it internally before the application was released, as verified by the date received.

·         24 people used their middle name inconsistently.

·         140 people had their ballot filled out by someone else.  This was mostly due to the fact that the print version of information did not match the application version of printing.

·         20 people misspelled their own name on the application yet the Chicago Board of Elections processed it.

·         3 ballots and/or applications were filed and processed without any signature.

·         Homes that house our sick and elderly were prayed upon for the absentee vote.

·         4 people voted in the 29th Ward but did not live in the Ward.

·         485 voters or nearly 28% of the absentee vote did not check any reason on the application but yet the Chicago Board of Elections processed their application.

·         277 applications did not have any office date filled in under "For Office Use Only" and were processed.

 

Not to many years ago we used the term GIGO which stood for Garbage In - Garbage Out. It was used in the computer industry - specifically by programmers - to mean that if your data was garbage, you're going to get garbage out of it.  Ideally, there should be no errors in data - every field should be filled in with appropriate information.  Yet, more than 3.75% of the voters in the original DB had omission errors.  If this percentage were to run consistently throughout every ward in Chicago and assuming a recordset size of 2,000,000 voters, then, over 75,000 omission errors exist.  As can be easily seen, the record keeping maintenance performed by the Chicago Board of Elections is poor at best.  Thus, the very integrity of the data maintained by the Board is poor.

 

Analogously, if this were a company, lets call it the Daily Company, and the records I was looking at were financial records, then the Daily Company would be on the path of doom.  The front desk of this company (or the Board) could not even get the most fundamental of procedures working and that is processing an order (an application).  Nearly 49% or all the orders would not have a date for when the order was placed.  For a little under 10% of the orders, the company wouldn't know what was being ordered (no REASON).  If the ballot were the equivalent of a payment, then for nearly 15% of the customer base, the company would not know whom to apply the credit to.  Any promotional materials that would be mailed to individuals would be mailed twice because many duplicate names appear in the recordset.  The IRS would have a field day with the Daily Company!

 

Finally, the question arises as to whether any of this information would change the election results.  Fact is, we found only 16 applications and ballots that were completed properly.  What do you think?

 

 

The following information shows the voter count based on the original data given to us by the Chicago Board of Elections.

 

29th Ward Voters - Precinct Distribution

Total Voters:         15751

Spreadsheet #1

 

The table below shows the total distribution for absentee voters in every precinct (except 35).

 

29 Ward Absentee Voters99 - Combined List

Total Absentee Data:   1746

Spreadsheet #2

The following table shows the distribution of voters for the combined list with Column Headings equal to the AV_CODE.  The symbols <> are used to indicate nothing appeared.

 

 

Spreadsheet #3

 

The following table shows the distribution of REASONS checked off by the applicant.

The reasons are identified as follows:

 

Column	Description
0	Nothing was checked on the application
1	I expect to be absent from my county of residence
2	I am temporarily abiding in the City of ______ County of ______ and State of ______ due to the fact that I am a student attending an institution of higher education.
3	I expect to be temporarily absent from the country
4	I shall be serving as a judge of election in the _____ precinct of the ______ ward which is not my precinct of residence.
5	I shall be observing a religious holiday in accordance with the tenets of my religion.
6	I am temporarily physically incapacitated
7	I am permanently physically incapacitated
8	I shall be performing official election duties for the following election authority or law enforcement agency
9	I am incarcerated as a pretrial detainee and not serving a sentence of confinement
10	I have been called for Jury duty on election day by ______

 

Note:  In the table below column 5 and 10 are eliminated indicating that no voter used reason 5 or 10 as listed above.

 

PRECINCT	0	1	2	3	4	6	7	8	9	Total
1	2	1		1		14			4	22
2		8				1	1		1	11
3	32	10		1		4	1			48
4	1	11	1			5			1	19
5		28				9	2		2	41
6	1	4								5
7		5				2	4			11
8	3	42		6	3	12			2	68
9	107	6				7			1	121
10	4	40				11				55
11		4			1	7			1	13
12	58	4	19			9	10	1		101
13	1	8				2	2	1	1	15
14		7	1		1				1	10
15	4	34	1		1	3			1	44
16	1	16				6			1	24
17	16	2				1				19
18	2	22		1		7				32
19		23				3				26
20	42	14				6			1	63
21	1	3	1	3		4			4	16
22	38	2				39				79
23		18				1	1			20
24	17					2				19
25	26	3				1	1			31
26	1	6				8				15
27	5	1								6
28	1	14				3			2	20
29	2	44				7	4		1	58
30	1	29				4				34
31	1	5		2		7	7	1	1	24
32	1	19				6				26
33		11				6	2			19
34	1	5				7	1		1	15
36	4	35	3			8			3	53
37	1	14				10				25
38	11	2				6	1			20
39	1					8	2			11
40	3	49				4				56
41	1	57	1			1				60
42	2	15			1	14	2		3	37
43	2	11			1	4	3		1	22
44	34	2			1	2				39
45	3	15				8	2			28
46		5					1		2	8
47	2	13				4				19
48		3				1	1			5
49	2	56	1				1		1	61
50	1	10	1			10	1			23
51	1	14			1	12	1		1	30
52	2	19		2		16				39
53	43	4	1			1				49
54		3				4	1	1		9
55	2	3				3			2	10
56		3				9				12
	484	782	30	16	10	329	52	4	39	1746

 

Spreadsheet #4

For related information click on one of the following links:
Analysis of Data Received,
Conclusions and Tables,
Recommendations,
View the Data/Reports.