We teach our children the value of honesty, the
perseverance behind integrity and the diligence of being good citizens. At what point in time do we allow any of
these to falter by the wayside and yield to dishonesty, lack of integrity and
outright corruption when applied to our most fundamental of democratic
processes – the election? I say, NEVER!
W. A. Strnad
Dear Ronald D. Michaelson, Lance Gough and Richard Devine:
I am writing to you on behalf of several individuals who
want to file a formal complaint regarding the recent election that occurred in
the 29th Ward in the City of Chicago. I trust this letter and the accompanying documentation will
precipitate an investigation of this election.
Background Information
February and April 1999 Elections
In the February 1999 race for alderman in the 29th
Ward, Mr. Carothers ran against Mr. Thomas and several other candidates. It was during that election that numerous
complaints were called in to the Chicago Board of Elections hotline. Personally, I called at least 7 times to
complain about the electioneering that occurred at various election sites. I have a multitude of pictures to
substantiate the complaints. However,
not once did I receive a callback from anyone at the Chicago Board of Elections
to follow-up on anything! Seems the
investigation section that should handle this work needs to be investigated
themselves.
In the runoff election of April 1999 there again were
numerous complaints, similar in nature to the February election. Again, there was no follow-up on the part of
the Chicago Board of Elections.
Now with a budget of nearly $20 million dollars, one would
think that your organization can minimally, produce a voters list that
adequately reflects people that vote and/or live in a ward. In Appendix A I present a simple list that
was produced by a very simple query (SQL for your computer people) that clearly
shows that your organization cannot even do the most fundamental of data
processing techniques and “filter” duplicate names. Note that I have included the complete list. Some of the duplicate names might indeed be
separate people. However, how do you
explain the dups that have the same information across all “fields” with the
only difference being the voters registration number? Interestingly enough, these people DID VOTE. My question to you is, DID THEY VOTE TWICE
and if so, what are any of you people this letter is addressed to going to do
about it?
Prelude to March 21, 2000 Election
What I saw during the two previous campaigns did not sit
very well with me. I really believe in
fair elections and expect all governmental agencies and/or people that are
suppose to protect this thing we cherish and call the foundation of our
democracy, to protect the same. If I
were to classify the previous elections, the word rigged would pretty well
describe it. For, as it is described in
the Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 10 (Elections) Article 29 Prohibitions
and Penalties, Article 1, it clearly states information about Vote buying. See Appendix B.
Chicago City Services that anyone can get by calling 311,
were put on the block for sale during those campaigns. After those campaigns voters were presented,
make that misrepresented to by people claiming to be precinct captains,
information regarding work being done on the North End of the 29th
Ward. Such was the case in the 2100
block of Melvina along with various other areas, where people were deceived
into believing that the work was done by Carothers; fact is, it was approved by
city budget under Burrell’s administration.
This, in my mind, is a clear violation of the aforementioned Illinois
Compiled Statute.
In fact, there were other violations of 10 ILCS 5/29-3. In the 2300 block of north Major, 2500 block
of Parkside, and numerous other locations, tree removal was promised but first,
the voter had to vote for Carothers!
Nearly a year has passed since Carothers was put in office and guess
what? The trees are still there!
These tactics are no more than persuasive techniques used to
make voters think that they are going to receive something in return if they
vote for someone. They are violations
of law and I really expect your respective organizations to follow-up and do
something about it.
Voting Day, March 21, 2000
On March 21, 2000 at St. James Church, 2430 N. Mango, I went
into the polling place to present my credentials as a pollwatcher for the
Democratic Party. I was followed into
the room by Mr. Rudy Villareal.
Immediately he started to ask questions of me. Mind you, Mr. Villareal was not a judge. If he served in any other capacity then he
did not say.
There were several comments made by Villareal that the
Chicago police officer heard. First,
“Who are you.” My reply, “Rudy, what do
you mean?” You see, Mr. Villareal has
lived at 2309 N. Monitor for more than 7 years until he recently moved. I have lived at 2308 N. Monitor for nearly
25 years. Second, the next comment,
“You’re the guy who tried to stop me from voting.” That’s absurd because all day I was with two other people, thus,
I have witnesses that can confirm my activities. Third, his comment, “I’m going to check if you can be a
pollwatcher at two polling places.” My
reply to him, “If you didn’t know me, as you said earlier, then how could you
know I have credentials at two places?”
At that point the police officer stepped in and said to
clear the room. Mind you, the judges
were not asked to vote on clearing the room of all pollwatchers, which at that
point was only me! My credentials were
accepted by a judge. The above
conversation occurred while I was filling out the pollwatchers form, in clear
view of the judge.
Now there are several problems with the above incident. First, Mr. Villareal attempted and succeeded
in having all pollwatchers removed.
Second, the Chicago police officer had no authorization to clear the
room of pollwatchers. This statement is
backed by the information presented in Appendix C, Preventing Vote Fraud. Here is the quote: “A police officer may be in the polling place to preserve order
and carry out lawful directions given by the judges.” No vote was taken by any of the judges and since this church
served as an election site for two precincts, judges from both precincts would
have had to vote on the matter. Third,
Mr. Villareal had a private conversation with the police officer. What’s wrong with that? I followed the directive of the officer but
Villareal did not and the police officer went right along with Villareal. Fourth, in the last election Villareal voted
absentee. I suspect he voted absentee
again which makes his statement regarding my stopping him from voting,
completely incorrect. There has to be
another motive involved in the first place to stop me from performing my duty
as a pollwatcher!
There is another problem with the site itself. I was told by the Board of Elections that
the site was surveyed for the gym. Yet,
the gym was not used. A smaller room
across the hall from the gym was used.
Apparently this has been going on for years! I assume without your knowledge.
The afternoon before the election I was contacted by one of the
judges. Why? Because I was supposed to be a judge at St. James. He wanted to set up the site the night
before. I mentioned to him that we
couldn’t do that. I also mentioned that
the room was not supposed to be used, but rather the gym. He complained about that to the point of
being argumentative. I called the Board
of Elections and they told me that they were going to send someone out. I went to the rectory of the church and told
Father Al about the matter. Someone was
supposed to call me when the person from the Board of Elections arrived. I never received a call.
The following morning when I went to St. James Church, I
discovered the metal cabinets that held all the voting materials were already
set up in the room – not the gym. Note
that the day before I called the Board of Elections to complain about one of
the cabinets. It was not locked! I assume your organization should have some
record of this call. I did leave my name
and phone number but again, never received any call back.
That was one location.
Enclosed you shall see a photograph which illustrates the electioneering
that went on. I’m also including a
photo of the materials that were taken from the voter and then deposited in the
trunk of an illegally parked car, owned by a lawyer, who, ironically, is a
traffic court lawyer. Despite the fact
that this car was illegally parked, Chicago’s finest didn’t say anything nor ticket the car – all
day. In the one photograph, it’s the
police officer sitting in the chair outside the polling place – this was after
the polling place was cleared of pollwatchers.
And, if you’re thinking about the 100 foot rule, I asked the judges and
they said it was 100 feet from the front door entrance to the building.
That brings up another point. The States Attorney Office sent out someone to investigate the
electioneering that was occurring at St. James Church. During his investigation, he was measuring
off 100 feet from the front door. At
the same time Carothers people were electioneering. It was pointed out to him, but he did nothing about it. Why?
Recommendations
Regarding Judges of Election
Many judges are under the illusion that since they served
before as a judge they have, by some form of osmosis unknown to science, earned
some sort of right to become a head judge.
It needs to be clearly stated that there is no such entity.
Judges need to be interviewed by the Boards of
Election. Under the current structure
it is entirely feasible for any given
ward committeeman to control an election throughout his/her lifetime at both
the aldermanic and ward committeeman levels.
In other words, we don’t really have democracy at work but rather little
dictators who control the election under the auspices of democracy. Perhaps some statute that addresses the
length of time a person can serve as ward committeeman would help.
Training sessions conducted in the loop were chaotic. These sessions need expansion into the
community. Horror stories came back
into this community on the last day of training. Elevators broke, people passed out, complaints of costly parking,
and so forth. It would be far more cost
effective for the judges to have their training in the community in which they
are to serve.
Training sessions need to be all inclusive, not just the
“nuts and bolts” of setting up on election day. The training should include the do’s and don’t of the elections
process. Part of the program should
include:
I. Voter Fraud
A. Signs of Fraud to watch for,
B. What to do when you spot it,
C. How to involve the police, if present,
II. The Affidavit
A. Under what conditions do you accept them,
B. Special affidavits – requirements and usage
III. Proof of Residency when applicable
A. Junk mail doesn’t count (ref. Hall on corner
of Belden and Mango)
B. People not in spindle book still voted
IV. Police Involvement
Despite the fact that Commanders Walton and Davis
were suppose to go through a nine page document with the police officers who
were going to work the election, apparently not all the officers absorbed the
material. Case in point, St. James
Church. The Chicago Police Department
needs to train the officers to the point they can minimally answer questions
that would appear on a test and get a passing grade – no skewed curves either,
make it the normal curve.
A. The Role
of the police officer,
B. When to
involve the officer?,
C. What can
the officer do and what are the legal ramifications, if any?
D. Under what conditions can an officer
be arrested?
V. Pollwatching
A. What a pollwatcher does and does not do
B. When to involve a judge
C. What kind of help can be provided to the
voter
Now if you think that this information is already written
then I highly recommend you download the following information that can be
found on your website: absevote.pdf,
assistdisabled.pdf, electionjudges.pdf, pollguide.pdf, pollwtch.pdf and
votefraud.pdf and then reread them.
Regarding the General Public
It is a sad commentary on our society that people need
training in regards to elections and what they’re all about. Most people wouldn’t know what
electioneering is if it came up to them and bit them. Perhaps the Boards of Election should take it upon themselves to
produce a pamphlet for the voters and actually distribute it. It should be a detailed guide telling people
what the illegal practices are and how to report them. Sorry, but most people don’t know. This includes the pollwatchers and even the
election judges!
Start Using Technology
About 20 years ago when I was putting together one of my
books, I created a problem for my students.
The problem dealt with the election process. Contained within the problem was a reference to voting by
computer. Back then it was foresight,
today it can be reality. This would no
doubt make the number of people that vote jump dramatically and eliminate all
the negative things addressed in these documents. The Board of Election already has the most tedious of tasks
completed, that of inputting voter information. Of course, you need to clean up these voter lists because they
are incorrect! The only other part that
your organization would need to concern itself with is the user interface. Using today’s technology, the candidates can
write something about themselves, give a talk on-line, even deliver a video to
the voters systems for later review.
Minimally it would spark interest in the election process because the
person would sit and read, listen and perhaps write to a candidate. Involvement gentlemen, that’s the key.
Voter fraud can be virtually eliminated. How?
Send a predefined key (a cookie as it’s referred to in computer lingo)
to the system that logs on. It’s one
cookie per voter, defined in such a manner that it would cease existence on
some specified date. An encrypted
cookie would be best. How do you stop
the dead from voting? This can only be
attained with the combined efforts of two government agencies - those that
handle the voting and those that handle the certificates of death. The latter agency would hand over to the
Board of Elections copies of the certificates so that the Board can update
their records accordingly.
What about people that don’t have computers? Conceptually the answer is very simple. Put the encryption code on a floppy disk or
some other media that can be read by something like a card reader; inexpensive plastic similar to a credit card
would suffice. The person can go to the
library, school or some other site deemed an election site and vote by sticking
in their disk (or other media) into drive A (or card reader). After the person is done voting the
encryption code can be deleted. Thus,
it would be unusable by someone else.
This would eliminate the need for high priced judges ($150.00 to $175.00
per judge) and redefine all the roles people must now play. It would also redefine the ward
committeeman’s role in the election process and place control where it should
probably belong – the Boards of Election.
Face it, it is coming in the not to distant future!
Questions I couldn’t find the answer to….
Residency Requirements.
Although the law is fairly well defined as to the residency period a
person must be in the area before the person can vote, there is no
documentation that says how long after the election they should be a resident
of that precinct. Why even mention
this?
Living in this area for nearly 25 years, I can say with some
assurity that I know how many cars people have in an area. During the first election for alderman I
didn’t pay too much attention to the number of cars but simply noted that there
were problems finding parking. After
the election all of a sudden the number of cars decreased. I suspect that the number of cars correlates
with the number of new voters that occurred on the poll sheets. During this first election there were
approximately 489 registered voters in my precinct. During the runoff election the number shot up and was slightly
shy of 600. During this last election
the number shot down again. The number of
cars in my precinct has gone down again.
Point is, all of a sudden single-family homes got populated with a
multitude of voters with different last names.
Were people just “imported into” an area for voting purposes and then
left after the election?
In closing, what occurred in the 29th Ward was a
bastardization of what we, as Americans, hold on a high pedestal and many have
died for. It goes by the name of
democracy. Had it not been for the fact
that this was the third election that I saw these tactics used, I probably
would have dismissed it as a fluke.
I believe legislation needs to be introduced and passed,
similar to the residency requirement, that bans city workers from being used in
the election process. What we currently
have is a ward run by Streets and Sans “boss” who was put in power by the same
entity he worked for. We need to
eliminate the “…get a job with the city,…” or, “…keep your job with the city…”
or “…get a promotion by working on the election…” and so forth, from the entire
election process. This would serve us
by disbanding huge armies of people that are put under pressure to work for
some candidate. It might also, as a
side light, establish a setting for truly Free Elections! What happened in the
29th Ward is inexcusable and should be fought against at all
cost. Your Boards of Elections should
not only purport fair elections but make them a reality, not just a written
script on paper! Are “we the people” to
be coerced into thinking that your organizations, which protect that which we
deem near and dear to us – democracy – actually do what they say and bring
these atrocities to light, or, do “we the people” just simply shrug our
shoulders in despair and use an old cliché and say, “That’s Chicago politics!”
This election was a fete au complete insult to
democracy. What are you gentlemen going
to do about it?
We want a meeting.
Please call 889-2963 so we can schedule and talk about these matters.
Sincerely,
W. A. Strnad
Cc: Numerous others
PS. Here’s a little
tidbit for you gentlemen to chew on.
Get a copy of page 11 on Carothers original petition for this last
election. It’s signed at the bottom by
Rudy Villareal. Only one problem
here. He didn’t get the signatures his
alleged wife Edith Hidalgo, who sometimes uses Villareal, did. So what?
Look at your pollsheets and then find out why I point it out to
you. By the way, their new address is
in the 6000 block of West Fullerton.
PS2. The information
that follows was written by the respective signatures and is included as part
of this package.
April 6th, 2000
Chicago Board of Elections
69
W. Washington
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Attn: Mr. Lance
Gough
Executive
Director
Subject: Elections –
March 21st, 2000
Pct.
17, Ward 29
Polling Place location: 5735 W.
Belden Ave
Race
for Ward Committeeman: Danny K. Davis
Issac Carothers
Dear Mr. Gough:
My name is Stella Nicpon.
I was an Election Judge at the polling place mentioned above. I would like to inform you of the following
incidents that occurred on that day.
(1)
On March 21, 2000 about 5:35 PM a young women entered the
Polling Place holding a book in her hand with a blue cover, flashing a card and
announcing herself as an investigator for the Board of Elections. She said she was looking for Della
Nicton. I replied there is no one by
that name but there is a Stella Nicpon, which is me. In a soft tone of voice, she asked if she could talk to me in
private. I replied o.k., lets talk outside.
She said that a complaint has been issued against me for not letting
people vote due to their lack of knowledge in the English language. Please note, this is nonsense. A lady voter came in and checked off the
wrong political party. Mr. Santos, a
pollwatcher for Carothers, suggested to the judges to give her another
ballot. One of the judges did and she
marked the ballot spoiled. The same
lady was given a 2nd ballot. This time she had an interpreter
present and she still checked the wrong political party. One of the judges replied how many spoiled
ballots are we going to have here? I
agreed with her. Regardless of what
happened, the 2nd ballot was marked spoiled and a 3rd
ballot was given to her.
It should be noted that I did not say anything
directly the voter, but to the other judges, and it was, in affect, that I
think in order to vote, one should understand a little bit of English. This is clearly an opinion which has no
bearing on whether or not people can vote.
I explained this situation to the woman posing as an investigator and
she replied to me that knowledge of the English language is not necessary
because tests are given in Spanish, and it was left at that. She failed to mentioned what type of tests
were given in Spanish. For that matter,
any test can be given in any language that exists. That does not provide any rationale whatsoever, as far as I was
concerned because in Appendix D, Election Judges, their duties and responsibilities,
it clearly states the requirements for being a judge. One of the qualifications is to “…be able to speak, read and
write the English language…” If there
were different qualifications regarding voters then it did not say so in the
manual I received nor in any of the information I researched. As long as people were registered and
appeared in the spindle, blue book and precinct register, they voted.
(2) Then she
asked me if I’m a Precinct Captain? I
replied yes. She responded, that one
cannot be Precinct Captain and Election Judge – you could only be one or the
other. I replied that Danny K Davis,
who is currently the Ward Committeeman and who has the authority to appoint
Precinct Captains and Election Judges, appointed me. She replied that probably Mr. Davis was not aware of this. Again, I replied to her I was appointed by
Mr. Davis. Then she replied, well let
me check with the Board of Elections.
She stepped a few feet away from me, made a call on her cell phone,
supposedly to the Board of Elections.
She replied whoever answered the phone was not sure, they’re checking
with another person. In a few minutes,
she replied that the Board of Elections said that you cannot be a Precinct
Captain and Election Judge at the same time.
Do I mind removing myself as Election Judge? I replied o.k. If that’s the rule I’ll abide by it and remove
myself.
(3) Please see
to it that I get paid for my time: 5:15AM – 5:45PM.
(4)
DESCRIPTION OF IMPOSTOR:
.
Caucasian
.
Young women – mid to late twenties
.
Fair skin – brown hair – straight bob style – chin length
.
120 – 130 lbs. - 5 ft. 4 inches tall
.
Dressed casual (blue jeans, jacket, cap)
(5) At 6:15PM I
called Election Central and talked with Lillian Fuentas. I explained to her what happened. She filled out a report, which I hope got
into your hands and you’re following through.
Ms. Fuentas explained to me that no one can remove a judge verbally. A written order form from the Board of
Elections must be presented to remove a judge.
This letter was never presented to me.
I
also explained to Ms. Fuentas how people were coming in to vote that were not
listed on the printed Precinct Register, not on the spindle, nor in the blue
book. They brought in a piece of junk
mail for I.D. and expected to vote. I
replied “NO” and the other judges went against me and let these people vote.
Note: Ms. Fuentas said I became somewhat a
celebrity at the Board of Elections – almost everybody was talking about this
incident.
(6) Please check
out the two pollwatchers for Carothers:
(a) Mr.
Santos – Check his credential for information – was at polling place from
5:30AM – almost 3:30PM
(b) After Mr.
Santos left , it was :
Rhonda
L. Walker, Atty.
One
East Wacker Drive – Suite 2700
Chicago,
Il 60601
(312)
832-9200
She
possibly made contact with the impostor.
After I said “NO” to object to
people voting who were not listed in the books, she offered to buy snacks. She went next door to the saloon and was
gone for more than a half an hour, and that’s when the impostor showed up
looking for me.
Ms.
Walker, a pollwatcher(?), was electioneering - talking to the voters, checking
& helping them with their phony I.D.’s
Please
check Affidavits – a few are legitimate but a majority are bad – people voted
who were not registered and did not have any of the acceptable forms of
identification as written on page 23 of the Judge of Election Handbook, Primary
Election 2000, distributed by the Board of Election Commissioners.
While
canvassing in the 17th Precinct prior to the election, I also
encountered the following, many of which I believe are violations of Illinois
Compiled Statutes, Chapter 10 – Elections, Article 29:
On March
1st, 2000, between 6:30PM – 7:00PM
Location: 2340 N. Monitor Ave – I was stalked and
intimidated by Edith (Hidalgo) & Rudy Villareal.
Some
neighbors received threat mail if they removed the Carothers sign.
Some
received monetary gifts to keep Carothers sign in window.
Edith
(Hidalgo) Villareal offered a Senior Citizen a service of taking her grocery
shopping, shoveling the snow &
other promises in exchange for a vote for Carothers.
A
commercial building on Grand Avenue was forced by Streets & Sans on Tax
Payers time to remove a Danny Davis sign from his window or city services would
be denied him.
Edith
(Hidalgo) Villareal, forced people to put Carothers sign up in their windows
without any explanation of her candidate.
Some neighbors were very upset – Carothers signs were put on their front
lawns without permission – one neighbor stated that when he got up in the
morning a Carothers sign was on his front lawn. He tossed the sign out & Carothers people put another sign on
his lawn.
Edith
(Hidalgo) Villareal encouraged people to vote absentee. This is a violation of 10 ILCS 5/29-20.
These are
very serious matters that warrant an investigation. This is a disgrace to the taxpayers of the City of Chicago. Mr. Carothers earns some $85,000.00 +
benefits + perks. In private sector
this type of behavior would never be allowed.
He would be out of a job, if he could even get a job in the first place
considering his background. Carothers
is a criminal, he intimidates people, he is a thug.
Shame on
you to the Board of Elections. You were
aware of how the last election went.
1700 absentee ballot votes. The
same crooked nonsense went on again in this election. The Board of Elections is negligent for not taking precautions in
the 29th Ward.
Board of
Elections, please roll up your sleeves and present Mr. Carothers to a Court of
Law.
If
further assistance is needed, please do not hesitate to write me or call me at
work. My work phone number is (708)
344-0134, Mon – Fri (8:00AM – 4:30PM).
Thank
you.
Yours
truly,
Stella A.
Nicpon
2338 N.
Monitor Ave.
Chicago,
Il 60639
cc: Mr. Miguel De
Jesus
Director of Investigations
Dear
Sirs,
I
understand that Wayne A. Strnad is writing a letter to your attention. My family and friends were going to write to
you anyway. When Wayne mentioned his
letter we decided to include it in one package.
During
the previous campaign in the 29th Ward two candidates surfaced in a
runoff. They were Carothers and
Thomas. We were Carothers people. Why?
My son Dino was offered a job by Mr. Bruce Adelman. That is, if he worked on the campaign for
Carothers and Carothers won the election.
We worked hard on that campaign and Carothers won. However, when Bruce was approached about the
job, Bruce always gave excuses. We now
understand that his offering a job with Carothers to my son was not only
unethical, but illegal as well. Rest
assured that we knew nothing of the illegal nature of this and would never have
involved ourselves with those people had we known. We believe, as was implied in the various conversations, that
once Carothers got in office he would have lots of jobs to give to people
working for the city.
About
three weeks before the election we contacted this guy Wayne. Wayne made a newsletter that we
received. We called him about the gang
problems we have in this area. He
couldn’t talk then because he was at
another person’s house but said he would stop by in about 10 minutes. He actually kept his word and did stop by in
10 minutes.
During
our conversation with him one of the things we talked about was the coming
election. We told him that we worked
for Carothers in the previous election but that didn’t seem to bother him. He emphasized the fact that Davis is totally
unlike Carothers. Davis expects people
to tell the truth when they canvas an area.
He emphasized that if we wanted to volunteer and help in Davis’ campaign
then under no condition do people make false promises. We liked that because that was so unlike the
actions of Carothers and his people who were promising everything under the
sun.
To make a
long story short because we talked for nearly three hours, we worked on the
campaign for Danny Davis. We met Danny
Davis at a grand opening of a campaign office on the North End of the 29th
Ward. All of us liked him. He didn’t make false promises, build any false
hopes, and was a straight up kind of person.
We became precinct captains and on the day of the election we were
pollwatchers and passers.
That’s a
little of the background but what really concerns us are the things that
happened on the day of the election.
First
off, there were ten of us working various polling places on the North End of
the 29th Ward. Yes, ten
people from the neighborhood. The
polling places we covered were: Park
Villa Banquet Hall, Tony’s Eatin House, St. James Church and the Hall behind
the bar on the corner of Mango and Belden.
Each one had problems from the get go.
At the
Hall on Mango and Belden
This is
the place where my son Tony was. When
my son went in with the pollwatchers credentials they yelled and told him it
was to have been filled out before he came in.
Also, the other man and lady were told the same thing. And they had to tell them read the
paper.
Edith
Hidalgo or Villareal (sometimes she uses both names) was never 100 feet from
the polling place, if she was 50 feet she was lucky. Anyone involved that worked with Davis was always at least 100
feet away. When Davis’ people would
give out Davis papers, Edith would take them away from the voters and give
Carothers information. Edith kept
hassling Davis’ people all day, shouting smart remarks such as it figures that
the only type of people Danny could get to help him (as to degrade my son and
the others). And as far as we know, it
really wasn’t a coincidence that the cops came by and hassled my son and
friends after Edith made a call on her cell phone - they were gang bangers
hanging on a corner. Edith told
everyone she would pay them double if they turned against Davis for Carothers
with passing out the information. She
would degrade all the workers for Davis to the voters saying Davis has gang
bangers working for him so how could you vote for someone like that? Edith kept yelling and telling my son and
the others you better move further away or I’ll call the police. Take those signs down.
Someone
needs to investigate this person. She
says she’s married to some guy named Rudy but we couldn’t find her name on the
poll sheets, neither name she uses Hidalgo or Villareal. He is a registered voter. She is not.
Is she even a citizen of this country?
At Tony’s
Eatin House
This is
the place where my husband worked. When
I transferred there from the polling place I was working at, my husband and all
the other workers told me a guy named Tony, who works for Streets and Sans as a
driver, was actually taking information out of the voters hands that they have
just given the voters and then threw it in the garbage can. He was standing about 3 feet from the door
when he was passing out Carothers information and would open the door for the
voter and walk in with them and then stand there while they voted. With my own eyes I saw this guy Tony twice
take a voters card and put it in the box himself. I also saw a notice on the wall stating that if a judge had to
help someone to vote they were to sign a paper and also the voter to. They didn’t do it. The police officer wasn’t present at this time so I said
something on both occasions and Tony looked at me as if I was stupid and walked
out. The paper that needed to be sign
by the voter and judge, I was told, wasn’t necessary.
All day
Tony stayed in front of the polling place.
Again when I confronted him he turned away laughing at me and walked
away – never listened. He always ran up
to the cars with literature from Carothers.
I tried calling in many times to the Board of Elections hotline but the
lines were busy.
At St.
James Church
This
section you will not believe. All the
violations and without a second thought about it. Regarding Mr. Bruce Adelman:
Just from what I had seen, Bruce was parked by a fire hydrant in front
of the polling place with his trunk open passing out Carothers information and
taking Davis’ literature and throwing it in the trunk of his car. He was even trying to walk voters inside to
vote and holding doors open for voters.
Slandering Davis’ name all over the place calling him a crook and all
kind of lies. Saying people like Wayne
and my other son and all the other pollwatchers were bums picked up from the
street to help Davis’ election. I had
to stop him at least three times from going in with a voter. These people were not handicapped or too old
either. Bruce was placing signs on
peoples private property without their permission.
At
Parkview Hall
As soon
as I walked in I had problems. I filled
out out my pollwatcher credentials in front of a judge. Then it started when I made the suggestion
that the polling booth be checked – after all, judges are suppose to check out
these booths several times a day just to make sure nothing is left behind and
such. She said she didn’t have to and
got smart with me. Then she asked who
are you here for? I said Danny Davis
and she said that figures. Only someone
stupid and Davis people could be that stupid.
I said sorry. This judges name
is Joyce Moorehead.
Later,
she went behind the voter booth with a voter without being asked. I yelled out to her that she couldn’t do
that. I believe there are suppose to be
two judges, one from each party, that go with a voter – even then, the voter
must request assistance before judges can help. She said who the hell are you to tell me what to do? I do what I want and didn’t listen and
stayed there. She kept yelling at two
other judges, Sandra Gardea and Yolanda Lewis all day and showed total
disrespect all the way through. At the
end when I was waiting for the tape, she made one and let it fall on the
floor. Made me pick it up. And then said to me a pollwatcher is
supposed to help put things away too and clean up. I didn’t say a word and sat down. After all, she was inside all day eating and drinking coffee in a
heated place and I was outside most of the 11 ½ hours freezing. My legs hurt. I’m 53 years old.
All of us
would like to meet with you gentlemen to discuss matters relating to this
election. Please call.
Sincerely,
Appendices
<!DOCTYPE
HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"><!-- saved
from url=(0073)http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/ch10/ch10act5articles/ch10act5Sub32.htm
-->
Illinois Compiled Statutes
Elections
Election Code
10 ILCS 5/
[ HOME ] [ CHAPTERS ] [
PUBLIC ACTS
] [ SEARCH
] [ BOTTOM
]
(10 ILCS 5/)
ARTICLE 29. PROHIBITIONS AND
PENALTIES.
(10 ILCS 5/29-1)
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying.
Any person who knowingly gives, lends or
promises to give or
lend any money or
other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person
to vote or to register
to vote or
to influence such other
person to vote for or against any candidate or public
question to be voted upon at any election shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-2)
Sec. 29-2. Promise for vote. Any person
who, in order to influence any other person to vote or
register to vote or to vote for or against any candidate or public question
to be
voted upon at
any election, knowingly promises
to (a) cause or support the employment or appointment of any
other person to
any public office or public
position or (b)perform or refrain from performing any official act, shall be
guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-3)
Sec. 29-3. Selling of vote. Any person who
votes for or against any candidate or
public question in consideration of any gift or loan of
money or for any other valuable consideration, or for any promise
to cause or support
the employment or appointment of any person to any public
office or public position, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-4)
Sec. 29-4. Prevention of voting or candidate
support. Any person who,
by force, intimidation, threat, deception or forgery, knowingly prevents any other person
from (a) registering to vote, or (b)
lawfully voting, supporting or
opposing the nomination or election of any person for public office or any
public question voted upon at
any election, shall be guilty of
a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-5)
Sec. 29-5. Voting more than once. Any
person who, having voted once, knowingly on the same election day where the ballot
or machine lists any of the same candidates and issues listed on
the ballot or
machine previously used for voting by that person, (a) files an
application to vote in the same or another polling place, or (b) accepts a
ballot or enters a voting
machine (except to legally give assistance pursuant to the provisions of this
Code), shall be guilty of a Class
3 felony; however, if a person has delivered a ballot or ballots to
an election authority as an absentee voter and due to a change of circumstances is able to and does vote
in the precinct of his residence on election day, shall not be deemed to be in
violation of this Code.
(Source:
P.A. 83-755.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-6)
Sec.
29-6. Mutilation of
election materials. Any person who knowingly
destroys, mutilates, defaces, falsifies, forges, conceals or removes any
record, register of voters, affidavit, return or statement of votes,
certificate, tally sheet, ballot, or
any other document
or computer program which
(a) is used or to
be preserved for use in connection with registration, or (b) is used or
to be preserved for use in connection
with any election
pursuant to this
Code, except as permitted by provisions of this Code, shall be
guilty of a
Class 4 felony and
shall also be ineligible for public employment for a period of 5 years
immediately following the completion of his or her sentence.
(Source:
P.A. 83-757.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-7)
Sec. 29-7. Tampering with voting machines.
Any person who tampers with any
machine or device
used in connection
with voting or the counting of votes, or who knowingly allows another to
tamper with such a machine or device, so as (a) to interfere with the
proper operation of such
machine or device,
(b) to alter the results
recorded on such machine or device or intended to be recorded thereon, or (c)
to place votes on
a machine which
are not legally cast, shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-8)
Sec. 29-8. Ballot box stuffing. Any person
who, prior to, during, or after the counting of ballots or prior to, during,
or after the final certification
of the vote of any election, knowingly (a) places anything other than
a ballot in a ballot box, (b) adds or mixes a forged ballot with other
ballots, or (c) adds or mixes a forged
application to vote with other applications to vote, shall
be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-9)
Sec. 29-9. Unlawful observation of voting.
Except as permitted by this Code,
any person who knowingly marks his ballot or casts his vote on a voting
machine or voting device so that it
can be observed by another person,
and any person who knowingly observes another person
lawfully marking a ballot or lawfully
casting his vote
on a voting machine or voting device, shall be guilty of a Class 4
felony.
(Source:
P.A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-10)
Sec. 29-10. Perjury. (a) Any person who makes a
false statement, material to the
issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true,
in any affidavit,
certificate or sworn
oral declaration required by any provision of this Code shall be guilty
of a Class 3 felony.
(b)
Any person who is convicted of
violating this Section shall be ineligible for public employment for a
period of 5 years immediately following the
completion of his
sentence. For the purpose of
this subsection, "public employment" shall mean any elected
or appointed office created
by the Constitution or laws
of this State, or any ordinance of
a unit of local government.
"Public employment" shall also include any position as an
employee of the State of Illinois, or a
unit of local government or school district.
(Source:
P.A. 83-1097.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-11)
Sec. 29-11. Failure to comply with order
of election authority. Any person who
knowingly fails or refuses to comply with any lawful order of an election
authority issued by
the election authority
in the performance of the duties
of the election authority, shall be guilty
of a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-12)
Sec. 29-12. Disregard of Election Code.
Any person who knowingly (a) does any act prohibited by or declared unlawful
by, or (b) fails to do any
act required by, this Code, shall, unless a different punishment is prescribed
by this Code, be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-13)
Sec. 29-13. Attempt, solicitation and
conspiracy. Each violation of this Code shall be an offense within the meaning
of Section 2-12 of the Illinois Criminal Code
of 1961, as
amended, so that
the inchoate offenses of
solicitation, conspiracy and attempt, and the punishment therefor, as
provided in such Criminal Code shall apply to solicitation, conspiracy and
attempt to violate the provisions of this Code.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-14)
Sec. 29-14. (Repealed).
(Source:
P.A. 81-1433. Repealed by 90-737, eff. 1-1-99.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-15)
Sec. 29-15. Conviction deemed infamous.
Any person convicted of an infamous
crime as such term is defined in
Section 124-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended, shall thereafter be
prohibited from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit,
unless such person is again restored to such rights by the
terms of a
pardon for the offense or otherwise according to law.
(Source:
P.A. 83-1097.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-16)
Sec. 29-16. Contempt - Removal from office. Any person
who is an officer of the
Court pursuant to any provisions of this Code who does any act
prohibited by, or fails to do any act required by, any provision of this Code
may be punished for contempt by
the Court in
a summary proceeding and
removed from office. Any person
who violates any court order entered under any provision of this Code with
actual knowledge of the existence
and substance of such order may be punished for contempt by the
appropriate court. Such punishment for contempt and removal from office shall not bar prosecution and
punishment for any criminal offense committed.
(Source:
P. A. 78-887.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-17)
Sec. 29-17. Deprivation of Constitutional
Rights - Liability). Any person
who subjects, or causes to be
subjected, a citizen of the State of Illinois or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
or of the State of Illinois, relating to registration to vote,
the conduct of elections, voting, or the nomination or election of candidates
for public or political party office, shall be liable to the party injured or any person affected, in
any action or proceeding for redress.
(Source:
P.A. 79-1363.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-18)
Sec. 29-18. Conspiracy to prevent vote -
Liability). If 2 or
more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, threat,
deception, forgery or bribery any person from registering to vote,
or preventing any person
lawfully entitled to
vote from voting, or preventing any person from supporting or opposing, in
a legal manner, the nomination or election of any person for public
or political party
office, or a proposition voted upon at any election, or to injure any person or such
person's property on account of such vote, support or advocacy, and
if one or more persons so conspiring do, attempt or
cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,
whereby another is injured in
his person or property or
deprived of having or exercising any right, privilege or immunity secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United
States or the State of Illinois
relating to the conduct of elections, voting, or the nomination or election
of candidates for public or political party office, all
persons engaged in such conspiracy
shall be
liable to the
party injured or any person affected, in any action or proceeding for
redress.
(Source:
P.A. 79-1363.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-19)
Sec. 29-19. False information - liability).
Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address, or period of
residence in the voting district for the
purpose of establishing his eligibility to register
to vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of
encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays
or offers to
pay or accepts payment either
for registration to vote or for
voting shall be liable to the party injured or any other person affected, in an
action or proceeding for redress.
(Source:
P.A. 79-1363.)
(10 ILCS 5/29-20)
Sec. 29-20. Absentee ballots - violations. A person is guilty of a Class 3 felony who knowingly:
(1)
Solicits another person,
knowing that the person is not legally qualified to vote as an
absent voter, to
apply for an absentee ballot;
(2)
Solicits another person,
knowing that the person is not legally qualified to vote as an absent
voter, to cast a ballot as an absent voter;
(3)
Intimidates or unduly influences another person to cast an absentee
ballot in a manner inconsistent with the voter's intent; or
(4)
Marks or tampers with an absentee ballot of another person or takes an
absentee ballot of
another person in
violation of Section 19-6
so that an
opportunity for fraudulent marking or
tampering
is created.
(Source:
P.A. 89-653, eff. 8-14-96.)
[ TOP
]