Article published Nov 23, 2007 in the South Bend Tribune
Green Party: No full recount
Cost proves factor in decision.
PABLO ROS
Tribune Staff Writer
SOUTH BEND — Green Party candidates who ran for office in the South Bend and Mishawaka elections Nov. 6 said this week that they did not seek a full recount of votes despite inaccuracies in write-in results because a recount would have proved too costly for them.
Karl Hardy, a Green Party candidate who ran for a South Bend Common Council at-large seat, said the costs of a full recount, which could have ranged in the thousands of dollars, would have had to been paid for by those requesting it, according to Indiana law.
Green Party candidates claimed the election turned out to be unfair to write-in candidates. Tom Brown, who ran for South Bend mayor, said, “The idea that we should have to pay thousands of dollars to get a full count amounts to a de facto poll tax on write-in voters and candidates.”
Green Party candidates also said this week that their initial offer to the St. Joseph County election board to provide volunteers for a write-in-votes-only recount was rejected because of the absence of a legal procedure allowing volunteers to take on such responsibilities.
According to Indiana law, a request for a recount must be filed in the form of a petition or lawsuit with the courts before a judge appoints a commission. The commission would rule to accept or reject the request.Jim Masters, a South Bend attorney with experience in election law, said the party filing the lawsuit would incur the expenses associated with a recount, including a $100 bond fee and $10 for each precinct involved. He said the petition or lawsuit must be filed one week after the election.
Masters also said that it wouldn’t make sense to file for a recount unless the election winner’s and loser’s voting results are within five votes of each other.
Green Party candidates said they wanted a recount because of discrepancies in machine- versus-hand-counted write-in votes and because of reported breaches of voter privacy at the polls. Although they received a small percentage of the total vote in each race, the larger issues to them are fairness and ultimately replacing the Green Party’s write-in status with ballot access, for which a minimum percentage of votes is necessary.
“These problems with ballot access and write-in votes are not going away,” Hardy said. “Next year is a presidential election year and we’re certain to go through this again.”
1 response so far ↓
EVENT AUDIO // January 14, 2008 at 3:09 am
I wondered why votes for Kathleen were showing up (holding steady all election night between 24 and 26%!) and Tom Brown’s slice was not represented in any of the live TV coverage.
When the polling officials saw I wrote in my mayoral candidate, it seemed they fed the ballot into a different slot in the machine, to a bottom bin. I asked if it would be put with the provisional ballots, which are not counted, but they assured me my vote would be counted. I guess they meant all my votes for legitimate candidates, not the one I had written in.
It is remarkable that with a minimal campaign, Kathleen captured her 24 or so percent, simply by being on the ballot as a third party candidate. Staggering to think that 1/4 of St. Joseph Co. would vote progressive if given the option with little other incentive.
Does that 1/4 of voters have any solid ideas on how we could go about getting the 36,000 signatures we need to get our third party candidates on the ballot in the mayoral race and other non-district-specific contests?
If so, contact me at event_audio_93@yahoo.com. t/y