Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Tuesday,

December 2 2, 2 015 at 1 0:50:25 A M Eastern Standard Time

Subject: FW: House memo --FW: Na.onal Commi3eeman Vacancy Elec.on Review
Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 10:49:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Marilyn Marks

Subject: Re: House memo --FW: Na.onal Commi3eeman Vacancy Elec.on Review
The following letter was sent by Chairman Steve House to CRC members on the topic of the review of
the election details. It is good that enough information was gained during the reviews to support Leings
win without having to conduct a new election. I do not dispute Leings victory under the Rules that
were used at the meeting. However, Houses letter demonstrates a disappointing failure to understand
the most basic concepts of elections. If the Executive Committee fails to act to demand an overhaul of
elections, we should expect unverifiable results in the Spring Convention.
Some will criticize me for picking at Houses memo below, because in the end, the outcome did not
change. We have just learned the hard lesson again that details matter! House gets the details wrong
again, although the outcome would not changethis time! My point in rebutting Houses email is to
make it clear that House is not yet committed to fair and accurate elections, as he claims, as he
misreports the information about the election and what went wrong to save further embarrassment.
The party has done nothing to improve public election security in the face of same day registration.
mandatory mail ballots and increasing Internet voting. The party will have little credibility on the topic until
leaders learn the basics and can conduct its own small elections.
I have annotated Houses letter below with some comments in red font.
Marilyn Marks


From: Chairman Steve House [mailto:info=cologop.org@mail42.us4.mcsv.net] On Behalf Of Chairman
Steve House
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 6:42 PM

Message from the Chairman

View this email in your


browser

Dear SCC,
Over the past 9 days, we performed a detailed review of the election outcome
Page 1 of 5

Over the past 9 days, we performed a detailed review of the election outcome
and process associated with the vacancy election for National Committeeman
conducted on December 12, 2015. After the close of that meeting, it was
brought to the attention of many that the Credential Committee's vote allocation
totals and the Teller Committee's actual vote totals did not match. [MRM-The
totals are not required to match. It is rare that they match and a match is
not to be expected. Throughout this memo, House seems to misunderstand, as
he did on the 12th, that the winner of an election is to be determined based on
achieving greater than 50% of the eligible votes castnot 50%+ of the
votes available to be cast. The total votes available to be cast should be
reconciled to the total castbut they do not need to match. Imagine how
many people do not stay around at the Re-org meeting to vote for Secretary.
Under Houses theory, far more than 50% voting would be required to win such
a race.]

Mismatches in these totals occur occasionally because of under votes in the


election itself. In this case, there were more votes counted than were originally
announced in the credential report, a potentially serious problem, and we have
spent the past 9 days treating it as such. Here are our findings:
For the purpose of explanation, I am rounding from fractional votes to the
nearest whole vote to simplify the explanation. [MRMbut such rounding
up and down causes one to reach the wrong conclusion here.] The
margin in the election goes well beyond a fraction of a single vote.
1. The original Credential Committee report certified that there were 243 votes
available to be cast by in-person voters or by proxy. [MRMinaccurate
statement. The total was 242 per the official reportnot 243.] That number
meant that a majority would require 122 votes to win. [MRMHouse
misunderstands how the winning majority is determined. He made the same
mistake, and apparently an additional arithmetic mistake, when he announced
during the Tellers report at the meeting that 122.5 votes were required to win.
While Leings total exceeded 50% of the corrected total, this kind of basic
misunderstanding and sloppiness can only lead to problems in close elections.
And this ignores the entire question of House making rulings outside of a
meeting on proxies being issued in conflict with the bylaws.]

Page 2 of 5

2. The Teller Committee reported that George Leing had 143 votes, [actually
the report was 143.87 votes] Mark Baisley had 84 votes, and Don Ytterberg
had 36 votes. These vote totals are equal to 263 votes or 20 more than were
originally reported by the Credential Committee. [MRMNo, the Credentials
Committee did not report on vote totals, but maximum eligible votes. Actually,
the vote total reported by the Teller Committee was 263.87 and the
Credentials Committee reported 242 maximum eligible votes, or 21.87 more
votes cast than possible, not 20 votes more than eligible as House claims..]
3. On Wednesday, the 16th of December, we recounted the ballots 3 times with
3 different people present in our office and determined that the actual vote
totals were George Leing 141 votes, Mark Baisley 84 votes, and Don Ytterberg
36 votes. The two vote difference was based on a math error in adding the
different fractional votes even though the Teller Committee did tally them
accurately. This audit, therefore, showed that 261 votes were properly cast in
this election.[ MRMBaisley reported that HQ reported that 141.87 votes were
cast for Leing, for a total of 261.87 votes cast when they revised their
numbers.]
4. We asked our Credential Committee Chairman, Isaiah Hess, to recount all
proxies and verify all in-person sign-ins to determine if the Credential
Committee report was accurate. Isaiah determined through an audit process
that 260 votes were credentialed and 1 vote was still outstanding due to an
inability to reach the voter for verification. The reason for this discrepancy was
because certain signatures were not recorded during the original credentialing
process, but other physical materials were collected at that time by the
Credential Committee which are sufficient to confirm the number reached in the
audit process. This means that the audited Credential Report and the Teller
Committee report do match. [MRMNo, with Houses rounding up or
down for convenience and his misunderstanding of how to determine the
denominator, he inaccurately arrives at a match, although a match is
not a valid concept and not needed, nor accurate.]
5. Given that there were 261 votes credentialed and counted, a majority would
therefore require that one candidate receive 132 or more votes to be declared
the winner.[MRMHouse is inaccurate --there were 260, not 261
credentialed, requiring a 130 1/3 votes to win IF all voters cast ballots and did
not undervote the race. We are aware of at least two ballots issued but not
Page 3 of 5

cast, meaning that total maximum votes should have been 258. But there were
261.87 cast. There is still a mystery of how 3.87 ballots were cast that were
ineligible, but even if the numbers are adjusted for the 3.87 making the worse
case assumptions, Leing is the winner under these rules. House leaves out
this important election security information that more votes were cast that were
permitted, albeit with a small enough result not to impact the outcome.] In this
case, George Leing received 141 votes and the outcome of the election is
final. [MRMI agree that Leing received more than 50% of the votes cast. ]
George will represent us through the remainder of the current term which will
end at the close of the Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016. A
new National Committeeman election will be held, per standard election timing
and protocol, on April 9, 2016 at the State Assembly.
In summary, we now know that there was a process breakdown in the
reconciliation of the Credential Committee and Teller Committee reports.[MRM
the process breakdown was more extensive than House seems to
understand. Breakdowns happened in Credentialing and ballot issuance,
Credentialing reporting, Teller tabulation and Teller reconciliation of the two
reports.] In the future, all Teller Committee reports will require that the total
votes turned in be counted before candidate by candidate allocation is done,
and if the total votes turned in exceeds the credentialed votes, the process will
be stopped immediately until accurate reconciliation can be accomplished.
[MRMthat is a minor improvement and does not address properly
credentialing and reporting the credential numbers, or the lack of accurate
arithmetic in the Teller process. Additionally, candidate watchers must be given
full visual access to the teller ballot counting process and allowed to verify the
tallies. The full list of credentialed voters (present and by proxy) must be made
available to the body before any voting begins.)
I apologize for the confusion and problems that occurred at that meeting. The
Colorado Republican Committee stands firmly committed to the integrity of all
elections, whether its our own or those in the public realm. [MRMthe party
has made no meaningful efforts to demonstrate that.] We need to move forward
and focus on the opportunity we have in 2016 to elect a Republican President
and win the races across our state.
Sincerely,

Page 4 of 5

Steve House
Chairman
Colorado Republican Committee

Page 5 of 5