I was a poll watcher for the Don Gordon campaign, observing the nursing home voting at the Arbour Health Care Center at 1512 W. Fargo Avenue. There were numerous voting irregularities that I observed at this facility.
Foremost was the blatant electioneering conducted by Alderman Joe Moore. Moore arrived at the facility at approximately 9:30 a.m., ”prime time” for the voters standing in line after a 9:00 a.m. poll opening, and immediately started working the room, trolling for votes. Joe went through the line, shaking hands and hugging voters, introducing himself as “Alderman Joe Moore.” Joe did not limit himself to the voters, but also made it a point to introduce himself to the election judges. Joe was challenged by both the Board of Elections officials, and the State’s Attorney’s representative, about his behavior, and told to leave the facility. He ignored those officials, because he knew that, even though they would report his behavior promptly, he would be finished with his activities before anyone would arrive to physically remove him from the polling place. However, Joe was unable to dodge my cell phone camera, which caught his escapades, photos of which are appended to this report.
This was just the start of the shenanigans. For example, during my time at the polling station I did not hear one voter ask for assistance. Yet, numerous voters were given “assistance,” primarily by two of the election judges, Yvonne Dickerson and William Steinfeld. Yvonne’s assistance even went so far as wheeling residents in and out of the polling area. These two election judges seemed, to me at least, to be “assisting” far beyond the limits of casting a vote as directed by the voter. There seemed to be coaxing of the voters occurring, pointing to specific areas of the ballot (although, as the voting was done behind a privacy screen, I could not see exactly where they were pointing).
Even when the election judges were doing their job, Jesse Rangel from the Board of Elections stepped in to frustrate the normal process. As an example, one particular female voter, “assisted” by the election judges, could not, after ten minutes, make her vote known. Both election judges determined that the woman was incapacitated and had failed to vote. Mr. Rangel, however, would not accept this result, and had the election judges continue to “work over” the voter, until a vote was produced.
When I objected to these numerous irregularities, Mr. Rangel told me that I was only allowed to observe the process. I was not to speak to anyone in the polling station, including the election judges. Were I to continue voicing my concerns, I would be removed from the polling station and arrested. Apparently, I was just to sit there and watch the electioneering, even as the officials assigned to prevent these abuses did nothing to stop them. Welcome to “democracy” in the 49th Ward!
11 comments:
We knew it would be like this but we couldn't know our election judges would be such lay-downs.
What are these people afraid of? Retaliation from the Mooron? What could he do to them?
Why are people such laydowns for abuses from people in authority, even when it is easy to call them down?
shaking hands is a no no-
could pass Domnick gift cards
Does anyone know if there is a way we, the citizens of teh 49th can FORCE the AG or BOE to do something about these violations?
Petitions, class action suit, etc.?I mean here is photographic evidence that it has occured...the judges, AG and BOE reps have seen it themselves, etc.
I say ENOUGH with this Mooron hijacking OUR ward!
It must really be something to see this in person. It's most certainly an abuse of power and lack of respect for any true Democratic process. I'm really glad that this is getting shown the light of day so people can see what is going on around here.
dr o - there is something really simple every registered voter can do to stop this on April 17th:
VOTE!
If you need a ride to your polling place or other assistance call: 773-262-9473
Jocelyn,
You have to see it to believe it. Some of these residents are disabled in many ways - physicially, mentally. They make a big effort to vote. I watched one man gather every bit of concentration he had just to sign his name. It took him several minutes.
Joe TARGETS our neighbors in the nursing homes because HE KNOWS many of them no longer have the mental capacity to protect themselves from these brazenly illegal attempts to influence them.
DOES THIS SHOW RESPECT TO THE MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS IN THIS WARD? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS MAN WILL HELP YOU IF AND WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
Wise up. Follow his walk. Not his talk.
> When I objected to these numerous irregularities, Mr. Rangel told me that I was only allowed to observe the process. I was not to speak to anyone in the polling station, including the election judges. Were I to continue voicing my concerns, I would be removed from the polling station and arrested. Apparently, I was just to sit there and watch the electioneering, even as the officials assigned to prevent these abuses did nothing to stop them.
Rangel is incompetent. This is scary.
Judge of Election Handbook
page 8-9 (10-11)
Poll Watchers
Pollwatchers may bring violations of the law or improper procedures to the judges’ attention.
During voting hours pollwatchers may:
Challenge the qualifications or identity of a person appearing to vote;
Bring questions or concerns to the attention of the judges of election.
Assisted Voter
pp. 36-38 (38-40)
If the voter needs assistance, but has no one to assist him or her, two judges, one from each
political party, shall assist the voter.
Both the person giving assistance and a judge of election must complete the Supporting Affidavit C on the back of the Affidavit, Form 1. The person giving assistance must be handed a copy of Form 1A.
Challenging a Person’s Right to Vote
A voter may be challenged on
the basis of qualifications or
identity by a judge of election,
a pollwatcher or by another
voter. The challenger must state
a specific reason for objecting
to a person’s right to vote. The
challenger must direct the
objection to the judges of
election and not to the person
being challenged.
Guidelines for Deciding a
Challenge
The judges must be fair and
impartial in deciding whether to
uphold or deny the challenge.
The voter must have the
opportunity to present evidence
as to his or her identity or
qualifications to vote before the
judges decide on the challenge.
Judges of Election should:
Ask the voter to display current
identification with his or her
name, address and photograph,
if available.
Ask the voter to provide specific
information contained on the
left side of their Application for
Ballot (date of birth or social
security number).
Ask the challenger to provide
proof to substantiate his or her
challenge, if the challenge is not
based on first-hand knowledge.
After all evidence has been given,
all judges of election must vote on
the challenge.
If a majority of the judges reject
the challenge, the voter may vote
without completing an affidavit.
If a majority of the judges agree
that the voter is not qualified to
vote in the precinct, the voter
must be advised of the reason
for the judges’ decision and the
voter must be permitted to vote a
Provisional Ballot. Polling place
administrators do not have the
right to vote on these challenges.
Note to dr o,
You can always march over to the northwest corner of Pratt and Bell (a few blocks over in the 50th Ward), knock on the door or ring the bell and tell the gentlemen living there, States' Attorney Dick "Lapdog" Devine about these violations of the law.
Post a Comment