Note to David Fagus. As an elected official who's up for re-election come February, It's real bad policy to call nearly 3800 voters, "a few unhappy losers."
Mr. F is talking 'corporate talk' or putting the ball in someone else's court.
Perhaps he could explain further the clique in Pct. 6...he seems to know them very well. They're the judges who said provisional ballots would not be allowed - stated provisional ballots are being 'phased out'. It's the group who 'hid the cones' in November. So what's that?
He should remind them they have a civic duty all other days of the year too and CAPS is open to everyone.
Ok, David, I volunteer to be an election judge for you. Please contact me at p.vangiessen@gmail.com and tell me where I can sign up.
But let's first discuss your blog comments. Election judges are elected by the ward party chairs. You get to appoint the Dem positions and Bob Shearer gets to appoint the GOP judges. This is not like jury duty. These appointments are political first and foremost. Second, as you point out A LOT of judge positions need to be filled. This means that at some point a party chair may be in the position of filling slots. I personally witnessed, along with both GOP and Dem judges, the most incompetent election judge in the world. This person couldn't even get the ward right or the precinct. They handed a voter a ballot already filled out. I know another judge who cried to me over their beer that one of their co-judges could not even count. Clearly, you are appointing some people who aren't qualified. They may be putting in a long day but if that day includes ineptness and sleeping (as I saw with one judge), I think it's safe to say that some of your appointments may leave something to be desired. Maybe you need to do more outreach for capable people. Maybe an ad on Craig's List or the Reader? How about sending out an email to your email list? I've lived in RP for 16 years and I've never been approached by your office to be a judge and I don't know anyone else who has yet we all get your free movie in the park emails. None of the people I know have even heard of a need for election judges. You need good judges? Maybe you'd like to start with asking people and giving yourself time to screen them for their level of capability.
I talked to a number of judges on 2/28 and on 4/17 who told me about how they were just in it for the money, free lunch, and free party food after. One told me that this was pay back (the inept judge). These were your judges because you and your folks delivered them lunch. You did not offer lunch to the GOP judges (at least not in many of the precincts) which made it easy for me to identify who was who. Which leads to my next observation: the Dem judges were, by and large, for Joe and if they weren't it was because they lived outside the ward. Is something wrong with this? Legally speaking, no. Ethically speaking there is also no issue with it (it is expected in national elections that the Dem judges will be for the Dem candidate and the GOP judges for the Republican candidate). However, in a local non-partisan election, it can be problematic. Judges have a lot of control over what goes on in the voting precincts. They can allow (or disallow) electioneering. They can require a voter to file a provisional vote. They can request identification. Or not.
Do I think that there was out and out fraud committed by a candidate in our last local elections? No. Do I think that there are systemic problems? Yes. Is it your fault that the system is somewhat broken? Of course not.
It goes without saying (though I did say it on Westgard's blog but he censored it and so I said it again on rogersparkbench) that many election judges did fine, stand up work irrespective of their candidate loyalties -- on both sides. Election judging is long, boring, yet oddly convoluted work with little training. Those who do this work -- and take it seriously and do it well and fairly -- should get a huge round of applause from all voters, irrespective of their party or candidate affliations. Thank goodness that there are people willing to give their time and fulfill the obligations of the office.
But there are not a few who are hostile, not interested in overseeing proper elections, who are confused about where candidate (and/or party) loyalties should begin and end on election day. I respectfully request that you work with the Board of Elections to try and rid your rosters of these folks and replace them with competent, fairminded people. Mo, for instance, is a good example of a solid judge. Get more like her and you'll be doing voters a service. Get rid of her co-judge at the 42nd precinct and you'll be part of the solution toward fixing systemic issues that thwart fair elections.
you can apply directly to the board of elections. http://www.chicagoelections.com Judges Department 312-269-7984
in theory some of what you say re room for politics is true, but in practice, it is not like the old days. patronage workers used to get the day off to be judges. that is just not the case any more. a big percentage of judges are people who can't hold down a regular job. and people who think $150 is real money. with these stupid machines, training is focused on them. knowing the law depends on the diligence of individual judges. i strongly urge the folks here, and everyone, to do it once in your lifetime, at least. you will see it very differently, i promise. but also please remember this- like the jury system, having the citizens on the front line is the whole point. yes, these leads to some "soft spots" in the system. but turning it over to "professionals"? heck no.
6 comments:
Mr. F is talking 'corporate talk' or putting the ball in someone else's court.
Perhaps he could explain further the clique in Pct. 6...he seems to know them very well. They're the judges who said provisional ballots would not be allowed - stated provisional ballots are being 'phased out'. It's the group who 'hid the cones' in November. So what's that?
He should remind them they have a civic duty all other days of the year too and CAPS is open to everyone.
This is the most usefull tool that I have seen.
It helps us map cell phone signal strength.
http://www.signalmap.com/map/map?zipcode=60626&add=true
I can tell you that sprint provides the same crappy service nationwide.
Ok, David, I volunteer to be an election judge for you. Please contact me at p.vangiessen@gmail.com and tell me where I can sign up.
But let's first discuss your blog comments. Election judges are elected by the ward party chairs. You get to appoint the Dem positions and Bob Shearer gets to appoint the GOP judges. This is not like jury duty. These appointments are political first and foremost. Second, as you point out A LOT of judge positions need to be filled. This means that at some point a party chair may be in the position of filling slots. I personally witnessed, along with both GOP and Dem judges, the most incompetent election judge in the world. This person couldn't even get the ward right or the precinct. They handed a voter a ballot already filled out. I know another judge who cried to me over their beer that one of their co-judges could not even count. Clearly, you are appointing some people who aren't qualified. They may be putting in a long day but if that day includes ineptness and sleeping (as I saw with one judge), I think it's safe to say that some of your appointments may leave something to be desired. Maybe you need to do more outreach for capable people. Maybe an ad on Craig's List or the Reader? How about sending out an email to your email list? I've lived in RP for 16 years and I've never been approached by your office to be a judge and I don't know anyone else who has yet we all get your free movie in the park emails. None of the people I know have even heard of a need for election judges. You need good judges? Maybe you'd like to start with asking people and giving yourself time to screen them for their level of capability.
I talked to a number of judges on 2/28 and on 4/17 who told me about how they were just in it for the money, free lunch, and free party food after. One told me that this was pay back (the inept judge). These were your judges because you and your folks delivered them lunch. You did not offer lunch to the GOP judges (at least not in many of the precincts) which made it easy for me to identify who was who. Which leads to my next observation: the Dem judges were, by and large, for Joe and if they weren't it was because they lived outside the ward. Is something wrong with this? Legally speaking, no. Ethically speaking there is also no issue with it (it is expected in national elections that the Dem judges will be for the Dem candidate and the GOP judges for the Republican candidate). However, in a local non-partisan election, it can be problematic. Judges have a lot of control over what goes on in the voting precincts. They can allow (or disallow) electioneering. They can require a voter to file a provisional vote. They can request identification. Or not.
Do I think that there was out and out fraud committed by a candidate in our last local elections? No. Do I think that there are systemic problems? Yes. Is it your fault that the system is somewhat broken? Of course not.
It goes without saying (though I did say it on Westgard's blog but he censored it and so I said it again on rogersparkbench) that many election judges did fine, stand up work irrespective of their candidate loyalties -- on both sides. Election judging is long, boring, yet oddly convoluted work with little training. Those who do this work -- and take it seriously and do it well and fairly -- should get a huge round of applause from all voters, irrespective of their party or candidate affliations. Thank goodness that there are people willing to give their time and fulfill the obligations of the office.
But there are not a few who are hostile, not interested in overseeing proper elections, who are confused about where candidate (and/or party) loyalties should begin and end on election day. I respectfully request that you work with the Board of Elections to try and rid your rosters of these folks and replace them with competent, fairminded people. Mo, for instance, is a good example of a solid judge. Get more like her and you'll be doing voters a service. Get rid of her co-judge at the 42nd precinct and you'll be part of the solution toward fixing systemic issues that thwart fair elections.
Craig, You're a Loser, so get over it!
you can apply directly to the board of elections.
http://www.chicagoelections.com
Judges Department 312-269-7984
in theory some of what you say re room for politics is true, but in practice, it is not like the old days. patronage workers used to get the day off to be judges. that is just not the case any more.
a big percentage of judges are people who can't hold down a regular job. and people who think $150 is real money. with these stupid machines, training is focused on them. knowing the law depends on the diligence of individual judges.
i strongly urge the folks here, and everyone, to do it once in your lifetime, at least. you will see it very differently, i promise.
but also please remember this- like the jury system, having the citizens on the front line is the whole point. yes, these leads to some "soft spots" in the system. but turning it over to "professionals"? heck no.
test
Post a Comment