Statements by Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary:

In a few minutes the Deputy Secretary of the State Board of Elections will share with you some preliminary findings of the review team. But let me first explain a key foundation to the integrity of the elections in Virginia. The Statement of Results is the document that is filled out by election officers at the polling site on Election Night. This document can not be changed except by those who completed it. A copy of this document is sealed and filed with the Circuit Court once the Electoral Board completes the canvass. As you will see in a few minutes there is a place on the form to outline discrepancies in the election process. In the Chesterfield letter they contend that the figures are correct, yet the official Statement of Results filed with the Court does not reflect the reasons for the discrepancies by the individuals who were at the actual polling sites.

Furthermore the Chesterfield response only refers to “hand counted” ballots. One would be lead to believe that all those “hand counted “ballots were official ballots. However the review team has found this may not be the case and this causes me great concern since there is no provision in State Law for such ballots. The Code of Virginia, § 24.2-665 states that “If any unofficial ballot is found among the official ballots, the unofficial ballot shall be put aside, not counted and appropriately noted on the statement of results.”

At this point I want to call on Deputy Secretary Valarie Jones to share preliminary findings of the Review Team.

Statements by Valarie A. Jones, Deputy Secretary:

Let me begin by first explaining a little bit about the election process, including the primary role of the Statement of Results. For it is this document, completed by the officers of election and used by the electoral board in arriving at the numbers on the locality’s abstract, which is the document used to certify the election.

Copies of this document, the Statement of Results, are being distributed to you for precinct 515, as an example. And this document, along with the Statement of Results of nine other precincts, was reviewed by the review team sent by SBE to Chesterfield on Feb. 20.

This review team included three senior staff from SBE and legal counsel from the Attorney General’s office. In our review of the statement of results and other election materials, the team discovered certain procedures which were questionable. Specifically, the team reviewed a number of unofficial ballots. Some voters, 87 in precinct 515, indicated their candidate of choice by affixing the candidate’s name to a scrap piece of paper.

There is a provision in state law requiring that only official ballots be counted in an election. (§ 24.2-665.) Hence, some voters cast their votes on unofficial ballots. Some voters were given scrap pieces of notebook paper, computer paper and/or 8 ½ x 11 inch paper torn into four separate pieces. In one instance a voter cast a yellow sample ballot, which has been included in Chesterfield’s abstract.

On these scraps of paper you had a diverse range of information. Some simply contained the name of the candidate, either the last name only or the first and last name. Some scraps of paper contained the name of the party, along with the candidate’s name, a number in the upper left hand corner, and what appears to be the name and address of the voter

A preliminary review of these ballots shows that some of the names may not be registered voters.

Some scraps of paper were folded and it appeared that they affixed an “I voted” sticker to the unofficial ballot. Some other scraps of paper contained additional language such as “please, please” and one even contained a stick figure drawing of a female.

Moreover, the Statement of Results in Precinct 408 revealed that the election officers were unsure of the quantity of ballots provided, while another precinct’s Statement of Results revealed that there were more ballots counted than voters indicated on the total poll book count.

The discrepancy between these totals should have been placed on the Statement of Results and if you look at the Statement of Results for Precinct 515, you will note that an explanation regarding the discrepancy is not there, indicating once again that Chesterfield did not adhere to standard procedures for completing the Statement of Results.

Hence, our review of the election process implemented in Chesterfield continues.

Statements by Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary:

Thank-you Deputy Secretary Jones.

Since this is an active investigation, we are limited in what questions we can answer this afternoon. However, before opening up to questions I want to make an appeal to those with first hand knowledge of the events that occurred on February 12 at the Chesterfield polls to call (804) 864-8930. Also, I want to remind the public that the meeting to review the Chesterfield Election Day Process is March 5th at 10 a.m. in House Room D at the General Assembly Building.

# # #