|
by Gretchen Hildebran/PoorNewsNetwork
Voting should be the easiest thing in the world. It
is the action that proves that we live in a democracy,
that our lives are self-determined, not dictated from
above. Of course the presidential election of 2000
destroyed that illusion for many. While politicians
and their groupies peered at poorly designed ballots,
thousands of people in Florida, the vast majority of
them African-Americans, were stepping forward to
testify how their right to vote was denied altogether.
Their names had been dropped from voting rosters,
their cars were stopped and searched by the police,
polling places made them wait for hours or had voting
machines that didn't work.
This was the true scandal behind that ìelectionî and
it was hardly discussed in the media or by elections
officials. The targeting of certain communities with
the intent to deprive them of their right to vote is
an old American practice that is alive and well today.
And not just in Florida, right here in San Francisco.
While the district supervisor election of November
2000 represented to many a huge change in our cityís
politics, for those who lived and voted (or tried to)
in District 10, that election was more business as
usual. The scandal that has emerged following that
election has focused only on vague ìinconsistenciesî
that the city has still not investigated. Behind
these statistical errors is the real story of how
entire communities are denied the right to
self-representation.
The general election of 2000 was a testing ground for
a change in San Francisco politics. For the first
time in twenty years, supervisors would be elected by
district. The candidates would be forced to live and
run locally, and be accountable to the issues of
people in their communities, not simply at City Hall.
In District 10, which encompasses the Potrero Hill and
Bayview/Hunterís Point communities, twelve candidates
crowded the ballot.
Three candidates were recognized in the community as
contenders. Mayor-supported Linda Richardson had made
a name for herself at City Hall, most notoriously
during her stint on the Planning Commission.
Richardson had the support of big money, evident in
the $1.5 million rumored to have been spent on her
campaign. Another candidate, Sophie Maxwell, was well
known in the community but was more of a political
unknown. Also running was Marie Harrison, community
figure and columnist in the Bay View, whose outspoken
political views were a threat to the politics-as-usual
that rules from downtown.
But Harrison wasn't just a candidate in that election,
she was also on the streets as an observer of the
Election Day that didnít go by the rules.
"There were great big discrepancies," Harrison
explained in a recent phone interview, "Many votes
disappeared, never came out of their boxes, never were
counted." Harrison is an upbeat and charming lady,
and she laughed often as she recounted her experiences
on Election Day. Under the light tones, her voice
also reflects deep seriousness about the effects of
electoral fraud on her community, she continued,"
What I witnessed was often in blatant disregardî of
election day laws ñ a cable car blasting
pro-Richardson messages parked next door to
various polling places, and signs for the
downtown-backed candidate were posted on poles in
front, both of which are violations of the law
protecting a polling place as a politically-free zone."
Harrison even recalls seeing Richardson herself
interfering with poll workers when they were assisting
a woman who needed to retrieve her absentee ballot
before she could vote in person.
Harrison is humorous about these infractions, "Did
anybody read the rulebook at all?" But she is serious
about the intent and outcome of other violations that
were clearly designed to intimidate voters or buy
votes. Across from a Sunnydale polling place
Richardson supporters gave free hotdogs to folks who
would vote their way. Harrison even spoke to several
people who were paid $10 to vote for Richardson.
In the weeks leading up to the elections buses arrived at senior
and public housing to bring people to City Hall to
vote ñ these ìget out the voteî drives were sponsored
by the A. Philip Randolph Institute, which was openly
backing Richardson in the election. As an observer at
City Hall, Harrison witnessed several seniors who were
openly intimidated to vote a certain way. When she
confronted one of the young people working on the bus,
their response was, "They are paying us and we arenít
the only ones. We are supposed to bring them here and
they only draw one line."
"Seniors and other folks in public housing are
particularly vulnerable to intimidation and bribes",
Harrison said, "due to poverty and the ìone-strikeî
policy of federal housing programs. All it takes is
an accusation of drug-use or criminal behavior to get
kicked out of public housing and this threat can be
effective in influencing voting or discouraging it
altogether." This kind of harassment on the part of
campaign workers is enhanced by the general police
presence that was on the streets of Bayview/Hunterís
Point on Election Day.
The net result of these infractions is not lost on
Harrison, who placed third after Richardson and
Maxwell in the general election (Maxwell went on to
defeat Richardson in a runoff election). While the
absentee voting hugely favored Richardson, the support
she had built up in her campaign disappeared to a
mysterious degree in the returns from Election Day.
Precincts where friends and supporters had personally
assured her of their votes had returns as low as 5
votes.
Harrison's concern about missing votes has been
confirmed, ironically enough, at the highest levels of
government. In May 2001, Philip Paris, the acting
director of the SF Department of Elections, accused
the former director of allowing 3,600 ballots to go
uncounted in the November 2000 election. The
political fallout of this scandal extends to the
present day and provoked an investigation by the
office of the Secretary of State of California, Bill
Jones.
Jonesí investigation discredited the estimate of 3,600
missing ballots but discovered that the number of
ballots distributed differed greatly from the number
that were counted. In the 21 San Francisco polling
places checked at random, a total of 705 discrepancies
were found. This prompted Jones to demand that San
Francisco recanvass all the votes from that election,
a process which would not check how people voted, but
only compare the number of votes cast to the number
counted in the final tally. The San Francisco
Department of Elections has refused to authorize a
recanvass, blaming budget shortfalls. In a statement
made to the city this February Jones said, ìThe
explanation for these discrepancies may lie in
inaccurate record keeping or ballot storage
procedures. Or, the explanation may involve
intentional misreporting of election results.î
A recanvass of the vote would only begin to touch upon
the questions these ìdiscrepanciesî raise. Such a
huge proportion of error cannot be attributed simply
to sloppy mismanagement at the department of
elections. If ballots are missing, how were they
taken, and whose interests does it serve to illegally
effect election day outcomes?
Beyond the paper trail of missing ballots, commonplace
violations of election procedure and law that Marie
Harrison witnessed as a candidate in the
Bayview/Hunterís Point are rarely reported or
investigated. Beyond the dubious outcomes of that
particular election, the overall effect of harassment,
intimidation and missing votes is voter
disenfranchisement.
Mary Ratliff of the Bay View has noted the change
since the November 2000 election. "Nobody is voting
anymore," she said sadly, "the culture of voting here
in the Bayview had been destroyed long ago and we were
seeing it come back in the last couple years".
Ironically, one of the best recent turnouts in the
neighborhood had been in support of Willie Brown in
1995. Since that election, ìmore people were turning
out, many people were working hard to get folks
registered.î Since the 2000 election, however,
discouragement has prevailed at the polls. Says
Ratliff," This is the legacy that Brown is leaving us
with. People are discouraged, depressed and cynical.î
In the general election of 2001, only District 10 had
a 22.38% turnout for the vote".
"Part of the problem is there is no accountability,"
remarked Harrison, "There is no faith in the system
anymore, period." When scandals come and go with
regularity, issues like this one, which cut to the
core of the rights and disenfranchisement of a
community, drop out of public consciousness before
anyone is held responsible. Harrison herself is far
from discouraged, and is planning another run in this
yearís District 10 supervisor race: "I do believe that
our communityís voice counts. There are people who
donít want to see us voting because if we did, you
would see some real change around here." |
