THE BOSTICK REPORT-“Controlling for the margin of error,” so to speak, has taken on a whole new meaning here in California since the June 3 primary election was tallied and Betty Yee took second place over Speaker Emeritus John Perez by just 481 votes, or .01% of the vote. Time for a recount.
In California, any voter can request a recount of an election tally, but that voter must pay for the effort to recount votes. Because of the financial obligation, recount law permits petitioner the right to choose whether the recount is done by hand or by machine. Hand counts are longer and more expensive.
Recounts must be paid for in advance, typically at the start of each recount day. The precincts recounted are at the discretion of the petitioner and in the order that the petitioner chooses. You may have all precincts recounted simultaneously, sequentially, or a mix of the two.
Finally, the recount begins and ends at the discretion of the petitioner, so if s/he either picks up the number of votes desired or determines that the recount is a losing effort, it can be stopped at any time – thus limiting the cost.
The failed design of our recount system is obvious to me.
California hasn’t had to deal with a recount this large in modern history, hence our collective surprise to find it is a recount model woefully inadequate with regards to its ability to ensure equity and fairness. But a recount with this small margin of difference is critical and while we don’t have historical recount results to compare this race to, recounts in elections with 2 million votes cast have typically seen vote tally changes in the realm of .0156%. This means that a vote difference of .01%, like in our controller race, a swing of .0156% would conceivably swing the vote to Perez.
Despite the significant potential impact a recount could reasonably have, many critics of this recount have misdirected, in my opinion, their frustration with the process and applied it to the Speaker Emeritus. Some, including those connected with current second place finisher Betty Yee, have criticized the Perez campaign for three basic issues.
First, they say he is engaging in an act of “cherry-picking” by targeting recounts in precincts where there is a higher representation of Latino than Asian voters and where Perez outpaced Yee by 10% or more. This benefits Perez because it is more likely that in a recount where Perez is favored, ballots that were previously invalidated but found to be valid in a recount are more likely to be Perez pick ups.
Second, they say Perez isn’t engaging in a statewide recount and this undermines his claim to be doing a recount “so that each voter’s voice is counted as intended”. A statewide recount would represent an effort to ensure every voter is heard and again, cherry-picking precincts for recounts selectively ensures voices are heard.
Finally, they say Perez has inequitable access to a fair election because his campaign has far more money in the bank than Yee. This criticism is a microcosm of the larger debate over money and politics where many (including myself) are dubious about the fairness of democracy in an era where corporations and the wealthy are better equipped to ensure their version of democracy wins out over the less affluent.
{module [862]} {module [662]}
Critics arguing for any one of these three complaints are right. All are valid and all are very serious. They don’t, however, translate into any lack of ethics or honor on the part of the Perez campaign or the candidate himself.
These are problems with the system of recounting elections in California and while these criticisms are compelling cases for changing the state laws to initiate an automatic recount in races where the results are this close, they are not fair or honorable when used as attacks against Perez’s recount efforts.
First, it is patently ridiculous to mischaracterize the Perez recount as being un-Democratic because it isn’t statewide. To mandate that any petitioner requesting a recount must pay for an entire statewide recount in cases like this essentially renders a recount impossible except for cases where it is requested by the wealthiest of voters.
So, it is only fair in a system where the petitioner pays to allow for that recount to occur in precincts chosen by that person. Allowing him to choose the order of the precincts counted, again, increases the accessibility of the current system. How could anyone wanting to ensure the validity of the vote actually pay for a recount in a case like this unless that person has absolute control of which precincts are counted, in what order, and when they should stop?
Perhaps Perez calls it off halfway through the coming week because the results aren’t swinging in his direction. If all of the precincts requested were simultaneously, the bill would be prohibitive.
The controller race in question is too close to call, in my opinion. Personally speaking as a voter, 1/10oth of 1 percent is too close a vote tally difference to proceed with one candidate as the winner and a full recount should be initiated by the state and paid for by the state. But that isn’t the way our system works and while that should change so that the state initiates a full recount in cases where the difference is less than one percent, that is a reform to the system that should take place after this election.
Protecting the sanctity of our elections mandates that we initiate a recount in a tally this close. I think it's unfortunate that the current laws do not provide at least that much.
Fortunately, though flawed, there is some recourse for Perez and even though a partial recount paid for by the petitioner is not the ideal course of action because it relegates the ability to ensure equity to those with the means to pay for that process, at least it provides a semblance of fairness, if not the kind of gold standard policy I have come to expect from the state of California.
But until the election laws are changed, this is our best bet and honestly, if Perez didn’t target the counties in the manner and order that he has requested, then I would question his judgment and ability to execute the complex job of state controller. Personally, I think he is shrewd to proceed in such a targeted, considered fashion and his negotiation of a complex and potentially costly recount where he personally is responsible demonstrates his capability to perform the job of controller in a similar fashion. Should his well-designed approach to the recount result in his eclipse of Betty Yee, I would embrace his candidacy fully.
And should Betty Yee’s lead hold firm, I would fully embrace her candidacy. She has an incredible background for the job and would serve us just as well as our speaker.
To get to the point where we can embrace either candidate, however, we have to get through this flawed recount. There is no time to fix the laws. Therefore, I respectfully await the results of Perez’s very valid, very reasonable engagement in a flawed recount model.
(Odysseus Bostick is a Los Angeles teacher and former candidate for the Los Angeles City Council. He writes The Bostick Report for CityWatch.)
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 57
Pub: Jul 15, 2014
