Nehring Versus Frye

The recent media sponsored recount of mayoral votes, which found that Donna Frye would have won if the “unbubbled ballots” were counted is generating a lot of commentary from both sides. Today at 9:30 a.m. Ron Nehring, chairman of the San Diego Republicans, sent out a third person press release (from his own email) characterizing Frye as a “flip flopper.” He says:

Sounding a lot like John Kerry, the king of liberal flop-floppers, Republican Chairman [Nehring] says “Frye was against the lawsuits before she was for them.”

In response, at 2 p.m., Donna Frye herself sent out an email explaining:

It is clear that the bubble has nothing to do with a write-in vote. That’s why it’s called a write-in. The purpose of the bubble for a write-in candidate is to help the scanner tally the votes more easily. Given the fact that every write-in ballot had to be hand counted, the argument that this bubble failure somehow makes someone’s vote less worthy of being counted is disrespectful to everyone who voted. Voting is not a test; it is an expression of the will of the voters and who they want to represent them.

What I find most interesting about the entire thing is that both Nehring and Frye espoused their allegations and explanations directly to their constituents rather than the major media. Which is how we here at San Diego Blog are the first ones to bring the story to you. This sort of direct interaction between politicians and citizens is what we have been advocating for a long time. I will copy their emails in full below.

Ron Nehring’s Email

For Release: December 16, 2004

Flip Flop Frye

Sounding a lot like John Kerry, the king of liberal flop-floppers, Republican Chairman says “Frye was against the lawsuits before she was for them.”

SAN DIEGO – San Diego Republican Chairman Ron Nehring today slammed Democrat councilmember and losing mayoral candidate Donna Frye for her inconsistent positions on the ongoing lawsuits in the mayor’s race and attempting to use the courts to overturn the election.

“Donna Frye flip flops on a major issue almost as much as a Democratic Presidential candidate from Massachusetts,” says Nehring. “She was against all of the lawsuits in the mayor’s election before she was for them. That sounds a lot like John Kerry and that $87 billion for Iraq.”

“The difference, of course, is that Frye was against the lawsuits when it appeared she might win among legitimately cast votes. When it became clear she would not win with legitimate votes, she flip flopped, and decided to support legal action clearly aimed at overturning state law – changing the rules – for her own political purposes,” added Nehring.

“Who’s all about the sour grapes now, Donna Frye?”

In recent statements, Frye indicates support for the lawsuit brought by her own supporters. But when supporters of Ron Roberts filed a lawsuit challenging Frye’s shaky write-in candidacy, she dismissed it as “sour grapes.”

In stark contrast to Frye, Nehring says Republican Mayor Murphy has been steady and consistent throughout the process. “Dick Murphy has been clear from the beginning: he was against all of the legal challenges, against changing the rules midstream, and for counting all of the ballots consistent with state law.”

“Who’s trying to disenfranchise voters now, Donna Frye?”

Courts have previously found that “the bubble is the vote,” says Nehring. “The names on the ballot, whether printed or written, are options, not votes. According to Frye’s twisted interpretation of the law, if a voter wrote in Frye’s name as an option, but then voted for another candidate by properly marking the bubble, that voter would have been deemed to have voted twice, and that vote would be nullified and the voter disenfranchised.”

In other words, Frye’s interpretation would not only legitimize improperly cast votes, but it would nullify some votes that were properly cast.

“The Republicans would be doing the same thing if it were reversed.” No, we wouldn’t. And we didn’t.

Some who defend Donna Frye’s efforts to drag the mayor’s election through the courts claim that Republicans would be doing the same thing if the situation were reversed.

The situation was reversed just a few weeks ago, when it appeared Frye would win if a court did not intervene. Nehring notes that throughout that period, Republican Mayor Murphy steadfastly opposed any litigation to interfere with the counting of properly cast ballots and the certification of the election in a manner consistent with the law.

“In 2000, Democrats in Missouri elected a dead man U.S. Senator and Republicans led by John Ashcroft refused to challenge the outcome despite the fact that a dead person is obviously not qualified to serve in the Senate (although brain-dead proposals can still be found laying around the Democrats’ cloakroom),” said Nehring.

Rules? Standards? Who needs rules when we have “intent?”

Donna Frye’s (latest) position on the lawsuits raises an interesting question: is this an issue of having standards, or what the standards should be? Frye’s position is basically this: if someone (who, exactly, isn’t clear) can discern a voter’s intent, then the vote should count, regardless of whether it was legally cast.

First, numerous voters have stated that they wrote Frye’s name in, but ultimately voted for another candidate by properly marking the bubble. Frye would eliminate those properly cast votes as double-votes.

Second, if the only standard is voter intent, then how about these methods of voting:

1. Someone goes out of town, so they send a letter to the Registrar of Voters, saying, “I’ll be out of town on Election Day, but put me down for President Bush.”
2. Simply calling the Registrar of Voters.
3. Leaving a message on the Registrar’s voice mail.
4. Sending a friend to vote for you – with a permission slip.
5. Voting by e-mail.
6. Putting up a yard sign in front of your house, and sending the picture to the Registrar.

Frye supporters would dismiss these as ludicrous exaggerations. But are they really? Each one might demonstrate a clearer level of “intent” than just writing a candidate’s name as an option but not marking the bubble for the candidate.

###

Donna Frye’s Email

Dear Friends,

So much is happening so quickly that it has been hard to keep up to date with all the news.

According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, the most recent tally in the recount shows that there are “5,547 total ballots on which a voter wrote in Councilmember Donna Frye’s name but did not fill in the corresponding bubble.” We also learned that yet another appeal has been filed challenging the public’s right to write-in my name as a candidate for Mayor.

The Union-Tribune also reported today on the plan by San Diego pension board officials to make “a citizen’s arrest of outspoken board member Diann Shipione last month and have police remove her from a private meeting.” If you recall, Ms. Shipione was the whistle blower who alerted the public to the underfunding of the city’s pension plan. She has contacted me and in my capacity as the Chair of the Open Government and Efficiency Committee, I will begin an investigation into potential violations of the open government laws (the Brown Act).

I held a press conference on Tuesday, December 14 at the Registrar of Voters to comment on the recount as well as the continuing culture of secrecy and political retribution in our city. As you may or may not know, a member of my city council staff was denied entry to a press conference that was held by Mr. Murphy in the City Administration Building, which is a public building. Below are excerpts from my December 14, 2004 comments:

Thanks and aloha,
Donna

Today we learned that more people wrote in the name “Donna Frye” for Mayor, than filled in a bubble for Dick Murphy or Ron Roberts. At issue now is whether all the votes cast in the mayoral election will be counted.

The exercise of the right to vote is one of the most important functions of good citizenship. Once the public has exercised that right, they expect that their vote will be counted and that is a reasonable expectation. Otherwise, the message to the public is that one person’s vote has a higher value than another persons.

It is clear that the bubble has nothing to do with a write-in vote. That’s why it’s called a write-in. The purpose of the bubble for a write-in candidate is to help the scanner tally the votes more easily. Given the fact that every write-in ballot had to be hand counted, the argument that this bubble failure somehow makes someone’s vote less worthy of being counted is disrespectful to everyone who voted. Voting is not a test; it is an expression of the will of the voters and who they want to represent them.

Mr. Murphy and his attorney insult the public when they claim that people who wrote in my name and failed to mark a bubble cast an illegal vote. As stated in an editorial this week in the San Diego Business Journal: “If a technical thing such as filling in a bubble — which has nothing to do with write-ins anyway, only in helping the scanner — can tip the balance, then we are headed back to the bad old days when bureaucrats could demand literacy tests before someone could vote…”

Donna Frye for Mayor Campaign
www.DonnaFryeForMayor.com