Liz, Wisconsin County

This was the last day of the Racine machine recount and, as lead observer for Stein, I had made an objection the previous day about a click-count we (Madeline and I) had done the day before for Racine Ward 36, click-counting Trump, Clinton, and undervotes as ballots were fed into the scanner, to compare to the scanner tape. Our results showed Clinton with 9 more votes and Trump with 1 more vote than the scanner tapes.  Our counts may have been off by 1 or 2, but the undervotes we recorded were 8 less than the scanner recorded.  So we suspected that there were actual votes that were not being read by the machine and therefore being recorded on the tape as undervotes.  In fact, as they were fed through the machine, we did notice some oddly marked ballots, marked in a different color, lightly, or incompletely.  The first time I made an objection about this same situation (see my previous report), I was chastised for it because I asked for a hand-count of that small ward just to verify our results.  They quickly and harshly refused that request, so when I told the clerk (Wendy) that I wanted to submit another objection of the same type, she told me she wouldn't even accept it because she already refused all hand-counts.  So after consultation with a Stein lawyer, I submitted the objection without asking for a hand-count, just "for the record," and quoted the statute language that required my objection to become part of the minutes.  They read it on Tuesday at the end of the day and then dealt with it on Wednesday morning.  By that time I had a professional video person there to record, but I believe she purposely started dealing with the objection after I stepped out of the room for a moment.  We therefore do not have the reading of the objection on film, but we do have her reaction and I believe I was allowed to talk a bit about it for once.  (In previous objections I was not allowed to speak.)  So I believe the objection made it into the minutes but, of course, a hand count was never done to prove us right or wrong.  Later that morning I talked to a Racine Journal Times reporter who asked me how things were going and I described these situations.  He briefly mentioned my objections in his article:  http://journaltimes.com/news/local/recount-wraps-up-in-racine-county/article_742b76cd-2f1f-506b-85b6-4b787271058b.html       The Trump representative tried to correct the article in the comments section, and said that I was merely reporting data, not participating in these click-counts.  I replied to his comment, stating that I did in fact click-count in each case where I made an objection.  I also asked him why he wouldn't have wanted a hand-count because in the first click-count we did--the one described in the article--his candidate would have benefited from our click-count numbers.  To have had any hand-counts, though, would have shown machine errors which would have cast doubt on all the machine counts.  So later that night I was interviewed by a documentarian/filmmaker about everything I had witnessed during this recount, for possible inclusion in a documentary or for more immediate release online.  I probably said more than I intended, but the public really needs to know how slipshod, inaccurate, nontransparent, and contentious this whole process has been.  The defensiveness and hostility shown toward me makes me even more suspicious of what they are doing.  Although I was supposed to be able to ask clarifying questions of the Clerk and the two Board of Canvas ladies, the two ladies had been told not to speak to me, and I could speak with the Clerk only when she allowed it.  I was constantly shut up and called out for minor infractions, some of which were not even infractions.  They threatened to have me leave several times, even when I complimented them on certain parts of the process and thanked the Clerk for the times she did explain things to me.  All they would have had to do to resolve discrepancies we discovered would have been to hand-count a single ward here or there.  They would not do even that.