Annette, Washtenaw County

Official vote tabulators at my table were very professional and efficient. However, the Michigan recount rules favor the invalidation of counted ballots but do not equally favor the inclusion of uncounted ballots (i.e., the undercount, which is the suspected problem in Michigan.) For example, certain absentee ballots (e.g., overseas military) were submitted electronically, and then transcribed by election officials onto the paper scan forms used by regular voters. These transcribed ballots were called "Duplicates" and were supposed to be numbered in order to correspond to the number of the original electronic ballot. Recount officials were required to verify that originals and duplicates corresponded, and that they were not "double-counted." However, one precinct, heavily for Clinton, had several original/duplicate pairs that were not definitively corresponding (e.g., one original ballot had no corresponding duplicate number in the forms that were scanned and thus counted.) The election official ruled that the transcriber must have forgotten to label the duplicate, but that it HAD been counted, just not labeled. However, there was no evidence to support that ruling. An alternate possibility was that the original vote had not been transcribed, and thus not counted (i.e., an undercount). Furthermore, although it was not possible at the recount to PROVE that the original HAD been counted, it might have been possible to PROVE definitively that the vote was an undercount. For example, if NONE of the counted ballots exactly matched all the marked votes on the contested ballot (included races that were not included in the recount), that would prove that this particular vote had not been counted. However, election officials insisted they were only authorized to COUNT the presidential race, and would NOT examine any ballots or portions of ballots that were not included in that narrow definition of recount. So, in all likelihood Hillary Clinton lost that one vote (out of the 200 cast) in that precinct. Continue reading

Lisa, Washtenaw County

I arrived and was seated at a table where MI-Washtenaw-Ypsi(city)-Ward1-Pct1 was concluding. 3 things should match: pollbook+tape+#ballots. The pollbook did not match but at this location 2 out 3 is good enough to go forward. I observed the next batches in full: Ward2-Pct2, Ward1-Pct3, Ward3-Pct1, Ward2-Pct2. All of the aforementioned batches were absentee ballots.My shift was from 5p-9p ET. I arrived early for training. I was told upon arriving that they would end the day at 7p or when the table I was assigned to finished the batch of precincts assigned. Continue reading

Jeremy, Washtenaw County

The two recount workers at our table were very professional, and took the time to explain what they were doing, and what would happen next as they went along. There were two observers from the Stein campaign present (myself included), as well as two from the Clinton campaign, and one from the Trump campaign. Although no individual ballots were contested, an attorney for the Trump team did contest the overall process on the grounds of the Court of Appeals case currently in judicial process. The ballots for the precinct I observed were found to be recountable, and wound up matching the original tally upon being recounted. Continue reading

Jennifer, Washtenaw County

*LEFT BEFORE THIS PRECINCT WAS FINISHED*Ypsilanti Twp Prct 18#1576 total ballotsTrump rep objected to opening of ballots, counting of votes, and challenged the seal matching-- which was withdrawn because it did match. Another challenge that seal was mismatched to poll book but they did. Continue reading

Teresa, Washtenaw County

Precinct unrecountable Continue reading

Susan, Washtenaw County

Thorough and conscientious election officials at table where I was assigned. Very impressed! Continue reading