Share Button

Bernie vs. Hillary Recount in San Diego

Citizens Oversight (2017-02-02) Ray Lutz

This Page:
Media Link:
Remote Link:
More Info: Ballot Access Lawsuit


This web page is the repository for documents and information regarding the petition to CONTEST the 2016 Primary regarding the presidential race in San Diego County. Our goal in this project is to look for criminal election fraud which may unravel the entire election process and reset it to start over.

Best overview

Other Issues

One observer notes:
Ray, I'm the one who mentioned that Robert (Robert A. Pennisi, Chief Deputy Voter Services) made a point of limiting the number of signature challenges on the VBM ballots as the clerks were processing them. Some of our volunteers had noticed signatures that VERY CLEARLY were not matches to the signatures on the voter reg cards. When Robert noticed the commotion, he came running over saying, "that's not what we're doing here," and then told the clerks that they could have no more than a certain number of signature challenges (10 per batch?). He then turned to us and said that he doesn't want to reject the ballots and that he had the final say on which ballots were going to go through, and that most of them (VBMs) were going to be accepted as valid by him. He also said that many people had voted twice (VBM and provisional), but that only the VBM ballots would be counted. He also said that they could pursue legal action against those who voted twice, but probably wouldn't push it (implying that he was being nice).

He told me on at least two separate occasions that he was the final arbiter and that most of these signature challenges would not prevent the ballot from being counted. I also overheard some people talking about inactive voters, but did not hear all the details of the conversation.

I heard that some volunteers noticed ballots that ONLY had HRC's bubble marked, and no other votes on the ballots (please confirm).

I've mentioned this before, but I strongly believe that they were retaining ballots from inactive voters (possibly others, too), and then using them to vote for HRC, assuming that most of these voters wouldn't follow up or vote. When these voters showed up at the polls claiming that they never received their ballots in the mail, they would be handed a provisional ballot that would not be counted since the VBM ballots are the only ones counted if someone voted twice (VBM and provisional).

I believe the codes for these types of situations were categorized as "300s" (per my notes). Perhaps there is a way to see if there were an unusual number of ballots coded this way?

What we do know is that there were an unusually high number of people who did not receive their ballots in the mail -- they were forced to vote on provisional ballots at their polling locations. We also know that there were an unusually high number (unprecedented, I believe) of provisional ballots used in the primary election.

IMHO, they were retaining these VBM ballots and using them to vote for HRC. When the voters showed up at the polls, they were given provisional ballots that were never counted.

We should try to find out:

  1. Were there an unusually high number of people who voted twice (code 300)?
  2. Were there an unusually high number of VBM ballots that were never received in the mail by the voters (anecdotal evidence, recorded on video at various polling locations, says this is the case)?
  3. Were there an unusually high number of voters who had to use provisional ballots in this election?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then we need to dig deeper into what happened, as I firmly believe that there was a major ballot-stuffing program going on behind the scenes. Let's not forget that Alex Padilla was actively campaigning and fundraising for HRC during the primaries. We have no reason to trust that he ran a clean a fair election.

Documents related to the case

Please read the Press release for background information.

Object tag not supported. Click here to view the document.
If the document does not display above, click here

The original filing

Note, this version does not have case number so we will be updating as soon as I get the official copy.

Object tag not supported. Click here to view the document.
If the document does not display above, click here

Michael Vu's main response is as follows:

Response: The ballots have been sealed pursuant to Elections Code 15370 and 17301, and may only be opened in compliance with those statutes. The Public Records Act does not apply to official records which are exempted or prohibited from disclosure by other statutes. (Gov. Code § 6254(k); Evidence Code §1040.)

Cal. Elec. Code §15370
After ballots are counted and sealed, the elections official may not open any ballots nor permit any ballots to be opened except as permitted in Sections 15303 and 15304, or in the event of a recount.

Cal. Elec. Code §15303 and 15304
If the returns from any precinct are incomplete, ambiguous, not properly authenticated, or otherwise defective, the elections official may issue and serve subpoenas requiring members of the precinct board to appear and be examined under oath concerning the manner in which votes were counted and the result of the count in their precinct.  This section shall apply when ballots are tabulated manually or automatically at the polls

In jurisdictions using a central counting place, the elections official may appoint not less than three deputies to open the envelopes or containers with the materials returned from the precincts.  If, after examination, any of the materials are incomplete, ambiguous, not properly authenticated, or otherwise defective, the precinct officers may be summoned before the elections official and examined under oath to describe polling place procedures and to correct the errors or omissions.

Cal. Elec. Code §17301
(a) The following provisions shall apply to those elections where candidates for one or more of the following offices are voted upon:  President, Vice President, United States Senator, and United States Representative.
(b) The packages containing the following ballots and identification envelope shall be kept by the elections official, unopened and unaltered, for 22 months from the date of the election:
(1) Voted polling place ballots.
(2) Paper record copies, as defined by Section 19251, if any, of voted polling place ballots.
(3) Voted vote by mail voter ballots.
(4) Vote by mail voter identification envelopes.
(5) Voted provisional voter ballots.
(6) Provisional ballot voter identification envelopes.
(7) Spoiled ballots.
(8) Canceled ballots.
(9) Unused vote by mail ballots surrendered by the voter pursuant to Section 3015.
(10) Ballot receipts.
(c) If a contest is not commenced within the 22-month period, or if a criminal prosecution involving fraudulent use, marking or falsification of ballots, or forgery of vote by mail voters' signatures is not commenced within the 22-month period, either of which may involve the vote of the precinct from which voted ballots were received, the elections official shall have the ballots destroyed or recycled.  The packages shall otherwise remain unopened until the ballots are destroyed or recycled.

6254 Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

Evidence Code section 1040 provides in pertinent part:

(a) As used in this section, 'official information' means information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.

(b) A public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information, and to prevent another from disclosing official information, if the privilege is claimed by a person authorized by the public entity to do so and:

(1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state;

(2) Disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice . . . . In determining whether disclosure of the information is against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the outcome of the proceeding may not be considered."

The official information privilege in Evidence Code section 1040, subdivision (b)(2), is expressly conditional, not absolute.

If the public entity satisfies the threshold burden of showing that the information was acquired in confidence, the statute requires the court next to weigh the interests and to sustain the privilege only if " 'there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice.' " (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal. 3d at pp. 123-125; see PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 1697, 1714 [31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 213]; Rubin v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 560, 585-587 [235 Cal. Rptr. 516]; CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 646, 656 [230 Cal. Rptr. 362, 725 P.2d 470].)

A trial court commits error under this section if the court fails to make the threshold determination or fails to engage in the process of balancing the interests. (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal. 3d at p. 125; PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1714; Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 190 Cal. App. 3d at p. 586.)

In rare instances, courts have declared a privilege compelled by constitutional considerations even where not specifically provided by statute. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 656 [125 Cal. Rptr. 553, 542 P.2d 977] [state constitutional right to privacy compelled limited privilege against disclosure of bank customer records despite exclusivity of the Evidence Code on the subject of privileges]; Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 268, 274-284 [208 Cal. Rptr. 152, 690 P.2d 625] [First Amendment considerations compelled qualified privilege of newspaper reporter to refuse to disclose sources]; see also Welfare Rights Organization v. Crisan (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 766, 769 [190 Cal. Rptr. 919, 661 P.2d 1073, 31 A.L.R.4th 1214] [unless a privilege is expressly or impliedly based on statute, its existence may be found "only if required by constitutional principles, state or federal"; statutory basis found]; Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 363, 373 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 330, 853 P.2d 496] [courts may not add to the statutory privileges "except as required by state or federal constitutional law"; statutory basis found].)

But even in those rare cases where constitutional considerations require judicial declaration of a privilege not based on statute, the courts have utilized a balancing of the interests approach, and eschewed creating an absolute privilege.

In Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal. 3d at pages 657-658, the court balanced the constitutional interest of bank customers to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their financial affairs against the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts.

The court "readily acknowledge[d] that relevant bank customer information should not be wholly privileged and insulated from scrutiny by civil litigants," noting that " 'in order to facilitate the ascertainment of truth and the just resolution of legal claims, the [civil discovery statute] clearly exerts a justifiable interest in requiring a businessman to disclose communications, confidential or otherwise, relevant to pending litigation.' "

In Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal. 3d at page 276, the court weighed the First Amendment values furthered by protecting the confidentiality of a news reporter's sources against "the parallel importance of the policy favoring full disclosure of relevant evidence."

It concluded, "there is neither an absolute duty to disclose nor an absolute privilege to withhold, but instead a qualified privilege against compelled disclosure which depends on the facts of each particular case." (Ibid.)


Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
2017-02-03_Bernie_vs._Hillary_Recount_in_San_Diego.pdfpdf 2017-02-03_Bernie_vs._Hillary_Recount_in_San_Diego.pdf manage 145.8 K 2017-02-03 - 15:47 Raymond Lutz Press Release -- Bernie vs. Hillary Recount in San Diego
2017-02-07_VuRespondsToEmail.pdfpdf 2017-02-07_VuRespondsToEmail.pdf manage 886.6 K 2017-03-02 - 16:03 Raymond Lutz Vu's initial response to the email.
2017-02-17_--_2nd_EmailToVu_requesting_access_to_ballots_in_primary.pdfpdf 2017-02-17_--_2nd_EmailToVu_requesting_access_to_ballots_in_primary.pdf manage 74.7 K 2017-03-02 - 16:04 Raymond Lutz Second email to Vu requesting access to ballots from primary
2017-03-07_-_Vu_Responds_to_2nd_email_requesting_ballots_in_primary_(1).pdfpdf 2017-03-07_-_Vu_Responds_to_2nd_email_requesting_ballots_in_primary_(1).pdf manage 106.5 K 2017-03-08 - 14:27 Raymond Lutz Vu's response to 2nd email request
37-2016-00023347-CU-PT-CTL_2017-02-02_ROA_1486062055989.pdfpdf 37-2016-00023347-CU-PT-CTL_2017-02-02_ROA_1486062055989.pdf manage 11.1 K 2017-02-03 - 15:50 Raymond Lutz The Petition for CONTEST of the Primary
ElectionContest-RaymondLutz-SanDiego.pdfpdf ElectionContest-RaymondLutz-SanDiego.pdf manage 2099.0 K 2017-02-03 - 19:49 Raymond Lutz Case as originally filed on July 11, 2016
Infographic-PrimaryRecount.pngpng Infographic-PrimaryRecount.png manage 83.5 K 2017-02-03 - 16:05 Raymond Lutz Infographic showing issues in the 2016 Primary in San Diego
Request_for_recount_of_certain_ballots_in_2016_Primary_access_to_manual_tally_sheets_and_other_records.pdfpdf Request_for_recount_of_certain_ballots_in_2016_Primary_access_to_manual_tally_sheets_and_other_records.pdf manage 76.3 K 2017-02-03 - 15:51 Raymond Lutz Email to Michael Vu requesting access to ballots
Topic revision: r11 - 2017-07-30, RaymondLutz

This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Copswiki? Send feedback