Sections

Weather Forecast

Close

Letters to the Editor

 Appeals Court St. Croix Co. election ruling

TO THE EDITOR

Here we are around 1.5 years after the election without the voters of District 13 having any representative on the St. Croix County Board.

Because a partisan District Judge chose to impose his opinion in place of the Board of Canvassers, retroactively on issues no one had raised during the recount/drawdown process.

Regarding the supposed miscast ballot, the judge decided that this ballot was miscast because someone (not the voter) had marked the bottom of the ballot with a number 4, which he ruled denoted was a mark by a poll worker to show the Ward in which the voter lived. However, it is clear that according to the poll worker policy manual that the only authorized marks (ie number) to be placed on a ballot by a poll worker are to indicate cases of a spoiled ballot so the spoiled ballot can be matched to the reissued one. Further, this ballot with the number 4 mark was not noted by anyone during the Canvassing Board process nor was it noted by the Chief Election poll worker in her election day report, therefore the mark cannot be proven to be from election day.

I understand the number 4 is in pencil but pencils are not used or available at election day polling locations.

Further, if this ballot was marked with the number to denote the Ward, there should be a number of other ballots that would have been marked with Ward numbers but I don't believe any were noted.

Gary Hanson

Somerset

randomness