jonetta rose barras: Battling for the ballot

The DC Board of Elections next week is expected to review challenges made to the qualifying petitions of candidates hoping to appear on the November general election ballot. The process, as much of an election ritual as candidates forums, pits political aspirants against each other, against incumbents and even voting citizens.

Challenged candidates had until Aug. 30 to provide the elections board written responses to allegations against them. Then on Sept. 4, candidates and adversaries face off in private closed-door meetings.

Why the secrecy?

Kenneth McGhie, the elections board’s general counsel, said sessions are like mediation. After reviewing the petitions, the registrar will offer a preliminary determination about the veracity of questionable signatures. At that point, challengers could withdraw their claims or candidates could withdraw their candidacy. If neither happens, the elections board could decide to hold public hearings, after which the board will make a final decision on whether someone being challenged will make it onto the ballot.

DC political junkies like myself are focused on the at-large DC Council race. As first reported in District Dig, incumbent Council member Elissa Silverman has challenged the petitions of her chief opponent, S. Kathryn Allen, a small-business leader and former government executive. Allen’s campaign has challenged Dionne Reeder, a restaurant owner.

It’s a dog-eat-dog moment.

For years, there have been serious concerns about the merits and operations of the petition-qualifying system. Any registered voter can challenge a candidate’s petitions, injecting chaos and a dangerous dose of subjectivity into the procedure. Individuals who engage in fraud during the signature gathering often escape significant punishment even when the misdeeds are brought to the board’s attention. And when the campaigns of candidates like Traci Hughes are derailed by the fraudulent behavior of others, citizens can be denied the opportunity to vote for individuals who are otherwise qualified to run for office.

“This seems to be a perversion,” said Reeder’s campaign manager, Alfreda Davis. The challenge to Reeder’s petitions, she said, is “not sufficient to keep us off the ballot.”

Allen countered: “I don’t know why she said that. We uncovered more than enough questionable signatures. … In fact, there are anomalies and issues with every candidate, including Elissa.”

Allen said the whole process needs significant changes, including ramping up training for petition circulators. She said she and her staff attended sessions sponsored by the elections board but “none of this was part of that training.”

Ditto, said Davis: “I really think there needs to be some sort of reform.”

Without a doubt, the District’s election laws should prohibit payment to circulators. When individuals have knowingly falsified those documents, they should face real jail time and not just some slap on the wrist. Moreover, a challenge shouldn’t be the trigger for verifying petitions.

“The Board of Elections should [automatically] check signatures,” Silverman said during an interview with me, noting that Montgomery County does so. Elections officials there reviewed the 20,360 signatures Nancy Floreen submitted so she could run as an independent for county executive; they concluded that 13,356 were valid. Floreen needed slightly more than 7,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Silverman seemed to contradict herself, asserting also that candidates should be responsible for ensuring the validity of signatures. She dismissed any special consideration for political neophytes. “Everyone runs for a first time. I was a novice.”

Stop it. Prior to running for office, Silverman had been a policy analyst at a think tank and a journalist with two newspapers, including The Washington Post. She is no Jane-come-lately.

“I don’t think the process of collecting signatures is a bad one. It shows [a candidate] has grassroots support,” said Silverman.

Most residents reflexively sign petitions during election season without any discussion about a candidate’s qualifications or platform. Surely there is a more efficient and effective method for determining whether someone deserves a place on the ballot.

Silverman may have cut her petition-discerning teeth in 2002 when, as a journalist, she covered Mayor Anthony A. Williams’ re-election debacle. His petitions were riddled with fraudulent signatures and faced challenges from several individuals, including government watchdog Dorothy Brizill. The registrar determined Williams had enough valid signatures to qualify, but the elections board overruled that finding. Williams was kicked off the ballot and fined $277,700; fortunately for the city, he ran a successful write-in campaign.

Federal prosecutors declined to take up the case. In 2005, the DC attorney general’s office brought charges against three people who were central to the scandal. None received much punishment. Scott Bishop Jr. and his wife, Crystal, pleaded guilty to making false statements. She was sentenced to 75 days in jail; it’s unclear whether she actually served her time. Her husband was put in a diversionary program with probation and community service. Scott Bishop Sr. — the ringleader — appears to have pleaded guilty in 2008 to 10 counts of “corrupt election” practices. The court fined him $100 for each count. That’s it: case closed, according to DC government records.

See what I mean about the need for real jail time?

Objections by Silverman to Allen’s petitions were similar to those made against Williams: signers who were not registered voters, addresses on petitions that didn’t match official elections board voter rolls, and fraudulent signatures or problems with the circulator.

Silverman acknowledged there wasn’t enough fraud for that alone to “disqualify [Allen] from the ballot. I had to make [the] case she hasn’t met the threshold.”

In other words, Silverman nitpicked Allen’s petitions for missing dates, wrong addresses and other seemingly minor offenses.

“We’re running a clean and responsible campaign,” Allen told me, adding that she “continues to feel confident we have more than enough signatures.”

“Elissa used the press to blow this out of portion. It is very disappointing and very disturbing,” continued Allen, describing it all as “dirty tactics and dirty politics.”

Unfortunately, that’s the way the game has been played in DC. If residents want it to be more ethical and civil, then they should demand reforms. The system won’t change itself.

---

jonetta rose barras is a DC-based author and freelance writer. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.