The November 4, 2014 elections are not over in several parts of the country. One of those places is Oregon, where progressive candidates and ballot measures were largely successful in bucking the rightward trend of election results produced by much of the rest of the nation. Nonetheless, a GMO-related ballot measure requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods appeared to have failed on Election Night in the wake of a record amount of campaign cash spent by food manufacturers to defeat it.
The measure, however, now appears headed toward a statewide “recount” as the official computer-reported results have greatly narrowed in the weeks following Election Day, with the race now regarded as “too close to call” by some. The “No” margin decreased to less than 1,500 votes as of late last week, after the Yes on 92 campaign was said to have been “reaching out to 13,000 voters whose ballots had signature problems and weren’t counted,” according to Oregon’s KPTV.
[Note: The BRAD BLOG tends to use quotes around the word “recount”, since most ballots in the U.S., even hand-marked paper ballots, are never actually counted by human beings in the first place, with most jurisdictions relying only on easily-manipulated and sometimes wildly inaccurate computer tabulators which tally ballots either correctly or incorrectly. Without an actual hand-count by human beings, its impossible to know either way.]For the first time this year, the state publicly released the names of voters whose ballots had signature problems. That transparency allowed Measure 92’s supporters to attempt to notify those voters to request they contact election officials to work out any discrepancies in order to have their ballots tallied.
As of Monday afternoon, numbers posted on the Oregon Sec. of State’s results page show the margin having narrowed even further, with just 809 “No” votes outpacing “Yes” votes, out of more than 1.5 million ballots cast across the state. Finalized results are due from all counties by 5pm today…
As readers of The BRAD BLOG may recall, there was an attempted “recount” for Prop 37 in California, a similar ballot measure reported to have failed in 2012 after a similarly expensive smear campaign by many of the same food companies in that state.
That attempt at citizen oversight in California was stopped dead in its tracks by a single County Registrar in Fresno County — a huge food production center in the state — after she arbitrarily, and seemingly illegally, priced the attempted voter-requested “recount” far beyond affordability for the citizen coalition attempting to ensure the computer-reported results in the state were accurate. (See The BRAD BLOG’s 2013 special report on that here.)
In Oregon, however, where the entire state votes by mail (or via mail-ballot drop-off sites), an automatic state-sponsored “recount” is triggered by statute when the computer-reported margin is less than one-fifth of one percent. With the current margin at less than one-tenth of one percent, the state’s law, unlike in California, should allow a statewide “recount” of the measure to move forward without interference.
The battle over Measure 92 in Oregon is said to have been, “by far”, the most expensive in state history. Spending to oppose the measure by corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont dwarfed that spent by supporters. The No campaign reportedly spent as much as $21 million to block the measure, while the Yes campaign spent $9 million in support.
The good news for voters in Oregon is that, in addition to state law mandating a “recount” in such races, those counts (unlike many “recounts” held elsewhere, such as in Arizona, where we hope to detail another “recount” story soon) are carried out by hand, as opposed to simply being run through the same computer tabulators that tallied them, either correctly or incorrectly (who knows?), in the first place.
The Oregonian reports, however, that a recent statewide recount failed to change final tallies all that much. “The last statewide recount was in 2008 on a measure regarding the government seizure of property found at crime scenes,” the paper reports. “The initial count showed it passing by 550 votes. A recount concluded that it actually passed by 681 votes.”
The statewide “recount” — really, the first actual count of all the ballots by actual human beings — will likely take place in the first week of December.
UPDATE 12/8/2014: As statewide hand count is under way, proponents of Measure 92 seek the inclusion of 4,600 ballots they say have been illegally rejected. Details now here…
(Snail mail support to “Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028” always welcome too!)
|
Brad: In searching the Oregon Sec. of State website I discovered what appears to be an intriguing feature — a provision to track your ballot online. It apparently requires input of the individual voter information, so that, theoretically every voter can determine whether his or her vote was supposedly part of the initial count.
Irrespective of the outcome, if there is to be a hand count, it will be interesting to see how the state will address those ballots whose validity has been questioned (or at least questioned by the computers that counted them the first time.)
Ernesto: Just to be clear, that ability to track whether your ballot was received and processed by OR does not let you know whether it was tallied accurately or not (since they still count by computers there, unfortunately, other than in “recounts” when, apparently, getting the results right suddenly becomes important, for some reason.) See this for other reasons why I’m no fan of Vote-by-Mail.
As to the validity of ballots “questioned by the computers that counted them the first time”, I just want to be clear that in the article above I discussed ballots that were rejected not by the computers, but by human beings for other reasons, such as missing signatures on the ballot envelope. The issue of votes not tallied correctly (or at all) by the computer tabulators will, indeed, be sorted out when human beings are finally allowed to count them in a recount — at least for those ballots allowed to be counted, based on proper signatures, etc. on the ballots.
So, that’s two different issues concerning the validity of ballots themselves, versus the votes cast on them (as seen by the computer op-scanners). Just so we don’t conflate those two totally different issues here.
Another win for the voters and especially the Yes on 92 folks is the state will have to pay for the “recount”. At least, I’m surmising that to be the case, since their state law requires “an automatic recount” when the margin is 0.2% or less. If the Yes on 92 folks had to pay for the recount, there may not have been enough money available to go forward with it, like what happened in Fresno County, CA as you so aptly pointed out.
I sure hope the hand-counted results show Prop 92 winning and that every possible avenue is pursued to find the missing votes needed to carry this over the top.
Monsanto, Dow, Pepsi, etc. – BE ON NOTICE! The labeling issue will not die – it will come back again and again and again in state after state until voters are no longer taken in by the blatant lies, deception and dirty tricks employed by said companies who for some reason believe they should not have to disclose what the hell is in their products. It’s our bodies, it’s our minds, and we have a right to know what these jerks are putting in/on their products for us to consume so we can independently research the side effects of this poison.
Dow and Monsanto (et al) were the key producers of Agent Orange (contains Dioxin, the most poisonous product on the planet)back in the ’50’s and ’60’s (and early ’70’s). After decades of denial that is had ANY negative effect on humans (notwithstanding the Vietnamese children born with no or partial arms or legs and other grotesque deformities)it was determined by the Federal Government and the courts that it indeed causes over 40 specific types of cancer, some that don’t show up for a good 30 or more years. Hundreds of thousands of our veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange (AO) – mostly in Vietnam but also in Korea and other locations – are getting well-earned disability payments (which are almost always denied initially – so the veteran has a new battle on his hand beyond the one he fought to keep us free back in the ’60’s) or have since passed away from the diseases caused by Dow and Monsanto. So by the time similar outcomes happen with GMOs, those who pushed them on us will be gleefully relaxing in some island estate and laughing that we were so easily duped. Money trumps everything – especially ethics and the good health of our citizens and our veterans.
Brad,
As someone on-the-scene it’s a pleasure to read your well-written, concise, and absolutely accurate narrative of events here.
If I had a million bucks (or an extra 100) I’d split it between you, Matthew Grimm, and Sam Seder. Yes I surely would.
leftisbest @3 wrote:
With or without a labeling victory in Oregon, Monsanto, et al are on notice. That’s why they filed a lawsuit to block Vermont’s GMO labeling law.