Late Saturday night, well, Sunday morning, actually, at around 3:30am, the HRM Elections Office announced on its website that the victor in the District 3: Dartmouth South- Eastern Passage district election was Jackie Barkhouse, besting Bill Karsten by just six votes.
Everyone expected that Karsten would ask for a recount, as well he should’ve, with a race this close. Recounts take some time: an independent judge is brought, and each ballot is examined independently.
But this morning returning officer Cathy Mellet announced that Karsten, not Barkhouse, had actually won. Mellet’s press release:
Tuesday October 23, 2012 (Halifax) –Official Election Results Released
Today the HRM Returning Officer announced that official results have declared Bill Karsten, and not Jackie Barkhouse the winner for the seat of HRM Council District 3 Dartmouth South- Eastern Passage.
In conducting the requirement of the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) for the Returning Officer to review and confirm the Official Results a discrepancy was discovered in the results called in on Saturday evening from one poll in District 3.
The official review of the poll results was conducted this morning at 10am with the candidates from District 3 present for that review.
Mellett, the Returning Officer noted “ The stringent requirements of the Elections Act are in place to ensure that the will of the voters is carried out and that, upon official review of all poll books, the official results are correct and reliable. She noted that “Today the integrity and transparency of that electoral process was demonstrated under difficult circumstances for everyone involved”. It would be expected that a judicial recount will be requested.
Official results for all races and district have been posted and are available at www.halifax.ca/election/results
This is, to put it mildly, an astounding chain of events.
Barkhouse will undoubtedly now demand a recount, and that process will play out over coming days and weeks.
But even as the recount is happening, we need to ask: is the elections office broken? The very integrity of our city democracy is at stake here. Consider:
1. Angela Jones fiasco.
I won’t re-hash the entire case here (background is here), but after Angela Jones was disqualified as a candidate by Mellet, Jones appealed to a judge, who decided that in fact, Jones should be a candidate.
As Jones was arguing her case in the media, she told me directly that she was a victim of hanky-panky in city hall. As I reported:
“I was told very firmly and clearly—and I have evidence of this—by Cathy Mellet, she agreed that I was on a leave of absence, that I did not need to do anything further, that everything was fine, the nomination was in good standing. We discussed my leave at length—and I’m talking at length.”
Jones declined to say what her evidence was, saying she’s waiting for that to come out in court, if need be.
“Late the next day,” Jones continues, “I’m hearing from my friends at city hall that they are freaking out that I am running.”
Jones won’t say who “they” are, at least for the moment.
“I’m going to fight this in court,” says Jones. “Because they are trying to take away my democratic rights. You’ve seen them make legal mistakes in the past. This is another one. They don’t even have the authority to tell me I’m disqualified. This whole thing is so ridiculous, that I can’t even wrap my head around it.
“So I’m asking myself the question: Why don’t they want me to run?”
Jones says she doesn’t have an answer to that question.
The judge’s ruling did not address any behind-the-scenes shenanigans at city hall, meant to keep Jones from running, but the fact of her legal victory gives at least some credence to those allegations.
2. The naming of District 3
Before today’s problems with counting votes, there was a strained relationship between Mellet and Jackie Barkhouse, related to the official name of the newly formed District 3, in which Barkhouse and Karsten would be facing each other.
I reported on that controversy here. At the time, Barkhouse expressed to me privately that she felt there was some collusion between Mellet and Karsten on the naming of the district, but she asked that I not report that, because she had no hard evidence of it.
I subsequently filed a FOIPOP request for documents related to the issue, and didn’t get much back, except for email conversations after the change was made. I’m told that other councillors—David Hendsbee was one—didn’t like the name of their newly formed districts either, but Mellet refused to change the names, citing UARB rules.
So why one standard for the name of District 3, and another standard for the names of other districts? It’s hard to understand that without suspecting some form of bias on Mellet’s part.
3. Election night delay
The polls closed at 7pm Saturday, but as I said above “official” results from the elections office didn’t come in until the wee hours of the morning. While official word was delayed, the candidates themselves had reports back from their scrutineers in the polling places. This led to some absurd moments, like when Sue Uteck conceded to Waye Mason, and Mason gave a victory speech, while at the moment the elections office was showing just 10 percent of the vote counted, and Mason losing not just to Uteck but to Gerry Walsh, who was leading.
Mellet explained the delay Sunday morning in a press release:
Results took longer than expected due to the need to verify some very tight races and logistical issues related to reporting and entering the results from over 500 polling tables throughout HRM.
That’s really a non-explanation, but the time, I didn’t put too much stock in the delay. I come from an American context where final election results normally don’t come in until 4 or 5am, and really what difference does it make when the results come in? Some of us are eager to get results, but I’d rather them done properly than quickly.
It now appears, however, that the counting on election night was neither quick nor proper, and if the “need to verify some very tight races” explained the delay, it served no real purpose as the verification was faulty, at least so far as District 3 goes. Further, in the context of repeated mistakes, misjudgements and at least the appearance of bias from the elections office, I’ve reconsidered my earlier view. I now think that yes, indeed, the election night delays are problematic, and reflective of bigger problems still at the elections office.
4. Flip-flopping on District 3 results
This is of course the relevant issue, and I’m sure this will be examined in great detail in coming days. Still, Sunday night Barkhouse led by six votes, today Karsten was declared winner by 68 votes.
I won’t make any assumptions about what the exact vote was. Clearly, a judge needs to look at this, and both Karsten and Barkhouse should examine each and every ballot.
But the exact vote aside, this is no way to treat either candidate. Further, this kind of mistake is an embarrassment, turning Halifax into a laughingstock, like Florida’s hanging chads.
5. Other questionable election results
A reader alerts me to two other problematic election results, as shown in the now-official tally.
In District 4, at the polling place at the Bissett Court retirement home, the results show one eligible voter, but 10 votes cast, for a turnout of 1,000 percent. And in District 16, at the Berekely-Bedford, there were 45 eligible voters, but 52 votes cast, for a turnout of 115 percent.
The reader gives a probable explanation for the figures: “people may have moved in after the lists were generated and swore eligibility at the tables.” But, he continues, “it still seems odd that the number of eligible electors wasn’t changed.”
Isolated, this is a petty issue, but it’s indicative of an overall sloppiness on the elections office’s part that should be worrisome, especially given the context of the other problems.
This situation cries out for action, and a public explanation of events.
Mellet did not immediately return a call for comment.
Update, 2:56pm
Jackie Barkhouse has issued the following statement:
At a meeting of all District 3 candidates Tuesday morning, HRM election officials explained that some of the results had been entered into the overall totals in error during the count Saturday night and Sunday morning. They presented new numbers showing that Bill Karsten has won.
The difference between our vote totals is large enough that I offer Bill Karsten my congratulations on his victory. However, the exact number of votes is still in question because my official agent and I noticed discrepancies even today.
It does no justice to the voters of District 3 or to the reputation of the democratic process in Halifax Regional Municipality if a counting process so flawed is not challenged.
I have the option until Oct. 30, 2012, to request a judicial recount in District 3 but have not done so because Municipal Clerk and Chief Returning Officer Cathy Mellett has told me that she is “actively pursuing” permission from Council to ask for a recount.
I hope that Council will follow the advice of the head of its election staff to pursue a judicial recount so residents of District 3 can be assured that their votes have been counted accurately.
The last three days have been an emotional roller coaster for me and my family that has left me physically exhausted. As a result, I will let this statement stand as my comment on the 2012 HRM municipal election. I’m going to spend some time with my family and maybe take my first vacation in four years.
Again, I want to thank all the people who have supported me throughout the campaign that just ended. Win or lose, you have been there for me. It has been an uplifting and at the same time humbling experience to have served you. Thank you all.
Jackie Barkhouse
Update, October 24, 2pm
Election coordinator/assistant returning officer Lori McKinnon sends the following email:
I wondered if I could take the opportunity (on behalf of the HRM Election Office) to address item 5 in [the article above].
Under the MEA (Municipal Elections Act) Section 40 (5) “the final list of electors shall be the lists of electors for the municipality until new lists have been prepared and revised”. The election office requests resident’s information from the Nursing Homes but it is often difficult to have a complete list prior to the creation of this final list of electors.
The final list (and numbers) are used to generate the official voter list and for reporting purposes of the results. It is not until the election office updates the elector list with the additions made at the poll locations that the new numbers are reflected.
The number of eligible electors as reported from Saturday will be adjusted in the municipal voter view(MVV) system before we return the data to Elections Nova Scotia. This may take a number of weeks.
Should you wish to discuss this, I welcome a call or email.
Thanks,
Lori McKinnon
Election Coordinator/Assistant Returning Officer
Election Office
Halifax Regional Municipality
This article appears in Oct 18-24, 2012.
I looked at the results of the last election, there were several tables with a voter turnout >1.000 percent. There must be a reasonable explanation for this.
But I’ve heard of several other issues in this elections and some I’ve witnessed first hand. Someone had access to my Login&pin, and I can prove it. And that person probably had access to hundreds or thousands of logins&pins.
The larger issue here is, however, that the most of the votes cast were not counted in Halifax at all. They were counted by a Spanish for-profit company in the United States.
The Jones fiasco raise more questions about her than Mellet. Jones goes back to work on November 16 and I do not know how she can function properly after her inability to understand the legal obligations she owed to the CAO, not to mention the questions she will face from her boss in the Legal department. Jones was one of the ‘Savage’ candidates who ran to ensure he had a majority of councillors on his side. Dudka was another ‘Savage’ candidate who failed to win a seat.
I don’t know the leanings of Karsten but the NDP will not be happy that they have lost a council seat that was theirs for so long, perhaps the Dexter effect is now working in reverse.
Daniel AJ, please email details. timb@thecoast.ca
Good article, Tim, but with respect you’ve got the Jones matter backwards.
The Court didn’t say that Jones should have the right to be a candidate — it ruled that once Jones’ candidacy was accepted by Mellett, that Mellett didn’t have the jurisdiction to remove Jones from the list of candidates.
Sounds technical, sure. But it matters because now we are never likely to know whether Jones’ candidacy was in line with the Act or not: a legal challenge would be a waste of time now as Jones didn’t win. If she had won you can be sure her victory would have been challenged in court by the losing candidate.
Lots of unanswered questions. The miscount is astounding however. Wow how could it be so far off? As a point of interest I received a voter envelope with login and pin for someone who moved from my house to the USA 8 years ago.
JohnvG – the electoral roll for federal, provincial and municipal elections is inaccurate and open to abuse.
There has been no federal enumeration since 1997 and the provinces and municipalities just use the old list and any additions. A non Canadian can tick the box on a tax return and be added to the lists and then vote.
A. – Jones has not been very professional in this matter. I wonder what the N S Barristers Society thinks of her conduct and failure to abide by the statutory requirements of a municipal employee seeking office with her employer.
Mallett also said they wouldn’t enforce the rules on election signs. As a candidate, I had to go through a short orientation where she told me the rules for signs, including that violations would result in a fine, and gave me a printout of the rules. When Cuoncillor Mosher, who voted for the sign rules, started breaking them on the Thanksgiving weekend, many people starting calling the city to complain. The two signs in question broke the size rules and the rules barring signs on public land. I followed-up as well and was told by Ms. Mallett that she wasn’t “going to go measure signs.” She criticized me for calling her, saying that it was a waste of my time: “Don’t you have anything better to be doing? You should be out campaigning.” In the end, Mosher breaking the rules and Mallett not enforcing them likely did not effect the outcome of the election. Still, it points to a trend of city hall favoring some candidates over others, and is certainly an example of the non-incumbent candidates being misled to the detriment of their campaigns and the benefit of the incumbents.
I know of people who received 2 codes in the mail, and voted twice, people using other people’s codes to vote, I do not trust electronic elections at all
Nyima – the so called ‘rules’ about signs are almost unenforceable
The courts have struck down almost all attempts to limit political signs on public space. If the signs hinder pedestrians or cause a obstruction to the sight lines of motorists then the Returning officer can order a candidate to remove the signs within 30 days. You should have put up your signs and ignored ‘the rules’. Ot, you could have removed the Mosher signs and waited for any reaction.
Ms Mellett had bigger issues to deal with, and that is not ‘favouritism’.
Yes, it was very tempting to use the extra pin that came to our house (one resident has moved away). I can well imagine that some people would not hold back. There was a very good reason for enumeration to be done before elections (municipality could use lists from other levels of gov). I expect our elections will become more and more sloppy and corrupt as it seems there is no longer the will to maintain the integrity of the system.
the more i read about this election the more i’m just done with it, i think next election im gonna go with the majority and not bother voting
A – I wouldn’t be surprised if Jones contested the results in her district saying it was unfair as she didn’t have the same amount of campaign time as the other candidates.
OMG Did ANGELA JONES really say this??
“Because they are trying to take away my democratic rights. You’ve seen them make legal mistakes in the past. This is another one. They don’t even have the authority to tell me I’m disqualified. This whole thing is so ridiculous, that I can’t even wrap my head around it.”
It’s uncanny how perfectly her words apply to the many times HRM violated my democratic rights! Threefold, in fact. In brief, 1. seizing my dog without investigation or reason, and holding her without legal authority (and of course passing an unconstitutional by-law, then pointlessly defending it in court), 2. evicting me illegally without cause or notice, then denying me the right to appeal as provided by statute, and 3. issuing a demolition order illegally (illegal three ways, actually – the committee was itself illegal, the heritage act was violated, and they failed to follow the statutory procedure such as issuing an “order to remedy” identifying something that needed fixing (they never cited anything) – there were no grounds for demolition. HRM even let me back in before rescinding the order.).
Items 2 and 3 were spearheaded (on instruction, no doubt) by none other than Angela Jones herself. She had no authority to disqualify me from appealing, and the demolition order was more than ridiculous! I cannot wrap my head around any of it to this day.
As for Mellet – don’t get me started. Suffice it to say, she worked hand in hand with Jones (and others). So none of their recent shenanigans come as a surprise. I’m just waiting to see if there are ever any consequences for public servants who play dirty in this town. Not holding my breath, tough.
My advice to Jackie Barkhouse: ask for a recount yourself, don’t leave it up to Cathy Mellet!
Halifax is beyond being a laughingstock, it’s tragically dysfunctional. Integrity can’t be at stake where there was none to begin with.
Speaking of integrity, I read on Twitter that Tim Bousquet never pays attention to online comments, because “commenters can be the stupidest, rudest people on Earth.” Hmmm.
Tim, you have new mail. 🙂
I actually took the time to double check my address and voter eligibility on the HRM website. Yet, I received 3 login/pins in the mail and none of them belonged to me. Reckless and unacceptable.