appeal of the fcdp special vacancy endorsement vote for school board, at-large

8/6/2019 Appeal of the FCDP Special Vacancy Endorsement Vote for School Board, At-Large

1/6

Jeannie Haston Armstrong,APPELLANT B EFOR E TH E CO NG RESSIONAL DISTRICT COMMITTEES FOR THE 8TlI, 10m,AND 11m CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

APPEAL OF THE SPECIAL VACANCY ENDORSEMENT VOTE OF THEFAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY

SCHOOL BOARD, AT LARGE

TO THE HONORABLE FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONALDISTRICT CHAIRS FOR THE 8th, 10th, and 11th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OFVIRGINIA:

NOW COMES Jeannie Haston Armstrong, Appellant, appealing the result of theSpecial Vacancy Endorsement Vote of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee and, insupport thereof, shows as follows:L PARTIES

1. Jeannie Haston Armstrong, Appellant is a candidate for Fairfax CountySchool Board, At Large, and was duly qualified to seek the endorsement of the FairfaxCounty Democratic Committee for Fairfax County School Board, At Large. She may beserved via electronic mail at [email protected], or by United States Mail at10323 Steamboat Landing, Burke, Virginia.II. JURISDIcrlON &VENUE

2. Appellant brings this appeal pursuant to Section 8.5 of the DemocraticParty Plan of the Democratic Party of Virginia, as revised, December, 2010 (hereinafter''Virginia Democratic Party Plan), which states in relevant part:

Any person aggrieved by any decision, action orfailure to act by a county or citycommittee may appeal to the district committee for the congressional district inwhich the county or city is situated, disposition of such appeal shall follow theprocedure outlined in the previous paragraph when the county or city is dividedbetween tw o or m ore d istricts. The decision oj.. tbe.co n.g.";,usio.'lo"l,,d is tt ict .committeeis) may be appealed 10 the Steering Committee.


2/6

m . STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the Virginia Democratic Pa rty P lan , venue isproper before the Democratic Congressional District Chairs of the three CongressionalDistricts contained within or bisecting Fairfax County, Virginia.

4. Appellant is a candidate for Fairfax County School Board, at large.Appellant is a Democrat and member in good standing of the Fairfax County DemocraticParty.

5. On or about July 12, 2011, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee'sSteering Committee (hereinafter he Steering Committee") adopted rules for a SpecialVacancy Endorsement Process fo r Fairfax County School Board, At Large, following thewithdrawal of endorsed candidate Charisse Glassman.

6. On July 26, 2011, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee held anendorsement vote for the Special Vacancy Endorsement in Fairfax, Virginia. The resultsof that election placed Ryan McElveen, also a candidate for Fairfax County SchoolBoard, At Large, two votes ahead of appellant, and McElveen was awarded theendorsement by virtue of the vote.m . ApPELLANT'S CONTENTION

7. Appellant contends that the July 26,2011 vote for the Fairfax. CountyDemocratic Committee was improperly conducted and was ripe for fraud anddisenfranchisement of voters.

8. Appellant contends that the procedures set forth for the Special VacancyEndorsement by the Steering Commisee.wene &'\-"VIed",in,violatiofil'ilfbe ~eN !.OOraticparty Plan of the Democratic Party of Virginia, in violation of the bylaws of the FairfaxCounty Democratic Committee, and in violation of Section 5 of the federal Voting RightsAct.m. ApPELLANT'S CONTENTION

9. The Rules For The SpecialVacancyEndorsement ProcessViolateFCDC Bylaws. The rules promulgated by the Fairfax. County Democratic Committee forthe special vacancy endorsement are in direct violation of and in conflict with FairfaxCounty Democratic Committee Bylaws.

The Bylaws of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee (as amended,November, 2010) at Article X, Section 5 briefly outlines the manner in whichendorsements may be granted by the FCOC. This section of the bylaws does not,however, give the FCDe or the Steering CoIIUIJ.tt:1eehe express autho~ty to.establishprocedures outside those outlined in the bylaws for endorsement screening, or forhandling an endorsement screening in the event a previously endorsed candidate


3/6

withdraws or is otherwise disqualified. Additionally, nothing in the P CD C Bylawsauthorizes the FCDe to conduct endorsement elections by secret ballot.

10. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules Failed To Provide AdequateProtection Against Fraud and Repeat ~ting. The rules ~muJgatoo by the Stee'riag .Committee fail to protect candidates and FCDC members from fraud and repeat voting.

a. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules Failed To RequireNumbered Ballots. Numbered ballots were not used in the endorsementvote last night. The purpose of consecutively numbered ballots-such asthose used in federal and state elections-is to prevent ballot box stuffingand fraud. Additionally, utilizing numbered ballots allows the authorityadministering the election to track the number of a specific ballot to theindividual voter the ballot was given. Without numbered ballots, it isimpossible to tell if additional ballots were cast by the same voters, or ifsome voters' ballots were replaced, not tallied, or otherwise disposed of.The FCDC created a process ripe fOJ;potential fraud and mismaaagesnent. t trt b. The Absence Of Numbered Ballots Created Ample Opportunity ForFraud And Repeat Voting. Without numbered ballots, any person couldhave easily cast multiple votes, discarded votes cast by others, or providedadditional ballots to anyone present.c. The Absence of Numbered Ballots Fails To Allow For IndependentVerification Of Election Results. Without numbered ballots, it isimpossible to match each and every vote cast to an individual dulycredentialed and physically present for the voting process.

11. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules fail to require adequatemeasures to protect cast and uncast baUots. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rulesinclude no provisions for the security of the ballots prior to, during, or after the vote. Thisresulted in a chaotic process by which District Chairs could have easily obtained anexcess number of ballots to distribute. The rules provided no requirement for a traceablechain of custody from printing to distribution and counting of the ballots. In addition,there were no security measures in place to protect unused or undistributed ballots frombeing obtained and cast during the process.

12. The Minimal Protection Measures Built Into The Special VacancyEndorsement Rules Were Not Properly FoUowed. Special Vacancy EndorsementRules ill (A) through m(C) were not properly followed by the FCDC. Several districtchairs "verified" attendance within their districts with no assistants, monitoring, orverification. "Eligible Voters" were "verified" at the start of the meeting-not when itwas time to distribute ballots as required in the rules. In addition, there was no uniformityamong Magisterial Districts with regard to the manner in which eligible voters wereverified.


4/6

All Democratic committees shall adopt bylaws, rules or regulations deemednecessary for the proper operation of such committee. Such bylaws, rules orregulations when not in conflict with law or this Plan, shall be considered valid and

13. There Is No Independently V erifiable M ethod To Pro ve AttendanceOf Eligible Vote~ Each district chair used.their own method to.attempt to conform tothe Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules, and Appellant is unaware of any instance wherethe actual "eligible voters" were required to take any action by which their presence atthe meeting could later be independently verified-such as through signing a sign-insheet with their District Chair. Any District Chair wishing to tip the election in favor ofone candidate or another would have been free to simply fill names in on their lists andclaim those individuals were present at the meeting, received a ballot, and cast that ballot.

14. The ''Teller'' Process Promulgated By The Rules Was EasilyManipulated And Not Properly Followed. The requirement that the Chairs return castballots to the tellers creates a process which is easily manipulated to disenfranchise votersthrough discarding of ballots, the addition of pre-marked ballots to the collection ofballots, and other forms of fraud. Even though the FCDC promulgated this rule, it wasnot actually followed in at least half of the Districts where random FCDC members andother people Appellant was not able to identify as District Chairs, their Assistants, orFCDC members, collected ballots by various unsecured means and transported them tothe tellers. Any process which adds a third party handling ballots between the voterhimself and the ballot box is far too easily manipulated to serve as a standard for such animportant election as this.

15. The Rules Failed to Set Forth Any Standard By Which Spoiled BallotsShould Be Discarded. In addition to failing to provide any standard by which uncastballots should be secured the Special Endorsement Rules provided no standard by whichspoiled ballots should be discarded or handled.

16. Rule n(C) or the Special Vacancy Endersement Rules was notuniformly followed. There appears to have been no process whatsoever by whichDistrict Chairs could adequately-and subject to independent verification-verify theeligibility of the voters present. Even if such a process existed, because it was handledsolely by the District Chairs as..hex ed around the venue, it is impossible todetermine if it was done accurately. .

17. The Special Vacancy Eudorsement Process Violates Sections 8.7 and10.2 of the Virginia Democratic party Plan. Section 8.7 of the Virginia DemocraticParty Plan (as adopted December 4. 2010) requires the County Committee to submit itsbylaws to the state party for review. As the Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules werepromulgated as an extension of the bylaws to address an area where the bylaws are silent(specifically, withdrawal of a candidate), these rules should have been submitted to thestate party for review. It appears they were not.Additionally, Section 10.2 of the Virginia Democratic Party Plan states as follows:.


5/6

R ES PE CfF UL L Y S UB M IT IE D.

b in din g. Such b ylaws, r ule s o r r eg ula tio ns sha ll b e ma ile d to S ta te h eadqua rte rswithin fourteen (14) days of approval by any Democratic committee and shall bekept on permanent file and made available for public viewing.

Appellant considers the Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules invalid because they are inconflict with the Plan, and because they were not, as we understand it. submitted to m estate party within 14 days of their approval.

18. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Process Rules Violate The FederalVoting Rights Act. Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearancerequirement of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, a voting change effectedby a political party is subject to pre-clearance if that change relates to a public electoralfunction of the party. (28 C.F.R. 51.7) Appellant contents that the FCDC should havesubmitted the Special Vacancy Endorsement Process Rules to the U.S. Department ofJustice for preclearance prior to actually administering an endorsement election underthese rules. Appellant believes that the changes resultant from the Special EndorsementProcess Rules constitute the type of cbange requiring preclearance outlined in 28 C.F.R. 51.7.IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE. premises considered, Appellant prays that the CongressionalDistrict Democratic Committee confirm that the results of the Special Endorsement Voteconducted on July 26, 2011, were irreparably flawed, ripe for fraud, and unable to beindependently verified, and that the Committee take one of the following courses ofaction to resolve this issue:

Require the FCDC to hold a revote with revised rules. We request that theFCDC be ordered to conduct a re-vote at the earliest possible opportunity. and thatrevised roles be promulgated to address ballot security. provide auditabIe sign-in sheetsfor voters. and other issues raised hereinabove; or

Require that FCDC endorse both candidates. Because the endorsement itselfdoes not appear on the November ballot, nothing in state law or party rules or bylawsprevent the FCDC from awarding both candidates the Party's endorsement for use bytheir campaigns.

c .s.zs:Jeannie Haston Armstrong ~

Appellant10323 Steamboat LandingBurke. Virginia


6/6

CERT IFICATE OF SER\1ICEI hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appeal wastransmitted by the means specified below to the following individuals:1. Ryan McElveen, candidate for Fairfax County School Board, AtLarge (via electronic mail)

Rex Simmons, Chair, FCDC (via electronic mail)Hon. Margo Homer, Chair. 81 b Congressional District Committee(via electronic mail)Hon. Sam Crocket, Chair, 10thCongressional District Committee(via electronic mail)Hon. George Burke, Chair, 111b Congressional District, (viaelectronic mail)Hon. Brian Moran, State Chair, Democratic Party of Virginia (viaelectronic mail)David Mills. Executive Director, Democratic Party of Virginia (viaelectronic mail)Don Mark, Political Director. Democratic Party of Virginia (viaelectronic mail)

2.3.4 .

5.6.7 .

8.

appeal of the fcdp special vacancy endorsement vote for school board, at-large

Documents