Absentee Ballot Hijinks in Hartford?

Evelyn Cruz filed a complaint accusing another resident, Clorinda Soldevila, of hand-delivering three absentee ballots to her home on Bond Street, and then picking up those ballots and delivering them to city hall.

Hartford Courant: Hartford Resident Alleges Illegal Handling Of Absentee Ballots <read>

Evelyn Cruz filed a complaint accusing another resident, Clorinda Soldevila, of hand-delivering three absentee ballots to her home on Bond Street, and then picking up those ballots and delivering them to city hall…

Cruz said in her complaint that Soldevila visited her on Feb. 4 and asked her to sign an application for an absentee ballot, which she did “with the understanding that [Soldevila] would return it to city hall.”

Cruz said she expected that city hall would mail her an absentee ballot, and that she would mail it back. But a week later, she wrote in the complaint, Soldevila turned up at her home again, this time with three absentee ballots — for Cruz, her husband and her daughter-in-law. She said Soldevila asked her to fill out a ballot, which she did, and put it into an envelope.

“Before I had a chance to place the envelope in the mail, Ms. Soldevila returned to my home and picked up the envelope, and told me that she would return it to city hall. This happened about two days after she brought the ballots,” Cruz wrote.

[Town and City Clerk John] Bazzano said, however, that the ballots were not dropped off, but that his office received the three absentee ballots by mail in sealed envelopes, which had been stamped and postmarked. He said the office would never accept hand-delivered ballots.

“We have the proof and the facts to back up that we did it right,” Bazzano said. “All of the envelopes are clearly stamped and postmarked.

Not sure we understand Bazzano’s statement or maybe the article is confused.  It could be accurate, however, if someone took the three absentee ballots illegally they still could have mailed them in and the main allegation would remain unresolved.

Scanners 0, Hand count 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 2

Connecticut has little reason to take comfort in New York’s latest election embarrassment. We do not expect an official system to recognize unofficial counts, yet we do expect a system that recognizes problems, and reacts by taking reasonable steps to correct errors.

Connecticut has little reason to take comfort in New York’s latest election embarrassment.

Yesterday we had this story from the New York Daily News:  Board of Elections does nothing as hundreds of Bronx votes go missing <read>

More than six months ago, voting experts at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center detected an alarming pattern at one polling place in the South Bronx:

The tallies from the electronic scanning machines at Public School 65 included high proportions of invalidated votes.

There were two possibilities: Either huge numbers of voters had improperly filled out their ballots, or at least one of the scanners had gone haywire. The board did nothing. Actually, the board did worse than nothing. It refused to check — even when asked to do so by state election officials.

Using the Freedom of Information Law, this editorial page then demanded the right to inspect ballots cast at PS 65 in the 2010 primary and general elections — the ones that put Gov. Cuomo into office.

The board complied, marking what may be the first time members of the public in New York State have been given permission to look over cast ballots and review how they were counted.

All too predictably, we discovered that voters had done their part correctly, while one of the three scanners at PS 65 misread and miscounted votes.

Scanners 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 1

But that is New York, not Connecticut. Our ancestors sold wooden nutmegs to the ancestors of today’s New Yorkers.

Recall November 2010 when Bridgeport had a  problem running out of ballots compounded by problems hand counting and accounting for the the photocopied ballots. The Connecticut Post asked to count the ballots, Bridgeport complied and citizens counted them.  And the State of Connecticut, nothing. The “Official” Bridgeport results still stand.

By our count, 20 of 25 polling places had photocopied paper ballots, but even that number was never recognized officially. We are reminded of this by an article, also yesterday, in the Hartford Courant covering a talk by the Secretary of the State: Secretary Of The State Outlines Proposed Changes In Elections <read>

Merrill has been considering changes to the way votes are cast in Connecticut following the November 2010 election fiasco in Bridgeport where only 21,000 paper ballots were preprinted in a city of 69,000 registered voters and 12 of 25 polling places ran out of ballots.

Of course we do not expect an official system to recognize unofficial counts, we do expect a system that recognizes problems, and reacts by taking reasonable steps to correct errors. We cannot hold the current Secretary accountable for actions that occurred before she took office yet we would like to see a system that not only reduced the changes of a very similar disaster, but also one that can recover from a variety of similar and dissimilar disasters in the future.

Scanners 0, Hand count 0, Officials 0, Press/Citizens 2

Bridgeport: Early ballots bring victories, sometimes fraud

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

CTPost article: Absentees: Early ballots bring victories, sometimes fraud <read> The article discusses the pursuit of absentee votes in the recent primary, the history of absentee ballot fraud in Bridgeport, and the Secretary of the State’s comments for early voting in preference to absentee voting.

“Goal: 1,200 absentee applications,” read a sign hanging in Mayor Bill Finch’s campaign headquarters last month.

By the time polls opened at 6 a.m. on Sept. 27, that goal had been surpassed — more than 1,300 applications were turned in and nearly 900 ballots returned. Before the first paper ballot was marked, Finch already had a 420-vote lead over Democratic challenger Mary-Jane Foster on Primary Day, the fruits of a well-organized absentee ballot operation.

“We, the politicians, we will do whatever we can to get that vote,” said Lydia Martinez, an East Side city councilwoman who for years has led the most successful absentee ballot operations in the city. “You can give transportation to people. You can call people to ask if they got their absentee ballot. I do have a record of who votes by absentee every year. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know who the people are.”

In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.

Nearly all the cases involved a Democrat helping someone apply, vote or submit their absentee ballot.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill said she’d like to make reforms that could prevent absentee voter fraud. She said the problems could be resolved if Connecticut took advantage of new technology. One area she is considering is keeping electronic copies of voter signatures on file so they could be compared to what appears on the ballot or application.

Additionally, she is proposing a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to explore methods of increasing voter turnout by such practices as early voting, thus eliminating reasons for voting by absentee ballot.

Connecticut is one of 15 states, including New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, that do not allow early voting and require valid reasons for voting by absentee ballot. Nearly 30 states allow voters to cast an absentee ballot without Connecticut’s required excuses of being out of town, working, disabled or sick on election day. In Oregon and Washington, voting is done entirely by mail.

“No system is going to be perfect,” Merrill said. “Think of how elaborate the process is now and you still get allegations of fraud.”

Online Voting: Hartford Courant hacked?

Was the “online tampering” done by outside hackers? Or was it an insider? Does the Courant have the expertise to determine the cause in this instance and actually create effective controls to prevent future online voting attacks? If so, the editors should be advising the likes of the Department of Defense, banks, and Google.

We note a small correction box in today’s Hartford Courant:

CORRECTION

  The results of a Buzz question on Senate Candidate Linda McMahon that ran on courant.com last week and in print Sunday were exaggerated due to apparent online tampering. Controls have been put into place to prevent improper manipulation of Buzz results.

Checking the Sunday edition we see that in answer to the question, “Can Linda McMahon win a Senate seat in 2012?” The poll said Yes 6%, No 94%.  And in the four polls the total votes for the other three were 456, 1,759, and 2,588, while in the McMahon poll there were 14,348 votes.

Was the “online tampering” done by outside hackers? Or was it an insider? Does the Courant have the expertise to determine the cause in this instance and actually create effective controls to prevent future online voting attacks? If so, the editors should be advising the likes of the Department of Defense, banks, and Google.

Hopefully Connecticut’s registrars will not be forced by the legislature to provide online voting. According to Secretary of the State Merrill, one-third of registrars do not even have web access. On October 27th the state will have the opportunity to hear from experts on the risks of online voting and the other options for serving military and overseas voters.

Absentee Fraud in Bridgeport? Who could have imagined?

Who says there is little a single legislator can do to affect election integrity and confidence? Human error can change an election result or serve as a ready excuse to cover-up fraud.

A couple hours ago we quoted Denise Merrill when she said “Most of this stuff doesn’t get attention until something goes wrong“. Right on cue, an opportunity presents itself to address the current risks of absentee voting and avoid the expanded potential for fraud and disenfranchisement with no-excuse absentee voting:

Article in the Connecticut Post:  MariAn Gail Brown: Absentee ballot issues cast doubt on primary <read>

Hendricks is the voter who filed an affidavit claiming state Rep. Ezequiel Santiago showed up on her doorstep last Thursday asking if she was voting by absentee ballot. When Hendricks informed him that her vote in next Tuesday’s primary would be cast by absentee ballot, Santiago made her an offer.

“He told me that he would take the ballot from me,” Hendricks says in a sworn statement, “to turn in if I hadn’t sent it already.”

Hendricks might be old but if her mind is still sharp, assuming her assessment of the situation is correct, this is an election law violation. The only people who can turn in absentee ballots are electors themselves, their legal guardian, or a caretaker such as a doctor or nurse who has an affidavit signed by the absentee voter…

“I was there that day to check to see whether the residents received their ballots or not,” Santiago says. “I also stressed to them that they shouldn’t allow anyone from any campaign (to) help them fill out their ballots for them.”

Don’t you just wonder why a state representative who is also a city employee who makes it a point to tell Hendricks, according to her affidavit, that he does “a lot of work up in Hartford for senior citizens” would then tell Connecticut Post reporter John Burgeson that he merely “stressed to them that they shouldn’t allow anyone from any campaign” to help them? If that really was Santiago’s mission, why show up there? He could have just as easily issued a letter to his constituents. It’s just hard to buy that Santiago wasn’t there to troll for absentee ballots.

Maybe only because they checked, and maybe only because of this attention it was discovered that the voter was sent two absentee ballots:

 The only way Hendricks would have received two absentee ballots, Bridgeport’s town clerk says, is that she filed two absentee ballot applications. To Maya, this points out another shortcoming in the election process in Connecticut’s biggest city.

“What we need is an automated absentee ballot system. I’ve researched that. And I even found one that met our needs,” Maya says. “But there were glitches in the program that I found and we can’t use that. But we have so many absentee ballots that this system we have of doing all this by hand doesn’t work anymore.”

We are not buying that excuse.

“What we need is an automated absentee ballot system. I’ve researched that. And I even found one that met our needs,” Maya says. “But there were glitches in the program that I found and we can’t use that. But we have so many absentee ballots that this system we have of doing all this by hand doesn’t work anymore.”

A decade ago Bridgeport’s town clerk had 17 employees. In 2007, the department had nine employees. And now with retirements and layoffs, this campaign season the town clerk’s is down to six staffers, who not only process absentee ballots, but handle land records, register business trade names and issue dog licenses, among other things.

As the article says the number of absentee ballots sent for this election is 1,100. We wonder how many of those are duplicates? So far, it seems that for the one voter checked, it was a duplicate. Just last November, the  citizen Bridgeport Recount showed 1,221 absentee votes for Governor, but the city’s official count was 1,181, so there is certainly plenty of precedent for inaccurate counts in Bridgeport, yet the 1,100 represents a decrease in absentee ballots sent last November. (Unless some magically appeared back then.)

 Who says there is little a single legislator can do to affect election integrity and confidence? Human error can change an election result or serve as a ready excuse to cover-up fraud.

Related: Today, Secretary Merrill responds to critical editorial, articulates her position on early voting, mail-in, and no-excuse absentee voting. <read>

Update: We have looked up the existing Google election application used by many to find their polling places. Politico: Google polling app misleads voters <read> Last spring we attended a presentation by Google on the system. In reply to our question, the Google representative confirmed that the application is only as good as the data supplied by the state. Which in Connecticut’s case would need to come from our inaccurate state system as reported by the Audit Coalition. Sadly, the Legislature and the Secretary of the State’s Office chose not to require Registrars to keep the system up to date, but choose to have Registrars file yet another paper report with the Secretary of the State <see our testimony page 16>

Sec 4. (NEW) Also requires registrars to certify to the Secretary of the State a list of polling
places prior to each election. The Secretary of the State needs to have an accurate list of polling
places to be in compliance with the law and to restore the integrity of the post-election audit
random drawing.

We support this goal, but propose a more efficient 21st century solution.

We recommend instead that registrars be required to certify that the Statewide Centralized Voter
Registration System is up to date with the correct list of polling places, rather than submit a list
of polling places. In 2010 the Secretary of the State’s Office used the registration system
information to provide voters with online access to verify their registration and determine the
location of their polling place – it would seem to be more efficient to have

  • registrars be required to keep the online list accurate,
  • provide voters with certified accurate information.

Our recommendation would

  • avoid redundant transcription by the registrars,
  • reduce the paperwork and redundant data entry required for the random drawing, while increasing automation at the Secretary of the State’s Office,
  • and provide voters with accurate polling place information, available online.

Laws interact – be careful what you legislate

Earlier this month we cautioned the legislature about enacting the UMOVE Act without providing election officials an opportunity to check for conflicts with existing laws. We highlight an example of a similar conflict in existing state and local laws that frustrates officials and disenfranchises voters.

Earlier this month we cautioned the legislature on enacting an unspecified “Uniform” Military and Overseas Voting Act (UMOVE Act).  The “Uniform” bill requires forty-five days advanced availability of absentee ballots for optionally specified state and local elections, primaries, and referendums. The proposed law had only the following text available for the public hearing:

That the general statutes be amended to adopt the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act.

In our testimony (page 13), we warned and recommended, among other things:

The uniform law text has options that each state may or may not include primaries, run-offs, and referendums in the “uniform law”. For any of these included, absentee ballots must be available 45 days in advance, just as they are in Federal elections. Currently under Sec. 9-369c of the statutes, absentee ballots must be made available three weeks in advance of a referendum and in some circumstances, less. This may pose even more difficult timing challenges if run-offs are included…

I caution against passing this bill without public hearings, providing for review and comment on the actual text of a proposed bill – especially, giving election officials an opportuntity to point out implementation challenges and conflicts with current statutory deadlines.

Today we highlight an article which brings our point home. It is a story of election officials trying to cope with conflicting state and local laws for election deadlines and absentee ballot deadlines. In the Monroe Patch: Absentee Ballots Won’t be Mailed Out. Who’s at Fault? <read>

Town Clerk’s Office employees will be busy preparing for the April 5 budget referendum, issuing absentee ballots over the counter to residents who will not be able to vote in person and processing mailed in ballots voters obtain online…

On Friday, Town Clerk Marsha Beno said she wants to avoid another State Elections Enforcement complaint…

The statute requires a town clerk to have the exact language on a ballot at least three weeks before absentee ballots are mailed out to voters. Beno said the town could not meet that timeline for the April 5 referendum…

[Democratic Town Committee Chairwoman Patricia] Ulatowski says Town Attorney Jack Fracassini, Beno and Town Council leadership are to blame, because they were informed of the State Election Enforcement Commission’s decision on her complaint agreeing that the town violated General Statute 9-369c during two referendums in 2009, and could have influenced a speeding up of the budget process to meet the three week deadline to mail out absentee ballots.

Democratic Registrar of Voters Sue Koneff looked at the Town Charter and came up with a schedule that could allow the town to meet the three-week deadline and comply with the state statute, according to Ulatowski.

The result is frustrated officials and disenfranchised voters.

WFSB: What It Takes To Be A Registrar – Politics Play Out In Registrar’s Office

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

The I-Team provides a bit of an introduction to our unique system of 339 local elected Registrars of Voters along with some interesting tidbits <read>

“The secretary of state’s office sets the rules and sets the regulations, but we have very little power over local decision making,” said Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.Registrars’ offices are in each of the state’s 169 cities and towns.

There are at least two in every office, a Republican and Democrat, who are nominated by their parties and most often run unopposed. Responsibilities include running the polls on Election Day, but also maintaining the voter rolls, and making sure voting machines are available and in working order — to name just a few things.

“We want to assure the voters that their elections are clean,” said Karen Doyle Lyons, Republican registrar in Norwalk.The I-Team’s research showed most registrars are part time and do not receive benefits.

The ones from Burlington earned just $1,900 a year, but registrars are full time in the state’s larger cities.In Bridgeport, the two registrars each earn $65,000.

In Hartford, there are three registrars because of a significant third party, and they each receive $80,000 plus benefits, and they often have full-time support staff…

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

“If you had one person, you’d be paying them twice as much because you’re splitting up the work,” said Will Brinton, Republican registrar in Bethany.

Readers may recall we suggested a pay cut for the Hartford registrars so that three could do the same job at the same rate as two.

Urania Petit is one of three [Hartford registrars]  making $80,000 there and she’s with the Working Families Party.”The law says if I got one vote over a major party, and in this case it was the Republican Party, I become a registrar, but the major party stays,” Petit said.

Petit said she tried to take a pay cut and she was instructed not to.

She told the I-Team she tried to share the load in the office, but the Democratic registrar of voters would not let her.”I receive a memo one time that said if a Democrat came into the office,

I could not serve that Democratic voter, yet still the office is nonpartisan,” she said.

Readers may recall how this non-partisan thing goes, when a slate was ruled intelligible to run, just one year ago: Registrar of Voters suit: Alleged to have fudged petitions for herself and relatives

Last week we testified to the Legislature. Also testifying was Judi Beaudreau, Registrar of Voters in Vernon, for whom we have worked on three election days. Judi and I do not agree on everything, but we certainly agreed when Judi testified for consolidation. We should consider doing for elections what we have done for  probate in Connecticut. As Judi suggested to the I-team:

Beaudreau, a registrar with almost 30 years experience, said many of her colleagues are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated, but added that’s not always the case.

“Registrars come into the job they don’t even have computer skills,” Beaudreau said. “A lot of them are in fear they are going to lose their job.

Well, maybe some of them should.”Beaudreau explained in a number of towns, the registrars of voters remains a patronage job.

“What happens now in the system is that the political parties will pick a person to run for the office, and it may be a person who has put stamps on envelopes or labels on envelopes. Nobody else has the guts to say it because it would be political suicide to ’em,” she said.

And Beaudreau said many registrars’ offices have become so poisoned by politics they cannot operate effectively.”Politics has got to stay out of the elections,” Beaudreau said…

Beaudreau believes just one registrar, who is not elected but has some kind of training certification and is chosen by the state, could work in Connecticut’s larger communities, and smaller towns could get by without one at all, instead having a regional approach, much the way probate judges have been reorganized.

“Each of these small little towns would be just another polling place, but there would be one major registrar, and if political parties needed to have representation in the office, have deputies, one from each political party,” Beaudreau said.

Coalition Report: Bridgeport Recount and Recommendations

Votes were miscounted and miscalculated adding votes to each candidate, but not changing winner in the race for governor

Each candidate for the governor’s race gained votes in the recount when compared to the officially reported results, as follows: Foley (+174), Malloy (+761), and Marsh (+19). These differences parallel candidate shares in the initially reported results. Counting of all ballots in the governor’s race resulted in differences in many counts, totaling 1,520 votes miscounted, of these 1,236 were initially under reported and 284 were initially over reported.

Simply printing more ballots only reduces the chance of the specific problem that occurred in Bridgeport. There are other causes that could result in a municipality having to scramble to photocopy ballots or perform hand counting such as a massive power failure or ballots lost in a fire, flood, or accident shortly before or during Election Day.

Votes were miscounted and miscalculated adding votes to each candidate, but not changing winner in the race for governor

Each candidate for the governor’s race gained votes in the recount when compared to the officially reported results, as follows: Foley (+174), Malloy (+761), and Marsh (+19). These differences parallel candidate shares in the initially reported results. Counting of all ballots in the governor’s race resulted in differences in many counts, totaling 1,520 votes miscounted, of these 1,236 were initially under reported and 284 were initially over reported.

Simply printing more ballots only reduces the chance of the specific problem that occurred in Bridgeport. There are other causes that could result in a municipality having to scramble to photocopy ballots or perform hand counting such as a massive power failure or ballots lost in a fire, flood, or accident shortly before or during Election Day.

Full report, press release, and supporting details at Coalition site:  <read>

Bridgeport Registrar offers fix, Secretary responds

[Republican Registrar of Voters] Borges also said that the Bridgeport registrar’s office is stretched too thin.
[Bysiewicz] feels the Bridgeport office is well-staffed — it spends $551,466 annually, most of that in salaries for two registrars

Fairfield Weekly: Notes from a Scandal <read>

[Republican Registrar of Voters] Borges says he’s faced is a dearth of competent personnel to staff polling places. In the past, polls in Bridgeport have closed when workers didn’t show up, he recalls. He suggests urban registrars partner with corporations to help get quality people at the polls, offering to reward the companies in some fashion. (The only requirement to work at a polling station is being registered to vote.)

The secretary of the state’s office offered its own solution to the problem in 2008 by recruiting 125 students at community colleges, including Housatonic Community College. The average age of poll workers is over 70 and they hoped to attract a younger generation. However, “registrars were reluctant to hire these people,” says Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley Mara, a Democrat, because they were perceived to be in Barack Obama’s camp.

Borges also said that the Bridgeport registrar’s office is stretched too thin. The state’s election laws grant complete control over local elections to municipalities and the decentralized system punishes large, cash-strapped cities, he says. Borges thinks registrars should work directly under the secretary of the state.

“That’s probably not going to happen anytime soon,” says outgoing Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who adds that she feels the Bridgeport office is well-staffed — it spends $551,466 annually, most of that in salaries for two registrars (one for each major party), two deputy registrars, a secretarial assistant and seasonal employees. Santa Ayala, Borges’ Democratic counterpart who ordered too few ballots for Nov. 2, did not return the Weekly’s calls seeking an interview.

Guest Post: Discrepancies in vote counts

The SOTS [Secretary of the State’s] reporting of election results appears to have improved since 2008. That year, many votes on the Working Families Party line went unreported or were lumped in with the counts on the Democratic line…

However, the SOTS or the town officials seem to have overlooked some votes for Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh: in Bozrah and Shelton, the SOTS reports 0 votes while the Hartford Courant reports 27 and 198 respectively.

[CTVotersCount applauds David Bedell for his extensive efforts in checking results and encourage officials to correct the vote counts reported as official by the Secretary of the State and for his posting his report here. It is important that all votes be accurately reported for third parties because that is the basis for ballot access in future elections.]

The SOTS [Secretary of the State’s] reporting of election results appears to have improved since 2008. That year, many votes on the Working Families Party line went unreported or were lumped in with the counts on the Democratic line.

This year, after some initial confusion over some towns (e.g., East Windsor), the WFP results are now on the SOTS website; at least, there are no zeros in the WFP column. However, the SOTS or the town officials seem to have overlooked some votes for Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh: in Bozrah and Shelton, the SOTS reports 0 votes while the Hartford Courant reports 27 and 198 respectively.

[Some examples sent David sent earlier – Editor]

Shelton Votes For Governor

There appears to be an error in the election results for Governor published by the SOTS. For the town of Shelton, SOTS reports 0 votes for Tom Marsh (Independent). But the Shelton Town Clerk reports 198 votes for Marsh (see email pasted below):

—————————————-
> From: m.domorod@cityofshelton.org
> To: dbedellgreen@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: omitted election results for Shelton
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:22:53 -0500
>
>
>
> Mr. Bedell,
>
> Tom Marsh received the following votes in the City of Shelton:
>
> Districts 1 & 2 = 59 votes; Districts 3,4,5 & 6= 139 votes ; total of 198
> votes
>
>
> Margaret Domorod
> City/Town Clerk

Darien Votes for Comptroller

There appears to be an error in the election results for Comptroller published by the SOTS. For the town of Darien, SOTS reports 0 votes for Joshua Katz (Libertarian) and 0 votes for Hugh Dolan (Independent). But the Darien Town Clerk reports 66 votes for Joshua Katz and 70 votes for Hugh Dolan (see email pasted below):

—————————————-
> From: DRajczewski@darienct.gov
> To: dbedellgreen@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:50:48 -0500
> Subject: RE: omitted election results for Darien
>
> Mr. Katz received 66 votes and Mr. Dolan received 70 votes.