Oakland, CA (Special to ZennieReport.com) – Originally, a number of Oakland City Council Candidates, starting first with Selika Thomas, noted that the placement of names on the 2024 Elections ballot were such that Ms. Thomas’ name, in particular, was completely off the screen – unless you had the presence-of-mind to scroll down. That indicates a large problem that a growing number of Oaklanders say should be addressed.
Now, toward the objective of getting out their concerns to the public, a press announcement was texted to Zennie62Media, Inc. The contents of it are presented below, and in the original way they were delivered to me. But then here’s a snag that occurred at just before 1 AM PST.
The person who turned out to be the original author of the statement, which included Selika Thomas’ mention because, according to his text messages to me, she was supposed to be part of what I chose to call The At Large Candidates Coalition statement. The trouble was, they could not get a hold of her. All of that is mentioned here.
Biut then I get a late text where he wants me to eliminate her name altogether, even though from my perspective, it was Selika Thomas’ who started the news about the problem. So, as far as I was concerned, the story was going to start with her, and go from there, because that’s what happened. I was told about the post written by East Bay Citizen Blogger Steven Tavarez and featuring Ms. Thomas’ observations from a mutual friend who asked that I do something on the story. So, Selika’s concerns should be reflected in the discussion of the ballot problem because – and that’s what this post does. It’s only right and fair.
Now, here’s the original statement with each of the names of the people the original framers wanted involved. The names are included because there’s a story about why some of them are not. To remove some names and avoid that matter is to not tell the story correctly. Moreover, I never got an adjusted headline, and even if I did, leaving out Ms. Thomas is wrong, and so I would have ignored it.
What I do not get is why would the campaign manager behind the statement agree with me about Selika in text, and then turn around and suddenly want no mention of her, other than “She never participated in our effort”, as opposed to “We’re looking out for her as the person who broke the story”?
Because Selika Thomas did.
I’m sorry the campaign manager is upset with my honest presentation, but I’m a blogger and vlogger and it’s my job to call it as I see it.
Joint Statement by Oakland City Council At-Large Candidates: Kanitha Matoury, Selika Thomas, LeRonne Armstrong, Cristina Tostado, Mindy Pechenuk, Fabian Robinson, Charlene Wang, and Nancy Sidebotham
Dear Honorable Supervisors and Distinguished Members of the Board,
We, the undersigned candidates for Oakland City Council At-Large, are united in bringing to your attention a critical issue concerning the integrity and visibility of the Alameda County electronic voting machine interface during the recent election. This matter directly impacts the transparency and accuracy of our electoral process and raises significant concerns about the precedent it sets for future elections.
Specifically, it has come to our attention that the same visibility issue encountered in the 2022 Oakland Mayoral campaign where not all candidates appeared on a single screen — reoccurred in this election. This problem may have significantly affected voter recognition of all candidates on the ballot, including those listed beyond the initial screen view.
Our Concerns
We have received reports from voters, including supporters of Kanitha Matoury, indicating difficulty locating candidate names on the voting machine interface. This included instances where voters needed to request poll worker assistance to identify candidates. Members of our campaigns personally experienced this issue and can provide testimony and photographic evidence of the screens used during voting.
This lack of visibility equivalence raises serious questions:
- With eight candidates visible on the initial screen, how were voters informed there were additional names that weren’t readily findable?
- Why were no prompts or clear instructions provided to candidates in advance so they could advise their supporters where to find them on the machines?
- Why wasn’t the design standardized to require voters to acknowledge all names before making their selection, much like a standard “terms & conditions” prompt?
Such a design flaw violates the principles of fair ballot access and may contravene state and federal laws, including the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and California Elections Code Section 13200, among others.
Election Data Discrepancies
Polling data and initial election results indicate discrepancies that further warrant scrutiny:
- In pre-election polls conducted by SOS Oakland and the Chamber of Commerce, Kanitha Matoury ranked solidly in fourth place, with substantial rank choice voter support.
- Initial election night results placed her in fifth place, but the second update that night suddenly dropped her to seventh, below candidates with smaller campaigns — an outcome inconsistent with prior data.
- Then in subsequent voter tally updates, Kanitha’s rank rose back to 5th place-suggesting the voter machine vote count was a much lower percentage of voters than paper ballots at the in-person polling stations.
These anomalies necessitate a review of whether the voting interface’s visibility flaws contributed to the irregularities in vote accumulation.
Our United Request
We respectfully request the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to delay certification of the election results until an independent review is conducted. This review should include:
- Verification of electronic voting machines and paper ballot counts at in-person polling stations.
- An evaluation of whether the intertace design adhered to legal and transparency standards
- An acknowledgement by the Alameda County Office Of Registrar that vote counts could have been lower than expected for Kanitha Matoury and Selika Thomas.
- We are not challenging the outcome to favor any specific candidate. However, the integrity of Oakland’s future elections is paramount. This issue undermines voter confidence and calls for immediate corrective action to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency in our democratic process.
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter. We look forward to your response and action to ensure all votes cast by Oakland’s residents are accurately reflected and every candidate is afforded equal visibility.
Sincerely.
Kanitha Matoury
Selika Thomas
LeRonne Armstrong
Cristina Tostado
Mindy Pechenuk
Nancy Sidebotham
Rowena Brown
Charlene Wang
Candidate Fabian Robinson Is The Lone Hold Out For Now Or Until He Reads This
The newly formed coalition has seven of eight signatures, with, at this point, Oakland At Large Candidate Pastor Fabian Robinson as the only hold out. But even then my friend Pastor Robinson told the group (according to two sources and himself) that he was going to sign, then was fearful of upsetting Rowena Brown and so backed out, then was back in, and then changed his mind all over again.
The good Oakland Pastor Fabian Robinson changes his mind more than Imelda Marcos changed shoes! Unfortunately, it sends the wrong message to those who believe in him, including the Oakland At-Large candidate coalition.
A Note About Selika Thomas
According to sources, Selika Thomas, who was the candidate who first pointed to the problem, was not a participant in the At-Large Coalition Effort. Overall, the At-Large Coalition Effort drew official signatures of seven of ten of the candidates. And that included adding her signature, even though she did not verbally back out of their messaging. Reportedly, Thomas was sick. This blogger called her to check in but got no answer, so left a message. One source said that while Thomas did not contact them, she also did not send a note to object to the At-Large Coalition Effort’s actions.
The “Randomized Alphabet” Role In The Order Of Names On The Ballot
Some contend that the arrangement of the candidate names is random, and changes with each voter visit to the ballot. In this idea, there are some scenarios where all of the competitors names would appear in the first position. But a look at the California Secretary of State’s page on the “Randomized Alphabet” proves that contention is not correct. Here’s the text from that page, in it’s entirety:
On the 82nd day before an election, the Secretary of State conducts a randomized drawing of letters of the alphabet pursuant to California Elections Code section 13112. The resulting order of letters constitutes the “randomized alphabet” to be used for determining the order of candidates’ names on the ballot.
This alphabet applies throughout the candidate’s name, last name first, followed, if necessary, by first name, then middle name. If more than one candidate’s last name begins with the same letter, proceed to the second letter and, if needed, the third, etc., until different letters appear in the same position. If the second letter of the last name differs, the second letter of the last name determines who appears first on the ballot, according to where the second letter of the name appears in the randomized alphabet. If the second letters are the same, proceed to the third letter, and so on. For example, if two candidates with the last names Campbell and Carlson are running for the same office, their order on the ballot will depend on the order in which the letters “M” and “R” were drawn in the randomized alphabet drawing.
- Statewide Office Names of candidates for offices voted on statewide rotate by Assembly district, starting with Assembly District 1 where the names appear as first determined by the randomized alphabet. In Assembly District 2, the candidate who appeared first in Assembly District 1 drops to the bottom and the other candidates move up one position and so on throughout the 80 districts. This gives each candidate more than one opportunity to appear at the “top of the ticket” in his/her race.
- U.S. Congressional Office Congressional candidates follow the randomized alphabet and rotate within their districts with the lowest numbered Assembly district leading the rotation.
- State Legislative Office State Senate and Assembly candidates follow the randomized alphabet but do not rotate; however, if a legislative district crosses county lines, the elections officials of each county shall conduct a random drawing to determine candidate order for these offices in their county.
This procedure was established by legislation passed in 1975 in response to court rulings declaring that standard alphabetical order or incumbent-first was unconstitutional.
Those rules do not change on a per-municipality basis. So what’s the real problem? That the “user experience” of the ballot page is such that it does not present every name at a glance, but should. The open question at this point is what will the Alameda County Registrar do about the problem?
Stay tuned.