Perkin’ Off

“Every election has problems, but in this case, all the problems seem to have been his…He got all the zeroes and undercounting…Some gross mistakes have been made. In this case, it was strictly with regards to Obama [the issue is more] than one or two delegates…It reflects the popularity and the weakness to her in her home state. It contributes to a false momentum”.

                                      Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins  

One day in late 1983, I had to endure an evening watching prospective presidential hopefuls  Fritz Mondale, Fritz Hollings, Alan Cranston, George McGovern, John Glenn and Gary Hart bore a Town Hall  audience so thoroughly to tears that even Gatemouth felt compelled to join a small contingent who were gathered outside to shout “Run Jesse Run”.

I remember the night only because in the lobby my head was turned when I heard two men having a conversation in Yiddish. One of the men shouted “Rabbi vos macht a Yid?”. A chasid turned his head; it was Erno “Isac” Weinberger, who is many things, a Rabbi not among them. But, the real surprise was the man shouting in Yiddish, Harlem’s late great State Senator, Leon Bogues (alev ha sholem), who proceeded to converse with Erno in a dead language for far longer than most of his co-religionists would ever tolerate.  

I was reminded of the late and gentle Senator today when I read the words of his successor, once removed, in the New York Post, and realized that David Paterson’s Jewish DNA notwithstanding (what would Dan O’Connell, alev ha sholem, think?), Harlem is once again represented by a State Senator who knows the true meaning of the word CHUTZPAH.

Let us review.  

Saturday’s New York Times contained a story explaining that Barack Obama’s vote in the New York Primary, as reported on Primary results in the unofficial returns, was likely to rise in an unexpected manner when the Board of Elections actually counted the votes. This sort of story is not exactly a new one. In both 1997 and 2005, press reports, based on unofficial returns, of an impending mayoral runoff primary turned out to be pre-mature.

What hasn’t changed is the response. In 1997, the change in fortunes of Ruth Messinger and Al Sharpton, denied his berth in the runoff (much to Sharpton’s consternation), resulted in the circulation of conspiracy theories, much to the delight of Rudy Giuliani. In 2001, the change in fortunes of Freddy Ferrer and Anthony Weiner, denied his berth in the runoff (much to Weiner’s relief), still resulted in conspiracy theories, much to the delight of Mike Bloomberg, even though Ferrer avoided the runoff. No matter what the circumstances, even when whose oxed is being gored is exactly the opposite, a conspiracy is always deemed to be afoot.

And the same even holds true today. A year ago, Charles Barron said "Just 42 members of the House are black. And only one Senator is black – some guy named Barack Obama, and I don't know who that is. Some guy they stuck in there." But, today Barron is busy waving the bloody shirt of Obama receiving zero votes in some election districts.

How does this happen?

Well, in a few places, it actually does happen. Some election districts are very tiny, and one or two votes are all they have. As Barron should know, there are also some larger election districts, in places like Hasidic Williamsburg, where some candidates literally receive zero votes. It happened in some places to Barron, in some places to Ken Diamondstone. Could it have happened somewhere to Obama as well?          

But that couldn’t account for more than a few scattered EDs. However, there’s a more likely answer.  On election night, an 80 year old inspector who’s just worked over 15 hours, reads the tiny numbers on the machine, which are on tumblers that don’t always fully turn, to another 80 year who can barely hear. That inspector takes the numbers down in her shaky handwriting. A copy (carbon?) of the canvas report is taken to the local precinct, where a clerk who could care less types the numbers into a computer which transmits it to the Election News Service. Between all these hands, stuff often tends to happen; the wonder is it doesn’t happen more.

Mostly it doesn't matter. In 1997, the unofficial canvass had a 200 vote error in one ED in the City Council race between Judy Rapfogel and Margarita Lopez, resulting in a Rapfogel lead in the unofficial canvas, which both sides knew was fictitious. When it's close, people send brigades to inspect the machine and monitor the official count. So, while mistakes occur, they don't occur anytime exactitude could make a difference. One can be sure that, in those rare instances where the delegate results have the potential to change if a few votes could make a difference, the campaigns will send people to make sure the count (it is not properly a recount) is done correctly.

But, why the Obama discrepancies in 2008? The likely explanation was provided by, of all people, Obama’s petition guru, election law expert Jerry Koenig. Obama's name on the ballot came after a long list of dead candidacies, so someone transcribing a long line of zeroes was likely to put in one more in error. And, since the transcribing was done twice, in both instances by people unlikely to care much about accuracy, the chances of error were doubled.  No one, perhaps not even Jerry Skurnik, knows this stuff better than Koenig. His theory of the repeating zeros bears the indicia of decades of experience doing this stuff. And, since he's a motivated Obama partisan, I think we can take him at his word.

And compound the systemic problems with ancient voting machines and the fact that the whole shebang is administered by the Board of Election, an institution entirely controlled by party hacks. The Board is where the County Organizations bury their neediest cases; the best and the brightest go elsewhere. In general, the Board of Elections couldn't organize an orgy at a convention of nymphomaniacs. In my limited experience, the Board of Elections is a competence-impaired institution capable of making the most egregious errors without any particular political motivation. As the examples of the Board in action I will provide later illustrate, motivation is probably not a word in the vocabulary of most Board employees.

I've my doubts any of this had any impact on the allocation of delegates. In Rangel's CD, where the most cited example took place, the delegates split 50/50; given Obama lost the CD either way, it would take an astronomical jump for the results to change. Were any contests for the last delegate even close enough for it to have an impact? And yet, other Obama supporters, apparently less concerned than Koenig about the long or short term impact of implying to people that voting is an act of futility (hint: it may not be helpful to Obama), or, in the case of Charles Barron, intent upon exploiting that impact, continue to build urban legends of "Machine" conspiracies upon foundations of conjecture, expedience and hatred. The evidence?  In the ED most cited in these tales, 49 of the 70^th AD, Obama was initially deprived of 136 votes; however, Hillary herself was deprived of 120 votes in the same ED.  

Political outsiders assume too much about the ability of the "machine" to control such a count. First they assume the machine cares, when, in fact, “the machine”, to the extent it exists, usually regards presidential primaries in the manner it does general elections: as a day off from real politics. But, even if motivated, there are just too many intangibles to pull something like this off. An effort like this would require a small and loyal circle, lest someone shoot their mouth or fingers off. A poll worker pulling such mischief would have to look out for other poll workers, some from the other party, poll watchers (which Obama had in glorious excess) and perhaps even the cops. Even if one were purposely skewing the count, you not only would not have to get caught, you would have to count upon the competence of others to ensure your misdeed had actual impact. Good luck with that! 

Meanwhile, I can't figure out why the Times found this story so newsworthy. "Election Inspectors Make Errors" is surely the ultimate dog bites man story.

Some who spread the conspiracy theories are amateurs who don’t know better; those Obama supporters who’ve busted their political cherry in years past, even reflexive “blame ‘the machine’ if it rains” types like Daily Gotham’s Mole333, know the score, and, to their credit, have braved the slings and arrows of outraged progressives by attempting to spread the truth. 

And some, like Charles Barron, are clearly hallucinating from inhaling the fumes of one too many bean pies. I will defend Chuckles here; he is sincere in his delusions. Likewise, I defend him in the Viola Plummer matter. Voters who chose Barron as their Councilman knew what they were getting; they have a right to a Councilman with a staff dedicated to implementing his agenda, whether it be assassinating Leroy Comrie or telling tall-tales about Mr. Charlie. Life is too short, and those unfortunate enough to be living theirs in East New York cannot be blamed if they decide to derive their entertainment from their choice of elected officials; in that regard, Councilman Barron  probably plays second banana to his Member of the Assembly, Diane “House of the Rising Sum” Gordon. 

By contrast, Senator Perkins should know better.  Before his election to the New York City Council, Perkins, then a Democratic District Leader, served as Denny Farrell’s handpicked choice as Deputy Chief Clerk of the New York County Board of Elections. His wife, Pamela Green Perkins, currently serves as Denny Farrell’s handpicked Administrative Manager for the Central Board, and is also a Democratic Party District Leader in Harlem. As such, Perkins is intimately familiar with the process of closing polls, and also of the limited value of preliminary returns.

Moreover, he is fully familiar with who would have to be involved in a conspiracy to deprive Barack Obama of the fruits of his New York City labors, particularly in Harlem; those people would almost necessarily include both his wife, in her employment and political capacities (as District Leader she chooses election inspectors) and the County Leader who got both he and his wife their jobs at the Election Board. Is this what Perkins is saying? Who then is he blaming?

Well, I will be the first concede that, on the topic of election fraud, Perkins knows from what he speaks. In the late 80s, Perkins’ appointment at the Board was strenuously opposed by his once and future opponent for office, then City Councilwoman Carolyn Maloney, who circulated a copy of a Judicial Referee’s report which found that in 1984, Mr. Perkins, as a notary, witnessed 33 signatures on a qualifying petition for Liberal Party officeholders, 21 of which were later found to have been forged. I’ve seen the report. I will note that, as a notary, Perkins was obligated to ascertain the identity of each individual signatory before he filled out his witness statement.  In a typical Maloney flourish, she not only opposed the appointment, but called for the revocation of Perkins’ notary license, and sent a copy of the referee’s report to the DA, who, probably overwhelmed by similar referrals about other Maloney primary opponents (hmm-how did Abe Hirschfield end up in jail, anyway?), stuck it a place where the sun didn’t shine, though probably not at the Board of Elections.   

The most notable thing about Perkins’ tenure at the Board was how perfectly he exemplified its values. Sitting at his desk, his head rarely rose to a level higher than his feet, leaving him ample time to continue to seek higher office. In 1992 (as was documented in the NY Times and "Campaigns and Elections"), this was manifested by piles upon piles of buff cards for newly registered voters laying in boxes until the last minute, when someone realized an election was going on and attempted to process them in one fell swoop. As a result, errors in these registrations were caught too late to notify voters they needed corrections, and according to a sworn witness, Perkins, covering his tracks, ordered somewhere between 2,500 to 3,000 buff card to be sent to the polling places (as was done at that time), even though the new registrants had failed to sign them, as required by law. Other registrations were apparently never processed at all. One election lawyer referred to voters so disenfranchised as being “Perkinized”.

When the problems attracted public attention, both Perkins and the Manhattan Office’s Director, Republican hack Bart Regazzi (who also favored podiatral elevation), resigned under duress, thus making history as the first people ever deemed too incompetent to work at the Board of Elections.  A private firm brought in to clean up the mess found over 100,000 errors in voter registration.

At the time Republicans, who sincerely harbored the delusion that Rudy had been robbed of victory in 1989 by Democratic fraud, were the conspiracy theorists, and shamelessly tried to spotlight the Perkins/Regazzi scandal as evidence of continued malfeasance (apparently, when confronted with Regazzi’s role, Republicans defended him by saying that they knew Bart, and he was just too stupid to be involved). In a testament to Perkins’ shamelessness, he responded to the allegations by immediately taking a job in the Dinkins re-election campaign. 

But, it wasn’t a conspiracy then, just business as usual multiplied exponentially by a master of the game; and, as Perkins well knows, it ain’t a conspiracy now.

SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU!

CORRECTION: As it turns out Perkins’ wife is no longer a District Leader. Her replacement is Cordell Cleare who works for Perkins.