(Guest Post by Richard Bisio)
The circumstances of the Clarkston 2021 city council election raised concerns in my mind about how the city handled the election.
There were three open council seats. Three names were on the ballot: Paul Angelini, Gary Casey, and Steven McLean. They got their names on the ballot by filing petitions signed by at least twenty voters. Casey was an incumbent seeking reelection. There were three write-in candidates: Christopher Moore, Laura Rodgers, and Bruce Fuller. They qualified (or tried to qualify) as write-ins by filing a declaration of intent to run as a write-in candidate.
Candidates who file petitions to get their names on the ballot have an earlier filing deadline than write-in candidates. When the mayor saw whose names would be on the ballot, he was apparently unhappy with those choices (except for Casey, whom he supported). So, unhappy with the candidacies of Angelini and McLean, the mayor recruited Rodgers and Fuller to run against them as write-ins. He supported and campaigned for Casey, Rodgers, and Fuller, who ran together as a group. Angelini, McLean, and Moore also ran as a group.
Here are the things that raised concerns for me. The declarations of intent for the mayor’s preferred write-ins—Rodgers and Fuller—were incomplete and didn’t comply with the Michigan Election Law. The original copies produced by the city clerk in response to a Freedom of Information Act request showed required boxes not checked. When this was pointed out, the clerk produced copies with the required boxes checked, claiming the first production didn’t show the checkmarks because of a copying error. The new checkmarks did not match the format of the checkmarks on the previously produced forms, as one would expect if the candidate checked all the boxes at the same time. You can decide for yourself whether someone altered the original forms after they were filed by comparing the originals [Rodgers-Fuller 1] to the second version. [Rodgers-Fuller 2]. It looks like an after-the-fact alteration to me.
Aside from these discrepancies in the declarations of intent of the mayor’s candidates, there was a question about whether Rodgers was even eligible to run. She was not living in the city and had not lived in the city for more than a year before the election while her house in the city was being renovated. The city charter requires council candidates to be city residents for one year before the election. Could Rodgers live outside the city for more than a year before the election and still run for council? When confronted with this question, the city clerk relied on unwritten advice from an Oakland County employee and an off-the-cuff oral opinion of the city attorney. No one sought a formal opinion of someone familiar with election law. This was despite the fact that the Michigan Election Law defines “residence” as “that place at which a person habitually sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging.” It was also despite a recent Michigan Supreme Court opinion that distinguished the concept of “domicile” (which allows for a person to be away from their usual place of abode temporarily if they intend to return) and “residence” (which is where a person is actually living at a particular time). The charter requires residence. But never mind. The city clerk decided that none of this mattered and that she was going to count ballots cast for the mayor’s preferred candidate Rodgers (something she ultimately didn’t do, since she didn’t count any of the write-in ballots).
The problems with the declarations of intent and residence affected only the mayor’s preferred candidates. There were no questions about Moore’s declaration of intent or residence.
Fast forward to election day. There were 322 ballots cast. At least that’s what the Oakland County Elections Division claims and it appears to be the number of ballots the city clerk produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. (More on that below.) The county claims there were 450 write-in votes. The electronic tabulator was able to count the votes for the three names on the ballot on election night, but not the write-in votes, since the tabulator could not read the handwritten names of the write-ins. The clerk decided it was just so hard to count all those write-in votes that she and the election officials at the village hall weren’t going to do it and would instead send the ballots to Oakland County to be counted.
The original announced votes, without the write-ins, were: Angelini: 132; Casey: 188; McLean: 156. Only one of the mayor’s three preferred candidates won.
But that total did not include the write-in votes. For some reason, the city thought its election personnel didn’t have the ability to accurately count the write-in votes on election night. Why? They said there were just too many to count. This excuse rings hollow. In every past election I am aware of, the city was able to count all the votes, including write-ins. And it did so in public, with candidates and other interested citizens watching, right in city hall, and announced the final numbers immediately. For example, in the November 2010 council election, there were three write-in candidates. (I was one of them.) There were 475 write-in votes counted, more than the number of write-ins in 2021. There was no question in 2010 that the election officials would count the votes on election night. They sat at a table and publicly counted the ballots three times, just to assure they got the correct count. The results were announced on election night. And the second-place finisher didn’t challenge the count or ask for a recount, even though he lost by only three votes.
But for some reason, the city was incapable of counting the ballots in public in 2021. Instead, the city sent the ballots off to someone in Oakland County to be counted by unidentified individuals at a time and location that was never announced. Days passed without results. The final count was not announced until the weekend before the Monday when new council members were to be sworn in. And—surprise, surprise—the mayor’s preferred candidates swept all three council seats. His two write-ins, Rodgers and Fuller, got more votes than two candidates whose names were on the ballot.
All this left questions in my mind. Why did it look like the declarations of intent for the mayor’s preferred candidates were altered after filing? Why did the mayor improperly use his taxpayer-funded email address and telephone number to support his favored candidates? Why wasn’t there a formal opinion on Rodger’s residency and eligibility to run? Why weren’t the ballots counted in public on election night? Why was there a multi-day delay in counting the ballots? Why were the ballots counted in secret, days after the election? Any why were the first results, favoring two challengers, superseded by the final numbers in favor of the mayor’s preferred candidates?
So I wanted to look at the ballots myself. It was a struggle to get them from the city clerk. One would think they would be in one place, easily reproduced and made available. For more than a month, she ignored a simple request in December 2021. Then she refused to copy the ballots, requiring a personal visit to city hall to view them. After conceding that she could in fact copy the relevant part of the ballots, it took her three tries to produce 322 ballots. The first production was missing three. It took two more requests to get three more ballots. It wasn’t until the end of February 2022, two months after the request, and after several follow-ups, that the clerk finally produced 322 ballots. You can look at them yourself to see if yours is included. [Ballots]
So can we have confidence that the 2021 city council votes were properly and accurately counted? I don’t. The apparent alteration of the declarations of intent raises a reasonable concern that city personnel may not be above either manipulating election documents or allowing alterations to a sworn document after it was submitted, rather than requiring the candidate submit a new one. The failure to get a formal opinion on Rodgers’ eligibility shows the city did not take the qualifications of the mayor’s preferred candidate seriously. The delay in counting the votes and the decision not to count them in public raises questions. The inability to promptly produce all the ballots in response to a Freedom of Information request raises more questions. I can’t say the votes were manipulated or that ballots were altered to give the advantage to the mayor’s preferred candidates. There’s no clear evidence of that. But I don’t have confidence that this election was properly administered.
I challenge the city to openly conduct the next council election. Stop using city resources to support some candidates. Get a formal impartial opinion on questions about the validity of candidate filings and qualifications. Count the ballots on election night. Count them publicly. Handle them properly so that it shouldn’t take multiple requests and months to respond to a request to see the ballots. One shouldn’t have to ask for these things. But I guess, in the City of the Village of Clarkston, it is necessary.