Recount upholds Teall's primary win for 4th Ward seat on Ann Arbor City Council
Tuesday’s ballot recount by the Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers upheld incumbent Margie Teall’s win over challenger Jack Eaton in the Democratic primary for the 4th Ward seat on the Ann Arbor City Council.
Ann Arbor City Councilman Christopher Taylor, far left, and candidate Jack Eaton, far right, watch the recount proceedings Tuesday in the race for the 4th Ward seat on the city council as Washtenaw County canvasser Dea Armstrong asks a question.
Amy Biolchini | AnnArbor.com
As a result of the recount, Teall gained one vote from Eaton in the sixth precinct. In the ninth precinct, each candidate lost one vote.
Ballots cast in the second precinct were not recounted because the zippered pouch in which they had been originally stored was not sealed correctly -- a similar problem that arose with the Sylvan Township ballots as well as with two of the three precincts in Augusta Township.
For the second precinct, the original vote of 13 votes for Eaton and 11 for Teall remains the final count.
During the recount, canvassers first check the numbers on the sealed packages of ballots from each precinct with the number recorded in the poll book.
They then count the number of ballots in each precinct to make sure it matches the total number recorded.
Then, a canvasser reads aloud the candidate of choice from each ballot, and two other canvassers each record the vote. The entire process is supervised by another canvasser.
Margie Teall
The individual who requests a recount has to pay $10 per precinct. There are nine precincts in the 4th Ward.
Teall beat Eaton two years ago with 69 percent of the vote. She has been on council since 2002.
Eaton said that he plans to watch the votes by Ann Arbor city council members closely over the next year to see if he should run for office in one or two years.
“When it’s this close, you have to ask for a recount,” Eaton said.
The recount of the 4th Ward race was among six races and issues that were requested to be recounted by the Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers. The outcomes of the races did not change for the precincts that were able to be recounted.
Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at (734) 623-2552, amybiolchini@annarbor.com or on Twitter.
Comments
lou glorie
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.
Also, maybe someone can enlighten me about the reason for not-at least-examining the ballots from the improperly sealed ballot bags. Seems that if there were any funny business, this would be the perfect cover-up. This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. Thanks.
Frustrated in A2
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 3:29 a.m.
Mr. Eaton please run again, we need change in the 4th ward!
PersonX
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
Ah well, too bad ...
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
Leah, in all fairness to AnnArbor.com, the reporter probably has no clue what Council Member Teall looks like, other than an occasional photo, because a Teall sighting is as rare as one of Big Foot. Glad she showed up with 'the team' for the recount. Maybe now you can work on her showing up for meetings, returning phone calls from constituents and answer emails, something she hasn't been quite stellar with in the past.
LXIX
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.
According to the e-wash Official Election Results of 19318 registered voters in Ward 4, a total of 2382 residents (and any japanese robots with their loitering mannequins) , or about 12 percent cast a ballot in the August election. So - even after going to the polls only (866+848) or 1714 of the 2382 people troubling to go vote actually voted for a Democrat Conclusion 668 of the votes cast were for neither Democratic candidate (Republicans in A2?) or some votes cast are missing. Nobody won a landslide victory with 88% of the registered voter population in Ward 4 and should rightly sit in Teal's council seat until the next election.
Leah Gunn
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.
Although Christopher Taylor was there on behalf of Margie Teall, it would have been more accurate to say that Margie had a team there, also including Joan Lowenstein, Ed Lynn, Tony Deresinski and myself. Margie was available for comment because she and I were there the entire time, but the reporter chose not to engage her. I watched the reporter talking to Jack Eaton, but she never made a move to talk with any of Margie's team, or Margie herself.
lou glorie
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.
Perhaps because Ms. Biolchini is not Mr. Stanton, and she was wary of the praetorian guard surrounding her.
Brad
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
Gee, all those cheerful dignitaries surrounding her and STILL nobody wanted to interview her? Imagine that.
Honest Abe
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
I cannot stand Eaton OR Teall. They are not Democrats, they are liberals who are so far to the left, they walk on their hands.
Veracity
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.
Just because you can spell "liberal" does not mean that you understand its definition nor can articulate what specifically bothers you about liberalism. Mis-labeling seems to be a Republican trait along with misrepresentation.
Brad
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.
Welcome to Ann Arbor.
Honest Abe
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.
Just being honest........
Sparty
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
Darn, well now the biggest challenge will be for someone, anyone, to find her to let her know the news. She doesn't answer her phone. She doesn't respond to email. She doesn't show up at City Council Meetings. How will the news get to her, oh dear. It's a disgrace to have her represent the 4th Ward.
sojourner truth
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.
The fact that Jack Eaton only lost by 18 votes is reason enough for anyone to realize how important voting is. Your vote really CAN count!
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:26 p.m.
So why do City election officials get to use taxpayer resources to insult candidates asking for a recount? And, how can they use copyrighted material in a City newsletter without permssion of the owner? Is the City ok with intellectual property theft? Whoever is responsible for this 'newsletter' should be fired: http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/news/Documents/2012_News_Releases/Pollwatcher_Newsletter_2012-08.pdf
lou glorie
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:41 p.m.
Quoting from the newsletter: "He [Eaton] claims there were mistakes....taxpayers' dollars will be wasted on this needless recount." Hardly a neutral stance, faulting a candidate for doing due diligence. And what are Mr. Eaton's sins? First: "He claims there were mistakes..." Of course there were mistakes. Workers are not infallible, the electronic systems are far from perfect. Would a closer examination reveal that there are problems with our election systems? Yes surely. Second sin: "dollars wasted...needless recount" An insinuation that a recount is a waste of time and money. This is alarming coming from an election supervisor and is proof that we have already taken steps away from the transparency needed to ensure voter confidence in the system. Then the supervisor goes on to scold "Apparently some election workers have never heard the old adage 'lose [sic] lips sink ships.'" Are poll workers being enjoined to clam up about problems? Is this attitude supportive of open, honest elections? By the way, no election worker was needed to point out the obvious: the new systems put in place for this election caused delays. And there were other glitches, like tabulator malfunctions. Don't voters have a right to be informed of the reasons for delays? It's not the snarky tone of this newsletter that I found offensive, but the message that citizens are best kept in the dark about how the machinery of our elections is working. "Nothing to see here, move along." Transparency is an essential component of honest elections. There is no perfect system, so recounts happen and when they do they show us both the weaknesses and strengths of the system.
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 11:59 a.m.
Part of the process involved in requesting a recount is that one must state a reason. I don't think "it was very close and I'd like to try again" is an acceptable one. When I requested a recount in 2008, I also cited problems with the process, though I don't think I quoted election workers. This time around I also heard stories from the 5th ward of jammed machines and spoiled ballots. The Clerk's office is clearly sensitive about any hitch in the process, and it is in fact a huge undertaking to mount such an operation (the election) using mostly volunteers (they are paid, but very little, and it is a hard 14-hour day) and with increasingly tough voter screening (thank you, Republicans, for your voter suppression efforts). We should all be grateful to our city officials for bringing this marathon off with relatively few hitches. That said, I do believe that poll workers need to instruct voters better how to vote on these primaries. Apparently (anecdotally) a noticeable fraction of voters fail to turn over the ballot and vote on the back. Also, a notable fraction split votes between the two parties' primary slates, which disqualifies the entire ballot. I have not been at the polls physically for a year or two but I think better voter instruction is indicated.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:38 a.m.
Ms. Beaudry. Thank you for your reply. When you say the newsletter is being taken off the City website, I'm assuming you mean the hard copies are being tossed/recycled too. Can you clarify this? And has the use of copyrighted materiel been dealt with? If other members of the City hasn't fought being open and transparent in the past, this might not be such an issue but a 'loose lips sink ships' directive to poll workers was inappropriate and I applaud your understanding it was an incorrect thing to do. The 4th Ward election was decided by a handful of votes, Mr. Eaton is a very smart man, and I doubt if any passing comment a poll worker made was the tipping point in the request for a recount. I also think, that instead of a City worker using City resources to bash the recount process, the Clerk's Office should welcome any and all reviews of the process in order to make the process more accurate in the future. One ward was not re-countable because of poll worker failure, as you know, and this may have not been discovered without the outside process of the recount. Hopefully this has been a learning experience for the Elections Office and there will more caution in the future with using City resources in this way again.
Barb
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.
Wow - that's appalling that that even made it past any editors. Yes, it should be removed.
Jackie Beaudry
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
Mr. Goldsmith, my apologies about the Pollwatcher newsletter article, which is produced each election for City election inspectors and is meant to be both informative and fun. The writer's intent with the recount article was to clarify for inspectors that they should not have made comments to a candidate suggesting Election night problems that may or may not have occurred. There are many checks and balances in the canvass and certification of an election and candidate questions regarding the process should have been directed to the City Clerk's Office. We were surprised and disappointed to see that the recount petition indicated our own election inspectors, speaking for the City, perhaps influenced Mr. Eaton's decision to request a recount. The article was not meant to be insulting to the candidate, but a teaching opportunity for those who work the polls on Election Day. Obviously our choice of words and attempt at humor fell flat. My apologies again to the candidate and to any other readers who were offended. We will remove the newsletter from the City website. Best regards, Jackie Beaudry, City Clerk
nekm1
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
Obviously if Mr. Eaton choses to run again, he will have to learn to give away even more "free" stuff to his constituents than the incumbent Ms. Teall. Love it when Dem's face off with one another!
Lifelong A2
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.
"When it's this close, you have to ask for a recount," Eaton said. Wrong. Approx. 1,700 votes were cast in this election. Teall won by 18 votes -- which is more than 1%. Recounts change -- at most -- a couple votes... certainly not 1%. Rather than study history and data, Mr. Eaton chose to waste the time of County officials and the money of County taxpayers who obviously subsidized this recount ($10/precinct doesn't come close to covering the costs).
Barb
Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 9:55 p.m.
Oh please - it's his right and I don't blame him.