Mid City West Community Council
Challenges
 
Record ID#
I hereby submit my challenge for the
Neighborhood Council
Election held on
I affirm that I am a stakeholder in this Neighborhood
Council who voted in the election and I have
personal knowledge of the following challenge.
Name
Business Name (if applicable)
Address
Phone
Email
Reason for Challenge
Please state the facts for your challenge. (max 500 words)
Please state your desired remedy. (max 100 words)
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Determination
Status
Date
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Phone Number
Witness Statement
First Name 2
Last Name 2
Email Address 2
Phone Number 2
Witness Statement 2
First Name 3
Last Name 3
Email Address 3
Phone Number 3
Witness Statement 3
If no witness,
please check
this box
Name2
 
37   05-01-16 Yes Paulette Caswell   645 N Gardner St, Los Angeled, California 90036 (323) 683-8321 prwc68@gmail.com ADA/Curbside voting compliance The location had no signs clearly posted for curbside voting. There were no election representatives directly in view of the curbside. The location had no parking available, as all parking spaces were full. The election location was deep into the interior of the building, down a long corridor, with no view of the curbside. The location had an Observer named Mr. Box. When notified that people were not able to vote because of no parking available, Mr. Box commented: "Well, we have curbside voting." When told that curbside voting was limited to persons with disabilities pursuant to the federal ADA law, Mr. Box did not care. There were several "curbside voting" ballots claimed for this election, and NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE that the voters had any disabilities recognized under the ADA. 
    In addition, in regard to ADA accommodations, there were NO alternatives given to persons with communication disabilities of vision, hearing or speech at the election location, and many such persons were barred from voting online, due to the suspension of online voting by Empower LA for a long period of time, which caused MANY persons with disabilities, who could not go to the Election Site, great difficulties in voting in this election. MANY attempted several times to vote online, only to receive multiple messages over several days that the voting was suspended, with no indication of when the online biting would be restored, and MANY gave up and did not vote in this election, especially persons with communication disabilities. 		A new Election, accessible to all persons with disabilities, and online voting without any "suspensions" interfering with the online voting process. 

NOTE: The Witness designated below has NO VOICE TELEPHONE NUMBER due to total deafness and speech disability, and there is no ability to "scan and upload" his Witness Statement, as requested below. There is no FILL-IN FORM for Witness Statements available from EmpowerLA/DONE. 
   NOTE2: THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING THIS FORM STATE "TO SUBMIT, PLEASE CLICK SAVE ON THE TOP RIGHT CORNER." THE LINK BUTTON ON THE "TOP RIGHT CORNER" SAYS "CANCEL"! AND THE TWO LINKS TO THE LEFT OF "CANCEL" ARE UNREADABLE ON IPHONES DUE TO THE VERY DARK GREEN BACKGROUND THAT OBSCURES THE LETTERS. THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION ARE INCORRECT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE EMPOWERLA/DONE WANTS ALL CHALLENGES TO ELECTIONS TO BE CANCELLED. 		      PauletteCaswellElectionChallengeDetermination050616.pdf IEA Dismissed 04-14-16 Patrick Seamans patrickwseamans@gmail.com                           Paulette Caswell
39   05-01-16 Yes Charles A. Lindenblatt   8250 Blackburn Avenue, #6, Los Angeles, California 90048 (323) 251-5509 ndisc7@hotmail.com Incorrect Ballots        Pursuant to the Neighborhood Council 2016 Election Manual, Article XVI, Challenges, I, Charles A. Lindenblatt, am formally challenging the results of the Mid City West Community Council election, held online, in part, and in-person, in part, in the weeks leading up to, and including, May 1, 2016.
    I am challenging this election because of Incorrect Ballots (which caused voters to vote either significantly more or less for a qualified or incorrect candidate).
     The facts are as follows:
1.    Mid City West featured online voting in its election this cycle, in addition to in-person and telephone voting.
2.    The ballot said “Vote for X,” where X was the total number of seats being contested in a given category, NOT “Vote for up to X,” or, as the Los Angeles County Sample Ballot presents the Democratic County Committee candidates, “Vote for no more than X”.
3.    When people initially did not vote for X, but for X-1, or X-2, or X-3, etc., the screen prompted the voters by saying something to the effect of, you can vote for [the difference between the number the voter selected and X]. 
        It is the view of the challenger, and I believe, most other people, that facts 2 and 3 significantly encouraged those voters who had only intended to vote for one or two people, in many cases, to vote for the maximum number of candidates, likely including many candidates that they did not know.   The net effect of this is that many voters wound up hurting the chances of the very people that they were there to support.  
    Specifically, in the case of this Mid City West election, I believe that facts 2 and 3 clearly, and without any doubt, could have made a difference in the election outcome as a whole, but is the At Large category – the one in which I ran – which is the main concern here.  
    As the attached results indicate, the difference between the number of votes I received (93) and the lowest successful candidate in the At Large category (111),  is 18 votes. With all the extensively distributed campaign advertising and candidate slates that were circulating in our neighborhood, including my own ad, and some of which are attached as supporting documentation, it is certainly feasible that at least 18 voters in the At Large category (out of a maximum 328 that could vote in that category) had only intended to vote for one, or two, or a few, candidates in the At Large category, and wound up voting for more than that, i.e. the entire eight that the screen was virtually demanding people to select. 
       The challenge that I have brought really affects all candidates in the Mid City West election.  The remedy that I am asking for this is, if the eventual Election Challenge Panel hearing this matter wants to fix the entire problem, it should order a re-do of the entire election.   
      On the other hand, if it simply wants to correct the problem as it affects the At Large category, it should vacate the results of the At Large category, and have an EmpowerLA-administered selection to fill them.
 Lindenblatt_MCWCC_Election_Challenge_Docs_1_Final.pdf Lindenblatt_MCWCC_Election_Challenge_Docs_2_Final.pdf   CharlesLindenblattElectionChallengeDetermination051016.pdf IEA Dismissed 05-10-16 Yuval Kremer     yKremer.pdf Steve Luftman sluftman@yahoo.com (310) 503-9958 Challenge-Witness-Form SL.pdf             Charles A. Lindenblatt
111   06-02-19 Yes Indira Cameron-Banks   Blackburn , Los Angeles, California 90048 (617) 417-7123 icameronbanks@gmail.com Electioneering by candidatesEligibility of VoterEligibility of CandidateInappropriate endorsements of candidate Challenge: Illegal Voting. NC Board endorsement of a slate of candidates. The NC Board Leadership endorsed the “Progressive Slate” of NC Board candidates. The proponents of the “Progressive Slate” endorsed individuals that primarily won the NC Board seats, in large part by offering food and prizes on the day of the election and encouraging individuals who are not stakeholders to vote in the Mid-City West Community Council (MCWCC) elections.
• MCWCC are based on self-affirmation of the voter. Outside of the voting site, voters were asked to complete the self-affirmation form, which included their MCWCC Zone affiliation. The voters then entered the site and were allowed to pick any zone form to complete. As a result, there was a high likelihood of votes being cast by individuals who did not qualify as eligible stakeholders in MCWCC zone-specific races (which according to the bylaws must be individuals that affirm residence in the zone at the time of the election).
• Many individuals were encouraged to vote in the election even though they did not hold stakeholder status. These individuals were encouraged by proponents of the “Progressive Slate” identified in the attached flyer which was being passed out at the election site. These include current MCWCC Board leadership, which appeared to have endorsed this slate. (See Statement; Progressive Slate Flyer; and MCWCC Board Leadership facebook page.)
• During the Candidate statement day (5/29/2019), one of the individuals endorsed on this slate (that was elected to the board) admitted to me that while not technically within the boundaries the candidate was “encouraged” to run for a board seat based on some tenuous connection to MCWCC boundaries.
• With respect to Zone 5, the individual that endorsed on this slate, David Sobol, never issued a candidate statement on the Clerk’s website and never presented any statement on Candidate statement day (5/29/2019).
• Based on the unofficial voting results released this past Tuesday, there appears to have been at least 77 voter ballots that did not include any Zone vote at all.
• Based on the unofficial voting results released this past Tuesday, there appears to be a disproportionately high number of votes in Zone 5 (94 votes, significantly higher than any other Zone including more densely populated zones). These included 53 votes for David Sobol, the candidate endorsed by the “Progressive Slate.”
• The Progressive Slate promoted individuals who are not MCWCC stakeholders to run for MCWCC Board, encouraged such individuals vote in the MCWCC elections, and was endorsed by current MCWCC Board leadership. This effected the ultimate results from the MCWCC elections. 		I request that there be a review and reconciliation of the self-affirmation sheets reflecting stakeholder status in Zone 5, and the Zone 5 ballots cast to confirm whether there were 94 stakeholders that validly voted in Zone 5, and even whether there were more than 94 stakeholders that could have validly voted in Zone 5 (to determine if people were given an incorrect zone ballot 686A799A-A975-4FB3-B8CA-0263AE964363.jpeg 726A3E99-50FE-4932-9B9C-6716D978E5B2.jpeg E842218C-71D1-4654-A108-0E3D62B6772A.jpeg       Rosalie Wayne roseart747@gmail.com     Indira CameronBanks icameronbanks@gmail.com     Fourth page of document because won’t load under Supporting documents icameronbanks@gmail.com   5815DC21-0ED6-4C06-BE57-30F599E7F835.jpeg   Indira CameronBanks
Subdivision challenges
Created on May  2, 2016 at  7:05 PM (PDT). Owned by Paramazian, Sevak.
Sevak Paramazian
Show fields from Show fields from Show fields from a related table
Report Name *
Description
Reports and Charts Panel
Each table has a panel listing its reports and charts, organized in groups.
Please wait while your new report is saved...
Field label
Column heading override
Justification
What does auto mean?
Fields in:

Fields to Extract:
Name for the new table:
Items in the new table are called:

When you bring additional fields into a conversion, Quickbase often finds inconsistencies. For example, say you're converting your Companies column into its own table. One company, Acme Corporation, has offices in New York, Dallas and Portland. So, when you add the City column to the conversion, Quickbase finds three different locations for Acme. A single value in the column you're converting can only match one value in any additional field. Quickbase needs you to clean up the extra cities before it can create your new table. To do so, you have one of two choices:

  • If you want to create three separate Acme records (Acme-New York, Acme-Dallas and Acme-Portland) click the Conform link at the top of the column.
  • If the dissimilar entries are mistakes (say Acme only has one office in New York and the other locations are data-entry errors) go back into your table and correct the inconsistencies—in this case, changing all locations to New York. Then try the conversion again.

Read more about converting a column into a table.

We're glad you're interested in doing more with Quickbase!

Now we need to make you official before you share apps or manage your account.

Verifying your email lets you share Quickbase with others in your company.

Your work email
Your company