There are still some strong allegations being made about the recent election.
Received via email:

PARTICULARIZED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 3:12-CV-00650

L. SHIRLEY HARVEY,
CHRISTOPHER DORSEY,
Plaintiffs

v.

JANE KIRK SHOWALTER,
GEORGE WILLIAM THOMAS,
CECELIA DABNEY,
ERNESTO SAMPSON, JR.
DONALD PALMER,
KIMBERLY BOWERS,
CHARLES JUDD,
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs comes to the Court to request an investigation into the process of qualification of candidates by the Registrar, Jane Kirk Showalter, regarding local elections for the City of Richmond on November 6, 2012. The Plaintiffs research has found that in several instances, the Registrar has either made gross mistakes or deliberately made decisions that are not in accordance with the Virginia State Code 24.2 regarding elections and further noted in the procedures for registrars called the GREbook (General Registrar and Electoral Board Handbook See Exhibit I) which provides procedures for the Registrar’s office to accomplish the mandates set forth in Virginia Code 24.2.

The Richmond Electoral Board and the State Board of Elections have the authority and the power to avoid these discrepancies by overseeing the work completed by the Registrar. The lack of supervision allows that any registrar in Virginia could be bribed, could make gross mistakes, could discriminate, and could, in essence, decide elections before the citizen vote. The Plaintiffs have attempted on many occasions without success to bring about an investigation or review by filing written and verbal complaints as prescribed by the Code to several authorities including the Richmond Electoral Board and the State Board of Elections. These Boards did not respond.

The Virginia Code 24.2-103 requires
§ 24.2-103. Powers and duties in general.

The State Board shall supervise and coordinate the work of the county and city electoral boards and of the registrars to obtain uniformity in their practices and proceedings and legality and purity in all elections. It shall make rules and regulations and issue instructions and provide information consistent with the election laws to the electoral boards and registrars to promote the proper administration of election laws. Electoral boards and registrars shall provide information requested by the Board and shall follow (i) the elections laws and (ii) the rules and regulations of the Board insofar as they do not conflict with Virginia or federal law. The Board shall post on the Internet within three business days any rules or regulations made by the Board. Upon request and at a reasonable charge not to exceed the actual cost incurred, the State Board shall provide to any requesting political party or candidate, within three days of the receipt of the request, copies of any instructions or information provided by the State Board to the local electoral boards and registrars.

Two other court case decisions concerning discrepancies of the Richmond Registrar have been granted to the plaintiffs Tichi Pickney-Eppes, U. S. District Court, Case 312-CV-00545, and Michael Ryan, in the Richmond Circuit Court, Case 6120032-77, because the Registrar did not properly count names to determine qualification for the ballot. Both cases challenged the Virginia Code disallowing appeal of the Registrar’s decision because there was no preclearance by the Justice Department. The State Board of Elections nor the Richmond Electoral Board took any action to allow investigation into these claims by these plaintiffs. Therefore, both courts were required to intervene so that fairness and equality could be granted. Other candidates were not provided this opportunity.

The Plaintiffs have found some notable problems concerning qualification for candidates by the Registrar. There has been no documentation to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants that any oversight was provided to the Registrar concerning these matters.

1. The GREBook, EXHIBIT I states that the signatures of registered voters are to be marked with the proper notation and counted. We have found several instances where it appears that the signatures have been forged and many signatures have not been properly noted as required by GREBook 10.2.5.7. The total number of qualified signatures cannot be determined by an inspector. However, the candidate was deemed qualified. See Dwight Jones petitions in Exhibit II. The forgeries would be criminal acts. The Registrar has the ability to check the actual signatures for forgeries.

2. Petition submission for Douglas Connor, Ninth District City Council Candidate, Lists two different addresses which violates 10.2.3.1 and 10.2.5.2 of the GREbook. See Exhibit I, the GREBook and statements by Luis Pantophlet, Exhibit III.

3. Jonathan Baliles, First District Council Candidate’s, petitions were not allowed by the Registrar to be viewed by the public except by small portion until after September 2012. There was no evidence that all the required signatures had been submitted by June 12, 2012, the last date to submit qualification documentation.

This is a violation of 10.2.4.1 of the GREBook. The Plaintiffs must conclude that the Registrar was keeping information from the public. The pages that were allowed to be seen did not provide the total number of signatures of registered voters required or 125. See Luis Pantophlet’s statement of his completed research, Exhibit IV.

Virginia Code states that “Books, papers, and records of the electoral board shall be open to inspection by any registered voter either at the office of the electoral board (if applicable) or the office of the general registrar (§ 24.2-107).”

4. Petition signatures for L. Shirley Harvey clearly showed 68 more than the total of the Registrar’s Office. This is a violation of 10.2.5.7 of the GREBook. See also Exhibit III, Luis Pantophlet’s statement of completed research.

5. Christopher Hilbert’s petition signatures contained two sets of pages numbered
8-11. This is a violation of GREBook, 10.2.5.7.

6. S. Lee Shewmake in Exhibit IV provides her statement of research that showed
That Parker Agelesto who was qualified by the Registrar, did not have enough signatures. Even though this error was brought to the Registrar after the appeal date of June 12, 2012, the Registrar went back to check the signatures and agreed that three of the signatures were counted incorrectly as registered voters. The Registrar then proceeded to find three other signatures she said had also marked incorrectly to keep Mr. Agelesto as a qualified candidate for Fifth District City Council. The Registrar violated the State Board’s policy and the non-pre-cleared law that there would be no changes after the filing date.

7. S. Lee Shewmake complains also that E. Martin Jewell did not report all income and expenditure reports while she was required to do so and told that if she did not make her penalty payments that her name would not be placed on the ballot. See Exhibit IV. The Registrar allowed placement of Mr. Jewell’s name on the ballot although he did not complete the filings nor pay the late fees by the June 12, 2012, deadline.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs have attempted time and time again to move those in authority to fulfill their duties as stipulated by the Code of Virginia, 24.2 and the GREBook to investigate complaints and/or provide an investigation basically concerning the omissions and commissions by the registrar, Jane Kirk Showalter. Those holding the positions who have authority over the Registrar have failed their duties by not responding to complaints and have given permission to the registrar to do whatever she pleases unimpeded in regards to the qualification process. Allowing the registrar to have unchecked authority over qualification could lead to unqualified names placed on the ballot, qualified candidates names being left off, bribery, claims of discrimination and lawsuits. The Plaintiffs in this case did not want to go to court. As citizens of this state, we want a clear and fair process that properly follows the city, state and federal
laws.

The other two lawsuits discussed earlier would have been unnecessary if those in authority had looked at the requests for corrections. The attorneys for these clients have benefitted greatly and will be paid handsomelywill be paid with citizen tax funds because the rules were not properly followed by those entrusted to keep the law. The Plaintiffs concern is that these processes be corrected and that more successful methods and procedures be implemented to determine qualified candidates. Citizens expect a correct and honorable list of names for the ballot. This effort should be a required yearly examination to abort any mistakes or deliberate actions taken to disregard the Code of Virginia.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs respectfully request an investigation which should not
take long if the manual and electronic systems are proficient