Ed Lee's voter fraud problem


I realize that Mayor Ed Lee has denounced what appears to be clear voter fraud, but he has a problem and it's not going to go away. Lee has allowed himself to be surrounded by the same sort of sleaze artists who circled around the administration of Willie Brown, doing the same sorts of things. And simply calling this crew and its actions "moronic" isn't going to cut it.

Does anybody really believe that there's no connection at all between Lee and the San Francisco Neighbors Alliance or the other independent expenditure committees working for Lee? No way that Rose Pak, Lee's friend who meets with him regularly, is communicating with Enrique Pearce, the consultant for the IE, who worked with Pak on the Run Ed Run committee?

Does anybody really believe that this kind of activity would continue if Lee really wanted it to stop?

Lee's supporters say the guy is new to this level of politics and is a little naive about the rules. Sorry -- that's not an excuse. The last thing we need is a mayor who doesn't understand how important honest, open government is and who can't figure out how to keep the likes of Enrique Pearce in line. Because then we get Willie Brown all over again.

Brown's administration was full of lobbyists and so-called independent operators who had the mayor's ear, got what they wanted -- and had no accountability to anyone. Brown also had some problems with election laws.

This is a bad sign, and the district attorney ought to be investigating, fast -- and releasing the results before Election Day.



Except our ballots in the NW have identifiers to each legit voter. They are numbered, they have barcodes.

NW ballots don't get found in the Bay. They don't get collected by apartment managers or stuffed into bags.

I think the SF election results are already compromised. Have those responsible foot the bill for new ballots and a clean election, minus Arntz.

Posted by LawAbidingGuest on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 9:16 pm

other than what his reactionary friends have told him. If he did he wouldn't have made such an idiotic comment insinuating that vote-by-mail in Oregon encourages fraud. A claim, I might add, which Republicans in places like North Carolina, Minnesota and Tennessee are echoing in order to reduce poor and minority participation in actual polling place elections.

It's those kind of comments which really show where someone's sympathies lie. And Eric's are on the firm right-wing of politics.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

I am an ultra left wing radical anarchist. You are so full of shit its coming out of your ears.

Nice attempt to distract from the real issue of Ed Lee trying to steal an election with vote-by-mail ballots, but no one reading this blog is going to be misdirected by your pathetic bag of cheap propaganda tricks.

Looks like such ballots are indeed a bit of a problem here in San Francisco, eh?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 10:33 pm

Misdirected? You've been attempting to "misdirect" progressive voters for years. But this latest attempt to smear vote-by-mail using unsubstantiated right-wing claims of "wide scale fraud" has unmasked you for what you are: a mole trying to undermine the progressive movement from within.

Some of us have suspected this for a while now and I think your conscience was attempting to unburden itself through the slip of the tongue that unmasked you here. It usually happens this way to moles who spend too long with those they're trying to subvert - the guilt gets to them. it certainly did to you.

Eric Brooks - right-wing mole trying to destroy the progressive movement from within - echoing the claims of the Republican party and raising the red flag to oppose the red flag.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

If you are going to sling serious accusations like that around, you better damned well have the courage to stop gutlessly shooting pot shots anonymously from the sidelines and reveal your real identity.

Until you have the balls to do that mini man, you are unlikely to be believed.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

and then I'll reveal mine.

The evidence is quite clear Eric - you've made the case yourself, repeatedly, right here on the SFBG's online forum. You echoed the claims of extremist Republicans that vote-by-mail is "rife with fraud," which is a lie. A lie used to restrict the voting rights of minority and poor Americans.

Eric Brooks - right-wing mole, raising the red flag to oppose the red flag.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 9:55 am

Could you please open your mind for one second, and admit that voting by mail opens elections up to voter fraud? Who the heck cares if it's wide spread or not when ONE VOTE can decide an election!

And can you please explain just how so-called minority and poor Americans are restricted from going to a polling place to vote when precincts are scattered all around town? Further, California Elections Code requires employers to post a notice to employees advising them of provisions for taking PAID LEAVE for the purpose of voting in elections.

Or are you going to dismiss my concerns over this DISGUSTING ironing board precinct display by accusing me, too, of being "right-wing mole, raising the red flag to oppose the red flag." As far as I'm concerned, you're the one with the agenda here. You're agenda seems to be to shout down concerned citizens with misinformation in order to keep in place a system that allows freaking VOTER FRAUD!

Posted by Crazy8 on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 12:17 pm

In addition voting restrictions, including ID requirements, are proven to disenfranchise the poor.

What happened with Ed Lee's campaign is disgraceful but it's not as a result of vote-by-mail, it's as a result of duplicitous campaign workers. Eric remedy is an exact echo of right-wing Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. He routinely echoes extremism because he's trying to reduce the power of the progressive movement by acting as a mole - it's as clear as day.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

Your point about disenfranchisement is well taken, but unfortunately it appears the only way to prevent this unconscionable level of corruption from happening is to remove the opportunity for these creatures to get their hands on our ballots.

Learned behavior: Thank goodness they were dumb enough to do this in broad daylight so there's no denying what's been going on behind closed doors all these years!

Anyone who tries to minimize this event, or change the subject, cannot be trusted because their intent is to protect this free for all; this overt stealing of our elections.

Posted by Crazy8 on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

That's what you're saying essentially. You want to end the ability of people to vote absentee.

Doesn't that sound like a drastic solution to a single case of questionable tactics?

If your solution is implemented students attending college outside of San Francisco couldn't vote - neither could people temporarily outside the city on business or pleasure. Or people who are housebound. Or people who just want to be able to vote when they want and not go to the polls on election day.

Considering that over 45% of registered SF voters do so absentee you're calling for removing over 205,000 voters from a total of 475,000 in SF.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

Actually 'Guest' if were really paying attention, you would have noticed that I did not once advocate for getting rid of absentee ballots at all. What I am arguing against is the foolish idea that most progressives have fallen prey to, that we should push -more- people to vote absentee. Absentee voting is too easily corrupted. Period.

What we should be promoting instead is more early voting, weekend voting, and a voting work holiday, so that we can get as many people as possible to go to the polls where their vote is much more secure.

That way, we can avoid the type of corruption that we have just seen Ed Lee's campaign engage in, in Chinatown (and god knows where else)...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

in 2008, because the SF Department of Elections lost my absentee ballot, I had to wait nearly three hours at City Hall in the rain, on a Saturday, to vote.

Your solution is ridiculous and unrealistic and is equivalent to treating dandruff with decapitation.

Again - there has never been a proven case of wide-scale absentee ballot fraud. Eric is parroting the line of the Republican party on this issue. He's a mole doing whatever he can to destroy the progressive movement.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

I think we've sufficiently dispensed with your bogus accusations. (And of course early voting would be much more accessible if we put far more funding into it.)

Now let's get back to the subject you are trying to obfuscate:

Huffington Post on Ed Lee corruption:

Huffington Post on Ed Lee campaign's money laundering scandal:

and on your new favorite subject of Republican influence:

SF Weekly on Republican support of, and massive donations to, Ed Lee.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

The turnout would be greater if the polls were open multiple days. If the mail-in ballots are distributed a month in advance, then why not have some precincts open for a month?

Get out the vote: when I worked on the last general election, we phoned voters and asked them if they needed a ride to the polls, regardless of who they intended to vote for.

Posted by Crazy8 on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

I'm not advocating "ending absentee balloting." I'm advocating for a serious review of our elections, and more controls.

All of a sudden, everyone and their able bodied sister, including me, are voting by mail -- and I don't fall into any of the categories that used to justify the need. What's up with that?

When I do go, the precincts are empty, and there are 4 and 5 people being paid money we don't have as a state to sit on their hands. It's ridiculous!

I don't have the answer, but I sure as heck know corruption when I smell it... Maybe big red words on the envelope that read, "WARNING: You will be jailed for 25 years to life for violating election law, and if you don't know what the heck that is you better find out before you put your dirty hands on a ballot without your name on it."

I'm dead serious. 25 to life! Tell it to the judge, cuz I don't want to hear about your freaking good intentions. Meh!

Posted by Crazy8 on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

because I don't want to go to the polls - I have better things to do. I don't need a better reason than that.

Voting should be made as accessible as possible. I'm opposed to any measure, such as the one mole Eric Brooks is advocating, which would make it more difficult to vote-by-mail.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

I see provocateur. And when exactly did I advocate that? Can you cut and past that for us?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

I've already made crystal clear several times on this blog over many years that the organization I coordinate only receives funds funds from individual donors averaging around $30 per year, all of whom are on the progressive end of the spectrum. That organization pays my only salary, which is less than 20k per year.

You on the other hand are anonymously making claims that anyone who knows me can tell you are nonsense.

You'll have to do better than that, mini man.

I any case, let's get back to the subject that you are trying to distract from.

Ed Lee (along with his very -real- big money Republican backers) is running a corrupt campaign and now he's going to lose.

Read 'em and weep tiny man... ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 2:31 pm

Who's been exposed as the mole he was. So obfuscate all you want Eric - you've been exposed as a long-term right-wing plant.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

Let's get back to the -real- Republican corruption, shall we?

Republican big money is backing both Ed Lee's and Jeff Adachi's campaigns, and the Republicans have even openly supported Lee.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it.

Each time you attempt at misdirection, I will simply use your ploy to return us to the actual truth about Lee's corruption. So by all means, keep it up.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

Who's your handler? How much do you get for consistently attempting to undermine the progressive community?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

That's easy to answer. I don't get paid by anyone to undermine anything. I already told you how much and exactly from whom, I get paid (via a 501c4 nonprofit which gets no donations nor grants of any kind from corporations, nonprofits, nor any political parties).

Now, let's once again get back to Ed Lee's -real- undermining of the progressive community and his -real- connections to Republicans.

SF Bay Guardian on the blurry lines between corrupt Ed Lee campaign and his independent expenditure campaigns (some of which are funded by Republicans)...


Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 26, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

cast any differently than what that voter intended?

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

There you go again...

Again, stop trying to change the subject, and try to follow me here: Voter "intent" is nowhere in the statute, now is it? Please, show me if it is, or pipe down.

A judge could give a rats ass who those people intended to vote for as long as the law wasn't violated. Since the law was clearly violated, IT'S ELECTION FRAUD.

Posted by Crazy8 on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

and not the just the perception

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

You whined repeatedly for others to cite the laws Ed Lee's campaign workers have broken.
Others responded by posting the laws verbatim.

Where is the law that supports your statement?
I'll give you a hint:
It doesn't exist.

Therefore, Ed Lee's campaign has broken election laws and Ed Lee is now November roadkill.
Say hi to the people in prison for us, Enrique!

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

ed lee's challengers might learn a lot just tailing the mayor's prime pimp with a video camera . . . heck, the same goes for the mainstream media who could easily shadow the pimp on the public streets . . . tip of the iceberg with the rainbow grocery photo shoot, the ed lee book, chinatown voting assistance . . . follow the money, and the pimps . . .

Posted by MPetrelis on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

What is the 'high-tech' equivalent of ballot boxes bobbing in the Bay.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

For San Franciscan's looking to find out more about all the mayoral candidates (in a fair and balanced, nonpartisan summary) I encourage you to check out the League of Women Voters of San Francisco "SmartVoter.org" site: http://smartvoter.org/2011/11/08/ca/sf/ballot.html

Posted by Jennifer Waggoner on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 10:17 am

Is that your prejudice?

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

It ain't a prejudice - it's a fact

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

In the absence of any evidence, facts or proof?

Er, oh, OK.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

oh shit, another barely monosyllabic mud person.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 6:25 pm

like yourself, when one can simply state their case in a few sentences?

See how that works? No need to reference "hagfish" or anything else - elegant and simple.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 7:31 pm

This story has gotten significant traction. A number of people I know who were planning on voting for him are now hesitant. The casual voters, "I was planning on voting for him, but he just seems connected to the old sleaze." If you ask them to define old sleaze, they won't really be able to clarify that.

What - a - dumbass. The guy had the election handed to him, just play it safe - and dude is looking like a total shadeball.

Bummer, because as disingenuous as he is, I think he could be a productive mayor.

But yeah, in steps Herrera. He's got big money backing him. Possibly Chiu. Guys like Adachi and Dufty with the super long shot. Pretty impressive look at how bad Avalos sucks that he can't even attempt to take advantage of this, because he's too busy keepin' it real with the OWS crowd and showing up for cameos at Critical Masshole. No worries, John - Eric still believes in you!

Posted by Sambo on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 8:53 pm

There are very good reasons why this kind of thing is illegal. Once tolerated, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to full on election fraud. We should be taking a zero-tolerance approach regarding this behavior.

Posted by RamRod on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 2:49 am

I agreed with the person who helped his/her grandma fill out forms. I am chinese amerinca. I also help my non-englush speaking relatives and friends fill out things at thier request. they even ask me to turn it in or mail it for them. I know many others who do this as well. I watched the videos and saw that these ladies went up to the table very clearly for Ed Lee and asked for help. Many of us think Yee;s people are sneaky by filming without opeople's consnet. But of course he doesn't carea bout law and rule because he was arrested for sholifting in hawaii and skip his hearing. He used false address to get his kid into a better school while as a member of board of educationm and other issues reported by SF weeklyt and Hawaiian newspaper declared him "unfit to be mayor" he has no right to critize other people. As for the articl in Epoch times. The reporter "masqurade "as someone needing help. That is also sneaky and even entrappment. But this is what that paper does. maybe the ballot shown to her was a sample or belongs to the person who showed her? And also when these people supposedly not know whom they vote for. I can tell you that as member of the same culture and have done survy (not election related), people tell you they "don't know" or "don;t remember" instead of telling you they don't want to tell you or leave me alone. We in the community have always wonder about this epoch times because they have no ads in the paper but canafford to print free paper. even the bay guardian has to sell porn ads and pot club ads. and when i asked the woman who trie dto give me a paper how she get the money. she gave strange responses. some of them sound kind of out of it. i ownder if these senior ladies are being exploited. are they a cult or backed by some strange group or foreing government? so let the investigations judge what is legal or illegal. but i don't like the way these people who don't wunderstand chinese making wrong judgements

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

The 'shoplifting' charge against Yee was thrown out because it was nonsense.

And Lee's workers were clearly violating vital laws that are fundamental to our democracy.

This is about the right to vote without the danger of coercion.

An issue that is far more important than a bottle of suntan lotion, which Yee took out of a store to show his wife to see if it was the right kind.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

from the same Ed Lee Campaign that committed these acts of election fraud and broke the law.

The same bullshit talking points are recognizable beneath this insulting imitation of a chinese american who can't write and can't type but also can't resist taking a swipe at the SFBG for "porn ads and pot club ads".

I think he do wunderstand.
And we wunderstand his crooked bullshit.
Have a nice time in jail, Enrique, as soon as the investigations judge you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 3:46 pm

You wanna continue Feinstein/Pelosi/Willie/Newscum>Mr Ed. That's your choice and your right. Should work out good for you if you're actually one of the 1%. There may be another 5% deluded into thinking they have a chance of getting a seat at 'the rich man's table', fuggedahaboudid, stash those crumbs. gonna be a long, cold, lonely, winter of discontent.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 30, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

New violations are reported, for anyone following the story: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/san-francisco-chinatown-ac...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:09 am

But i guess if your side doesn't have any decent policy arguments, then throwing dirt is all you have left.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:22 am