Election officials are cross-referencing postmark dates on 16 ballots with the U.S. Postal Service and expect results sometime next week — a change from earlier predictions the 16th congressional district recount final tally would be out April 24.
San Mateo County released preliminary results in the District 16 recount on April 24, with no change to over 40,000 machine-scanned ballots, 12 rejected challenges to ballots with signature issues and one rejected challenge to a conditional voter registration ballot.
The 16 challenged ballots remain under review, Jim Irizarry, San Mateo County assistant elections officer, said.
“It’s much more important to be accurate than to be fast,” Irizarry said. “We would like to get this done as quickly as possible, but it’s much more important we have all this information, be deliberate in gathering this information.”
Santa Clara County has finished reviewing ballots in 196 precincts. Officials there hope to be finished with the recount process by the end of the week, Steve Goltiao, associate communications officer for the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, said previously.
According to released preliminary result data from Santa Clara County, three votes have been added for Joe Simitian and two for Low, the Mercury News reported.
A dramatic twist in the District 16 race originally saw candidates Evan Low and Simitian tie for second place, with Sam Liccardo in a comfortable first.
A subsequent recount request, filed by former Liccardo staffer Jonathan Padilla, prompted concerns about legal legitimacy from the Low campaign, demands from a variety of elected officials for recount funding sources to be made public and a Federal Election Commission complaint, among other turbulence.
I think we need a recount of the recount. Best two out of three? Or would it hit the courts before then? And didn’t a court rule that postmark dates can’t be used to invalidate a vote?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
How can there be faith in a system whose results are different than the original results?
I think we need a recount of the recount. Best two out of three? Or would it hit the courts before then? And didn’t a court rule that postmark dates can’t be used to invalidate a vote?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.