City Hall observations, 11 p.m.: It ain’t over …

Posted on Tuesday 17 April 2007

When I arrived to City Hall tonight close to 11 p.m., the Precinct 6 ballots had been tallied but had not been posted on the screen. There were a number of people hugging and offering congratulations, and I assume they were Measure V supporters because at the time, it appeared that the election was over and that Measure V had squeaked in. (Please see the city’s website to see the current, *uncertified and incomplete* election results.)

The scene when I arrived, people chatting. It appeared to me at the time that Measure V had just squeaked by.

Then it became clear from City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger that all the ballots had not been counted. She explained that about 90 provisional ballots and 90 absentee ballots still need verification from the county. Those votes will not be counted tonight.

City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger with others, counting and sorting ballots.

People listening to the explanation of the uncounted ballots.

Measure V supporters then started doing calculations, trying to figure out the possible impact of the uncounted ballots.

We may not know the official outcome of the election for a few more days or possibly until next week.

Council Member Kurt Zimmerman, after the news that there were uncounted ballots.

My understanding is that California initiative measures require a simple majority to be enacted. So, my conclusion is that the 180 or so uncounted ballots are key. Correct me if I’m wrong, folks.

More news, corrections, additions, whatever, as it becomes available.


  1.  
    zJosh
    April 18, 2007 | 7:42 am
     

    While the 180 ballots are key, too large a percentage (at least 77.8%) would need to be NO votes for those ballots to affect a change in the results. Looking through the various precincts and absentee results that seems highly unlikely*. While the gap may grow or shrink it looks as though Measure V has indeed passed.

    *The results so far show an average shift of 9.6% with a standard deviation of 6.3%, therefore this is NOT a statistical dead heat. We’re talking about being around three standard deviations away from the 77.8% needed to change the results.

  2.  
    May 2, 2007 | 6:30 pm
     

    […] Or at least that’s what inSierraMadre.com is reporting (minus the rioting, though it can’t be far behind). There’s no real reason to doubt this claim since it’s what the city is reporting as well. Full take coming in the morning. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.