Diane Capehart, Chair of USVI Committee on Housing & Government Services: Conduct investigative hearings into USVI elections, system and officials.
This petition had 390 supporters
According to St. Thomas/St. John Board of Election member, WIlma Marsh-Monsanto, Diane Capehart will take the matter of looking into election allegations seriously if there is sufficient public interest by petition.
Signers of this petition can be ANY individual, without restriction or qualification, whom has an interest in making certain the integrity and credibility of our election outcomes, the system and officials are beyond reproach. Illegitimate government and fraudulent elections in one community create ripple effects that negatively affect the international community.
PLEASE SIGN ONLY ONE TIME AND INCLUDE A COMMENT AS TO WHY SIGNING THIS PETITION IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, THEN IMMEDIATELY SHARE THIS LINK FAR AND WIDE WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW. WE NEED AS MANY SIGNATURES AS POSSIBLE BY THE FIRST TARGET DATE OF JUNE 5, 2013!
The signatures collected through this petition are directed instantly into Diane Capehart's InBox and will also be used to compel the Boards of Elections, Attorney General, VI Inspector General, US Attorney, Election Assistance Commission, and US Department of Justice to investigate our election matters officially, as well.
This is not a blog. Duplicate and obviously fabricated signatures will be purged and not counted in the final signature total.
P E T I T I O N / A L L E G A T I O N S
The people of the US Virgin Islands consent to be governed on the sole condition election results are fairly obtained.
The US Department of Justice has stated, “When elections are corrupt, arbitrary and corrupt government inevitably follow.”
If you are not convinced by now we are confronted with full-blown, "arbitrary and corrupt government", simply watch the two-minute news clip at the top of this page.
After years of controversy it is essential at this point in time to determine once and for all whether the US Virgin Islands Election System is/has been deliberately left open to compromise and vulnerabilities exploited, thus yielding dis-believable vote outcomes that contradict the collective will of the voters.
A multitude of documented allegations substantiating irrefutable violations of election law on both the local and federal levels, committed by election officials themselves, has been furnished throughout the 2012 primary and general election cycles for the express purpose of preventing the potential subversion of election outcomes due to error, fraud, or mistake.
All were ignored.
Although an overwhelming multitude of notarized complaints and concerns pertaining to the legitimacy of the 2012 primary and general elections have been dismissed out-of-hand and ridiculed by the very election officials who are mandated by law to investigate and report election irregularities to the Attorney General for immediate and appropriate remedy, the substantiated allegations penetrating to the core of local and federal election law violation have not yet been permitted to see the light of day.
Pursuant to 42 USCA §15481(a)(6), the U.S. Virgin Islands accomplished uniform voting system standards and thereby defined what constitutes a vote and counts as a vote under the Federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by enacting into law Act 7334, Section 3.
This single law mandates from December 28, 2011 forward, without condition or exception:
“...ONLY those voting machines and equipment that are EAC certified pursuant to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, for Primary, General and Special elections shall be utilized as the official voting systems or equipment.”
Standing at the heart of our concerns are the actions by the Attorney General, Vincent Frazier, to instruct the Boards of Elections just weeks before the 2012 general election to deploy outlawed, non-EAC certified voting machines on which approximately 90% of the vote tabulation was derived and subsequently used as a basis for swearing-in of candidates into public office.
Highlighting the Attorney General's disregard for law, 18 V.I.C. § 6 states:
“NO amendments to this title [VI Code 18] shall be enacted by the Legislature in the period of six (6) months immediately preceding the date of a general election except in compliance with an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The last general election was conducted on November 6, 2012. The six-month window prohibiting changes to election laws and processes (except by court order) was triggered on May 6, 2012.
Just prior to May 6, 2012, the 29th Legislature passed a number of last-minute election reform measures and submitted them to the Governor for signature.
Unfortunately, the measures were conveniently vetoed on May 14, 2012 - a full eight-days after the May 6th deadline had passed.
The logic behind the veto was that the six (6) month window prohibiting changes to election laws and process was in effect and signing the measures into law would violate VI law.
Clearly, voters were deliberately denied meaningful election reform. However, the rationale behind the veto solidified the unconditional meaning of 18 V.I.C. § 6 and further strengthened the unconditional relevance of Act 7334.
Even earlier, the opportunity was abundantly available to the 29th Legislature, the Board of Elections and the Attorney General from December 28, 2011 to May 6, 2012 to either:
1. Amend Act 7334 to permit the use of non-EAC certified voting machines;
2. Certify our present voting machines;
3. Purchase EAC-certified voting machines;
4. Mandate the use of paper ballots as the sole voting instrument.
However, those legally viable options were not diligently exercised and the dereliction is tantamount to gross negligence.
In other words, no attempt by legally prescribed means was made to modify Section 3 of Act 7334 through the court, or by anyone with jurisdiction, between December 28, 2011 and May 6, 2012, or between May 6, 2012 and the November 2012 general election.
Therefore, Act 7334 stood untouched as the last word on the matter and that non-EAC certified voting machines were NOT permissable as a legal voting instrument for use in the 2012 election.
Yet, the Attorney General, who does NOT possess the authority of the Legislature or a court of competent jurisdiction, nor sought the authority of the Legislature or the court, authorized the use of illegal voting machines shortly before the 2012 general election, within the six-month exclusion window, outside the scope of his limited Title 3 powers and duties, in direct violation of Act 7334 and 18 V.I.C. § 6, when paper ballots were available in plain sight as the ONLY legal voting instrument alternative. WHY???
Can you say, "arbitrary and corrupt?"
Regardless, the vote tabulation was certified by election officials and put forward to be used as a legitimate basis to swear candidates (local and federal) into public office when in fact the voting machines utilized in the election were NOT the uniform voting system the territory certified to the federal government and therefore votes cast on those machines DID NOT and COULD NOT constitute NOR be counted as legal votes.
As independent-thinking lawmakers, who asked for our votes in order to swear an oath to formulate and uphold laws, to include the laws of the US Virgin Islands, please determine for the public once and for all:
1. What legal authority did the Attorney General, Vincent Frazer, have outside of 18 V.I.C. § 6 to arbitrarily instruct the use of non-EAC certified voting machines that, in essence, contradicted Act 7334 and thereby changed election law by decree?
2. What legal authority permitted the use of non-EAC certified voting machines outside the language specific to Act 7334, Section 3?
3. How could the votes cast on non-EAC certified voting machines legally constitute votes and count as votes, then be certified by election officials and used as a legal basis to swear candidates into public office?
4. Election officials have testified this year both in federal court and before the Legislature that the voting machines used in the last election were illegal. How does the use of illegal voting machines produce a legal result?
5. Why were voters and candidates, who submitted notarized and documented complaints, never advised of their entitlement to the Administrative Complaint Process pursuant to HAVA, Title III, Section 402, as committed to by the Territory in its State Plan?
6. The Attorney General assigned a portion of his staff to the task of investigating the 2012 general election and simultaneously assigned other staff to defend in court the same Board of Election Members, as his client, against the same overlapping allegations he is investigating them for.
How do these acts NOT constitute blatant conflict of interest?
Why were candidates and voters who submitted substantiated complaints of election wrongdoing never interviewed?
Why is the Attorney General keeping the status/findings of the "investigation" from the public?
7. Why are St. Thomas/St. John election officials refusing to provide vote tally sheets used in the certification of the 2012 general election?
8. In 1989, Mapp v. Laewetz, the Court ruled, "the Legislature is the sole judge of the eligibility and qualifications of its members."
In the event you find illegal voting machines were indeed used as a basis for the majority of vote tabulation, will you recommend all candidates "elected" by the use of those voting machines step down and call for election decertification, followed promptly by a call for a new election?
All unanswered questions pertaining to the last election, the election system and the role election officials played in its outcome must be answered now.
We are demanding the convening of a Committee on the Whole, by or before July 31, 2013, on St. Thomas with video conferencing to accomodate St. Croix testifiers, in order to get to the bottom of these issues through a comprehensive hearing and investigation to include witnesses/testifiers placed under oath, testimony by affidavit, tally sheets, election audit results and all relevant evidence, by subpoena, until this issue is resolved.
Findings resulting from the hearings are to be forwarded to appropriate local and federal authorities with jurisdiction for appropriate investigative action and prosecution.
Today: Mary is counting on you
Mary Dembecker needs your help with “Diane Capehart, Chair of USVI Committee on Housing & Government Services: Conduct investigative hearings into USVI elections, system and officials.”. Join Mary and 389 supporters today.