Jeannie Haston Armstrong,

APPELLANT

BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT COMMITTEES

FOR THE 8TlI, 10m, AND 11m

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

APPEAL OF THE SPECIAL VACANCY ENDORSEMENT VOTE OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AT LARGE

TO THE HONORABLE FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CHAIRS FOR THE 8th, 10th, and 11th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF VIRGINIA:

NOW COMES Jeannie Haston Armstrong, Appellant, appealing the result of the Special Vacancy Endorsement Vote of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee and, in support thereof, shows as follows:
L PARTIES

1. Jeannie Haston Armstrong, Appellant is a candidate for Fairfax County School Board, At Large, and was duly qualified to seek the endorsement of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee for Fairfax County School Board, At Large. She may be served via electronic mail at jeannie@jeanniearmstrong.com, or by United States Mail at 10323 Steamboat Landing, Burke, Virginia. II.
JURISDIcrlON

& VENUE

2. Appellant brings this appeal pursuant to Section 8.5 of the Democratic Party Plan of the Democratic Party of Virginia, as revised, December, 2010 (hereinafter ''Virginia Democratic Party Plan), which states in relevant part:

Any person aggrieved by any decision, action or failure to act by a county or city committee may appeal to the district committee for the congressional district in which the county or city is situated, disposition of such appeal shall follow the procedure outlined in the previous paragraph when the county or city is divided between two or more districts. The decision oj..tbe.con.g.";,usio.'lo"l,,disttict . committeeis) may be appealed 10 the Steering Committee.

Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the Virginia Democratic Party Plan, venue is proper before the Democratic Congressional District Chairs of the three Congressional Districts contained within or bisecting Fairfax County, Virginia.

3.

m.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. Appellant is a candidate for Fairfax County School Board, at large. Appellant is a Democrat and member in good standing of the Fairfax County Democratic Party. 5. On or about July 12, 2011, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee's Steering Committee (hereinafter he Steering Committee") adopted rules for a Special t Vacancy Endorsement Process for Fairfax County School Board, At Large, following the withdrawal of endorsed candidate Charisse Glassman. 6. On July 26, 2011, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee held an endorsement vote for the Special Vacancy Endorsement in Fairfax, Virginia. The results of that election placed Ryan McElveen, also a candidate for Fairfax County School Board, At Large, two votes ahead of appellant, and McElveen was awarded the endorsement by virtue of the vote.

m.

ApPELLANT'S CONTENTION

7. Appellant contends that the July 26,2011 vote for the Fairfax. County Democratic Committee was improperly conducted and was ripe for fraud and disenfranchisement of voters. 8. Appellant contends that the procedures set forth for the Special Vacancy Endorsement by the Steering Commisee.wene &'\-"VIed",in,violatiofil'ilf e ~eN!.OOratic b party Plan of the Democratic Party of Virginia, in violation of the bylaws of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, and in violation of Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.

m.

ApPELLANT'S

CONTENTION

9. The Rules For The Special Vacancy Endorsement Process Violate FCDC Bylaws. The rules promulgated by the Fairfax. County Democratic Committee for

the special vacancy endorsement are in direct violation of and in conflict with Fairfax County Democratic Committee Bylaws. The Bylaws of the Fairfax County Democratic Committee (as amended, November, 2010) at Article X, Section 5 briefly outlines the manner in which endorsements may be granted by the FCOC. This section of the bylaws does not, however, give the FCDe or the Steering CoIIUIJ.tt:1ee theexpress autho~ty to.establish procedures outside those outlined in the bylaws for endorsement screening, or for handling an endorsement screening in the event a previously endorsed candidate

withdraws or is otherwise disqualified. Additionally, nothing in the PCDC Bylaws authorizes the FCDe to conduct endorsement elections by secret ballot.

10.

The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules Failed To Provide Adequate

Protection Against Fraud and Repeat ~ting. The rules ~muJgatoo by the Stee'riag Committee fail to protect candidates and FCDC members from fraud and repeat voting.

a. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules Failed To Require Numbered Ballots. Numbered ballots were not used in the endorsement vote last night. The purpose of consecutively numbered ballots-such as those used in federal and state elections-is to prevent ballot box stuffing and fraud. Additionally, utilizing numbered ballots allows the authority administering the election to track the number of a specific ballot to the individual voter the ballot was given. Without numbered ballots, it is impossible to tell if additional ballots were cast by the same voters, or if some voters' ballots were replaced, not tallied, or otherwise disposed of. The FCDC created a process ripe fOJ;potential fraud and mismaaagesnent.
b.

t trt

The Absence Of Numbered Ballots Created Ample Opportunity For Fraud And Repeat Voting. Without numbered ballots, any person could have easily cast multiple votes, discarded votes cast by others, or provided additional ballots to anyone present. c. The Absence of Numbered Ballots Fails To Allow For Independent Verification Of Election Results. Without numbered ballots, it is impossible to match each and every vote cast to an individual duly credentialed and physically present for the voting process. 11. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules fail to require adequate measures to protect cast and uncast baUots. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules include no provisions for the security of the ballots prior to, during, or after the vote. This resulted in a chaotic process by which District Chairs could have easily obtained an excess number of ballots to distribute. The rules provided no requirement for a traceable chain of custody from printing to distribution and counting of the ballots. In addition, there were no security measures in place to protect unused or undistributed ballots from
being obtained and cast during the process.

12. The Minimal Protection Measures Built Into The Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules Were Not Properly FoUowed. Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules ill (A) through m (C) were not properly followed by the FCDC. Several district chairs "verified" attendance within their districts with no assistants, monitoring, or verification. "Eligible Voters" were "verified" at the start of the meeting-not when it was time to distribute ballots as required in the rules. In addition, there was no uniformity among Magisterial Districts with regard to the manner in which eligible voters were verified.

13.

There Is No Independently Verifiable Method To Prove Attendance

Of Eligible Vote~ Each district chair used.their own method to.attempt to conform to the Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules, and Appellant is unaware of any instance where the actual "eligible voters" were required to take any action by which their presence at the meeting could later be independently verified-such as through signing a sign-in sheet with their District Chair. Any District Chair wishing to tip the election in favor of one candidate or another would have been free to simply fill names in on their lists and claim those individuals were present at the meeting, received a ballot, and cast that ballot. 14. The ''Teller'' Process Promulgated By The Rules Was Easily Manipulated And Not Properly Followed. The requirement that the Chairs return cast ballots to the tellers creates a process which is easily manipulated to disenfranchise voters through discarding of ballots, the addition of pre-marked ballots to the collection of ballots, and other forms of fraud. Even though the FCDC promulgated this rule, it was not actually followed in at least half of the Districts where random FCDC members and other people Appellant was not able to identify as District Chairs, their Assistants, or FCDC members, collected ballots by various unsecured means and transported them to the tellers. Any process which adds a third party handling ballots between the voter himself and the ballot box is far too easily manipulated to serve as a standard for such an important election as this. 15. The Rules Failed to Set Forth Any Standard By Which Spoiled Ballots Should Be Discarded. In addition to failing to provide any standard by which uncast ballots should be secured the Special Endorsement Rules provided no standard by which spoiled ballots should be discarded or handled. 16. Rule n (C) or the Special Vacancy Endersement Rules was not uniformly followed. There appears to have been no process whatsoever by which District Chairs could adequately-and subject to independent verification-verify the eligibility of the voters present. Even if such a process existed, because it was handled solely by the District Chairs as.. thex ed around the venue, it is impossible to determine if it was done accurately. . 17. The Special Vacancy Eudorsement Process Violates Sections 8.7 and

10.2 of the Virginia Democratic party Plan. Section 8.7 of the Virginia Democratic
Party Plan (as adopted December 4. 2010) requires the County Committee to submit its bylaws to the state party for review. As the Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules were promulgated as an extension of the bylaws to address an area where the bylaws are silent (specifically, withdrawal of a candidate), these rules should have been submitted to the state party for review. It appears they were not. Additionally, Section 10.2 of the Virginia Democratic Party Plan states as follows:. All Democratic committees shall adopt bylaws, rules or regulations deemed necessary for the proper operation of such committee. Such bylaws, rules or regulations when not in conflict with law or this Plan, shall be considered valid and

binding. Such bylaws, rules or regulations shall be mailed to State headquarters

within fourteen (14) days of approval by any Democratic committee and shall be kept on permanent file and made available for public viewing. Appellant considers the Special Vacancy Endorsement Rules invalid because they are in conflict with the Plan, and because they were not, as we understand it. submitted to me state party within 14 days of their approval. 18. The Special Vacancy Endorsement Process Rules Violate The Federal Voting Rights Act. Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearance requirement of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, a voting change effected by a political party is subject to pre-clearance if that change relates to a public electoral function of the party. (28 C.F.R. 51.7) Appellant contents that the FCDC should have submitted the Special Vacancy Endorsement Process Rules to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance prior to actually administering an endorsement election under these rules. Appellant believes that the changes resultant from the Special Endorsement Process Rules constitute the type of cbange requiring preclearance outlined in 28 C.F.R. 51.7.

IV.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE. premises considered, Appellant prays that the Congressional District Democratic Committee confirm that the results of the Special Endorsement Vote conducted on July 26, 2011, were irreparably flawed, ripe for fraud, and unable to be independently verified, and that the Committee take one of the following courses of action to resolve this issue: Require the FCDC to hold a revote with revised rules. We request that the FCDC be ordered to conduct a re-vote at the earliest possible opportunity. and that revised roles be promulgated to address ballot security. provide auditabIe sign-in sheets for voters. and other issues raised hereinabove; or Require that FCDC endorse both candidates. Because the endorsement itself does not appear on the November ballot, nothing in state law or party rules or bylaws prevent the FCDC from awarding both candidates the Party's endorsement for use by their campaigns.

RESPECfFULL Y SUBMITIED.

.s.zs:
~

Jeannie Haston Armstrong Appellant 10323 Steamboat Landing Burke. Virginia

CERTIFICATE OF SER\1ICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appeal was transmitted by the means specified below to the following individuals: 1. 2. 3. Ryan McElveen, candidate for Fairfax County School Board, At Large (via electronic mail) Rex Simmons, Chair, FCDC (via electronic mail) Hon. Margo Homer, Chair. 81b Congressional District Committee (via electronic mail) Hon. Sam Crocket, Chair, 10th Congressional District Committee (via electronic mail) Hon. George Burke, Chair, 111b Congressional District, (via electronic mail) Hon. Brian Moran, State Chair, Democratic Party of Virginia (via electronic mail) David Mills. Executive Director, Democratic Party of Virginia (via electronic mail) Don Mark, Political Director. Democratic Party of Virginia (via electronic mail)

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.