My latest piece at Pajamas Media can be found here.  It details the disaster of military voting in the 2008 election, DOJ’s actions and the particular mess involving the Virginia SBE:

“A document filed in the military voting case of McCain v. Cunningham makes plain the disinterested enforcement system at DOJ for military voters. In 2008, the McCain campaign learned that the Commonwealth of Virginia was sending ballots out far too late for them to ever be successfully returned before the election. The campaign responded by immediately commencing a lawsuit.

Think about that: the very day before a historic election, a presidential campaign — with the distracting whirlwind of activity and bustle — was able to do what the bureaucrats at DOJ are paid to do, and didn’t: figure out Virginia was breaking federal law and file a lawsuit.”

It looks like the inquiry involves absentee ballots.  Valdosta Daily Times:  “Times staff received numerous phone calls, emails and rants from concerned citizens on Wednesday following the posting of unofficial election results in Brooks County. Each one pointed out that, prior to absentee votes being counted, the incumbents in three races were winning by a rather significant percentage.”

More employees and former employees of the Virginia State Board of Elections have provided information and documents to ElectionLawCenter.com about the management of the SBE.  They corroborate the account we recently published about the misfeasance, rock-bottom morale and potential thuggery taking place at the SBE.   

ElectionLawCenter.com has communicated with multiple employees and former employees who have come forward to describe the conduct of Secretary Nancy Rodrigues.  They have supported the allegations with documents.  We will stay on the story and continue to invite more SBE employees and former employees to come forward so that the citizens of the Commonwealth may fully understand the management of the state agency that is designated with preserving the integrity of elections.  As one great Virginian said, “the agitation it produces must be submitted to.  It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

As we noted, Secretary Rodrigues runs the day to day operations at the Virginia State Board of Elections.  Employees report to ElectionLawCenter.com a terrible state of morale at the SBE from mismanagement.  Given that there are only about 30 employees at the SBE, we have heard this account from a sizeable percentage of the total employees at the SBE.  This is not just one or two malcontents.

Among the new complaints are ruthless policies toward employee illness, with an aim toward terminating employees with a medical illness, and contract procurement corruption. 

The Secretary has rejected the medical certification of a doctor for an ill employee and has required the employee to submit to a medical examination from doctors chosen by Secretary Rodrigues’ designee.  While this may technically be within the legal powers of the Secretary, SBE employees report it is part of a cruel culture at the board where even employee illnesses are used against certain employees who cross Rodrigues.  The affected employee testified against Rodrigues at a hearing accusing Rodrigues of racial discrimination.

If the employee does not submit to a medical examination by doctors chosen by Secretary Rodrigues, termination proceedings are set to commence later this month.  A doctor has already certified the employee’s ill condition. 

In another strange incident, Secretary Rodrigues conducted an investigation into who brought free lunch items for administrative staff during the holiday season.   Apparently Secretary Rodrigues only wanted a gift of breakfast items to be provided to administrative staff.  When both lunch and breakfast were provided as part of a holiday treat, Secretary Rodrigues conducted an office-wide investigation into who organized the additional lunch gift for administrative staff.

Finally, this week Rodrigues is commencing an action against a multi-decade, and minority, employee of the SBE.  She is claiming, we are told, that he doesn’t have the necessary skills or experience to do the job.  We will closely monitor this discipline action and report the results here.

ElectionLawCenter.com recognizes that there could be differing interpretations of the facts above.  Sure, they might be the result of a manager with authority running a tight ship, despite the ill effects on office morale.  Bad managers of people are everywhere.  But letting out government contracts outside of normal contract procedures is not.

Virginia’s state Waste, Fraud and Abuse hotline conducted an investigation of Secretary Rodrigues concerning an allegation that she did not solicit the services of Election Information Services (EIS) according to State contract procurement policy.  

The findings of fact from the investigation stated:

“The contract between the SBE and EIS was not solicited to other vendors and was not approved as a sole source purchase by the Virginia Information Technologies Agencies (VITA).  When we asked Ms. Rodrigues about this issue, she stated that EIS was an eVA vendor and was on the VITA-approved vendor list.”

A report obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com from the state internal auditor concludes: “The SBE did not involve VITA and obtain its agreement and approval of the procurement contract that Rodrigues signed with Paul Stenbjorn. . .  . although required to do so.  She likely violated the VPPA  [procurement laws] when she entered into this contract in this manner. . . . it is unlikely this contract would have qualified as a sole source procurement.  In addition the SBE and EIS may be violating the VITA security standards if EIS [Stenbjorn]  is accessing agency applications and databases without VITA authorization.”

The contract provided that a former employee of SBE and close personal friend of Nancy Rodrigues would be paid $85 per hour for $176,800 per year.  The contract went to one Paul Stenbjorn.  A source within the SBE tells ElectionLawCenter.com that Stenbjorn and Rodrigues held private discussions about how to ensure that this single source no-bid contract would be let to Stenbjorn.  Employees who questioned this arrangement were terminated from their employment by Rodrigues.

ElectionLawCenter.com has obtained a series of emails from Rodrigues defending the no-bid single source contract to her friend, who had even moved out of state.  Rodrigues states in one email: the existing for-bid contract “does not have the knowledge basis that EIS [the friend] has about Virginia specific information and laws.. . . Not being  totally familiar with procurement regulations it appears to me (a novice) that this would qualify as a Sole Source.  However, I bow to the Queen of Procurement.”

The derisive term “Queen of Procurement” refers to an employee that was questioning Rodrigues’ grant of a contract to a personal friend and ex-employee.  “Not being totally familiar with procurement regulations”?  No disagreement there.

An audit manger investigating the procurement noted in a document that the sole source exemption “was not available to this procurement.  VITA has indicated that the procurement likely violated procurement policy.”  Sources also tell ElectionLawCenter.com that Rodrigues is knowingly providing Governor McDonnell’s office inaccurate, and potentially false, information regarding this procurement controversy. 

Worse, documents obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com show that the single source contract was abused.  A March 8, 2010 memo from the State Internal Auditor make a number of factual conclusions.  Some findings exonerate Stenbjorns actions, while others do not.  Stenbjorn sought government money under the contract for work performed while he was at a conference from October 28, 2009 to October 31, 2009.  “It is highly unlikely that he performed any work for SBE on October 29, very little work on October 30.  . . . The SBE should seek restitution from Mr. Stenbjorn.”

ElectionLawCenter.com has obtained many more documents regarding this and other issues regarding the management at the SBE.   We will stay on this story and report developments, including whether or not these events constitute sufficient “cause” to conduct a housecleaning of the SBE management as soon as possible so these circumstances cannot affect the 2010 elections.  Virginians cannot have such an important state agency infested with low morale, allegations of discrimination, and serious questions about the legality of contract procurement.  Something can and should be done about it.

We will also monitor whether or not any Virginia newspaper covers this story for their readers.  In the meantime, here is the amount of coverage the legacy media in Virginia has given the events described at ElectionLawCenter.com.

UPDATE:  A knowledgeable souce tells ElectionLawCenter.com that in response to the reports made here that Nancy Rodrigues is telling close friends she doesn’t think she “has done anything wrong.”    We welcome an official response and will publish it if we get one. 

Military voting expert Eric Eversole has an editorial at the Washington Times.  He describes tragic problems with 17,000 military ballots in 2008 going to waste, and questions whether anything will change in 2010:

“There is no doubt that the Voting Section’s decision disenfranchised thousands of military members. According to the Election Assistance Commission, more than 17,000 military and overseas voters were disenfranchised in 2008 because their ballots arrived after the deadline and had to be rejected. Thousands more were disenfranchised when their ballots never arrived or were received too close to the election to be returned.”

Note: apologies to RSS subscribers.  Bugs.

Former World Trade Center DOJ prosecutor Andy McCarthy has Contra Thernstrom at National Review.  What I want to know Abby, is can I get a photo of Stephen’s boots!?  Better yet, with him in them!   McCarthy writes:

“But what about the Panthers’ intimidating uniforms and jackboots? Don’t be silly, Thernstrom now counters. After all, ‘the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.’ Oh, I see: How could anyone think these friendly Panthers — who were heard telling spectators, ‘You’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker’ — were any more intimidating than . . . Stephan Thernstrom? That’s the first thing that popped into my head upon reading about Panther leader King Samir Shabazz serenading blacks with enticements like, ‘You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!’

‘Who cares what he’s saying?’ I thought to myself, ‘I just can’t take my eyes off his feet! Why, those boots look just like those ones that Stephan Thernstrom wears on television. What could be the problem?’”

More indictments in Memphis (TN).   More double voting.

A disturbing state of affairs may have overtaken the Virginia State Board of Elections.  The allegations detailed below are disturbing and outrageous.  Given that many of the events have been taking place over the past many months, one wonders how all the newspapers in Virginia missed the story.  

The Virginia State Board of Elections is charged with overseeing elections in the Commonwealth.  Former employees and respected associations of election officials have made allegations of racial discrimination, dishonesty and outright thuggery by officials at the State Board of Elections (SBE), in particular Secretary Nancy Rodrigues.  Recall that the Virginia SBE is the entity that had to be sued by the McCain campaign because they were not sending ballots to overseas military voters in a timely fashion.

The Board has three members appointed by the Governor.  They are currently Jean Cunningham, Harold Pyon and Nancy Rodrigues.   Rodrigues is the Secretary of the SBE and as a practical matter exercises day to day control over the operations of the SBE.  It is our understanding that Rodrigues could be replaced immediately for cause.  If the allegations below are true, that can’t happen too soon.  Sources tell ElectionLawCenter.com that Pyon has nothing to do with the bad behavior of Rodrigues.

J. David Allen was an employee at the SBE who relays events that may constitute systemic racial discrimination at the SBE.  ElectionLawCenter.com has obtained documents describing Secretary Rodrigues’ management of the SBE.  He says that she warned him to carefully monitor minority employees.  He says:

“Nancy would refer to minority staff as if each individual had to be carefully monitored, for fear that they might violate some policy.  In regards to the monitoring of staff, Nancy would reward non-minority staff by being lenient, when they could provide information as to possible policy violations by minorities.  Rise Miller, whom I supervised, was one such individual. She would provide Nancy with information, substantiated or not, that could lead to disciplinary action against minority coworkers. In return, Ms. Miller was allowed to abuse state time and use state equipment for personal use. “  Perhaps the Times Dispatch will follow up on the specifics of abuse of time and state equipment.

Allen goes further in the document: “The longer that I worked at SBE, the more I realized the discrepancies between how minorities and non-minorities were treated by Nancy, and later by James Alcorn (Deputy Secretary).“  Allen was given positive evaluations yet his term at SBE was not continued, according to the document.  Allen further describes the Secretary implementing a monitoring program of minority employees but not white employees.    Obviously if true, this sort of policy raises questions about the fitness of certain officials to carry out their duties.

Not surprisingly, ElectionLawCenter.com has received reports of terrible morale within the SBE caused by this ham-handed management style.

The story does not end with the allegations of J. David Allen. 

The Voter Registration Association of Virginia, the association of all the county registrars, wrote Governor McDonnell alerting him to purported unprofessional actions of Secretary Rodrigues.  In a letter obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com, the President of the Association alerts Governor McDonnell about a wide range of unprofessional actions by Rodrigues.  They state in the letter:

* “The leadership of VRAV is very concerned that a person whose repeated unprofessional actions of deception, deceit, and untruthfulness towards the professional election community is the perceived state guardian of the integrity of the electoral system in Virginia. We understand that you did not appoint her and that her term is drawing to a close, but she is now part of your administration. You are the only one we have to reach out to in order to save the electoral system in Virginia from these actions that are clearly dishonorable.”

* “Secretary Rodrigues misrepresented the nature” of a legislative amendment to the Governor “as having no impact on current training operations.”

* “Secretary Rodrigues misrepresented the amendments as having no fiscal impact on localities.”

The dispute arises out of legislation and representations made to the Governor’s office about the impact this bill would have on local election officials. 

But there is more.  ElectionLawCenter.com has learned that Secretary Rodrigues may have sent the state police to the home of an employee for spurious reasons to intimidate the employee.  Moreover, the victimized employee has reported the behavior to the Governor’s office.

The employee worked for the SBE for over 20 years.  While still employed and on sick leave, two state officials were dispatched to the employee’s home on June 29, 2010.  The two state officials sought to confiscate the employee’s laptop and cell phone.  Thereafter, at 10:00 p.m. at night, Virginia State Police Special Agent T.M. Chrisley, Assistant Special Agent in Charge 1st. Sgt. Harvey A. Smith and Trooper C.B. Womble from the Virginia State Police, and an SBE employee were sent to confiscate the laptop and cell phone from the sick employee.   

A document obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com states “Special Agent Chrisley stated he has known Nancy Rodrigues for awhile.” 

The document further states: “I also contacted the Virginia State Police Internal Affairs and spoke with Sgt. White.  Sgt. White inquired into my situation and reported to me that there was a criminal investigation underway and I was directed to call the number that was on Special Agent Chrisley’s business card.   I shared the information with the individual whom answered the phone and she informed me that a warrant should have been executed if there was a criminal investigation.  The officers at my home on Tuesday night did not have a warrant.  I received a returned telephone call from Captain Evans at Virginia State Police.  I was told by Captain Evans that there was not a criminal investigation and there were orders to pickup the equipment from my home.”

So the Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections sends the Virginia State Police to people’s homes to pick up office equipment?  It is our understanding that the victimized employee still works at the SBE.  Sources indicated that the agency is plagued by rock-bottom morale because of the incidents detailed in this article. 

ElectionLawCenter.com welcomes more tips from current and former employees of the Virginia SBE and the problems plaguing the agency.  Email us at adams@electionlawcenter.com.  Anonymity is guaranteed.

We will keep readers posted if and when the Governor’s office takes action against Secretary Rodrigues.  In the meantime, perhaps the Richmond Times Dispatch will follow up on these allegations of corruption, dishonesty and discrimination emanating out of the state agency charged with running elections in Virginia. Hopefully whatever problems exist in the agency can be eliminated before the frantic pace of the November elections.

UPDATE:  A reader sends this formal case of racial discrimination at the SBE.

More states have sought an exemption from compliance with new federal law designed to ensure our soldiers, sailors and marines in forward operating bases have enough time to get their ballots and vote.   The federal law requires that they be sent ballots at least 45 days in advance of an election.  Washington has joined the growing number of states seeking to avoid compliance with new Federal law, known as the “MOVE Act” to protect military voters.  I will be reporting at Pajamas Media shortly about the states which have sought a waiver, the Pentagon’s reaction to the submissions, and the Department of Justice’s attitude toward protection of military voters in the upcoming mid-term elections.  Moreover, members of the Senate have begun to take close notice of the waiver process and the positions of the various executive branch agencies.  But the bigger question is, for now, what do the citizens of Washington think about their state seeking to avoid protecting military voters in the upcoming elections?  See the Washington waiver submission here.

UPDATE:  Some other states who have sought a waiver are discussed here.   ElectionLawCenter.com is awaiting word about other states seeking to avoid compiance with the new federal MOVE law designed to protect military voters.

Hat tip to a brave patriot for bringing this to my attention.  If you want to read an inspiring story of a genuine American hero and Marine, click here.

Note: sorry RSS subscribers.  Bugs made it necessary to resend.

My latest at Pajamas Media: Why the Left Shouldn’t Defend the New Black Panther Dismissal. I’ll be discussing the article and the case on a number of radio stations and shows, scroll down for details:

“There are two important reasons why those defending the dismissal of the case through personal attacks should stand down.

Firstly, not only will the attacks prove absurd as more and more truth emerges about the matter, but the dismissal creates an unwelcome and dangerous factual floor in defining future voter intimidation. It is a floor we should fear, because it makes future cases harder to bring. Secondly, the dismissal undermines broad support for important voting rights protections as the nation becomes more racially diverse.

Neither outcome is what the defenders of the dismissal want, and they should reconsider their rabid attacks.”