NoLongerFTP,
I don’t think OJ could ask for a better compliment than yours. If the posts around here stir you up enough to write some comments, then it’s been a terrific day in blog town! Our mission is accomplished!

Can’t you simply ask them for the algorithm used? The SOS had to approve it at some point. It should be public record. Then ask them how they identify the signature pool.

The raw numbers are then used by the SOS to make the determination based on a weighted calculation that, if I recall correctly is defined in the California Elections Code.

Unless you are aware of a failure on the part of the registrars to use an approved random sampling technique, what is a judge going to do for you?

The big question now is how could this have happen? A cushion of over 20,000 signatures was collected over the required amount. Although speculative, there are several scenarios.

1. The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters pulled a random sample containing more invalid signatures than valid ones. Although not entirely impossible, it would definitely be considered a statistical anomaly for this to happen.

2. The paid signature gathering operation turned in an overwhelming number of invalid signatures. This is highly unlikely given that the signature gathering operation was contractually obligated to meet a 70 percent validity rate. In addition, verification of signatures collected was performed independently of the signature gathering operation.

3. Irregularities were perpetrated by one or both of the Registrar of Voters. The huge difference in validity rates between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties is highly inconceivable when the same signature gathering operation was used in both counties. These results suggest that two very different standards were employed by each ROV. This scenario warrants further investigation.

In addition, there are other questions to be answered. For instance, in an article from the Hesperia Star, Adams was quoted from an interview that was conducted at a Veterans Day event. For one, Adams said of the Committee to Recall Adams petition drive, “There are lots of bad signatures.” How could Adams possibly know this when the results were not public back on November 11?

At this point, one thing is for certain, – this is NOT over and Committee to Recall Adams intends to pursue a thorough investigation of how there could be a significant discrepancy in validity rates between the two counties.

Our Committee has invested a significant amount of time and effort to conduct due diligence every step of the way to avoid the typical pitfalls that can derail a campaign. First and foremost, the hired campaign manager and the paid signature gathering company were seasoned professionals that had run successful recall campaigns before. Second, our committee consists of longtime political activists from various professional backgrounds including legal, finance, marketing, sales, high tech, and communications, as well as government. This is to ensure that every aspect of the campaign can be managed with expertise from across different fields. On top of all else, many of us have worked on numerous successful campaigns including other recall elections.

Since February, our Committee has raised over $162,000, collected nearly 60,000 signatures and worked too hard to give up now. We owe it to all the campaign volunteers, donors, as well as KFI’s John & Ken Show and its listeners to make sure we’re afforded due process. This current development is a temporary setback. We are immediately filing an appeal to the denial and will pursue every avenue available to us to see that this Recall goes forward. At this time, we ask all of our supporters to maintain confidence that we’re on the right track and are doing everything in our power to guarantee that we’re given a fair shot. We will keep all of our supporters updated on a timely basis as we move forward with this process.

THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL ANTHONY ADAMS
http://www.RecallAdams.org

I enjoy reading your posts. You’re not shy and you get your point across