[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S45-S47]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

  The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and 
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

       POM-1. A petition from a citizen of the State of 
     California; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

                     Petition for Election Contest


                              introduction

       Now comes Petitioner and contestant Michael Huffington 
     before the Senate of the United States. Petitioner prays that 
     the Senate deny Dianne Feinstein a seat in the 104th Congress 
     of the United States on the grounds that she has not been 
     ``duly elected'' by a majority of legal ballots cast in the 
     State of California in the election held on November 8, 1994. 
     In the alternative, Petitioner asks that if the Senate seats 
     Feinstein, it do so without prejudice because the misconduct, 
     irregularities and fraud in the California election system 
     were so widespread that the true results of the election 
     cannot be known. Furthermore, Petitioner is informed and 
     believes that additional investigation by the Senate before 
     her seating becomes final will make clear that the serious 
     systemic problems in California's and the nation's voter 
     registration and verification system are so pervasive as to 
     render the results of the 1994 California Senate election 
     invalid.
       In support thereof, the petitioner alleges the following:


                              jurisdiction

       1. The Senate of the United States, pursuant to Article 1, 
     Section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, 
     is ``the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications 
     of its own Members'' and has final jurisdiction over election 
     contests concerning its Members.
                                parties

       2. The Petitioner and contestant, Republican Party 
     candidate for the Office of United States Senator from the 
     State of California in the November 8, 1994 general election, 
     is an elector and citizen of the State of California and the 
     United States and a legal voter in the State of California in 
     the November 8, 1994 general election. He is qualified to 
     bring this petition, and brings this action as a contestant 
     and on behalf of the almost 4,000,000 voters of the State who 
     cast legal ballots on his behalf.
       3. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat candidate for the office 
     of United States Senator from the State of California in the 
     November 8, 1994 general election, was certified as the 
     winner of the election by approximately 160,000 votes by the 
     California Secretary of State on December 16, 1994, prior to 
     numerous of the facts alleged herein being known.


                          factual allegations

       4. Article I, Section 4, clause 2 of the Constitution of 
     the United States grants the states the power to prescribe 
     the time, places, and manner of holding elections for United 
     States Senators and Representatives, subject to the 
     congressional power to preempt state law on this subject.
       5. The State of California has adopted a comprehensive 
     California State Elections 
     [[Page S46]] Code which proscribes the time, place and manner 
     of holding elections for the Office of United States Senator 
     which was not preempted by federal law in this election. 
     (CAL. ELEC. CODE Sec. Sec. 1-35150)
       6. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State 
     of California proscribes the following qualifications for 
     electors in the State of California: ``A United States 
     citizen 18 years of age and resident in this state may 
     vote.''
       7. The California Elections Code provides that persons who 
     no longer reside 28 days before a general election in the 
     precinct for which they are registered may not vote in a 
     general election unless they change their registration 
     address 28 days or more before that general election. (CAL. 
     ELEC. CODE Sec. Sec. 305 and 311.6)
       8. The California Elections Code provides that felons, 
     deceased persons, minors, non-citizens, non-residents and 
     others not qualified to vote may neither register nor vote in 
     elections in the State. (CAL. ELEC. CODE Sec. Sec. 100, 
     300.5, 701 and 14216)
       9. The California Elections Code requires that precinct 
     officials conducting the elections account for all the 
     ballots and the signatures of voters who are given ballots at 
     the precinct polling places on election day, and that these 
     numbers be reconciled as part of the official count. (CAL. 
     ELEC. CODE Sec. Sec. 14005.5, 14006 and 14305)
       10. The California Elections Code requires that precinct 
     officials conducting the elections require all voters to 
     identify themselves when voting and to sign the register of 
     voters with their name and registration address. (CAL. ELEC. 
     CODE Sec. 14211)
   i. first grounds of contest: a general pattern of irregularities, 
   fraud, and other violations of the California elections code has 
     rendered the result of the 1994 united states Senate election 
                               unreliable

       11. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-10 are 
     incorporated herein.
       12. A study of 84 representative sample precincts in 
     California reveals a general pattern of voting 
     irregularities, illegal voting, and other violations of the 
     California Elections Code in the conduct of the November 8, 
     1994 general election so widespread as to render the result 
     of the United States Senate Election unreliable.
       13. Based upon this study, on information and belief, 
     Petitioner alleges that the violations, irregularity and 
     fraud are so pervasive in the State of California that the 
     certification of the United States Senate election is 
     rendered unreliable. This study shows that:
       a. California election workers made sufficient errors in 
     counting and reconciling ballots in the sample precincts to 
     render the result of the United States Senate election 
     certified by the California Secretary of State unreliable. 
     Comparing the number of ballots voted with the number of 
     signatures on the voting rosters in the sample precincts 
     reveals that election officials accepted an average 
     discrepancy of one (1) vote per precinct in certifying the 
     returns. This one (1) vote per precinct discrepancy results 
     both from more ballots than signatures and more signatures 
     than ballots. Projecting such discrepancies on a statewide 
     basis would produce an error in the certification of 
     approximately 20,000 to 25,000 votes.
       b. The number of extra ballots certified by California 
     election officials in the sample precincts plus the number of 
     ballots not certified compared to the ballots reportedly sent 
     to the Registrar of Elections from the sample precincts 
     produces a discrepancy of 1.38 ballots per precinct. If 
     extrapolated statewide, these tabulation errors would amount 
     to approximately 35,000 votes in the certification of the 
     results. Such errors were more likely to occur in the heavily 
     Democratic precincts of the precincts sampled.
       c. Precinct workers permitted persons who did not meet the 
     statutory qualifications for voting in that precinct to cast 
     ballots and allowed persons who did not live in the precinct 
     for which they were registered to cast illegal ballots in 
     substantial numbers. Comparing the voting roster to 
     registration books used on election day shows that the number 
     of voters who failed to sign the registration book with any 
     residential address is approximately 3.5 votes per precinct. 
     Extrapolated statewide, this could reveal as many as 85,000 
     improperly cast ballots, which are probably illegal.
       d. Comparing the voting rosters with the registration books 
     used on election day shows that the number of voters who 
     signed the roster with an address different from their 
     registration address and who resided outside of the precinct 
     in which they voted or who did not sign any address at all 
     was approximately .93 votes per precinct. Extrapolated 
     statewide, this could result in as many as 23,000 improperly 
     cast ballots, which are probably illegal. These ballots are 
     in addition to the 85,000 ballots reported above. Moreover, 
     persons registered as Democrats in the precincts sampled were 
     twice as likely as persons registered as Republicans to sign 
     an address different than where they were living.
       e. Approximately seven (7) voters per precinct voted from 
     an address they had listed as their former address on a 
     National Change of Address (``NCOA'') request from the voter 
     had filed. Extrapolated statewide, this would result in as 
     many as 175,000 ballots being improperly cast. If only one-
     half of these voters had actually changed their residence but 
     were allowed to vote, it would produce approximately 88,000 
     improperly cast ballots.
       f. Of those who cast absentee ballots, approximately 1.7 
     voters per precinct sampled had filed a NCOA request with the 
     post office for the address from which they voted in the 
     November 8, 1994 election. Extrapolated statewide, this would 
     result in as many as 43,000 improperly cast ballots. If only 
     one-quarter of these voters cast their ballot improperly it 
     would produce 10,700 such ballots.
       14. In sum, it is alleged on information and belief that 
     extrapolating the results of this study to the entire State 
     of California will present a prima facie case that over 
     170,000 votes were illegally cast in the November 8, 1994 
     general election, more than Feinstein's certified margin of 
     victory and large enough to cast doubt upon the certification 
     of the United States Senate election.
       15. The study in the sample precincts also suggests that if 
     the percentage figures were projected for the entire state of 
     California, more Democrat voters than Republican voters cast 
     illegal ballots.
       16. In addition to the more than 170,000 projected illegal 
     votes indicated by the study of sample precincts in the State 
     of California, an ongoing investigation of voter fraud in 
     California reveals that numerous persons not qualified to 
     vote in the 1994 general election in California, including 
     dead persons who were recorded as having voted in November, 
     remained on the
      registration rolls and did vote in that election, thereby 
     rendering the results of the 1994 United States Senate 
     election unreliable.
       17. On November 8, 1994, precinct officials allowed persons 
     who were not residing in the precinct from which they voted 
     28 days before the election, and therefore were not eligible 
     to vote, to cast ballots in such numbers that the results of 
     the 1994 California United States Senate election cannot be 
     reliably known.
       18. On November 8, 1994, precinct officials and election 
     officials allowed persons not qualified to vote, including, 
     it is alleged on information and belief, non-citizens who 
     were motivated by defeating a ballot initiative measure 
     entitled ``Proposition 187'', to cast illegal votes in such 
     numbers that the results of the 1994 California United States 
     Senate election cannot be reliably known.
       19. On and before the November 8, 1994 election, election 
     officials allowed persons to cast absentee ballots in a 
     manner not authorized by law in such numbers that the result 
     of the 1994 California United States Senate election cannot 
     be reliably known.
       20. The irregularities, mistakes and fraud described in the 
     above paragraphs are not isolated and are so pervasive as to 
     constitute a general pattern in the conduct of the November 
     8, 1994 general election that renders the certification of 
     the California United States Senate election unreliable.
  ii. second grounds of contest: state, county and precinct election 
   officials inadequately administered the 1994 general election and 
failed to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process in california so 
that the results of the 1994 united states senate election are in doubt

       21. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-20 are 
     incorporated herein.
       22. The public officials charged with conducting the 
     elections in the State of California did not enforce or 
     satisfy the requirements of the California Elections Code in 
     the conduct of the 1994 United States Senate Election so that 
     the result of the California United States Senate election 
     cannot be reliably known without further investigation.
       23. The Registrars of Election allowed numerous persons to 
     register to vote in the 1994 general election in California 
     who were not qualified under the State's Constitution or laws 
     to be registered voters in the State in that election.
       24. The Registrars of Election allowed numerous persons to 
     register to vote more than once in the November 8, 1994 
     general election in California, a violation of the California 
     Elections Code.
       25. On November 8, 1994, precinct officials allowed to be 
     deposited into the ballot boxes more ballots than there were 
     voters who presented themselves for the purpose of voting in 
     such numbers that the result of the 1994 California United 
     States Senate election cannot be reliably known.
       26. On November 8, 1994, precinct officials failed to 
     deposit into the ballot boxes all the ballots that were given 
     to voters who presented themselves for the purpose of voting 
     and these precinct officials failed to account for the reason 
     that these ballots were not deposited in such numbers that 
     the result of the 1994 California United States Senate 
     election cannot be reliably known.
       27. These irregularities in process were known or should 
     have been known to the Secretary of State of California prior 
     to the election and prior to his issuance of the certificate 
     of election in the United States Senate election, yet he 
     refused to investigate these problems or to take corrective 
     action both prior to the election and during the canvass to 
     insure that the certificate of election was reliable.
       28. The failures of the election officials which are 
     complained of herein relate to duties which are mandatory in 
     nature and not directory in nature.
       29. These irregularities in process were known or should 
     have been known by the county Registrars since they appear on 
     the original election documents containing the totals 
     certified to the Secretary of State during the canvass 
     period. Notwithstanding this fact, the Registrars failed to 
     resolve the 
     [[Page S47]] discrepancies that appeared on the documents 
     sent to them by the precinct officials.
       30. Because of these irregularities and discrepancies, the 
     Secretary of State's certificate of election is unreliable 
     and the margin between the two major party candidates is less 
     than the number of unaccounted for ballots and illegal 
     ballots cast in the November 8, 1994 election.
       31. The total number of illegal ballots cast or ballots 
     unaccounted for and the insufficiency of ballots in some 
     precincts and excess of ballots in other precincts is 
     sufficiently large throughout the State of California to cast 
     doubt on the election certificate issued by the
      Secretary of State and to cast doubt on which of the two 
     major party candidates won the election for the United 
     States Senate.
       32. These failures of the election officials cannot be 
     remedied by a recount of the votes or the remedies available 
     in the California Elections Code for an election contest.
       33. Because California lacks any reliable verification 
     system in its registration process to determine the identity 
     and eligibility of voters, the failure of election officials 
     to enforce the statutory requirements makes unreliable the 
     certificate of election in close contests, such as the 
     contest at issue here.
       34. The general pattern of irregularities in the election 
     process and illegal ballots cast is so pervasive that the 
     results of the 1994 United States Senate election are in 
     doubt and, upon information and belief, it is alleged that if 
     the illegal ballots cast could be removed from the 
     certificate so issued, the result of the election would be 
     changed.


iii. third grounds of contest: the irregularities and errors complained 
            of constitute a violation of the 14th amendment

       35. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-34 are 
     incorporated herein.
       36. The failure of California to provide a reliable 
     election system whereby only legal voters are allowed to cast 
     ballots and illegal ballots are not counted and to administer 
     the 1994 Senate election according to its own Constitution 
     and Elections Code constitutes a denial of 14th
      Amendment protections to the legal voters of California in 
     that such failure structurally dilutes the valid votes 
     cast for both candidates for United States Senator in 
     1994.


                         iv. prayer for relief

       That based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner and 
     Contestant prays:
       1. That on the day of covering, the Secretary of the Senate 
     be instructed to not accept the certification from the State 
     of California for the 1994 United States Senate election.
       2. That, in the alternative, Dianne Feinstein be seated 
     without prejudice to the rights of the Senate to revoke her 
     seating by majority vote after full investigation of the 
     conduct of the election.
       3. That the matter be referred to the Rules and 
     Administration Committee with instructions to investigate 
     immediately the allegations set forth above in order to 
     advise the Senate on the action to take in this matter.
       4. That upon finding the facts to be substantially as set 
     forth in the petition or upon receipt of additional evidence, 
     to declare the Senate seat in question be vacant and request 
     that the State of California conduct a new election, or in 
     the alternative, to declare the person who received the 
     highest number of legal votes duly elected if such numbers of 
     legal votes can be determined.
       5. That the Senate grant such additional relief that the 
     Senate deems warranted by the facts.
     

                          ____________________