PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER Friday, March 25, 1994 Page: A01 Edition: FINAL Section: LOCAL Graphics: PHOTO, MAP AND CHART Memo: A TALLY OF TAINTED BALLOTS Copyright 1994 The Philadelphia Inquirer IMPROPER BALLOTS TURNED ELECTION A REVIEW INDICATES 540 WERE TAINTED These articles were written by Inquirer staff writer Marc Duvoisin, based on reporting by Mark Fazlollah, Craig R. McCoy, Sergio R. Bustos, Daniel Rubin, Daniel LeDuc, Henry Goldman, Vernon Loeb, Amy S. Rosenberg, Lea Sitton, Michael Vitez, Vanessa Williams, Karen E. Quinones-Miller, Carolyn Acker, Richard Jones, Jeff Gelles, Katharine Seelye, Denise-Marie Santiago, Marjorie Valbrun, Howard Goodman, Stephan Salisbury, Neill A. Borowski, Jim Detjen, Ralph Cipriano, Larry Copeland, Pam Belluck, Thomas Ferrick Jr., L. Stuart Ditzen, Larry Fish, Rich Henson, Dianna Marder, Matthew Purdy, Wanda Motley, Tim Panaccio, Larry Lewis, David Lee Preston, Monica Rhor, Maureen Graham, Fawn Vrazo, Tom Torok, Alan Hasbrouck and Duvoisin. Enough improper absentee ballots were cast in the disputed Second Senate District race last fall to have changed the outcome of the election, an Inquirer review has found. A four-month examination of absentee votes in the contest between Democrat William G. Stinson and Republican Bruce S. Marks found that at least 540 absentee ballots - nearly a third of the total - were tainted by some form of improper conduct. From interviews with more than 1,500 voters and a division-by-division analysis of the returns, The Inquirer was able to determine that at least 467 of the 540 tainted ballots wound up in Stinson's column. The review indicated that Marks received 27. That leaves 46 improper ballots to be accounted for. By all indications, Stinson got a sufficient number of them to conclude that Marks would have prevailed by a narrow margin if there had been no fraud, The Inquirer found. Stinson got fewer machine votes than Marks in the Nov. 2 election, but took nearly 80 percent of the absentee ballots, giving him a 461-vote advantage overall. A federal judge later threw out the results, saying Stinson had engaged in massive fraud. The seat has remained vacant while the two sides battle in court over who really won. Stinson has repeatedly dismissed the notion that fraud was pervasive enough to have altered the outcome. After he was hurriedly sworn in by Senate Democrats on Nov. 18, he pointed to his 461-vote margin and said that "it would be a long day in hell before they found bad absentee ballots that add up to that." The Inquirer's findings - based on a review of 1,579 of the 1,757 absentee votes, 90 percent - vividly illustrate the sweep of the fraud that infected the Senate race. Some 118 voters said they never saw the absentee ballots cast in their names. Fifty-three others said that the Stinson campaign workers who delivered their ballots tried to influence how they voted. An additional 60 said the workers marked their ballots for them. That means that at least 231 voters - nearly one in seven who cast absentee ballots - were unable to exercise their franchise freely. And those numbers give only the broad outlines of the fraud. In 52 cases, voters' signatures were forged on the envelopes containing what were supposedly their absentee ballots. Two dozen of those votes were cast for people who do not live in the Second District or the city or who appear not to exist. One of the "voters" resides in Las Vegas, another in Greece. A third has been in Greenland since August. One Stinson ballot was cast in the name of a woman who was buried eight months before the election. The barrios of North Philadelphia were a prime target for Stinson workers hunting for absentee votes. In each of four wards in the Second District where Latinos are a majority of the population, two-thirds or more of the absentee ballots were tainted. Of the 540 ballots deemed improper, 229 - 42 percent - were cast by Latinos. Though the overwhelming majority of the suspect votes were solicited by Stinson supporters, irregularities were not confined to the Democratic side. Five of Marks' campaign workers, including his press spokesman, voted absentee on the ground that they would be out of town on Election Day. So did several poll watchers for Republican candidates. All were in Philadelphia on Nov. 2 and could have voted at the polls. In voiding the election and stripping Stinson of the Senate seat last month, Senior U.S. District Judge Clarence C. Newcomer said Stinson and the city Board of Elections had conspired in a "massive scheme" to collect illegal ballots. He declared Marks the winner. An appeals court ruled last week that Newcomer was justified in removing Stinson, but went too far in handing the seat to Marks. When hearings in the case resume Monday in Newcomer's courtroom, Marks will try to prove that he would have won if the election had been clean. The special election, to fill the final year of an unexpired term, was one of the most hotly contested in recent memory, because partisan control of the state Senate - and with it leadership posts, committee assignments and other prized legislative perks - hinged on the outcome. The Stinson campaign went all-out to generate a big absentee vote. A ragtag army of field workers - many of them homeless people and recovering addicts - went door-to-door in black and Latino neighborhoods, signing people up to vote absentee, often in complete disregard of the election laws. They were paid $1 for each signed absentee-ballot application or completed ballot they brought back. In the predominantly white wards, the work was done by Democratic committee people and party workers. The scope of the effort was reflected in the election returns. Some 1,757 absentee ballots were cast in the Second District - 50 percent more than in the last Senate race, in 1990, and nearly twice as many as in 1986. Stinson, a ward leader and former assistant to Mayor Rendell, got 1,391 of those votes - nearly four out of five - and took the lion's share even in areas where Marks won handily on the machines. Overall, nearly 7 percent of Stinson's votes were absentee ballots, a remarkably high proportion. The Inquirer's findings emerged from a close review of 1,579 absentee ballots. Reporters interviewed voters or their close relatives and examined city election records relating to each of the ballots. In a half dozen cases, The Inquirer relied on information from law enforcement officials. The results of the research were catalogued and analyzed by computer. The newspaper concluded that 540 absentee votes were improper and 949were legitimate. In an additional 61 cases, it was impossible to determine whether the vote was legal, in part because city election records are incomplete. In many divisions, poll officials misplaced, discarded or destroyed voter lists, ballot envelopes and other public records. Twenty-nine voters declined to be interviewed. Some 470 of the tainted ballots were cast by registered Democrats, 54 by Republicans and the remaining 16 by people registered with smaller parties or as independents. And the fraud was concentrated in areas where Stinson got the most absentee votes. In the 19th Ward, for instance, Stinson received 120 absentee ballots to nine for Marks. Of those 129 votes, 115 - 89 percent - were marred by one form of fraud or another. When reports of irregularities surfaced soon after the election, Rendell, one of Stinson's staunchest supporters, noted that The Inquirer's initial interviews were mainly with black and Latino voters. He said reporters would also find "significant" ballot fraud if they looked at Republican areas in the Northeast, where Marks' support was stronger. That proved not to be the case. In 15 of the 16 wards in the Second District, The Inquirer interviewed at least 80 percent of the absentee voters. In the remaining ward, 56 percent were interviewed. In Marks' strongholds, the percentage of tainted ballots was much lower than for the entire district. In the Northeast Philadelphia wards as a whole, 15 percent of the absentee votes were improper. Accounts gathered from voters sketched a bold and widespread campaign of deception by Stinson supporters. Mary Diaz, of the 7100 block of Montour Street in the Burholme section, was visited a few weeks before Election Day by a tall man in an overcoat who said he was registering people to vote. Diaz, 74, signed what she thought was a registration form. The man returned a few days later with more paperwork. She signed again, thinking she was completing the registration process. Diaz said she didn't know she had voted until an investigator for the state Attorney General's Office told her so weeks later. That absentee ballot, like all the others in that division, was for Stinson. "He didn't show me anything," she said of the canvasser. "He just made me sign to register to vote. He didn't tell me I was absentee voting, because I would never have signed." Mercedes Arroyo, 49, of the 3200 block of North Randolph Street, said the man who delivered her ballot marked it as well, checking off an across-the- board Democratic vote. "I didn't vote," she said. "He voted." A different kind of trickery generated a Stinson vote from Juan Roman, of the 600 block of West Cambria Street in North Philadelphia. Roman signed an application for an absentee ballot, but was not home when a Stinson worker returned with more paperwork. The visitor talked Roman's daughter, Carmen, into filling out and signing the documents. "He had a long sheet," she said. "He said, 'Check Democrat.' I thought it was just identifying the party we belonged to." In fact, she was casting her father's vote - for Stinson. "That's really dirty," she said. "I assumed it was something legal." Some of the Stinson workers showed considerable persistence. Anna Lipsky, 76, was visited three times by canvassers urging her to apply for an absentee ballot. Twice, she refused because it was a Jewish holiday. The third time, she signed. In late October, two Stinson workers dropped by her home in Oxford Circle with a ballot. Susan Eckel, Lipsky's granddaughter and caretaker, said the visitors marked it themselves. "They didn't even let her see," she said. "They said, 'You're going to vote for Stinson.' " Stinson workers were often quite creative in inventing reasons why people should cast absentee ballots. Marta Hernandez of North Philadelphia was told she could vote from home because she has young children. The man who signed up Ernesto and Luz Morales of Olney assured them they were doing the prudent thing - after all, he said, the weather might be lousy on Election Day. Pennsylvania law places tight restrictions on absentee voting, in part because the risk of fraud is greater than when people vote by machine. In most polling places, opposing candidates and parties have observers on hand to watch for improprieties. By law, voters can cast absentee ballots only if they will be "unavoidably absent" on Election Day because of illness or business travel. Voters must fill out the ballots in secret. It is illegal to assist someone or try to influence their choice. If someone casts an absentee vote but is later able to get to the polls, the ballot is not supposed to be counted. Indeed, the voter is required to go to a polling place and alert election officials so they can void the ballot. The Inquirer did not classify ballots as improper solely because of minor, technical violations. For example, when people cast absentee ballots because they were away on vacation rather than on business, the votes were not deemed irregular. Nor were those cast by people who canceled trips but failed to get their absentee ballots voided. In addition, no ballot was termed improper solely because it was delivered to or collected from the voter by a campaign worker - though this practice was widespread and was ruled illegal by Judge Newcomer. The most common infraction found by The Inquirer involved people who were deceived into thinking it was legal to vote absentee for convenience. Of the 540 voters whose ballots were deemed irregular, 281 - more than half - fell in that category. Some voters needed no prodding to flout the law. Thirty-seven said they voted absentee on their own initiative because it was easier. Many of them have been doing so for years. A few said that if they couldn't vote from home and avoid a trip to the polls, they wouldn't vote at all. Many of the voters visited by Stinson workers did not realize the documents they were signing were applications for absentee ballots - and the envelopes in which those ballots would be filed with the Board of Elections. The man who visited Kelly Reitano, 20, of Mayfair, said he was there to verify that she had received a voter-registration card she had applied for two months earlier. Reitano said she had. The man pulled out a large piece of paper, she said, and told her to check a large box to indicate that she had gotten the card. Reitano said she had no idea she was voting. The men who got Myrtle Pickering's signature on an absentee-ballot envelope told her she was signing up to get a ride to the polls Nov. 2. "I said, 'Yeah, if you get me home,' " said Pickering, 85, who lives in the 3900 block of J Street in Juniata Park. Pickering said she never saw a ballot. Nor did anyone come to pick her up on Election Day. Even when they permitted people to mark their own ballots, Stinson workers routinely invaded the secrecy that is supposed to surround the act of voting. The canvasser who brought a ballot to Lois deMarteleire told her she could save time by checking the big box in the lefthand corner of the ballot - the slot for a straight-ticket Democratic vote. "He said if I wanted to vote Republican, I would have to fill the entire form out," said deMarteleire, 19, who lives in Frankford. "He told me to put an X in the corner . . . He didn't tell me I was voting all Democrat." During the Second District campaign, city election officials allowed Stinson workers to deliver bundles of signed applications and drive off with bundles of ballots, according to testimony in federal court. Judge Newcomer found that this was responsible for much of the fraud and ordered an immediate halt to the practice. In future elections, he said, absentee ballots must be mailed to the voters or hand-delivered by a city election worker. Scores of Republican Party workers also improperly handled ballots, delivering them to voters or returning completed ones to the elections board. But The Inquirer found no evidence of systematic fraud on the GOP side. Skulduggery of all sorts was most rampant in Latino neighborhoods. And that was no accident. According to court testimony, Stinson campaign officials panicked when a poll showed their candidate trailing Marks by four percentage points with three weeks left in the race. Hoping to close the gap, they mounted an intensive effort to deceive Latino voters into casting absentee ballots, Newcomer found. "The 'joke' at the campaign was that the Hispanics would sign anything," the judge concluded, referring to testimony from a Stinson campaign worker. A common ruse employed by Stinson canvassers was to tell voters there was a ''new way to vote" - from the comfort of home. Fifty-three voters said the political worker who signed them up used those or similar words. Stinson workers often filled out the absentee-ballot applications and had the voters sign. Many Latinos were unaware the forms, printed in English only, said they would be out of town Nov. 2 or were too sick to get to a polling place - statements that were almost always false. The documents often listed nonexistent physicians and imaginary ailments. Carmen Ana de la Rosa, 55, who had always voted by machine in the past, was among those persuaded to cast an absentee ballot. "They said it's different now. In these elections, they said I could vote from my house," said de la Rosa, who lives in the 3300 block of North Philip Street. "They were very convincing. They were talking like professionals." Rosario Palau, 55, of the 500 block of West Westmoreland Street in North Philadelphia, was also accustomed to voting by machine. There is a polling place a half block from her house. Last fall, a visitor persuaded her that there was an easier way. Palau said the man also showed her where to mark her ballot. "He told me where the Democrats were," she said. The elderly were also prime targets. Of the 540 tainted ballots, 110 - more than one fifth - were cast by people age 65 or older. In The Inquirer's review, ballots from this age group were judged improper only if the voter had been influenced by a campaign worker or had not marked the ballot. Recent federal legislation allows people age 65 and older to vote absentee even if they can make it to a polling place. Sixty-one elderly voters said they never saw the ballots cast in their names. Twenty-seven others said a political worker tried to influence how they voted or marked their ballots for them. Minnie Wenit, 82, of the Rhawnhurst section, was typical of those victimized. Two Stinson workers knocked on her door and told her she could vote absentee. Wenit said she was suspicious, but signed something anyway - apparently an application for a ballot. "They said it's all right," she said. "Who am I to argue with a politician?" Wenit said she never saw or marked a ballot. Mollie Cohen, 82, applied at the urging of a Democratic committeeman in her Northeast Philadelphia neighborhood. Records show that a ballot was cast in her name. Cohen remembers signing an envelope. But when shown a copy of an absentee ballot, she said: "I don't remember seeing anything that big." Marie Geiger, 75, of the 3400 block of Englewood Street in Mayfair, said a ''high-pressure" campaign worker cast her vote for her. "I don't remember selecting anyone myself," she said. "He did it all. I was going to vote for Marks. I guess I ended up voting for Stinson." She was right. Some of those involved in the absentee-vote drive bypassed the voters altogether, manufacturing votes through forgery. Last fall, the Board of Elections received a voter-registration form supposedly signed by Margaret Fishwick, 93, of Juniata Park. It indicated that she wanted to switch her registration from Republican to Democratic, and this was done. The phony registration was followed by an application for an absentee ballot - and later by the ballot itself, marked for Stinson. Fishwick said she never saw any of the documents. "I've always been a Republican," she said. "I never changed anything. My father was a Republican ever since he got off the boat." Among the ersatz votes tallied in the Senate race was one supposedly cast by Ismael Lugo, of the 2900 block of North Hope Street. Lugo, 59, said that he didn't apply for or cast a ballot and that whoever did forged his signature - badly. "It's not right," he said. "Will I get to vote again?" City voting records show that Gayle Schectman has cast absentee ballots in three primary and general elections since October 1992. This came as news to Schectman, 20, who lives in Bucks County. The application and ballot envelope filed in her name in the Second District race say she has lived at 7600 Roosevelt Boulevard, in the 56th Ward, for six years. Her name is misspelled Gale on both documents. The signatures, she said, were fakes. Schectman said that her mother owns a rental apartment at the Northeast Philadelphia address, but that the family has lived on Toll Road in Upper Southampton for the last 13 years. Real estate records show that they purchased the two-story suburban home in 1981. "I didn't vote," said Schectman, a student at Camden County Community College. "I'm not registered." The forgeries that generated bogus votes were often amateurish in the extreme - but successful nevertheless. Whoever filed an absentee-ballot application for Joanne Wilson, of the 2000 block of North Darien Street, misspelled her name Joann and listed her birthdate as Dec. 12, 1927. That would make her 66 years old. Wilson is 28. The elections board approved the application and issued a ballot, which Wilson never saw. She said she did sign an envelope, sometime in late October. A man and a woman stopped her on the street, she said, and told her that if she signed, she would be contacted about serving as a paid poll official on Election Day. She never was. "They used me, huh?" she said. "Those dirty crooks." Such irregularities were not limited to ballots. At least 40 applications from the Second District bore forged signatures or listed vacant lots or abandoned buildings as the voters' addresses. Dozens of voter-registration forms were filed for people who had been purged from the voting rolls, had moved out of the city, or appear to be fictitious. In some cases, phony ballots were cast for people who had already voted - legitimately. One such voter was Alma Covington, 65, of the Wissinoming section. Covington, a registered Republican, had brain surgery last year and was in no condition to go to her polling place on Election Day. Her husband, Clifton, helped her to obtain and cast an absentee ballot by mail. The Board of Elections received a separate absentee-ballot application for Alma Covington. It said she expected to be out of town Nov. 2. The name of her street was misspelled. Soon after, a second ballot was filed. The envelope bears an Alma Covington signature - a wandering scrawl that she says is a forgery. The authentic vote - cast for Bruce Marks - was voided by election officials, apparently because it was received after the Oct. 29 deadline. The phony one was counted. "This is disgusting, is what it is," said Clifton Covington. Something similar happened to Elizabeth Shepherd, 87, of the 5200 block of North Mascher Street. City records show that she filed an absentee ballot dated Oct. 19. Soon afterward, a Democratic Party worker knocked on her door and said there was a problem with the ballot. The woman persuaded her to sign an envelope, saying it would serve as proof she had voted, Shepherd said. Someone put a ballot in that envelope, dated it Oct. 27 and hand-delivered it to the city Board of Elections, records show. The phony ballot was counted. City election officials voided the authentic one. Evelyn Smith's vote was stolen the same way. Smith, 71, of the 2100 block of Glendale Street, mailed in an absentee ballot Oct. 26. Two days later, a campaign worker appeared at her door and asked her to sign an envelope. She did. A second ballot was later filed in her name. Election officials, confronted with two ballots from the same person, canceled one of them - the legitimate one. The phony ballot became part of the official tally. "How can they do this in the United States?" Smith asked. "They don't have any conscience." Caption: PHOTO (3) 1-2. Bruce Marks, at left, is hugged by a supporter after a federal judge declared him the winner. At right, on Nov. 18, William Stinson was hastily sworn in as a state senator. (Philadelphia Daily News / Associated Press / GARY D. MILLER) 3. Joanne Wilson plays with niece Na'Aina Whitehurst. Someone got her name and birthdate wrong on an absentee-ballot application. (The Philadelphia Inquirer / CHARLES FOX) MAP (1) 1. Second District (The Philadelphia Inquirer / B.F. BINIK) CHART (3) 1. Second District Senate Race: Absentee Votes by Ward (The Philadelphia Inquirer / B.F. BINIK) 2. Second District Senate Race (The Philadelphia Inquirer / B.F. BINIK) 3. Questionable Ballots And Procedures (The Philadelphia Inquirer / B.F. BINIK) Copyright 1994 PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS INC. May not be reprinted without permission.