STEPHEN C. PIEPGRASS 804.697.1320 telephone 804.698.5147 facsimile [email protected]TROUTMAN SANDERS TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys at Law Troutman Sanders Building 1001 Haxall Point P.O. Box 1122 (23218-1122) Richmond, Virginia 23219 804.697.1200 telephone troutmansanders.com November 27, 2013 The Honorable Bevill M. Dean Clerk City of Richmond Circuit Court John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: Mark D. Obenshain, Petitioner v. Mark R. Herring, Respondent — Petition for Recount of Attorney General Election Dear Mr. Dean: Please find enclosed the original and a copy of the Petition for Recount of an Election, which we are filing on behalf of Mark D. Obenshain. Enclosed is a check made payable to the City of Richmond Circuit Court for $86.00 to cover the filing fees. Counsel for Senator Herring has agreed to accept service of process. Our courier will wait for a filed stamped copy of the Petition so that it can be served immediately given the abbreviated schedule applicable to recounts. You also will find enclosed for filing Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Petition for Recount of an Election. I have enclosed a courtesy copy of the Petition and Memorandum in Support, which I would appreciate you bringing to the attention of Chief Judge Cavedo as soon as possible, as this is a matter requiring expedited review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen C. iepgrass Enclosures cc: Marc E. Elias, Esq. (by mail) Don Palmer, Secretary, State Board of Elections (by hand) 21566503v1 ATLANTA BEIJING CHICAGO HONG KONG NEW YORK NORFOLK ORANGE COUNTY PORTLAND RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN DIEGO SHANGHAI TYSONS CORNER VIRGINIA BEACH WASHINGTON, DC
23
Embed
TROUTMAN SANDERS 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, … Recount of Attorney General Election ... Restoration—Habitual Offender or 3" I Offense [ ] ... FORM CC-1416 (MASTER) PAGE ONE 10
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
STEPHEN C. PIEPGRASS 804.697.1320 telephone 804.698.5147 facsimile [email protected]
TROUTMAN SANDERS
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Attorneys at Law
Troutman Sanders Building 1001 Haxall Point
P.O. Box 1122 (23218-1122) Richmond, Virginia 23219
804.697.1200 telephone troutmansanders.com
November 27, 2013
The Honorable Bevill M. Dean Clerk City of Richmond Circuit Court John Marshall Courts Building 400 North 9th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: Mark D. Obenshain, Petitioner v. Mark R. Herring, Respondent — Petition for Recount of Attorney General Election
Dear Mr. Dean:
Please find enclosed the original and a copy of the Petition for Recount of an Election, which we are filing on behalf of Mark D. Obenshain. Enclosed is a check made payable to the City of Richmond Circuit Court for $86.00 to cover the filing fees.
Counsel for Senator Herring has agreed to accept service of process. Our courier will wait for a filed stamped copy of the Petition so that it can be served immediately given the abbreviated schedule applicable to recounts.
You also will find enclosed for filing Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Petition for Recount of an Election. I have enclosed a courtesy copy of the Petition and Memorandum in Support, which I would appreciate you bringing to the attention of Chief Judge Cavedo as soon as possible, as this is a matter requiring expedited review.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen C. iepgrass Enclosures
cc: Marc E. Elias, Esq. (by mail) Don Palmer, Secretary, State Board of Elections (by hand)
21566503v1
ATLANTA BEIJING CHICAGO HONG KONG NEW YORK NORFOLK ORANGE COUNTY PORTLAND
RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN DIEGO SHANGHAI TYSONS CORNER VIRGINIA BEACH WASHINGTON, DC
COVER SHEET FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Case No. (CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY)
City of Richmond
Circuit Court
Mark D. Obenshain viln re: PLAINTIFF(S)
Mark R. Herring
DEFENDANT(S)
I, the undersigned [ ] plaintiff [ ] defendant [x] attorney for [x] plaintiff [ ] defendant hereby notify the Clerk of Court that I am filing the following civil action. (Please indicate by checking box that most closely identifies the claim being asserted or relief sought.)
GENERAL CIVIL Subsequent Actions
[ ] Claim Impleading Third Party Defendant [ ] Monetary Damages [ ] No Monetary Damages
[ Church Trustee [ ] Conservator of Peace [ ] Marriage Celebrant
[ ] Bond Forfeiture Appeal [ ] Declaratory Judgment [ ] Declare Death [ ] Driving Privileges (select one)
[ ] Reinstatement pursuant to § 46.2-427 [ ] Restoration—Habitual Offender or 3"I
Offense [ ] Expungement [ ] Firearms Rights — Restoration [ ] Forfeiture of U.S. Currency [ ] Freedom of Information [ ] Injunction [ ] Interdiction [ ] Interrogatory [ ] Judgment Lien-Bill to Enforce [ ] Law Enforcement/Public Official Petition [ ] Name Change [ ] Referendum Elections [ ] Sever Order [ ] Taxes (select one)
[ ] Correct Erroneous State/Local [ ] Delinquent
[ ] Vehicle Confiscation [ ] Voting Rights — Restoration [x] Other (please specify)
Petition for Recount
DECEIVED FILL CIRCUIT COURT
NOV 2 7 Zola
BEVILL M, DEAN, CLEF BY
[ ] Damages in the amount of $ are clai ed.
November 27, 2013 DATE [ ] PLAINTIFF [ DEFEND [-] ATTORNEY FOR. [-] PLAINTIFF
[ ] DEFENDANT
Stephen C. Piepgrass (VSB No. 71361) PRINT NAME
Troutman Sanders LLP, 1001 Haxall Point ADDRESS/TELEPHONE NUMBER OF SIGNATOR
P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23219 / (804) 697-1320
FORM CC-1416 (MASTER) PAGE ONE 10/12
"Contested" divorce means any of the following matters are in dispute: grounds of divorce, spousal support and maintenance, child custody and/or visitation, child support, property distribution or debt allocation. An "Uncontested" divorce is filed on no fault grounds and none of the above issues are in dispute.
ABC Board ABC Board of Zoning ZONE Compensation Board ACOM DMV License Suspension JR Employment Commission EMP Employment Grievance Decision GRV Local Government GOVT Marine Resources MAR School Board JR Voter Registration AVOT Other Administrative Appeal AAPL
Appointment Conservator of Peace COP Church Trustee AOCT Guardian/Conservator APPT Marriage Celebrant ROMC Standby Guardian/Conservator STND
Asbestos Litigation AL Attachment ATT Bond Forfeiture Appeal BFA Child Abuse and Neglect — Unfounded Complaint CAN Civil Contempt CCON Claim Impleading Third Party Defendant—
Monetary Damages/No Monetary Damages CTP Complaint — (Miscellaneous) COM Compromise Settlement COMP Condemnation COND Confessed Judgment CJ Contract Action CNTR Contract Specific Performance PERF Counterclaim — Monetary Damages/No Monetary
Damages CC Cross Claim CROS Declaratory Judgment DECL Declare Death DDTH Detinue DET Divorce
Complaint — Contested/Uncontested DIV Counterclaim/Responsive Pleading DCRP Reinstatement — CustodyNisitation/Support/
Equitable Distribution CVS Driving Privileges
Reinstatement pursuant to § 46.2-427 DRIV Restoration — Habitual Offender or
3"1 Offense REST
Ejectment EJET Encumber/Sell Real Estate RE Enforce Vendor's Lien VEND Escheatment ESC Establish Boundaries ESTB Expungement XPUN Forfeiture of U.S. Currency FORF Freedom of Information FOI Garnishment GARN Injunction INS Intentional Tort ITOR Interdiction INTD Interpleader INTP Interrogatory INTR Judgment Lien — Bill to Enforce LIEN Landlord/Tenant LT Law Enforcement/Public Official Petition LEP Mechanics Lien MECH Medical Malpractice MED Motor Vehicle Tort MV Name Change NC Other General Tort Liability GTOR Partition PART Petition — (Miscellaneous) PET Product Liability PROD Quiet Title QT Referendum Elections ELEC Reinstatement (Other than divorce or driving
privileges) REIN Removal of Case to Federal Court REM Restore Firearms Rights — Felony RFRF Restore Firearms Rights —Review RFRR Separate Maintenance SEP Separate Maintenance — Counterclaim/Responsive
Termination of Mineral Rights MIN Trust — Impress/Declare TRST Trust — Reformation REFT Unlawful Detainer UD Vehicle Confiscation VEH Voting Rights — Restoration VOTE Will Construction CNST Will Contested WILL Writs
Certiorari WC Habeas Corpus WHC Mandamus WM Prohibition WP Quo Warranto WQW
Wrongful Death WD
Aid and Guidance Annexation Annulment
FORM CC-1416 (MASTER) PAGE TWO 07/13
NOV 27 2.0R23
Case No.
BEV BY
ERK
VIRGINIA:
IN THIL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND JOHN MARSHALL COURTS BUILDING
RECEIVED AND F ED CIRCUIT COW T
MARK D. OBENSHAIN, ) )
Petitioner, ) )
v. ) )
MARK R. HERRING, ) )
Respondent. ) )
Serve: ) Mark R. Herring ) c/o Marc E. Elias, Esq. ) Perkins Coie ) 700 Thirteenth Street N.W. ) Washington, D.C. 20005 ) )
PETITION FOR RECOUNT
Pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 24.2-800, 24.2-801 and 24.2-802, Petitioner Mark D.
Obenshain ("Senator Obenshain"), by counsel, petitions the Court for a recount of the ballots
cast for Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the November 5, 2013 general
election (the "Attorney General Election"). In support of his petition, Senator Obenshain states
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a recount proceeding, brought pursuant to Virginia law in order to
ascertain the results of the closest statewide race in Virginia history. In the 2013 race for
Attorney General, out of 2,212,281 votes cast, in 2,558 precincts across Virginia, an apparent
difference of only 165 votes separates the Republican and Democratic candidates. The need for
accuracy and public confidence in the outcome require that a recount be held.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction and venue for this statewide recount proceeding are in the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond, as provided by Virginia Code § 24.2-801.
PARTIES
3. Petitioner, Senator Obenshain, was the Republican candidate for Attorney
General in the general election held on November 5, 2013.
4. Respondent, Mark R. Herring ("Senator Herring"), was the Democratic candidate
for Attorney General in the general election held on November 5, 2013.
CERTIFICATION BY STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
5. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 24.2-679, on November 25, 2013, the Virginia State
Board of Elections (the "Board") ascertained what appeared to be the result of the Attorney
General Election, certified the number of votes given to each candidate and certified the apparent
winner of that election.
6. More specifically, the Board certified the results of the Attorney General Election
as follows:
Mark D. Obenshain 1,103,612 votes
Mark R. Herring 1,103,777 votes
Write-ins 4,892 votes
Total Votes 2,212,281 votes
Based on these results, the Board certified Senator Herring as the winner of the Attorney General
Election. A copy of the Board's certification is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
• 7. As shown by the foregoing figures, the Board's certification reveals a difference
of 165 votes between the votes cast for Senator Obenshain and the votes cast for Senator
Herring, which is .007 percent of the total votes cast for these two candidates.
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECOUNT
8. Virginia Code § 24.2-800(B) provides, in relevant part, that:
When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article.
9. Moreover, Virginia Code § 24.2-802(E) provides, in relevant part, that the
counties and cities of the Commonwealth shall be responsible for the costs of the recount when:
there was between the candidate apparently nominated or elected and the candidate petitioning for the recount a difference of not more than one-half of one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or electoral board prior to the recount.
REQUEST FOR RECOUNT
10. Senator Obenshain appeals the Board's November 25, 2013 certification and
petitions for a recount of the votes and redetermination of the election results as provided by
Virginia Code §§ 24.2-800(B), 24.2-801 and 24.2-802.
11. Because the difference in votes cast for Senator Obenshain and Senator Herring is
less than one-half of one percent, pursuant to Virginia Code § 24.2-802(E), the counties and
cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the candidates, shall bear the costs of the recount in
the Attorney General Election.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Senator Obenshain respectfully requests the following:
3
1. That a Court be appointed to have the ballots in the Attorney General Election
recounted and, in the case of mechanical or direct electronic voting devices, the vote
redetermined, pursuant to Code § 24.2-801, and that such Court sit in all respects as a court
appointed and sitting under Virginia Code §§ 24.2-805 and 24.2-806.
2. That the Chief Judge of this Court call a preliminary hearing, pursuant to Virginia
Code § 24.2-802, at which:
(a) The Court may dispose of motions and fix procedural rules, both subject to
review by the full Court;
(b) The Court shall review all security measures taken for all ballots and voting
devices and direct, as it deems necessary, all appropriate measures to ensure
proper security to conduct the recount;
(c) The Chief Judge, subject to review by the full Court, may set the place or
places for the recount and may order the delivery of election materials to a
central location and the transportation of voting devices to a central location
in each county or city under appropriate safeguards; and
(d) The Court may enter such orders as it deems appropriate.
3. That the Court hold such other hearings and address such other matters as
provided by Virginia Code § 24.2-802.
4. That the Court determine and certify to the Board the vote given to each candidate
and declare the person who received the higher number of votes to be elected Attorney General
pursuant to Virginia Code § 24.2-802.
5. That the Court grant other relief as it may deem appropriate and just.
4
MARK D. OBENSHAIN
By:
William H. Hurd (VSB # 16967) Ashley L. Taylor (VSB # 36521) Stephen C. Piepgrass (VSB # 71361) Anne Hampton Andrews (VSB # 81806) Troutman Sanders LLP 1001 Haxall Point Post Office Box 1122 Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122 Telephone: (804) 697-1320 Facsimile: (804) 698-5147 [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
Counsel for Mark D. Obenshain
21554308v1
5
EXHIBIT
Statement of the votes cast in the counties and cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia for Attorne General at the November 5, 2013 General Election. There were cast:
Statement of the votes cast in the counties and cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia for Attorney General at the November 5, 2013 General Election. There were cast:
Mark R. HERRING
Mark D. OBENSHAIN Write-In
COUNTIES (0) (R) Votes James City 11,708 14,952 76 King and Queen 982 1,153 1 King George 2,462 4,125 16 King William 1,878 3,277 18 Lancaster 1,895 2,564 14 Lee 1,146 3,611 5 Loudoun 47,349 41,316 187 Louisa 3,907 5,907 21 Lunenburg 1,419 1,819 7
Madison 1,624 2,756 5
Mathews 1,205 2,214 2
Mecklenburg 2,868 4,411 1
Middlesex 1,458 2,376 5
Montgomery 11,039 11,978 42
Nelson 2,685 2,588 16
New Kent 2,412 4,791 33
Northampton 2,020 1,854 6
Northumberland 2,101 3,033 10
Nottoway 1,830 2,096 8
Orange 3,929 5,954 29
Page 1,942 4,095 8
Patrick 1,412 3,548 3
Pittsylvania 5,627 12,411 20
Powhatan 2,693 7,356 26
Prince Edward 2,680 2,453 11
Prince George 3,816 5,375 31
Prince William 52,109 44,163 179
Pulaski 2,709 5,298 10
Rappahannock 1,325 1,572 8
Richmond 836 1,393 6
Roanoke 10,122 20,550 67
Rockbridge 2,546 4,046 10
Rockingham 5,426 16,562 41
Russell 1,857 4,124 7
Scott 1,084 4,185 5
Shenandoah 3,555 7,918 27
Smyth 2,113 5,338 9
Southampton 2,307 2,737 1
Spotsylvania 13,002 18,298 68
Stafford 14,460 19,232 76
Surry 1,559 1,076 7
Sussex 1,816 1,373 1
Tazewell 2,474 7,268 6
Warren 3,484 6,087 20
Washington 3,767 10,547 16
Westmoreland 2,128 2,181 9
Statement of the votes cast in the counties and cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia for Attorney General at the November 5, 2013 General Election. There were cast:
Statement of the votes cast In the counties and cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia for Attorney General at the November 5, 2013 General Election. There were cast:
Total Cities 356,797 253,282 1,354 Total Counties 746,980 850,330 3,538 Aggregate 1,103,777 1,103,612 4,892
Total Votes Cast 2,212,281
We, the undersigned members of the State Board of Elections, do hereby certify that the foregoing statement is true and correct.
We further certify that at a meeting held on November 25, 2013, having examined the certified abstracts on file in the office of the State Board of Elections of the votes given in the counties and cities of the Commonwealth at the General Election held on November 5, 2013, for Attorney General and having made the foregoing statement of the whole number of votes so given, we ascertained and determined that
MARK R. HERRING
having received the greatest number of votes cast in said election was duly elected to the office of Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the term prescribed by law.
Given under our hands at Richmond, V ia, this 25th day of November, 2013.
, Chairman
RECEIVED AND r CIRCUIT COU T
NOV 2 I L013
CLERK D.C.
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND John Marshall Courts Building
MARK D. OBENSHAIN, ) )
Petitioner, ) )
v. ) )
MARK R. HERRING, ) )
Respondent. ) )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR RECOUNT
Petitioner Mark D. Obenshain, by counsel, in support of his Petition for Recount
("Petition") submits this memorandum to assist the Court in its supervision of the recount of the
vote cast for Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia on Tuesday, November 5,
2013.
IntroductionI.
The 2013 race of Attorney General is the closest statewide race in Virginia history. Out
of more than two million votes cast, only 165 votes now appear to separate the Republican and
Democratic candidates. Given that razor-thin margin, the need for accuracy and public
confidence in the outcome require that a recount be held. Accordingly, the Petitioner, Senator
Obenshain, has formally called for a recount, as provided by Virginia Code §§ 24.2-800, -801
and -802.
The last statewide recount in Virginia was in 2005, presided over by Judge Theodore J.
Markow of this Court; however, in the intervening eight years, there have been substantial
changes to the law governing recounts, making the recount procedure more thorough and, in
some respects, more challenging to administer. This memorandum explains that procedure for
the benefit of the recount court.
II. Overview of the Statutory Provisions For a Recount
A. Certification by State Board of Elections
On November 25, 2013, the State Board of Elections (the "SBE"), pursuant to Code §
24.2-679, certified the following results for the Attorney General election held on November 5,
2013:
Mark D. Obenshain: 1,103,612
Mark R. Herring: 1,103,777
Write-ins: 4,892
Total votes: 2,212,281
Based on these figures, Senator Herring was certified by the SBE as the apparent winner.
At the same time, however, the Chairman of the SBE noted that his vote to certify the election is
"with question," and explained that he is "concerned with the integrity of the data."
Under Virginia law, an individual not certified as the winner of an election may seek a
recount where — as here — the difference in votes cast for the two candidates is not more than one
percent of the total votes cast for those candidates.' Va. Code § 24.2-800.
Pending before the Court is the Petition for Recount filed by Senator Obenshain pursuant
to Code § 24.2-800, based on the 165 vote difference between the certified totals for the two
candidates. As provided by Virginia law, the recount launched by Senator Ob.enshain's petition
must be resolved by this special three-judge court. Va. Code § 24.2-801.
The 165-vote difference is only .007 percent of the total votes cast for Senator Obenshain and Senator Herring.
2
B. Recount versus Contest
Virginia law also provides that an election may be contested. See Va. Code § 24.2-803.
The General Assembly resolves any election contest. The fundamental difference between the
two procedures is that a recount focuses on the ballots actually cast and determines the number
cast for each candidate (potentially yielding a different result due, for example, to uncounted
ballots, addition errors, transposition of numbers, etc.), while a contest challenges the integrity of
the election process (raising, for example, issues such as voter ineligibility, fraud, significant
departures on election day from prescribed procedures).2
Importantly, although a recount does not resolve challenges to the integrity of the election
process, a recount does allow for discovery of any evidence that could be used in a later contest.
Va. Code § 24.2-802(B) ("Commencing upon the filing of the recount, nothing shall prevent the
discovery or disclosure of any evidence that could be used pursuant to § 24.2-803 in contesting
the results of an election").
C. The Composition of the Court and Hearings
Under Virginia law, a petition for the recount of a statewide election must be filed in the
Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. The Chief Judge of this Court is designated to sit on the
recount court along with two other judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Virginia. Va. Code § 24.2-801. The law contemplates at least three hearings: a preliminary
hearing before the Chief Judge, a motion and procedure hearing before the full Court, and a final
hearing before the full Court.
2 Thus, the recount shall consider only votes cast in the election. Va. Code § 24.2-802(B). The recount shall not take into consideration any absentee ballots or provisional ballots ruled invalid and not cast, nor shall it take into account ballots cast only for "administrative or test purposes and voided" or ballots "spoiled by a voter and replaced with a new ballot." Id.
3
(i) Preliminary Hearing. The statute calls for a preliminary hearing to be held
within seven calendar days of the filing of the Petition. Va. Code § 24.2-802(B). Senator
Obenshain filed his Petition on Wednesday, November 27, 2013. Thus, a preliminary hearing
should be held by Wednesday, December 4, 2013.
In anticipation of the preliminary hearing, counsel for the parties have agreed to a
schedule under which they will work together to identify areas of agreement and areas of
disagreement, if any, about the content of a Preliminary Order. Under this schedule, counsel for
Senator Obenshain will provide counsel for Senator Herring with the draft of a suggested
Preliminary Order on November 27; and counsel for Senator Herring will provide comments and
suggested changes on Monday, December 2. This will allow time for discussions between
counsel for the parties on December 3, with each side submitting to the other, by the evening of
that same day, any motions or other items planned for submission to the Court at the preliminary
hearing. Consistent with this cooperative approach, both parties have agreed that the preliminary
hearing should be held on December 4, 2013 (assuming, of course, that this date is acceptable to
the Court).
At the preliminary hearing, the Chief Judge shall permit parties and their counsel, under
the supervision of the local electoral oards, to have access to "pollbooks and other materials used
in the election for examination purposes." Va. Code § 24.2-802(B) (but noting that individual
ballots may not be so examined at this point).
In addition, the Chief Judge "shall review all security measures taken for all ballots and
voting devices and direct, as he deems necessary, all appropriate measures to ensure proper
security to conduct the recount." Id. In addition, subject to review by the full court, the Chief
Judge may:
4
• dispose of motions and establish rules of procedures;
• "set the place or places for the recount;" and
• order the "delivery of election materials to a central location and the
transportation of voting devices to a central location in each county or city
under appropriate safeguards."
Id.
The Code does not specify whether the date of the recount is established at the first or
second hearings. We suggest that a tentative date for the recount be selected at the preliminary
hearing, and we will work with counsel for Senator Herring to develop, if possible, a joint
recommendation, with December 18 and/or 19 being prominent possibilities.
(ii) Motions and Procedure Hearing. After the full court is appointed, "it shall call
a hearing at which all motions shall be disposed of and at which the rules of procedure shall be
fixed finally." Id. The Court "shall fix procedures that shall provide for the accurate
determination of votes in the election." Id.
(iii) Final Hearing. "At the conclusion of the recount of all precincts," the Court
shall hold a hearing where, "after allowing the parties to inspect questionable ballots, and after
hearing arguments, the Court shall rule on the validity of all questioned ballots and votes." Va.
Code § 24.7-802(D). The Court then certifies the results to the State Board of Elections and
declares the outcome of the election. Id.
D. Recount Teams and Coordinators
The actual recounting of the votes in each city and county is conducted, under the
supervision of the Court, by two-member teams of "recount officials," drawn from the officers of
election for that city or county. The members of these teams are chosen by the two candidates,
S
with each candidate selecting one member of each team. In each city and county, the work of the
recount teams is coordinated by a pair of recount coordinators, including one Republican and one
Democratic member of the local electoral board. Va. Code § 24.2-802(C).
Despite these bipartisan arrangements, the 2005 statewide recount recognized that the
recount officials and recount coordinators serve as officers of the court and the candidates were
expressly forbidden from conducting any "training" of the recount officials and recount
coordinators. See Deeds v. McDonnell, Case No. CH05001751-00, Supplemental Recount
Procedural Order (City of Richmond Dec. 14, 2005). Similarly, the 2005 candidates were
prohibited from conducting any ex parte written communication with recount officials and
recount coordinators (other than communications addressing only the time and place of the
recount, the time and place of any officially-prescribed training and similar administrative
matters). Id. Senator Obenshain believes that these measures were well-advised, and he will ask
the Court to adopt similar measures in the current recount.
Each candidate may, of course, train and communicate with his own recount observers,
who are entitled to observe all aspects of the recount, but who cannot actually handle ballots or
interfere with the recount. See Va. Code § 24.2-802(C).
E. Procedural Changes
Procedures have changed significantly since the last statewide recount. The law now
requires that all optical scan ballots be re-run through ballot tabulators. Va. Code § 24.2-
802(D)(3); see also 2008 Va. Acts 682. Those tabulators must be specially programmed to count
only the Attorney General's race and to set aside all ballots that contain an apparent undervote,3
3 "`Undervote' means a ballot on which a voter casts a vote for a lesser number of candidates or positions than the number for which he was lawfully entitled to vote." Va. Code § 24.2-802(I).
6
an apparent overvote,4 or a write-in vote. Id. All ballots thus set aside and all optical scan
ballots that the tabulator would not accept and all optical scan ballots for which a tabulator could
not be properly programmed must be counted manually. The Virginia Public Access Project
estimates that approximately 712,000 optical scan ballots (not including provisional and absentee
ballots) will need to be re-run as part of the recount. Update: Scope of Potential Recount,
Virginia Public Access Project (Nov. 25, 2013), http://www.vpap.org/updates/show/1415.
Observers from both political parties estimate that there are thousands of votes in the
undervote/overvote category in the 2013 election that now will be counted as part of the recount.
See, e.g., Kenric Ward, Deeds legislation could wipe out Herring's lead in AG race,
Watchdog. org, http ://watchdo g.org/117686/state-attorney- general/ (Nov. 25, 2013); Ben
Tribbett, 25,000 AG Ballots Still Left To Be Counted, Not Larry Sabato,
These changes in the law since 2005 have at least three major consequences for the
current recount:
First, in jurisdictions using optical scan ballots, more recount officials will be needed
than were used during the 2005 statewide recount. Counsel for Senator Obenshain will work
with counsel for Senator Herring and the SBE to provide the Court with recommended numbers
of officials for each jurisdiction.
Second, the manual counting of ballots now plays a central role. Given the number of
ballots that will be counted manually, and given the small margin between the two candidates,
the manual count may well decide the outcome of the election, and it is vital that uniform
counting standards be applied statewide. The SBE has adopted a set of standards — ballot
4 "`Overvote' means a ballot on which a voter casts a vote for a greater number of candidates or positions than the number for which he was lawfully entitled to vote." Va. Code § 24.2-802(I).
7
exemplars — to guide the manual counting of ballots, See Va. Code § 24.2-802(D)(1) ("The
recount officials shall hand count the ballots using the standards promulgated by the State Board.
. ."); 1 VAC 20-80 (incorporating by reference "Ballot Examples for Handcouriting Paper-
Based Ballots for Virginia Elections or Recounts" adopted August 2001, revised May 2002,
November 2005, and June 2007). There will, of course, be occasions when there will be
differences of opinion on how these standards should be applied to particular ballots. In the
interest of unifoimity, Senator Obenshain will ask that, if there is any doubt about how a ballot
should be counted, the ballot should be sent to the Court for review by counsel for the parties and
a decision by the Court. Indeed, Code § 24.2-800 and the procedures adopted by the SBE call
for any "challenged" ballots to undergo precisely this sort of review by counsel and judicial
determination.5
Third, in 2005 the recount was conducted in a single day. This was possible because,
under the law then in effect, results from precincts using optical scanners were mainly
determined by reviewing the tapes printed on election night. Optical scan ballots were not rerun
unless the Court so ordered. In the 2005 recount, the Court ordered the rerunning of optical scan
ballots in a few precincts. Now that the law requires rerunning all optical scan ballots in all
jurisdictions, it is not yet clear whether every jurisdiction will be able to complete this task
accurately and efficiently in a single day. Some larger jurisdictions — including, notably, Fairfax
5
Code § 24.2-800(D) provides:
[The recount officials . • . shall submit the ballots or the statement of results used, as to the validity of which questions exist, to the court. The written statement of any one recount official challenging a ballot shall be sufficient to require its submission to the court....
At the conclusion of the recount of all precincts, after allowing the parties to inspect the questioned ballots, and after hearing arguments, the court shall rule on the validity of all questioned ballots and votes.
8
County — may require two days to complete the recount, a complicating factor that may
necessitate particular attention to logistics and ballot security measures.
In. Supporting Roles by Various Government Agencies
A. The State Board of Elections
The SBE is, of course, an integral part of any statewide recount. Not only does it have in
place a well-developed communications network with registrars and local electoral boards, but it
also has been tasked by the General Assembly with developing procedures for recounts.
Specifically, the SBE has been tasked with:
promulgat[ing] standards for (i) the proper handling and security of voting and counting devices, ballots, and other materials required for a recount, (ii) accurate determination of votes based upon objective evidence and taking into account the counting device and form of ballots approved for use in the Commonwealth, and (iii) any other matters that will promote a timely and accurate resolution of the recount.
Va. Code § 24.2-802.
Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the •SBE has adopted regulations governing
preparations for the recount, see 1 VAC 20-80-20, as well as detailed procedural guidelines
specifying how recounts may be efficiently conducted. See Virginia State Board of Elections,
Virginia Election Recount Step-by-Step Instructions (rev'd August 1, 2012), available at