Results as recounted November 21 and changes from the original canvass

Results as canvassed November 15

On Wednesday, November 16, candidate Rachel Stewart filed a formal request for a recount of the 2011 University Heights City election. 

In a formal recount, each candidate names a representative to a recount board. Rachel Stewart's recount board member was Pamela Stewart, and Jim Lane's representative was Tam Bryk. Pamela Stewart and Bryk selected Leonard Greenwood as the third member.

The recount board met Monday, November 21 at the County Administration Building. The meeting was open to the public. Candidates Lane, Stewart, Brennan McGrath, and Mayor Louise From were present as observers.

The recount board recounted the precinct votes and absentee or early votes on the precinct ballot scanner, and the high speed absentee scanner, respectively.  They also hand counted the ballots and determined the same results by machine and by hand.

The board was required to sort out the 236 University Heights absentee and early ballots from the 2679 absentee and early ballots cast in all 11 cities. There was no change in the absentee or early vote totals.

The change in vote totals came from a single ballot voted at the polls on Election Day, indicated by a machine during the recount as containing indeterminable marks.  The recount board unanimously agreed upon the intent of the voter and darkened the votes with a special marker to allow the votes to be read by the machine while not obscuring the original marks. This resulted in McGrath, Leff, and Stewart picking up one vote each, and reduced Lane's margin of victory over Stewart to one vote.

A table of deadline dates follows.  There was no requirement to wait until deadline dates for decisions to be made.

Absentee Ballots

Election Night statistics:

• 243 voters requested ballots.
• Seven voters with ballots not yet returned.
• 236 voters with ballots returned.
• 235 ballots counted.
• One ballot rejected: affidavit not signed.
• In addition, one ballot was rejected because it was returned with no affidavit envelope. This voter was notified of the error before Election Day and requested a replacement ballot by mail, and for statistical purposes is considered a voter with a ballot not yet returned.

 After Election Night: 3 ballots returned, one counted.

• One ballot with a timely postmark was counted.
• Two ballots without postmarks were rejected. One of these was the replacement ballot from the voter who had been rejected on Election Day for not including an affidavit envelope.

 Final statistics:

• 243 voters requested ballots.
• Four voters did not return ballots.
• 239 voters returned ballots.
• 236 ballots counted.
• Three voters with ballots rejected. Total of four ballots rejected, since one voter had two ballots rejected.

Deadlines