SLO County supervisor race recount is almost 20% complete. Here’s what we know
San Luis Obispo County election staffers were 19.9% done with a manual recount of the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors race for District 2 as of Wednesday evening.
So far, the new ballot count is identical to the original count.
This will change, however, when election staffers add an extra ballot that was excluded from the original count to their tally.
Recount observer Richard Patten discovered a ballot with two postmarks, one for Election Day and another for Nov. 9.
Mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day, Nov. 8, to be counted, so election staff originally disqualified that ballot because of the Nov. 9 postmark, San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said.
After reviewing the ballot again during the recount, however, Cano will include the ballot in the count because of its original Election Day postmark.
Staff will count this ballot when they tally its precinct, Cano said.
Still, one ballot is not enough to reverse the results of the District 2 election, which found incumbent Supervisor Bruce Gibson facing off against challenger Dr. Bruce Jones.
According to the certified election results, Jones lost to Gibson by 13 votes.
Gibson finished with 11,722 votes, or 50.03% of the total votes cast with all precincts reporting, compared to 11,709 votes, or 49.97%, for Jones.
San Miguel resident Darcia Stebbens requested the recount on behalf of Jones’ campaign.
On Wednesday, staff counted ballots from six of the 29 precincts in District 2.
So far, the recount tally exactly matches the original ballot count — with Gibson winning 3,157 of the votes tallied so far and Jones winning 1,858, according to the SLO County Clerk-Recorder’s website.
Discrepancies in the count can show up when the original election staff interpret a mark on a ballot differently than the recount staff.
For example, if someone used check marks instead of filling in the bubble next to a candidate’s name, staff then adjudicate the ballot to decide the intent of the voter, Cano said.
What does the recount look like?
Recounts occur in teams of four people, Cano said.
One person reads the ballot and calls out the vote, two others tally the vote, and a fourth person checks the call and the tally for accuracy.
This week, four teams are working on the recount, Cano said.
This number can change week to week depending on staff availability, Cano said.
So far, the District 2 recount has lasted seven days and cost $45,975, according to Cano.
Prior to Wednesday, election staff separated District 2 ballots from the rest of the county’s ballots and sorted them into their respective precincts.
Cano doesn’t know how long the recount will take, she said.
“The length will be determined by how quickly the boards get through the process, how many challenges from the observers there are,” Cano wrote in an email to The Tribune.
Stebbens, as the person who requested the recount, must cover the cost. She must deposit $6,873 with the county on Thursday morning in order for the recount to continue, Cano said.
Stebbens previously told The Tribune that the Jones Campaign will help cover the cost of the recount.
Why request a recount?
Why did Stebbens request the recount?
She told The Tribune that she’s concerned about integrity and transparency in the election process.
“I don’t believe that it’s being counted accurately. I don’t believe that it’s one voter, one vote, one time,” Stebbens previously said. “I want to make our elections process better.”
She said she’s worried about the integrity of the ballots themselves — such as someone filling out another voter’s ballot.
If any ballots weren’t filled out by the appropriate voter, it wouldn’t matter if the recount shows that the original count was accurate, Stebbens said.
That’s why she requested a variety of relevant materials along with the recount.
The materials included mail-in ballots cast without an envelope at the polls and “signature verification sheets for ‘cured’ signatures,” along with names and training attendance logs for all precinct inspectors, the request said.
Cano told the Tribune that the county would allow Stebbens to examine most of the materials in her request — including confidential voter data such as envelopes for mail-in ballots that show the voter’s name, address and signature.
Stebbens and her team finished reviewing the materials on Tuesday, according to the County Clerk-Recorder’s website.
Gibson said he thinks Stebbens and the Jones campaign are looking for proof that “the election was not legitimate” — of which Gibson said there is no evidence.
“As we’ve known all along, these folks have wanted to cast doubts about the legitimacy of the election without evidence, without factual basis,” Gibson said. “It’s a sad commentary on the state of things.”
Though Stebbens and the Jones campaign are legally permitted to review relevant materials, Gibson said questioning the integrity of the election without any evidence is damaging to democracy.
“They have been allowed to review materials they are entitled to review. With that, they’re within their rights. But exercising your right to do something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right,” Gibson said. “If your intent is to absorb the time of county staff in an effort to spin a tale that is fabricated, I think that’s frankly an abuse of the recount process.”
Gibson doesn’t expect the recount to reveal enough discrepancies in the original count to change the results of the election, he said.
“We saw that in the recount during the primary, the accuracy of the counting is excellent,” Gibson said. “Our staff takes great care with everything they do.”
Jones had not responded to requests for comment as of Wednesday evening.
This story was originally published December 28, 2022 at 6:33 PM.
