Ups and downs of elections don’t constitute fraud

Editor: A recent column by Steve Mann touched on Jack Sieglock’s run for state assembly in 2008. “He (Sieglock) lived the nightmare of being declared the winner, only to be told several weeks later he had lost the election. Almost three weeks after the election was over and he was the apparent winner, some 4,000 additional ballots ‘were magically found’ in Sacramento County,” Mann wrote.

Mann quoted Sieglock as saying, “hard counts never change, but they did,” adding that he led by 1,081 votes prior to the new ballots and ended up losing by 474 votes.

Researching for any facts that would substantiate this claim, here’s the result of the November 2008 election. For three weeks Alyson Lewis Huber was behind in the vote count, however, after provisional ballots from Sacramento County were counted, she was declared the winner on Nov. 26, 2008. The final count showed she had defeated Jack Sieglock a Republican, by 474 votes. Sielock had already attended the orientation for a new assembly member when he learned he hadn’t won.

In any election where the race is close, the loser injects imaginary reasons for the loss, and In this case nothing was found to substantiate the accusations of some 4,000 additional ballots magically being found. The fact is provisional ballots hadn’t been counted yet.

There are mistakes in any endeavor we take in life, and there have been ups and downs in elections, which should be expected, but nothing widespread to suggest voter fraud. Accusations of voter fraud are thoroughly investigated. For voter fraud to even exist, would mean there were various individuals involved in the conspiracy. A group conspiracy would be impossible to keep secret from the public.

JOHN SLAUGHTERBACK Lodi