Monthly Archives: January 2007

Here's a table, filched from the county elections office:

CHARTER AMENDMENT

744 of 744 Precincts Completely Reporting
		Percent	Votes
YES		56.48%	84,351
NO		43.52%	64,984
Total			149,335

Wait a minute….

Ballots Cast: 150,399. Votes total 149,335.

More than a thousand people turned up to vote for this (or submitted absentee ballots) and voted blank? What's up with that? Isn't that a remarkably high rate of spoiled e-ballots for an election with exactly ONE question on it?

Early voting and absentees broke about 2:1 in favor of the “strong mayor” but the actual number of votes cast was minuscule. Out of 1,050,581 eligible voters, only 42,171 voted in favor, and 23,197 against, for a spread of under twenty thousand. Today's voters should be a little more numerous, but with 281 of 744 precincts counted, we're only up to a total of 95,987 votes cast, and the election-day vote is split almost 50/50, with a slight edge to the “no” side.

If this trend were to speed up just a bit, it might become another nail-biter; at present rates, though, the “no” vote isn't catching up quite fast enough. Since the votes are not evenly distributed geographically, and I have no real sense of who has reported and who hasn't, I don't think the trend means much, so anything could still happen ….

Update: With 5/7 of the precincts reporting, the yes vote is now slightly ahead even with today's voters. The spread remains small — about 22,000 votes — but that's out of only 126,000 or so cast. Voter turnout is well into double-digit percentages, though, so that's something.

It's election day today on the Charter Reform, and I'm going to vote FOR it. If you're a Miami-Dade County resident and registered to vote, I urge you to do the same. Turnout will be very light so your vote counts more than usual.

Meanwhile, it's business as usual.

Fraudulent mailings is an old Miami tradition, and it looks as if the lurid mailings I blogged about the other day could be in keeping with tradition.

At least, that's the story at Eye On Miami, FRAUD ALERT in Miami! Political Action Committees and mass mailing by geniusofdespair. It seems that the “Citizens for Unity and Common Rights PAC” is remarkably hard to find. And that its main protagonist, supposedly one Bernardo Bestard, is also sort of hard to find — and has a remarkably protean signature.

The Daily Business Review has a story today about a real screw-up by the US Attorney's office here in the Southern District of Florida. The article doesn't seem to be online, but you can read a quick summary at David Markus's blog:

Judge Moore had refused to grant a continuance in the past. This time, he granted the government's request for a continuance, but he was not happy about it. Apparently the government threatened to dismiss the entire indictment if the continuance wasn't granted. Both sides have reason to be upset — the defense prepared for trial, made reservations for hotels in the Keys, flew in witnesses and so on because this was a firm trial date. The prosecution is rightfully upset because the lead prosecutor has been ill and in the hospital, which is, of course, good cause to continue the case.

Here's what I want to know: neither the DBR nor Mr. Markus connect this fiasco to the current, rather inexperienced, management at the Southern District. Yet, one of the many things that went wrong, and which the full article makes clear angered the judge, is that the number two lawyer on the case left the US Attorney's office some time ago, but apparently no one told the other side or the court. And when the lead lawyer got ill, there was no backstop in place, the government was at the last minute unprepared for trial, and it had no choice but to say it would dismiss if a continuance wasn't granted.

Why isn't this sort of management failure exactly the sort of thing that should be the responsibility of Mr. R. Alexander Acosta, who despite relative youth and rather thin credentials was parachuted into the job over the heads of the deputy US attorney, who had about 20 years of experience, and was recommended by the previous incumbent?

I'm not and never have been a prosecutor, so the question is more than rhetorical. Anyone know?