Page 86 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

During the reading of the 34 circuit tally sheets, ADO representatives became
aware of several irregularities resulting in thousands of votes not being counted int the
respective circuit totals. For instances, there were 85 precincts in Circuit 1-1
(Changuinola), but its tally sheet only included the results from 41 precincts. In Circuit
3-1 (Colón), there were 203 precincts, but the tally sheets listed the results of only 180.
In these two circuits, the circuit boards had simply failed to include a total of 67
precincts, thus robbing ADO of a 1,755-vote lead. And the margin of Barletta’s alleged
victory was only 1,713 votes.

ADO representatives also became aware of other irregularities –such as those
in Circuit 4-4– when they compared the figures for circuit tally sheets already read
against those of tally sheets already in their possession. It should be remembered that
circuit boards included a representative from each party, who handed a copy of the
circuit tally sheet to his party’s representative in the National Returns Boards so that
he could compare what was being read against his own copy. When they noticed
irregularities, they asked that precincts tally sheets for the doctored circuit tally sheets
be reviewed.

It should also be recalled that each precinct prepared –in addition of the copies
given party representatives– three official copies for the circuit returns board, the
National Board, and the Electoral Tribunal. Therefore, the National Returns Board had
copies not only of all 40 circuit tally sheets but of all 3902 precinct tally sheets,
allegedly incorporated into the 40 circuit reports. Moreover, the Electoral Code
authorizes the National Returns Board to review precinct tally sheets in the event of
“doubts” as to the accuracy of circuit tally sheets (that is exactly the reason why it had
copies of all precinct tally sheets). Therefore, should any doubts arise the National
Returns Board had the power and the duty to verify the accuracy of circuit tally sheets
by reviewing the appropriate precinct tally sheets, the very source of electoral activity.

The UNADE, however, refused to review them (see points 7 and 10 of
Fernández and Gadeloff’s letter). And since the UNADE controlled the National
Returns Board, these suspicious tally sheets were never reviewed. This sanctioned the
numerous frauds included in the circuit tally sheets.

Having refused to review the tally sheets under the excuse of an excessive
number of challenges, the National Returns Board, by a resolution dated May 11,
forwarded the results of that “review” to the Electoral Tribunal. It goes without saying
that this premature termination of its duties was illegal. What it should have done under
the law was to submit all challenges to the Tribunal, await its decision and act
accordingly. Thus, if the Tribunal dismissed a challenge, those votes would be counted.
If accepted the challenge, the votes would be excluded. But the National Returns Board
instead chose to self-destruct and hand over to the Electoral Tribunal a set of doctored
results it had failed to review. But then, what electoral justice can we expected from an
Electoral Tribunal where two plus zero make three?