STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION ; rr~:. :-: C"'):--'": c.:: CJ IN RE: Glendell Russ :~::.: : ::- ::::...'~ :.. _'; Case No.: FEC 99-058 '( ;--~:. F.O. No.: DOSFEC Ol-03l~W (_.) ORDER OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE THIS CAUSE came on to be heard by the Florida Elections Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting held on January 31 and February 1, 2001, in Miami, Florida. After considering the Statement of Findings and the recommendations of counsel, the Commission finds that there is: No Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from marking or designating a choice on the ballot of another person, except as provided in Sections 101.051, 101.655, or 101.661. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED by the Florida Elections Commission and filed with the Clerk of the Commission on February 13, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida. -Ju..?<.~~ san A. MacManus, Chairman Florida Elections Commission Room 2002, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, the Respondent may appeal the Commission's final order to the appropriate district court of appeals by filing a notice of appeal both with the Clerk of the Florida Elections Commission and the Clerk of the district court of appeals. The notice must be filed within 30 days of the date this final order was filed with the P_C007 (1/98)
Clerk of the Commission and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Copies furnished to: Phyllis Hampton, General Counsel Glendell Russ, Respondent Keith Dowell, Complainant Gadsden County Supervisor of Elections, Filing Officer Attachment: Statement of Findings P_C007(1/98)
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Case Number: FEC 99-058 Respondent: Glendell Russ Complainant: Keith Dowdell On March 17, 1999, the Florida Elections Commission received a sworn complaint alleging that the Respondent violated Chapter 104, Florida Statutes. The Commission staff investigated the allegations and based on the facts and conclusions of law contained in the Complaint, the Report of Investigation, and this statement, the staff recommends that the Commission find that there is: No Probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person from marking or designating a choice on the ballot of another person, except as provided in Sections 101.051, 101.655, or 101.661. Summary of Facts and Conclusions of Law 1. Respondent was the campaign treasurer for Complainant's opponent, Gary Baker. Mr. Baker was defeated in the March 31, 1999 Quincy city election for Mayor and received 20% of the vote. There were four candidates for Mayor. 2. Complainant was the incumbent candidate for Mayor of Quincy, Florida. He won the election with 59% of the vote. 3. The Commission staff investigated whether the Respondent violated Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes, when he marked or designated a choice on the absentee ballot of another voter. 4. Complainant alleges that on March 12, 1999, Virginia Davis came to his home and asked him to accompany her to her mother's house, where she saw Respondent marking her mother's absentee ballot. Complainant stated that he followed Ms. Davis to the home of Ms. Davis' mother, Nancy Williams. Ms. Williams told the Complainant that the Respondent filled out her absentee ballot for her and made her vote for Gary Baker, Complainant's opponent. Complainant stated that Ms. Williams told him that she had wanted to vote for the Complainant. 5. Complainant stated that when he left the Williams' home he noticed Respondent's car parked at the home of Susie Rogers. Complainant walked to Ms. Rogers' home and witnessed Respondent completing Ms. Rogers' absentee ballot at her kitchen table. Complainant stated that he immediately walked outside and called the Quincy City Police Department. Complainant added that while he was outside the home, he noticed that Mattie Dixon was sitting in Respondent's car. Complainant submitted a copy of the Quincy City Police report of the incident with his complaint. 6. According to the police report, Ms. Williams was interviewed on March 12, SOFOOI (10/98) 1
1999. Ms. Williams stated that Respondent came to her home inquiring about her absentee ballot that had been mailed to her. Ms. "'Williams advised Respondent that she had not received the ballot, but that she had not checked her mail that day. Respondent went to Ms. "Williams' mailbox and retrieved the absentee ballot. Ms. Williams stated that she told Respondent that she intended to vote for Complainant, but Respondent insisted that she vote for Gary Baker. Ms. Williams stated that, at Respondent's direction, she voted for Mr. Baker. The Respondent took her completed ballot and left. 7. Approximately two hours after her interview, the police officer returned to Ms.. Williams' home for additional information. During the second interview, Ms. Williams completely changed her statement, and she stated that she voted for Mr. Baker because she did not see Complainant's name on the ballot. To review a copy of the police report, refer to exhibit 1 in the Report of Investigation. 8. Respondent received the notice of this complaint on March 2 7, 1999 and did not submit a response to the complaint. 9. Criminal charges were filed against Respondent by the State Attorney's office based on the Complainant's allegations. The Commission investigator assisted in a joint investigation with the State Attorney's Office, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Quincy City Police Depart;uent. Special Agent R. A. Grimes stated that he was contacted by Captain Edward Beach of the Quincy City Police Department, who advised that the police department had received numerous complaints from voters regarding attempts by Respondent and others to influence their votes by absentee ballots. 10. One hundred and three absentee ballots were cast in the election. Copies of each of the absentee ballot's envelopes were secured by the State Attorney's Office. During two rounds of interviews, the investigators were able to contact and interview 101 absentee voters. During these interviews, 21 voters reveal apparent interference with completing their absentee ballots. Seven voters said they were approached by Respondent about voting. All statements were given under oath administered by sworn law enforcement officers and were tape-recorded. Additionally, each voter signed a witness statement, acknowledging that they understood the penalty for perjury. The interviews with Nancy Williams, Stacy and Tracy Youmans, and Onterio Ward are relevant to our case. However, see the Report of Investigation for inforn1ation on all seven interviews. 11. The state attorney charged Mattie Dixon with five counts of illegally requesting absentee ballots, returning too many absentee ballots, false swearing, fraud in connection with casting a vote, interfering with the right to vote, and conuptly influencing a vote. She pled guilty to returning too many absentee ballots and false swearing. Ms. Dixon was sentenced to two years of probation, a $270 fine, and she was ordered to pay $1,500 to F.D.L.E. for investigative costs. The order also stated that she cannot work on any campaigns except those of her son and daughter. Her son was a candidate for Sheriff and her daughter was a candidate for Tax Collector in the November 2000 election. 12. On November 30, 2000, Respondent was convicted of two counts of violating Section 104.0515, Florida Statutes, when he interfered with Nancy Williams and Tracy Youmans' right to vote. The Respondent was also convicted of two counts of SOFOOI (10/98) 2
violating Section 104.061, Florida Statutes, when he corruptly influenced Nancy Williams and Tracy Youmans' vote. In addition, the Respondent was convicted of violating Section 104.011, Florida Statutes, when he willfully procured Onterio Ward to falsely swear that he resided in Quincy instead of Gretna. Respondent was sentenced on December 20, 2000 to three years probation with a three year suspended D.O.C. sentence. 13. Mrs. Williams was interviewed on March 18, 1999. Her husband, Thomas williams, was present during the interview. Mr. Williams stated that the Respondent came to their home at his request to assist him with voting.. When Respondent arrived, Mr. williams asked him to check the mailbox and bring the absentee ballot inside with him. Mrs. Williams said that she opened the absentee ballot envelope and handed the ballot back to Respondent The Respondent then pointed to the area on the ballot where she could mark her choice. She stated that she made a mark by Gary Baker's name, and then saw Complainant's name. She said that she asked Respondent if she could mark both names and he advised her that she could only make one choice. She stated that she wanted to vote for Complainant, but she did not want to scratch Mr. Baker's name off. Mrs. Williams gave her completed absentee ballot to Respondent to return for her. At several times during this interview Mrs. Williams advised that Respondent did not indicate whom she should vote for, and she stated that he only pointed to the ballot to show her where to mark her choice. Mrs. Williams' absentee ballot was witnessed by her husband. 14. Stacy Youmans was interviewed on March 24, 1999. She stated that Respondent came to her home and transported her to the Supervisor of Elections' Office. She stated that he told her to go into the office and vote absentee. She added that he insisted that she vote for Gary Baker. 15. Ms. Youmans was interviewed again on May 24, 1999. She identified Respondent from a drivers' license photo as the individual who came to her home and transported her to the Supervisor of Elections' Office to vote. She stated that Respondent urged her to vote for Gary Baker, and said that he is the candidate that will bring jobs to the area. When asked if Respondent was intimidating or made her uncomfortable, she stated, "I was wondering why he was constantly saying vote for Mr. Baker." Ms. Youmans then responded that she did not feel like Respondent was pressuring her to vote for Mr. Baker. Ms. Youmans voted at the Supervisor of Elections' Office, and her ballot was witnessed by an employee of that office. 16. Ms. Tracy Youmans, Stacy Youmans' sister, was interviewed on March 24, 1999. Ms. Youmans stated that on March 11, 1999, Respondent came to her home and transported her to the Supervisor of Elections' Office, and instructed her to tell the employees that she was going out of town so that she could vote absentee. She stated that Respondent insisted that she vote for Gary Baker. She stated that she voted for Mr. Baker because of the pressure from Respondent, but she wanted to vote for Complainant. 17. Ms. Tracy Youmans was interviewed again on May 24, 1999. She identified Respondent from a drivers' license photo as the individual that came to her home and transported her to the Supervisor of Elections' Office to vote. She stated that Respondent came to her job to take her to vote, but she could not leave. Respondent later picked her up from work and transported her to her home to get her identification in order to vote. while SOFOOI (10/98) 3
en route to her home, she stated that Respondent told her to vote for Gary Baker. She stated that she did not want to vote for Mr. Baker, but she voted for him because Respondent was insisting that she do so. She also stated that Respondent encouraged her boyfriend, Ontario \Vard, to change his voter registration to reflect that he resides at Ms. Youmans' address, which is in the city limits ofquincy. Mr. Ward actually resides in Gretna, with his parents. Ms. Youmans voted at the Supervisor of Elections' Office, and her ballot was witnessed by an employee of that office. 18.. Ontario Ward was interviewed on March 27, 1999. Mr. Ward stated that he was approached by Respondent, who instructed him to change his address on his voter registration card to reflect that he lived at his girlfriend's address in Quincy. When asked if he told Respondent that he resides with his parents in Gretna, he stated that he did, but that the Respondent still insisted that he change the address. Mr. Ward stated that Respondent later came to his parents' home in Gretna and transported him to the Supervisor of Elections' Office to vote. He stated that Respondent insisted that he vote for Gary Baker. Mr. Ward's parents stated during the interview that Mr. Ward is "mentally challenged" or "slow." 19. Mr. Ward was interviewed again on May 27, 1999. Mr. Ward stated that Respondent completed a new voter registration application for him, reflecting that he lived with his girlfriend in the city of Quincy, and that Mr. Ward signed it. He also stated that Respondent transpo1ied him to the Supervisor of Elections' Office and insisted that he vote for Gary Baker. Mr. Ward stated that he voted for Mr. Baker because he felt pressured by Respondent to do so. Mr. Ward voted at the Supervisor of Elections' Office, and his ballot was witnessed by an employee of that office. 20. During the election of 1996, Respondent was investigated by F.D.L.E. and the State Attorney's Office (though not prosecuted) for collecting absentee ballots from voters. However, his girlfriend was prosecuted in civil court for a notary violation when she notarized absentee ballots that had been collected by Respondent. The notary was not present when the ballots were signed by the voters. 21. Of the 24 voters who stated that they had been contacted by someone in an effort to influence their votes by absentee ballots, 19 were between the ages of 61 and 93 years old. Most of these individuals were uneducated, in poor health, or disabled. 22. Respondent has been a candidate for public office in Gadsden County on five occasions. He was a candidate for Gadsden County Commission, District 5 in 1992 (defeated); Quincy City Commission, District 2 in 1992 (defeated); Gadsden County Property Appraiser in 1996 (defeated); Quincy city Commission in 1997 (elected, but removed from office by the Governor in 1999); and Gadsden County Superintendent of Schools in 2000 (defeated). 23. While the Respondent was found guilty of violating Sections 104.0515, 104.061, 104.011, Florida Statutes, in a jury trial and sentenced to three years probation with a three year suspended D.O.C. sentence, it does not appear that the Respondent willfully 1 1 Section 106.37, Florida Statutes, provides that a person willfully violates Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, if the person: SOFOOI (10/98) 4
violated Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes. For a violation of Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes, to occur, the Respondent must have marked or designated the choice on the ballot of another person, except as provided in Sections 101.051, 101.655, or 101.661. 2 While the evidence shows that the Respondent interfered with and corruptly influenced Nancy Williams and Tracy Youmans' vote and additionally willfully procured Onterio Ward to falsely swear that he was a resident of Quincy when he actually resided in Gretna, the Respondent did not mark or designate the choice on the ballot of another person. 24. Under these circumstances, I recommend that the Commission find no probable cause that the Respondent violated Section 104.047(4), Florida Statutes. In addition, since the Respondent has already been found guilty of violating Sections 104.0515, 104.061, 104.011, Florida Statutes, and sentenced to three years probation with a three year suspended D.O.C. sentence, I recommend that the Commission not file additional charges in this case. Respectfully submitted, Copy furnished to: Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Travis Wade, Investigator Specialist... conunits an act while knowing that, or showing reckless disregard for whether, the act is prohibited... or does not commit an act while knowing that, or showing reckless disregard for whether the act is required... A person knows that an act is prohibited or required if the person is aware of the provision... which prohibits or required the act, understands the meaning of that provision, and performs the act that is prohibited or fails to perform the act that is required.. A person shows reckless disregard for whether an act is prohibited or required under this chapter if the person wholly disregards the law without making any reasonable effort to determine whether:.the act would constitute a violation.. (Emphasis added.) 2 Section 101.051, Florida Statutes, outlines when, how, and from whom a voter may seek a~sistance in voting; Section 101.655, Florida Statutes, provides supervised voting for absent voters residing in an assisted living facility or nursing home; and Section 101.661, Florida Statutes, mandates that a voter must personally mark or designate their choices on the absentee ballot unless the elector is blind, disabled, or unable to read or write. SOFOOI (10/98) 5