Sister Cities
Sister Cities Presidential Election Observation Report
By United States-El Salvador Sister Cities and the Social Initiative for Democracy
Presidential Elections March 15th, 2009
For the presidential elections on March 15th, 2009, U.S.-El Salvador Sister Cities, together with the Social Initiative for Democracy, coordinated a delegation of 24 observers, among them international and Salvadoran national observers. The group consisted of social workers, students, psychologists, union representatives, teachers, university professors, and others. The participants came from sixteen cities across the United States.The delegation observed in the following municipalities: El Puerto de la Libertad in the Department of La Libertad, Arcatao in the Department of Chalatenango, Cinquera in the Department of Cabanas, Tecoluca in the Department of San Vicente, and Suchitoto in the Department of Cuscutlan.
The objective of the delegation was to observe the electoral process of the March 15th, 2009 elections in an objective, neutral and impartial manner, for the purpose of presenting the observations to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and to the U.S. Sister Cities national network. We will submit a copy to our respective U.S. Congressional representatives and to those that have collaborated with our organization. We will also present a copy to President Barack Obama’s Administration, specifically to the Department of State and to the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador.
Foremost, we would like to give special recognition to the Salvadoran people who came out in large numbers to exercise their right to elect their president and vice-president. In particular, we would like to thank all the JEM (Municipal Electoral Boards), the JED (Departamental Electoral Boards), the JRV (Voting Receiving Boards), and the National Civil Police for the orientation, assistance and support provided to us before, during and after the elections.
As an electoral observation group that has been present in the country since the beginning of January 2009, we would like to emphasize that in comparison to the January elections, the elections in March were better organized, fluid and orderly. We observed that various problems and anomalies that existed in January did not occur in March. The general environment during the elections was one of tranquility, order and harmony between the members of the JRVs (Vote Receiving Boards). Nonetheless, we observed some anomalies and incoherencies that were not resolved befor the March elections.
Tecoluca, San Vicente
Observers:
Katherine Greenman
Jessica Newcomb
Catherine Hoffman
Don McClain
Vanessa Cardinale
Over the course of Election Day, our electoral observation delegation observed:
Opening and set-up
– All the tables had their electoral packages at 6:45 a.m., however the Voting Center did not open until 7:30 a.m. The delay resulted from the fact that table #08478 was missing one of the members of the JRV (Junta Receptora de Votos, or Vote Receiving Board) from the FMLN. There was an argument over whether the table could begin without all its members. The table did not set up, and it did not open until 7:45 a.m., even though the rest of the center was already open.
– Four tables were in dispute during the set-up because the names on the credentials of the members of the JRVs were misspelled.
– The set-up was done in an orderly and calm manner.
– Voting by the members of the JRV was done in an incoherent manner. Some voted in secret and others did not. Some JRV members and vigilantes voted after the voting center had opened.
– The physical conditions of the voting center made voting difficult for disabled people and seniors, and there was not adequate help for these voters.
– Before the center opened, while it was still dark, there was a projector displaying ARENA party images on a wall.
The voting process
– There were very long lines in the morning for the majority of the tables.
– There were many inconsistencies in the application of the indelible ink and with the application of the ink of illiterate voters.
– The curtains of the voting booths were not sufficient to insure the secrecy of the vote. In many cases, the party overseers could see citizens’ votes, due to the fact that, for lack of space, the party overseers were positioned close to the booths instead of behind the tables. In addition, many voters didn’t know how to correctly use the curtain.
– In the cases in which the JRV couldn’t resolve disputes over the validity of DUIs (Documento Unico de Identidad, or Universal Identity Document), they called the JEM (Municipal Electoral Board). However, the JEMs argued a lot.
– In general there was little party propaganda inside the voting center. There were some cases of bags with the ARENA flag and inconsistency in the decisions to let people enter who carried the FMLN flag. The person who interviewed voters in the exit poll had the ARENA flag on her clipboard.
Close and Revision
– The voting center was closed at 5:00 on the dot, and the majority of the people who were not officials left.
– There was a lot of inconsistency in the vote count process. Some JRVs stamped the unused ballots before 5 p.m. Some JRVs did not take out all the contents of the electoral package before beginning the count. Some presidents did not check the signatures on the backs of the ballots. The method of counting the ballots of each party was different at every table.
– In spite of some arguments, the majority of the members of the JRVs cooperated very well in the vote count process.
Arcatao, Chalatenango
JRVs 07713-07717
Observers:
Robert Skloot
Marc Becker
Robert Blum
Anna Esther Levenson-Falk
Over the course of Election Day, our electoral observation delegation observed:
Before set-up
– People began to gather at the voting center at 4:00 a.m. The representatives of the FMLN arrived first and later, at 4:55 a.m., the ARENA party representatives arrived.
Opening and set-up
– Set-up began on time – at 5:00 a.m. – and the voting center opened at 6:45 a.m.
– JRV #07715 was missing a member and a substitute from the ARENA party at 6:30 a.m. The problem was resolved before 7:00 a.m. and did not cause any delay.
– There were disputes over whether the members of the JRV should vote publicly or in the booths. The ARENA party representatives said that everyone had to vote in the booths. At some tables, the ARENA representatives voted in the booths while the FMLN representatives voted publicly.
– Some tables had to use flashlights during the set-up because the overhead lights were out, including JRV #07713.
– The Voting Center Coordinator gave reminders of the DUI numbers that were too high to be valid to vote in these elections.
The voting process
– In the first hours of voting, there were long lines, however at 11:00 a.m. there were no longer as many people.
– The voting center was located outdoors. There was no delineation between the voting center and the street.
– Vote secrecy was not respected. Many citizens voted publicly, perhaps even more than voted inside the booths. When questioned, members of JRV #07716 suggested to voters that they vote on the table instead of inside the booth. After voting, one citizen showed his marked ballot to the crowd.
– The party overseers were very willing to help voters. They came quickly when people appeared to hesitate and have trouble with the voting process (such as seniors or voters who could not read), and they asked if these voters needed help. Sometimes, the party overseers even marked the ballots instead of the voter. This generally took place on the table rather than inside the booth.
– The curtains on the voting booths were inadequate to protect the secrecy of the vote.
– The party overseers of JRV #07715, among others, folded the marked ballots for voters. They folded the ballots in a way that citizens’ votes were visible.
– Application of the ink was inconsistent. At some tables, ink was applied to the thumb and in others to other fingers. Many people cleaned their fingers after voting. The JRVs did not check voters’ fingers before giving them ballots. The indelible ink was not very visible.
– Observers from other institutions interfered quite a bit in the process. In one case, an observer took a crayon away from an ARENA party overseer, accusing him of having used it to mark ballots. In reality, the party overseer had the crayon because a voter had passed it to him after voting. Another observer consulted with the members of the JRV about how to the process should be run during the vote count.
– We received denouncements that names were found on the electoral registry of people who had died or who lived in other municipalities.
– Even though the PNC was present, they did not enter the voting center or interfere with the process.
– We received many denouncements of Hondurans voting, including the President of JRV #07714. We saw that a national observer from the PDDH (Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, or the Office of the Ombudsman for Human Rights) called the Attorney General of the Republic so that it would be investigated, but we do not know the result. There was a lot of confusion over whether people with dual citizenship could vote.
– A member of the PNC arrived to vote at JRV #07715. He had taken off his gun but was still in uniform. There was confusion over whether or not he could vote, and in the end it was agreed that he could vote if he took of his uniform shirt.
– There was a lot of FMLN party propaganda inside the voting center, including: signs, posters, a pickup parked between two voting tables playing partisan programs and flying FMLN flags.
– The Attorney General of the Republic was hardly present during the election process.
– Preparations for the close of voting were begun at 4:15 p.m., including counting the detached corners of used ballots and beginning to stamp some of the unused ballots. This did not cause any inconvenience.
Close and Revision
– The close and count process was done in an orderly and clear manner.
– In JRV #07715, there was a ballot without the seal of the Secretary, but it had all the necessary signatures and was of the same paper as the other ballots. The JRV decided to count the vote.
– In JRV #07715, there was a moment when a member of the JEM wanted to intervene in the process, but he was reminded that he could not unless the JRV asked for his help.
– In JRV #07714, the president did not show the back side of ballots to the rest of the JRV.
Suchitoto, Cuscatlán
Voting Centers: Centro Escolar Isaac Ruiz Aramo-Suchitoto
Centro de Votación Residencial- Comunidad de Ichanqueso
Centro de Votación Residencial- Comunidad de Las Américas
Observers:
Maria Teresa Díaz Alba
Maria Belén Arrondo
Enrique Garbayo Ibero
Over the course of election day, our electoral observation delegation observed:
Opening and set-up
Various members of the JRV representing the ARENA party arrived late and, despite of this, tried to assume the positions and vote as members of the JRV.
A party overseer representing the ARENA party arrived without their credential and was given the seat, but in the end the party overseer was not permitted to vote.
Voting process:
The ARENA party headquarters was in the same door as the voting center. Because of this circumstance, there was party propaganda, groups of activists entering and leaving, cars with partisan signs, etc. at less that 100 meters from the voting center.
There was an argument including verbal aggression and insults on the part of an ARENA vigilante towards the chief of the voting center, who was from the FMLN. This aggression showed contempt and intent to humiliate the center chief.
One of the JRVs was missing 10 ballots
There were some cases of one person signing for another person.
The voting center did not have sufficient space for some of the tables.
Cinquera, Cabanas
Observers:
Diana Maritza Guelespe
Abel Enrique Nunez Aguilar
Sean Hallisey
During Election Day our delegation observed:
Before voting center installation
– The Municipal Electoral Board (JEM) decided to meet with the members of the JRV the night before, instead of the morning of Election Day, to assure that the voting center opened on time. The JEM invited the electoral observers to the meeting.
– During the meeting there was an argument between representatives of the ARENA party and representatives of the FMLN because some supervisors of the ARENA party had not assigned themselves to voting tables. The Secretary of the JEM confirmed that each supervisor had to have a specific table. The disagreement was resolved when the president of the JEM began to assign tables to all the supervisors.
– After the meeting with the JRVs finished, the JEM had their own meeting. During this meeting two disagreements arose: The president of the JEM stated that he himself and his substitute had the right to vote in Cinquera, even though their names did not appear in the electoral registry. He said that because he lives in Cinquera and because he had voted in Cinquera in previous elections, he should have the right to vote in Cinquera for the presidential elections. The representatives from the FMLN stated that they did not have the right to vote in Cinquera because their names were not in the electoral registry. The argument lasted an hour, until the Secretary of the JEM called a member of the JED, who explained to the president of the JEM why he could not vote in Cinquera.
– The other dispute concerned Sonido Local, a youth radio station. The president of the JEM stated that the radio had to close the day of the elections because they transmitted party propaganda of the FMLN and that it could be heard inside the voting center. The secretary responded that it was not FMLN propaganda and that they only reported on the electoral process. The argument lasted an hour, and they agreed to not close the radio station.
Installation and Opening
– At 4:30 am members of the JEM, the JRV, and members of the National Civil Police were present in the voting center. Representatives of the Federal District Attorney’s Office arrived at 6 am.
– The president of the JEM declared that he had the right to vote in Cinquera, even though his name did not appear in the electoral registry and that if anyone denied him his right to vote he was going to have them arrested. Both attorneys from the FMLN and ARENA argued over the problem. Finally, they called a representative of the District Attorney to resolve the dispute. The decision was that the president of the JEM could not vote in Cinquera.
– Representatives of the FMLN complained that there was a Honduran citizen sitting as a member of a JRVand thus he did not have the right to vote at the table. Also, they stated that he did not appear in the national electoral registry. The dispute was argued inside the JEM for twenty minutes, while the JRVs installed the voting tables. After much frustration, representatives from the FMLN suggested that everyone go to look up his name in the electoral registry on the Internet. All members of the JEM, the District Attorney’s office and a Sister Cities observer, (Sean Hallisey), went to the Municipal Office of the Association for Development and Reconstruction where they looked up the name of the person on the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal) site. They found the person’s name in the electoral registry and the dispute was resolved.
– The representative from the Federal Attorney General’s Office was very frustrated with the dispute continuing amongst members of the JEM and he gave a warning that if they continued to argue and delay the electoral process he would have them arrested.
Closing and Revision
– The count was done in an efficient manner and the results were turned in correctly.
After Closing
– Though we did not observe this, we received information that between 7 pm and 10 pm there was a fight between two women in the Plaza where someone shot a gun into the air. They identified the women as sympathizers of the FMLN and sympathizers of ARENA. Our observers were accompanied to the office of the National Civil Police (PNC) to document the testimony of Marta, an FMLN sympathizer. She was trying to make a complaint to the Police against her attackers. Marta stated they beat her and a woman named Yancey kicked her while she tried to enter a store. Marta said that the father of Yancey shot the gun in the air and threatened to kill her and a boy named Milton, from the radio station Sonido Local, who was recording the ongoing events.
– After asking about the process, the Police explained that they could not enter Yancey and her father’s house without an arrest warrant. The Police officers mentioned that this type of incident had never happened in Cinquera before. When our observers left the Police were still outside the house waiting for a detective to arrive.
Puerto de La Libertad, La Libertad
Two voting centers; larger voting center with 57 JRVs and smaller with 8 JRVs.
Observers:
Michael Ring, Sr.
Michael Ring, Jr.
Coralia Ring-Martinez
Michael Ring-Martinez
Esther Chavez
Joaquin Cruz
Susan Kingsland
Patricia Arvidson
Kira Vinke
Emily Carpenter
Leigh Hardy
During Election Day our delegation observed:
1. Installation and Opening
– In general, the voting centers were well-prepared and started on time. The registry was posted outside the center from very early in the opening process. Police checked bags at the door, which slowed and finally stopped throughout the day.
– Outside the voting center, lines were not long at this point in the day. Street vendors did not respect the rule of staying 100 meters from the entrance, but did not slow people’s entrance into the voting center.
– There was a wait while the JEM went to each table checking credentials. The head of the JEM went personally to each table.
– Some JRVs were in a state of confusion, did not know the steps to take; did not know in what order to sit.
– It became apparent in the closing and counting that some tables did not properly check over their materials – some were missing materials in their electoral packages, but did not notice until the end of the day.
– At some tables, the table workers voted in private, and at others, showed their vote; there was confusion about when and how table workers ought to vote.
– At JRV 05072, the substitute for Vocal 2 (ARENA) attempted to take the place of the Vocal 1 (FMLN), who had not yet arrived. The head of the JRV did not allow this to happen, and later on the Vocal 1 position was filled by an FMLN worker.
– At some tables, the ballot boxes were not sufficiently taped closed.
– At some tables, party overseers (rather than table workers) were observed counting the blank ballots.
2. Voting process:
– Flow of people through the voting center was very smooth and well-organized, with no collective confusion. We observed that the orientation of voters was good, with vigilantes and supervisors helping voters find their proper table.
– Outside the voting center, there were information tents for both parties.
– At times, the line to vote was blocks long; particularly in the mid-to-late morning.
– As observers, we were treated very well by TSE, JEM, and JRVs.
– Disputes over one vote often delayed voting for all voters in line at that table for a disproportionate amount of time.
– JRV #05028 documented two names on the registry that were from different municipalities. Both people voted. The names and DUI numbers are: Alicia Ann Alvarez Guthrie, #02415319-2; Rene Edgardo Alvarez Contrero, #00749508-6.
JRV #05034 documented three names on the registry that were from different municipalities. These people voted. The names and DUI numbers are: Maria de los Angeles, #03152670-4 (Santa Tecla); Ana Maria Campos Castillo, #03840674-3 (Urdes Colon); Ana Edith Carballo de Penoi, #01208700-0 (Via de Mar).
JRV #5040 it was observed that the son of the president was acting as a substitute without credentials.
– At JRV #5041 the substitute for the secretary was handing voters ballots while saying “con todo” [the slogan of the ARENA campaign]. The substitute was removed from the table by the FMLN supervisor.
JRV #5042 was filling out opening paperwork at 11 am
– At JRV #5036, the secretary was pre-signing and tearing the corners of the ballots, then would leave the table, while the president distributed the ballots
– At JRV #5041, the secretary was tearing the corners off several ballots at once, which would have made it possible to give multiple ballots to one voter
– At some tables, there was confusion about the process of checking and keeping DUIs during voting
– The indelible ink system was observed to be faulty in several different ways. At some tables, the cap was left off the ink jar and the ink dried. At some tables, voters did not push the inked sponge hard enough to ink their finger. At some tables, voters wiped the ink off their finger before it could dry. At many tables, voters’ hands were not checked for ink before they voted.
– Several tables were observed not checking the backs of DUIs (JRV #5075 and others).
– At JRV #5071 a voter arrived to vote, but someone had already voted using his DUI number. The signature on the signature registry did not match the signature on the DUI, and the signature of the voter (when asked to sign his name on a piece of paper) matched the DUI signature perfectly. JRV workers and observers concluded that someone else must have voted in his place with a false DUI. The voter was not allowed to vote. The voter’s name was Jose Adilio Paz Menjivar, DUI #03882665-0.
– A similar event happened at JRV #5067, where a woman arrived to vote and someone had already signed in her place. The voter’s name was Julieta Lopez de Ramirez, DUI #01051084-5.
– At one JRV, the ballot box was in front of the secretary – the secretary had access to all the materials needed to vote.
– At JRV #5078, the president was observed not stamping the registry at all.
– At JRV #5057, a DUI with a sticker back, instead of a printed back, was contested but eventually accepted and permitted to vote by the JRV.
– At JRV #5058, a person voted although they had used a photocopied DUI. The JRV decided this vote would be nullified, but in the closing, the vote was never nullified.
Several other tables (JRV #5049, #5050, #5025, among others) turned away voters who came with photocopied DUIs, and several tables turned away voters for having deteriorated, illegible DUIs (JRV #5032, #5042, #5046, #5049, #5027, among others). At JRV #5046, a voter was not permitted to vote because according to his DUI he was married, and according to the registry, single.
– However, the majority of tables had zero voters turned away for any reason.
– Several tables, including JRV #05039 and #05035, voters were observed photographing their ballots after voting.
– At several tables, including JRV#05035, vigilantes were watching voters vote.
– Police who came to vote were in uniform and armed; police who were not TSE security loitered in the voting center
– The JEM and TSE fulfilled well their role of pointing out problems that the tables needed help resolving. One JEM member was intimidating with JRV workers, but most JEM members were calm and helpful to JRV workers.
3. Closing and Revision
– The voting center closed on time, at 5:02. No voters were locked out.
– The closing and revision process was orderly and clear.
– Many tables had trouble lining up the numbers of unused ballots, voters, ballot corners, etc. In some cases this was resolved through recounts and in other cases it was resolved in a way that wasn’t obvious to an observer.
– Approximately four tables did not have adequate lighting and needed to count votes by flashlight.
– There were several prolonged disputes over particular null or impugned votes, but in total a low percentage of votes were nullified.
– The TSE at the larger voting center installed a system of numbers and queuing to return the sealed boxes to the JEM. This system failed, but the JEM responded with another system that was more effective. However, the return of boxes to the JEM was very long, with many boxes yet to be delivered at 8:30 pm.
– The JRVs at the larger voting center had a number of problems with the closing notes: not having them filled properly; missing forms from the electoral package, etc.
The JEM checked over the closing notes very briefly, without calculators.
– At a number of tables it was observed that the JRV was not thoroughly checking the backs of the ballots for the signature and stamp.
– At the JRV #05028 there were many ballots missing the Secretary’s signature, which the JRV sealed and signed during the count.
– Several tables were observed counting ballots before the unused ballots had been stamped as unused.
– In the larger voting center, there were announcements of which party was winning before the counting was complete in the center.
Chilama, La Libertad:
Testimony of attempted vote-buying taken March 14, 2009, in Chilama, La Libertad.
Witness: Juan Francisco Trujillo Guardado, President of Community Directive, Chilama DUI # 03428276-5 Cel: 7531-2688
Testimony: There are 120 registered voters in Chilama. Three people went to his office in the Puerto de la Libertad on March 3rd. They said they wanted at least 35 people to go vote in Soyapango. They wanted Juan Francisco to send people from his community. In total they wanted 2,000 voters from the municipality to be at the voting tables. They wanted these people to vote at the tables and afterwards return to their own municipality and vote again. They were going to give out agricultural products in Soyapango, provide transportation and food. Juan Francisco told them “no” many times. He told them that he had to speak with the people of his community. “I can’t send them. It depends on them.” He said. He informed the community about the incident. In the end, no one from the town went.
Our evaluation of the work done by the different institutions is:
1. The Vote Receiving Boards (JRVs)
In Tecoluca: The system of party representation in the JRV make up enabled an impartial procedure. Everyone on the JRV collaborated together and focused on the work. The JRVs created a welcoming environment for many of the illiterate and disabled voters.
In Suchitoto: The members of the JRVs didn’t have enough training about their roles and the electoral process.
2. The Political Parties
In Tecoluca: The political parties acted in an orderly manner and there were many sympathizers from both parties helping people vote.
In Arcatao: The political parties promoted political propaganda inside the voting center.
3. The Municipal Electoral Boards (JEM)
In Tecoluca: There were many party motivated disputes within the JEM and the JRVs asked for help when the decisions should have been made by the JRVs themselves. However, the JEMs gave very clear instructions to the JRVs and the observers about their role. .
In Cinquera: There was a lot of conflict and dispute between the members of the JEM, which affected the electoral process.
Observations about Information being Censured
Also, we think it is important to point out that the efforts made by our organization and other organizations to provide neutral information to citizens, like the position of the government of the United States with respect to the elections or the content of Article 203 of the Electoral Code, were suspended. However, we did not observe the same attitude towards campaigns like “I Won’t Turn Over El Salvador,” which had a political goal and continued up until March 15th.
Conclusions
The voting process from the opening until the count was calm and orderly, and despite some observed irregularities, at no time could it be said that they affected the overall process. As an electoral observation delegation that has had a presence in the country since the beginning of January, we want to highlight that, in comparison with the January elections, the March elections were carried out with a much higher level of organization, fluidity, and order.
There was confusion and a lack of understanding on the part of the JRVs about the process and the electoral code. However, the members of the JRVs worked well as teams. The fact that the JRVs were composed of members of both parties assured an impartial process.
The physical conditions of the voting centers were not adequate and caused problems with vote secrecy and difficulties for disabled people and seniors.
There were problems with vote secrecy, which in many cases was not respected, at times because of physical condition or the curtains, and at times as a result of the actions of the members of the JRVs, party overseers, and the votes themselves.
The worries that our and other electoral observation delegations expressed after the January elections about the indelible ink had not been resolved. The ink still did not adequately stain voters’ fingers, and the JRVs did not check voters’ fingers in a consistent manner.
We still received denouncements about inconsistencies and problems in the electoral registry, even though the majority of the national and international observers called this out as a problem in the January elections.
The members of the JEM made themselves very available to help the JRVs resolve conflicts or answer questions about the electoral code.
Even though the fluidity and efficiency of the opening and set-up of the voting centers was improved since the January elections, there were still many problems at the time of the close and count, principally with the count and the completion of the acts
Recommendations
Purge and update the electoral registry in accordance with the most recent census to ensure that all citizens have the right to vote in the municipality where they live, and that there are not names on the registry of people who have died or are from other countries.
The training for the members of the JRV should be more extensive, detailed and comprehensive to avoid inconsistencies and anomalies.
Improve conditions in the voting centers and surrounding areas to facilitate voting for disabled people and senior citizens, and to insure the secrecy of the vote, with a clear delineation between the voting center and the outside boundaries. Also, improve the structure of the voting booths to insure privacy.
There should be more public education on the voting process.
Review the restrictions on information before the election. Neutral and impartial information should be distributed if it does not contain any political message, and party propaganda should be restricted after the campaign deadline.
Consistent enforcement of restrictions on the presence of party propaganda inside the voting centers.
Signed,
Sean Hallisey
Secretary
Observation Delegation
United States-El Salvador Sister Cities
Representing:
Anna Esther Levenson-Falk
Robert Blum
Robert Skloot
Marc Becker
Catherine Hoffeman
Katherine Greenman
Jessica Newcomb
Don Van Valen McClain
Vanessa Cardinale
Susan C. Kingsland
Michael Patrick Ring
Michael Patrick Ring, Jr
Coralia Anele Ring-Martinez
Pat Arvidson
Kira Vinke
Emily Carpenter
Leigh Wassel Hardy
Diana Maritza Guelespe
Abel Enrique Nuñez Aguilar
Joaquin de Jesus Cruz
Esther del Carmen Chavez de Cruz
Maria Teresa Díaz Alba
Maria Belén Arrondo
Enrique Garbayo Ibero
