ORTIZ QUITS ELECTION GIG: OUT IN JANUARY

By Juan Montoya
Saying he had gained "valuable experience" serving as the Cameron County Elections Administrator for the last 10 years and for another four as a county employee, roger Ortiz tendered his resignation on Nov. 1 and said he would step away from the job on January 7, 2013.
He leaves behind a scandal-tainted department and a recurring series of elections that have been the object of withering criticism into the blatant abuse of the early walk-in and mail-in votes of the elderly and mentally impaired by organized groups paid by local politicians right under his very nose.
In fact, in the Cameron County Judge's race two years ago, it took Roger's crack elections team two months before he finally result were certified and only until the eventual winner – current judge Carlos Cascos – pointed out discrepancies in the count that assured him of victory over Democrat John Wood.
There were accounts of midnight groups handling the ballots, ballots that suddenly were "found" favoring Wood, undue influence over the office by Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, among other charges.
The latest Ortiz foibles were his promises to Cascos – in font of witnesses that included a handful of bloggers, a representative of the DA's Office,  and others – that he would prepare a video to educate the owners and clients of adult day-care centers over the hauling in of elderly voters from the centers by politiqueros working for political candidates that had been seen manipulating the votes of the gullible elderly and mentally-impaired.
That was in late August. By the time the Cameron County elections Commission met October 4, Ortiz had failed to deliver on all the promises he made Cascos and those assembled at the August meeting and tat the commission's meet in October.
Among those present was Mary Helen Flores, a voter abuse activist with the Citizens Against Voter Abuse (CAVA) who submitted a list of questions inquiring about the operation of the elections office and the assignment of personnel to the voting precincts during elections. Ortiz promised in public at east three times that he would have the answers to the prepared questions. To date, Flores has not received the answers.
"I went to Dylbia Jeffries, the commission's Asst. DA after the election commission's meeting and she told me that Ortiz had gone over each of the questions an answered them one by one," she said. "Wen I went to see Roger, he said he hadn't finished them because they were hard questions."
Ortiz's inability not only to answer CAVA's questions but also to deliver on his promise to prepare a video and visit the adult day-care centers to warn them of their potential liability and the potential for voter abuse of their clients never materialized. Even after the election commission met, he dragged his heels on the directives given by Cascos and the other members of the commission.
"Cascos is a laid-back administrator," said a county administrator, "but after asking Roger time and time again to deliver on the promises he made the judge, the gig was up. He has a high boiling point but Roger went over the limit. He knew he had lost the confidence of the judge and saw the writing on the wall."
And there was plenty. Cava's report of the 2012 cycle included tese findings.
"In the 2012 election cycle, CAVA has once again encountered an organized network of manipulation and theft of the mail-in ballot vote.
"Witnesses and voters have also reported a system of coercion of the elderly and mentally disabled who are driven to the early voting polling places from adult daycare centers, assisted living facilities and nursing homes and then are forced to vote inside the vans as they are instructed and assisted by the van drivers. Through interviews of those who voted by mail and those who voted curbside, CAVA has encountered an organized network of manipulation and theft of the mail-in ballot vote and of the curbside vote..."
The way the mail-in vote was manipulated was described in detail in the report. It states that:
a. mail-in applications and ballot carrier envelopes were signed by people who could not be identified by the voter.
b. the voters, in these interviews, name a third party whose name does not appear on the mail-in application or on the mail-in ballot carrier envelope as the one who assisted and mailed out their application and ballot for them
c. voters who could not be located whose mail-in ballot applications are signed by an assistant requesting that the mail-in ballot be sent to the assistant’s home address.
d. voters who are illiterate or mentally incapacitated by illness who have been coerced and or robbed of their vote via the unauthorized use of their information and a forged signature.
e. people who voted by mail and had no idea that they had voted.

Curbside voting by trucked-in elderly and mentally-disabled that resulted in coercion and vote theft is also described in detail:
a. elderly and mentally incapacitated people were herded into vans at their respective assisted living centers, nursing homes and adult daycare centers and driven to the early voting polling locations to vote inside the vehicles in which they were driven.
b. those that requested to exit the vehicles and to enter the polling places were denied that right by the drivers of the vans.
c. van occupants were instructed who to vote for and coerced by the van drivers.
d. assistant oaths were not administered to the van drivers who forced people to vote according to a pre-marked sample ballot and by verbal instruction.
e. van drivers voted on behalf of the voters who were held in the vans.

And, examples of the negligence of Ortiz's office (responsible for the placement and training of election judges and clerks) and the Democratic Party of turning a blind eye and in outright complicity is also given in detail in CAVA's report.
a. in many instances, election judges and clerks did not question curbside voters about the assistance preference of each voter.
b. in many instances, election workers did not provide assistance to curbside voters or supervise the assistance given to curbside voters.
c. in many instances, sworn oaths were not administered to assistants of curbside voters.
d. in many instances, assistants did not sign the combination forms indicating that the voter had been assisted.
e. in many instances, voters who did not qualify for, require or request assistance were assisted to vote curbside.
f. in many instances, van drivers voted on behalf of the van occupants and were given as many ballots as they requested by the election judge and clerks
Ortiz cannot claim ignorance of these findings since they occurred right in front of the elections office on Harrison, as can be plainly seen in the picture above.
His resignation, in the opinion of most observers, was long overdue.