Media Fryed

Michael Marcotte and Mike Stutz

In mid-December 2004, five San Diego media organizations paid for a review of those write-in ballots for mayoral candidate Donna Frye that had been left uncounted because voters failed to darken the "bubble" next to the write-in space. In less than two days, the organizations ñ plus a lawyer for Frye supporters ñ had counted 5,547 invalidated votes, enough to have cost Frye a victory.

KPBS

Michael Marcotte,

KPBS News Director

As of this writing, it isn't clear if a court will award the "bubble-less ballots" to their intended candidate: Donna Frye.

But I hope it IS clear why KPBS, Los Angeles Times, KGTV, KNSD and San Diego Union-Tribune weighed into the matter.

It was NOT to win the day for Donna.

It was to KNOW the TRUTH of the situation.

What's unfortunate - apart from seeing messy democracy up close - were the obstacles in our path and the challenges to our credibility along the way.

From the moment the court ruled them ineligible in late November, KPBS sought to know how many bubble-less Frye ballots there were. We pursued this as a simple state open records request.

We were told by the county attorneys that ballots are not open public records.

There was a way around a court confrontation. We could simply ask for a recount. (Or, in our case, a "review.") The county and our own attorney suggested we simply pay a fee and review the ballots as any voter can do.

The catch? State law requires such requests to be made on behalf of a candidate!

With our journalistic sensibilities rankled, we agreed to do it. Give the medal of courage to Tony Perry of the Los Angeles Times for spearheading the first of the media requests. He convinced myself and J.W. August of KGTV to cough up equal portions of the payment. (No easy feat. The two-day total cost each of us $933.33.) Perry also found a cooperative voter who let her name be used. And he submitted our request "on behalf of Donna Frye" - mindfully adding a disclaimer that this media request was not to be construed as an endorsement of the candidate.

After we filed, Attorney Fred Woocher filed a similar request--- - on behalf of Frye. The Union-Tribune signed up the next day, followed by KNSD the day after.

We discussed avoiding action and simply reporting on Woocher's request. But that gave us no say in the review, too big a gamble at the time a quick decision was necessary.

When our request made news, we got heat. At KPBS, some 60 callers threatened to pull their memberships. We were accused of meddling in city politics.

Supporters of Mayor Dick Murphy, in particular, berated us as Frye advocates.

Even journalists in the newsroom needed reassurance.

At KPBS, I made sure editors and reporters were detached from the review process - so they could cover it fairly. (We even carried one story featuring an academic blasting us for getting involved.)

Gradually - through news stories, talk shows, web sites - we made clear why we were involved.

And it was worth it. The story that Frye could have won the race made headlines.

And now the facts are forcing leaders to reconsider when technical rules should outstrip the intent of the voters.

The other issue I hope we now consider as journalists: demanding that a post-election review of ballot materials be a matter of open public records. Not an act "on behalf of a candidate."

10News

Mike Stutz

10News News Director

The decision to join other media outlets in requesting a partial recount of the votes in the San Diego Mayoral race was a relatively easy one for 10News. Everyone wanted to know how many potential votes write-in candidate Donna Frye may have lost because of the bubble not being filled in next to her name. It was certainly something that we felt the public had a right to know, particularly since the election had already been certified.

The suggestion for the partial recount was first made by Los Angeles Times Reporter Tony Perry who contacted a number of local media outlets to help share the cost. After determining that the cost of counting the disputed votes would be reasonable, the only real obstacle we had to consider was the requirement that we had to make our request on behalf of a voter, who in turn had to ask for the recount on behalf of one of the candidates.

Having already received several inquiries from viewers asking us to provide the information about the disputed votes, we determined that if this was the only way to obtain the information, then we had no other choice. All along, the public's right to know what happened was the main objective.

We made it clear that we were in no way trying to change the results that had been upheld in two different court challenges. We also recognized the fact that the election had been certified and that Mayor Dick Murphy had been re-elected. We further clarified our position by stating that our action was not an "endorsement" of the Frye candidacy. Our request was made before any other recount requests were made.

We considered our participation in the partial recount of San Diego's mayoral race to be very similar to the effort by media outlets in Florida following the disputed Presidential election in 2000. The public was entitled to have all the facts, and we believed that it was our responsibility to do whatever legally possible to disseminate the information.

We asked to count the votes. We never asked to have those votes count.

Posted Jan. 2005