Anthony A. Williams, Democratic Candidate for
Mayor in the 
September 10, 2002, Primary Election
Board of Elections and Ethics
Members’ statements prior to imposing $277,500 fine on campaign
August 14, 2002

DC Watch Home

Council Period 12

Council Period 13

Council Period 14

Council Period 15

Election 1998

Election 2000

Election 2002

themail

Search DCWatch

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN O. CALLAS, MEMBER, D.C. BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, AT 1 JUDICIARY SQUARE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., ON WEDNESDAY AUGUST 14, 2002, ON THE NOMINATING PETITION HEARINGS OF THE 2002 CAMPAIGN OF MAYOR ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

As Board members, we were shocked - even incredulous - to have been informed on August 8, 2002, by Kathryn Fairley, Registrar of Voters, that 5,465 obvious forgeries were discovered among nominating petitions ol the Mayor. In reviewing petition signatures of his campaign, and to resolve possible discrepancies, the final figure is 5,465. Ms. Fairley's report states that there were 5,533 total violations of our law by the Williams campaign. In an effort to resolve all "close calls" in favor of the Williams campaign for purposes of determining the appropriate fine, the Board has accepted 5,465 as the number of forgeries.

Since 10,102 signatures were presented by the Mayor's campaign, the 5,465 obvious forgeries represent 54% of the total. Such a high figure is fantastic and almost impossible to comprehend. But, sadly, that is what the record shows.

We do not think it is necessary to be a handwriting expert to recognize an obvious forgery. When signature after signature appears to have been written by the same handwriting, any realist knows the signatures are not authentic. The Board is extremely troubled by the rampant forgeries of this campaign.

Based on the law, a fine of $200-per-forgery can be charged against the violators. Thus, the 5,533 violations could result in a fine amounting to as much as $1,106,600 Yes, that would be a substantial penalty, but the wounding of the electoral process and the public - has also been substantial.

As members of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, we must protect the integrity of the electoral process, which is precious in a true democracy. We cannot stand by and ignore the crimes of forgery and fraud by those who do not respect the rule of law, which has been violated 6,465 times by those with malicious intentions. The Mayor's campaign has committed forgery and fraud on a massive and unprecedented scale, and therefore must be held accountable.

The Board concludes that justice must prevail against those who forged 5,465 names. Those responsible must be penalized, not only for the sake of the present campaign, but also for the sake of future campaigns, which must be honest and inspired by right and law. The Board will continue its sworn duties: To hold honest, efficient and impartial elections, and to continue to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has a good record of independence and will continue that independence as free Americans.

Back to top of page

Jonda McFarlane

Four years ago, the government of our city was run by a federally-appointed Control Board, our bond rating was so low we couldn't get loans for improvement projects; and corruption was rife. Mayor Williams ran on a reform platform to address those issues and, today, great strides have been made to clear the problems associated with poor performance in many of our city's agencies. Indeed, the broad recognition of how much things have improved resulted in the widely-held belief that there was no viable candidate to contest his re-election.

Yet against this backdrop of so much success - and perhaps because of it - we have found ourselves in this unprecedented situation, looking at a huge number of campaign law violations in the circulation and submission of his nominating petitions. And while it may be possible to imagine why this happened, it remains the duty of the candidate and his campaign to ensure that our laws and regulations are followed. Even though there has been no evidence that campaign workers were instructed to perform illegal actions by either the Mayor himself or the individuals in charge of his campaign, it is their responsibility to provide the instruction and supervision necessary to prevent such illegalities from occuring.

The wholesale abandonment of this responsibility raised grave concern in the community, and the ensuing challenges and complaints caused an enormous burden to be placed on the Board of Elections and Ethics staff. Never before in its history had our staff been asked to take on an issue of this magnitude, and without exception, staff leaders and employees stepped up to the challenge - often working from very early in the morning to very late at night, and on weekends - to resolve the issues in a timely manner. It is their devotion to duty and to this city that has enabled us to emerge from this thorny thicket.

It is my hope that the public will find time, when this is all over, to think them for their exceptional performance.

It has been a long and complicated process. At the end of the day, the Board - led so exceptionally by Chairman Ben Wilson - has taken several actions. In a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, it has found that the Mayor did not qualify to have his name on the Democratic primary ballot. It has referred concerns of individual and campaign wrongdoing to the U.S. Attorney's office. And now, it must use its discretion to assess fines against the Mayor and his campaign.

We do not take this assignment lightly. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that the citizens of our city can place their trust in the integrity of our electoral process. If we lose that, we have lost everything. District voters want to feel that the offenses that have been committed will not recur, They want future candidates to know for certain that failure to pay attention to our election laws and regulations will not be tolerated. In its decision, the Board has sought to make that clear.

Yet whatever mitigating factors have occurred in this case must, in fairness, also be considered - and that we have also endeavored to do.

Still, as Justice Marshall said, "If there is no sanction, there is no law." Weighing all of the above, we have used our best judgment to render a fair decision. It is certain that whatever financial penalty we find to be appropriate, others will surely disagree - in both directions. What we can say - and do - is that we are comfortable in our own minds that we have met our goals of upholding the integrity of our politica1 process and being just in apportioning the burden of its breach.