Wednesday, November 4, 2009

U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin asks Illinois State Board of Elections for answers

"Corruption fighter Andy Martin” says the federal election process may have been corrupted or compromised by suspicious data entries in Springfield.

Republican for U. S. Senator/2010
“He Works for all the People of Illinois”
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-ANDY
Toll-free fax (866) 707-ANDY
Web site:

Please donate:



November 4, 2009

State Board of Elections
1020 S. Spring Street
Springfield, IL 62704
via fax (217) 782-5959

Request for investigation and copies
of multiple Patrick J. Hughes filings

Request for copies and cost of copying

Dear Staff:

Before I get to the topic of this letter, I would like to begin by congratulating all of you for an excellent job on October 26th. The filing process went smoothly. You guys were organized and efficient and I was impressed with the way you processed all of us. Luckily, the weather cooperated. Good job.

I am writing, unfortunately, about the Patrick Hughes imbroglio. It appears to me upon a careful reading of the election statutes that Mr. Hughes is no longer a candidate. By his own admission, Hughes was playing a “waiting game” (see Illinois Review article).

I know your processes because I participated in them last month. You come in on the first floor, and a staff member checks the fillign for accuracy and completeness. I seem to remember the person who reviewed my paperwork even had a checklist. Then, after you pass preliminary review, you are sent to the second floor, where someone actually enters (types) data into a computer, and you get a printed receipt. You may have moved everything to the first floor after October 26th, but the actual filing process did not and could not change.

Here is what Hughes and some SBE people now claim:

1. “Someone” allegedly mailed a piece of paper, with no statement of candidacy, to the Board, and the Board created a candidacy for Hughes. How could the SBE create a candidacy without a notarized statement of candidacy? At 3:05 P.M. the 10:54 fillign was still active (see 11/2/09 #1 sheet enclosed)

REQUEST: I would like to order a copy copy of the entire Hughes fillign at 10:52 A.M. Price please.

2. Hughes admits he filed around 3:00 P.M. (see, enclosed). Someone typed in a candidacy at 3:05 P.M., for the second time, and presumably generated a receipt to Mr. Johnson, at 3:05 P.M. What petitions and which statement of candidacy was used at 3:05 P. M?

REQUEST: I would like to order a compete copy of the entire Hughes filing at 3:05 P.M. Price please.

3. By the close of business on November 2nd, the 3:05 fillign had disappeared from your web site, see attached 11/2/09 #2. Why? Who removed it? While the web site is not an “official” document, someone has to physically type information in, and someone has to physically type information to remove a filing. The computer is not “Hal” from 2001. Who erased the 3:05 P.M. filing on November 2nd, leaving only the 4:23 filing? As of the close of business on November 2nd, there was no 3:05 P.M. filing, period. I assume the SBE computer also requires someone to log on before they enter data; that is a basic security precaution for all computer systems. Who logged on to remove the 3:05 filing?

REQUEST: I would like to know who erased the 3:05 filing.

4. At 4:23 P.M. on November 2nd Hughes filed again. Someone typed in this information. It did not get on the computer screen by accident. What paperwork was used to justify entering a filing at 4:23 P. M?

REQUEST: Who typed in the information at 4:23 P.M? I would also like to know what petitions were stamped and received to justify the data entry at 4:23 P.M. I would like to order a copy of the 4:23 filing. Price please.

My campaign headquarters “war room” was keeping hard copies of the filings as they were entered, so we have records of what some unknown person or persons were typing into your data base on all of those occasions. Those data changes did not happen by themselves. Hughes operative Johnston claims the General Counsel was involved. Why was a lawyer consulted on something as simple as filing a candidacy, and what advice did counsel give to staff?

5. Today, your database has erased the 4:23 filing, and reinstated the 3:05 filing, see attached 11/4/09 printout. How could you reinstate a filing that had been rendered nugatory by the 4:23 filing, and previously erased from your data base? Hughes was obviously trying to file last, and he filed something, or “someone” entered data in your computer system for him or on his behalf, to try and manipulate the process in order to make him last.

REQUEST: Who erased the 4:23 filing? What documents were used to justify (i) erasure of the 4:23 filing and (ii) reinstatement of the 3:05 filing?


I do not like the petition process because it is subject to abuse, and I feel names of all candidates should be rotated. But we have what we have.

I have no plans to challenge Mr. Hughes’ signatures, unless he filed less than 5,000 signatures, or filed blatantly forged “round table” documents. Candidates who file bona fide documents with the SBE in conformity with the law should be allowed to run.

The evidence reflects, however, that Mr. Hughes somehow corrupted the filing and data entry process to enter and then erase evidence of his multiple filings.

Mr. Hughes' manipulation of the SBE data base may amount to a criminal act. At 5:00 P. M. today, November 4th, after receiving your response to this letter, I am going to ask for federal and state grand jury investigations, alerting both federal and state officials, if I do not receive documents and detailed answers as to why SBE people were repeatedly entering false data in your computer.

I think what happened is that Hughes filed at 3:05 P.M. At that point, the petitions became SBE property. The statute is clear that documents may not be “withdrawn or added to,” see attached. When Hughes tied to refile, and “withdrew” the 3:05 documents the process was corrupted, and the documents were “withdrawn or added to” to add the false 4:23 time stamp to the package. That corrupted the 3:05 P.M. filing.

When the 4:23 fillign was withdrawn, that was the end of Mr. Hughes' candidacy. He could not go back and revive or reinstate the 3:05 P.M. entry after it had been erased from your system.

Alternatively, someone has tried to tamper with the data base since November 2nd to once again modify what is reflected in the system. This could be a separate criminal offense.

The SBE has a duty to investigate irregularities in the manner in which data is entered and how documents are manipulated to obtain 1st place. Mr. Hughes clearly appears to have compromised and corrupted the process. The computer did not enter and remove all of this conflicting information by mistake.

Please advise me when I can pick up the copies at your Chicago office, and what the charge will be.

I would appreciate a written response by 4:00 P.M. today so I can review your response before my news conference. You are welcome to append any documents which document the basis for your claims concerning data entry and removal from your computer system.

I also ask that access to the Hughes filing documents and computer records be frozen, and that erases be prohibited, until the U. S. Attorney (due to the fact we are dealing with a federal office) and Sangamon County State Attorney can investigate. Something doesn’t look right.

Respectfully submitted,




No comments: