11 News reporter Mark Greenblatt repeatedly attempted to get information from the Voter Registrar's Office.

Below is the chain of emails that he sent.

George, Cindy-

We truly are appreciative of all the time you spent today helping us learn about this important issue.  As is clear from where we stand at this hour- it sounds like we each still have some work ahead here to make sure we each have an accurate and complete picture of what has transpired in each alleged case we’ve brought to your attention.  

I promised to send along some items tonight that were either offered by Paul (where staff simply did not have time to compile in advance of today’s interview) or that we think will be helpful to us in getting a true and accurate picture of what happened in each case.  We appreciate Paul’s offer to pull all the files and get us detailed information.     Here’s what we need to know on each case I sent you for review:

SECTION ONE:

1)   Was the voter sent ANY letter of rejection / any letter of any kind AT ANY TIME- EVER asking for more information or response that would lead to rejection/not being added to the voter rolls if they did not respond?   (I’m saying “ever” here to make sure I capture cases where a person may have been rejected, but is now on the rolls after having to apply again or provide documentation).

2)   If they were sent a letter- what was the reason/justification for sending it (you break this down in your database- we need the specific reason)?

3)   Was it the appropriate determination?

4)   If the answer to the third question is “no”, or if any error or mistake was made of any kind by anyone, I’ll please tell me what agency made the error.

5)   Also, what caused the error?

6)   what are you going to do about the specific case that an error was made in? 

7)   is there anything systemic (such as having a supervisor check your temporary employees work before letters of rejection are sent out) you can correct to make sure this doesn’t happen again in future elections?

8)   Date you received the application in house

9)   Date a letter of rejection was sent/action was taken- such as forwarding to another county

10) any other information you think is pertinent or that I should have on each of these cases

In cases, above, where it is determined the voter is in another county

Please make sure to include information asked for in number 8 above (date you received the application in house)

County you forwarded registration to

Date you forwarded it

Also, this will likely be covered in 1-10 above, but to reinforce: Paul confirmed after our interview what some of our research has also shown: that some of these applicants were at some point thought to be  “dead” by the county.  Please make sure to include a separate list of cases where the county sent letters out alluding to that in any way- whether they were rejection letters/letters of potential rejection/ or anything like this in any way.  In simple words, we’d like the complete list of voters thought to be dead at one time- who research has now shown may actually be alive and able to vote- whether they are  now on the rolls or not.

SECTION TWO:

Also, separately, we would like to take Paul up on his offer today to take a look at the complete files for each of these people we have brought forward for review.  So, as soon as possible,  we’d like to inspect the complete files for each of these voters (including any and all correspondence, letters of any kind, sent by and between your agency and the potential voter- between your agency and another agency of any kind about the potential voter, or any letter or document of any kind attached to the voter’s file in any way).  

Mr. Hammerlein mentioned today that you didn’t have the new voter forms because the Sec. of State ran out. Please let us know the names and dates of who from your office contacted the Sec. Of State’s Office regarding getting the newly redesigned registration forms, along with who they talked to at the State.

We’d also like to see the complete set of evidence Paul brought to the legislature in January of this year on all 22 voters alleged to have actually voted… as noted in the written slide presentation titled “citizenship open record request in Harris county”, where it says “315 Voters Cancelled for Citizenship Reasons (22 voted, 4 errors).   We would also like to see full and complete documentation of any kind on those four error cases noted on the slide.  

Again, we sincerely appreciate your work thus far and appreciate your continued and prompt attention to this matter as we work to both examine full and complete details on these cases.     

Kind Regards,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Cindy, George-

Yesterday during our interview, Paul mentioned it might take “another couple of hours”, if we wanted to wait, to pull the remainder of facts and files together we are essentially requesting now.   While I suspect it may take a bit longer to pull absolutely everything together- can we come by this afternoon and have access to at least what you’ve been able to pull together so far? If you have everything available, we’d of course be happy to review that as well.  We are interested allowing your office to provide those further additional details as soon as possible, so that they may be used in addition and along side the interview we did yesterday-  which is why we’re willing to review it in stages.

Please let me know asap this afternoon how that’s all coming together and what time today I might be able to come by to get a first look at anything new you’re willing to provide.

Kind Regards,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Mark,

I am not sure what facts and files you are talking about as the interview lasted several hours. We do have a set of information we made for you regarding the 14 names you sent over in one of your request that I was ready to give you yesterday, but you appeared to have left it. I can give these to you that this afternoon. We also have the letter we sent to the felon you were asking about which I can also include.

Regards,

George Hammerlein

Harris County Tax Office

 George,

Thank you for the update.  We welcome you providing us that information you already had gathered yesterday - and the one letter you have found today. Feel free to email that at your convenience.   We are hopeful you’re going to make much more available today- which perhaps will necessitate me visiting the office.

It is okay and understandable if you’re unsure of what I’m referring to.  I didn’t have the conversation with you- I had it with Paul.   I am cc’ing him on this email and perhaps it will jog his memory.   At one point during a document review right before the interview, Paul offered to have every file pulled and made available for us yesterday if we wanted to wait.  Then, in the interview itself, he on many cases we inquired about he didn’t seem to have a lot of detail or know the answers to specifically what happened (hence, we had to stop multiple times to get information from upstairs.)   He then said if we wanted to stop and wait another couple of hours yesterday, he could have every file on every case pulled and available for my review.  I asked him if he felt he needed to do that to fairly proceed on camera, and I offered to stop the interview if that were the case (which, as mentioned above,  we did a number of times so he and staff could gather facts).   Eventually, we all agreed to move forward.     But there is no doubt Paul said it would take a couple of hours to make all of the cases available for our review.

For your benefit George,  we want as much available to clear up questions that you were not able to answer yesterday.  This is an important part of the journalistic news gathering process.  As you are aware, there have been some serious questions asked about what happened to various applicants for voter registration with your office. Whether the answers are good ones or bad ones, we want to get the answers… all of them… in detail.   We have always had a strong sense of transparency from your office in the past when we inquired with various detailed questions about past stories, and we are confident and hopeful that will continue both on this story and well into the future.  

If it is helpful, I’ll attach the email I sent you last night with everything we requested/everything that was offered to us to ensure you have the opportunity to provide us information before going to air.  If you have any questions, please give me a ring.  But I would appreciate an update on the status of everything (not just the one letter you located today) as soon as possible today.

Kind Regards,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Mark,

I do not have the ability to email the documents; we have them available for pick up. The rest of documents will be forth coming. If you need any additional information on voter applications, please include their individual names to our office.

Regards,

George Hammerlein

George,

What time do you close? I am working on a few things related to our interview yesterday that may keep me here in the office past 6.   As long as the rest of the documents will be forthcoming soon (which I’ve emailed you about in detail last night- along with again this afternoon), we appreciate that.  We also look forward to reviewing what you have available now (which I assume is the one page letter- and what you had found yesterday).   If there is more, please let me know.

Paul gave me a ring a few minutes ago.  During the phone conversation,  we agreed in addition to what I’ve already asked for- it may be helpful to see a copy of specifically and exactly what was released to Rep. Anchia previously.  

Let me stress- we are continuing to request access to all of what we have emailed you about.   

If you are seeking to prioritize anything at this point- please prioritize in this order:

getting us the ability to answer all 10 questions we’ve asked, for each of the cases we’ve provided to you for review (both the 25 .pdfs and the excel spreadsheet). This would allow us to see in detail what happened with each application, when, why- and then any action your office is/has taken (whether that be forwarding the application to another county or correcting an error and putting a voter on to the voting rolls).

Any and all information about the 315 cases (and 22 cases of alleged non citizen voters) talked about in the Jan. House hearing, along with any other evidence provided to the legislature in regards to that hearing.

The remainder, in its entirety, of what we asked for in writing.

Any other information which you feel would be worthwhile for us to review. 

Kind Regards,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Mark,

Everyone here will be gone by 6pm. I do not know if it is worth your time to come over for the files on 14 people and the felon letter. I also have copies of what was released to Representative Anchia. If you want to pick this up Monday morning let me know.

Regards,

George Hammerlein

 Thank you.  I’ll come by Monday am.  See you then…

George, Paul…

It occurs to me one other item was mentioned by Paul as possible to pull that we need at a high priority- but that we haven’t followed up on in writing.   

What are the specific reasons for applicant rejections/not being registered for Frances Graham’s registrations?      I was told that could be easily pulled.   All I have been provided right now is a “status” such as not registered, active, etc.  as of 10/15/2008.  As I asked Paul about prior to our interview, we need the “reason” for rejection … which I believe is the same data available and previously released to KHOU  in response to a TPIA public records request for all rejections from 2004 through 9/10/2008.  But? Most of Frances Graham’s rejections came after 9/10/2008.  So… I can’t cull this.   The good news: based off previous meetings with Ed Johnson where we talked in detail about your data system- this should be a very simple query that can be run, fast…       if not- just have him get on the line with me and we can talk data guy to data guy- and figure out a way to do it fast (such as providing us an updated set of rejection data current through today, etc.)

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

-----Original Message-----
From: Greenblatt, Mark
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:13 PM
To: Greenblatt, Mark; Hammerlein, George (Tax Office); Reyna, Cindy (Tax Office)
Cc: Bettencourt, Paul (Tax Office)
Subject: RE: KHOU POST INTERVIEW FOLLOW UP
Importance: High

Good morning,

I hope you are all well.  Just wanted to check in again and see your status as it relates to releasing all of the information to us we have requested.   In a continued strong, sincere effort to review all of the information we have requested before we go to air, I am hopeful I can come by this afternoon for a very thorough review of documents and information we’ve repeatedly asked for.   I’ll respectfully remind you of an exact quote from our on camera interview of last Thursday with Paul after we wanted some of the same information we’re still asking for below:

“If you want to come back tomorrow or give us two hours we’ll pull all these files for you and we’ll have the same discussion.”

It is now mid-afternoon Monday- and we’re planning to air this story in the very near future.  It is my hope (and the reason for the repeated emails asking for the same thing) that we’ll be able to have access to all of the details about each case we’re inquiring about,  not just the details your office has provided as of right now.

If you have any question about what those remaining details, documents, or data are- please see my previous emails since last Thursday (beginning with the attached email).  If you are still planning on releasing documents to us in the very near future,  please let me know asap when or if you are going to make the bulk of what we’re asking for available for review.  

For purposes of formality at this point, please consider all of our requests to date since last Thursday, as they relate to voter registration documents and data that we’ve made with your office, formal requests under the TPIA TO RECEIVE COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND DATA WE’VE ASKED FOR ACCESS TO (please make them available in electronic form- word documents- excel spreadsheets, pdfs,  etc… As you know under TPIA, an agency is required to provide information in the format the requestor is seeking it in if the agency has the technological capability to do so.).  As you know, you do not have to wait 10 days under the TPIA to respond or release the documents- you can respond early. It is our sincere hope you will, as there is an extreme likelihood we will elect to air this story long before that ten days expires. 

Bottom line: In the interest of transparency and open government we are once again imploring you to contact us at your very earliest convenience with a time we can come by and review all of what we’ve requested.

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Mark,

George Hammerlein says that you agreed by e-mail to pick-up this information this morning.  Please do so.

PB

Cookie Ruggeri

Executive Assistant

to

Hon. Paul Bettencourt

Tax Assessor-Collector

Harris County, TX

 Be by your office this afternoon after a meeting I can’t get out of…

fyi- we previously agreed via email to pick up a one-page letter, a small packet of information that was previously gathered before the interview last Thursday, and some information George mentioned he had available that was previously gathered and released to Rep. Anchia.   The remaining bulk of the docs and detailed information about each case we’ve been inquiring about remained outstanding.    Thus- this afternoon’s note- as we are getting set to air the story soon.    I’d always rather err on the side of making doubly sure, on a story, that multiple people are aware other information was still outstanding.  Not an attempt to ‘scream’ over email… rather- trying to make sure everyone is aware there are still key pieces of information that we’d rather have before a story airs, instead of  afterwards….  And stuff like that- is simply too important not to overcommunicate about...        

mg

Mark,

I will be glad to go over the contents of the information and indentify any items you feel are missing.

Regards,

George Hammerlein

 Sounds good George, we sincerely appreciate that.   See you soon…

Mark

 October 20, 2008

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Dear Mark,

We received your e-mail this morning about Frances Graham’s registrations and the Voter Department is running a current status and pulling the detail for any rejections of her 130+ deputy voter registrar applications this afternoon.  Since you need the “reason” for rejections, I want to again state categorically that all the procedures, as outlined in Ann McGeehan’s memo of December 12, 2005, are still in full affect per our conversation with her directly on Friday, and as I related to you as well.  Regardless of what you’ve heard, this is a fact.

The people you quoted in the interview about any deviation from the TDL/SSN check boxes as outlined in the Secretary of State procedures are grossly misinformed.  Ms. McGeehan not only reconfirmed the memo, but also stated that she has had several conversations with Rep. Hochberg to that effect and he should know that is the SOS / Chief Election Officer’s official opinion of this operational process.  Also, Ms. McGeehan confirmed our September 19^th conversation in that no authority exists in the Texas Election Code to move the October 6^th deadline date.  This was reflected in the HCTO press release of September 22 ^nd and is on our website.

Per the Election Code, Voter Registrars do not forward incomplete rejected applications to the SOS for approval.   Any e-mail you received to the contrary is not correct or it potentially answered another question, per Ann.  She was also very specific about her comment at the Senate Hearing Committee.  She was describing what happens when a voter has neither a TDL or a SSN that they are flagged and must show a form of identification at polls, which is why I told you in the interview that her statement was correct.

Finally, I want to again discuss my testimony at the House Election Committee.  After reviewing the one hour recording and all the evidence we sent the committee, I do not believe your questioning on the matter was accurate or balanced.  The actual testimony, that should have been reviewed directly, totally refutes the charge in the interview that I did not “do my homework” or the even further absurdities from the statewide League of Women Voters’ representative who had never bothered to contact the Tax Office in writing or much less, verbally.   The “homework” we provided the committee was complete, even with Rep. Anchia’s Open Record Request for the citizenship cancellations, as it was his ORR, not a Tax Office report.  If you would like to hear from others with different opinions, why not contact Rep. Bohac or the local League of Women Voters.

In writing, before the hearing started, the stated position of the Tax Office was we had found four errors out of twenty-two persons that had voted, and verbally both of us went into great detail about the reasons and agreed that this problem could be resolved by a citizenship list.  It should be noted that the HCTO uses only the jury wheel, JP Court, and individual information on citizenship status supplied by voters in the “honor” system of voter registration.  Rep. Anchia said he was using DPS records that my office does not have access to and that DPS will not supply to date, so I expect his report will show the differences between the two data files.   Hopefully, he will file legislation next session in this area, as the Voter Registration process could use the DPS data.

Mark, as the Tax Office has always given the press and  policy makers all the data we have so they can make an informed decision.  That is what is in the box of information on the subject from the Tax Office awaiting your pick-up.  Please come and get it, plus the other information you have requested.

Sincerely,

Paul Bettencourt

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

Cookie Ruggeri

Executive Assistant

to

Hon. Paul Bettencourt

Tax Assessor-Collector

Harris County, TX

Dear Paul,

Thank you for email/letter of earlier today.  We always welcome and appreciate further information such as that which you provided herein, in consideration prior to broadcasting a story.

Your points are well taken.  One point to ponder: as a part of the normal journalistic newsgathering process, when reporters ask questions during an interview- we are often doing just that- asking questions in hopes of learning something we did not previously know.   You provided quite a bit of information, about what Ms. McGeehan wrote, etc., on certain issues that we appreciate you providing in advance of  our airing a story.  Just because we asked questions in an interview to clarify something does not necessarily mean we will broadcast that portion of it in our completed report as we continue to refine our base of information.

Indeed, in general, if we have reason to believe an allegation is unfounded after looking into it, we of course will not air it.  

All of that said, I also note your strong feelings about some of the questions we asked about your testimony in January before the state legislature.  I assure you,  the testimony was reviewed before our interview with you.  At your request however, after our on camera interview, I have personally gone back to take yet another meticulous look at the testimony itself- every word of it- along with your written presentation which you gave me for the first time in the middle of the interview itself last Thursday.   I have gone beyond this too, and conducted a follow- up interview with a member of the House Elections Committee- and in fact the chair of a relevant  subcommittee,  on this issue who sent staff down to Houston to attempt to verify some of your claims/the claims made within public records released to him by your office.   In addition, I have also personally  reviewed some of the many documents your office just now released to KHOU-TV today.  While our review of those documents is ongoing at this hour, I have seen enough to prompt me to follow up with you as soon as possible on this matter to give you as much time to respond as possible.  

During your testimony in Jan. of 2008 before the Elections committee you testified, among other things,  

“WHAT I’M PROVIDING TO YOU ARE 381 ABSOLUTELY VERIFIED AND DOCUMENTED CASES OF  VOTER FRAUD IN HARRIS COUNTY SINCE THE YEAR 2000.”

And:

“THE 381 CASES THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU WITH THIS DOCUMENTATION, ARE WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE IRON-CLAD, ABSOLUTELY PROVEN…”

Further, the very headline title of the relevant Power Point slide in your formal written testimony (which you provided me) is entitled:  “381 VOTER FRAUD CASES FOUND IN HARRIS COUNTY”.

Rep. Anchia and others would like to know, if you continue to claim these are “absolutely proven” and “iron-clad,”- why for instance do you also admit within your very own written testimony that at least 121 of these “cases” are “under investigation.”  If they are still under investigation even by your own admission, how can you accurately claim they are “absolutely proven” or “ironclad”?    

Along these same lines- of  the 381 alleged “voter fraud” cases- how many ballots were proven to be cast that should not have been cast?

In regards to the other cases, how many actual, separate  people have actually been prosecuted/even taken to trial?  My records show just one.  Do you have other records or information?

4)   In general, Rep. Anchia feels you gave testimony that was not entirely accurate.   Your response?

In regards to the 315 non citizen voter registrations cancelled in  Harris County you testified about, citing a public records request released to Rep. Anchia (and of which you chose to include in a presentation on voter fraud related issues at that hearing), you wrote that 22 voted, and there were four errors.    

You clarify during the testimony what you mean by the four errors, saying: “There are two types of error: those who get on the voter roll/realize they shouldn’t be on the voter roll, contact our office and get off.   That’s indeed what happened with the 4 that voted.” 

Rep. Anchia tells us he had reason to further investigate some of your/your office’s claims in either public records or the testimony itself of 22/23 non citizens who actually voted.  He felt this was a misrepresentation of the truth.    

Recently (after the Jan. hearing) his staff says he has found (through further research, public record requests, and interviews):

*As many as 5 of the 22 are actual US citizens… and therefore have the right to vote- but actually had the right taken from them, wrongfully, by Harris County and your office.

*One of the 22 alleged “non citizen voters”  is originally from Czech republic. The problem?  She never actually voted as a non citizen according to Anchia’s staff.  What’s more? They tell us she registered legally to vote AFTER she became a citizen. STILL? Harris County took her voter registration away anyways. She allegedly voted provisionally and her vote ended up not being not counted.

*at least one other  person told Harris county  up front he wasn’t a citizen- and still got issued a voter card. 

*we’re told 34 of the alleged 315 are the same story… telling harris county up front truthfully they were not us citizens, and still got voter cards.

5)   Anchia, again, says you ought to have done  more thorough research on these cases before using them in the context you did in the hearing.   Contrary to your claim in your letter below, where you say Anchia had access to information you don’t, he tells KHOU he obtained access to this information through public information requests (including you’re your own office) available to any citizen.   He says he found all this information out with minimal staff on a committee that has “virtually no budget”…  saying he believes your staff and budget are considerably larger.    Your response to Anchia’s findings/claims?

We look forward to receiving the remainder of requested documents from your office dealing with the reasons for all letters of rejection being sent to cases we’ve inquired about, ASAP. It is our sincere hope your office will make that information available us absolutely as soon as possible (note, this is not a new request from today- but rather one we’ve previously put in writing.)   

Finally, thank you for the records you have provided KHOU TV thus far. We sincerely appreciate the access to the documents you made available.  

Sincerely,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

 Hi Sonya,

Just following up formally on what we all agreed to yesterday afternoon in your office…

As it relates to the sampling reports we forwarded for review (25 pdf and the Lorraine Brown-Spencer and Juanita Smith applicants…),

We would like the backup research that appeared to have been done on these cases in advance of our interview from last Thursday.  

This research should allow us to answer as many of the ten questions as possible we have previously stated we would like to answer for each voter applicant we forwarded to your office for review (such as date any application came in, date ANY letter of rejection went out- whether or not they are currently on the rolls at this time, reason for rejection at that time, current status of voter applicant, etc… as per the questions on our written list that are not subjective in nature)

Again, I believe your office  already gathered the bulk of this information prior to our interview last week.

As it relates to any of those reports that were “forwarded to another county”- of which at least 7 of the pdfs were according Mr. Bettencourt, we would like to know the previously asked for information (please refer to my initial email on this- but essentially please tell us the date you received the application, the other county in question, the date it was formally forwarded to another county for registration there, etc.)

Based on the number “7” being provided to us as it relates to the pdfs we forwarded for review, this would seem to suggest at least some of this information, too,  has also already been pulled. 

As it relates to  the Frances Graham data, we  would simply like a more extended spreadsheet- that covers ALL of her voters who were rejected at any time, for any reason… including  the date applications were received in house, if any were at ANY time sent a rejection letter for any reason…, the date the letter was sent, etc.   For any of her voter applicants forwarded to another county, please go by the same guidelines as above for the pdfs sent to another county.   While it would be helpful to us to have a copy of the rejection letters themselves, we agreed for purposes of time efficiency and in order to work with your office and staff during a busy time, that we would settle for just the data itself at this time.

Thanks again for your work on this, and please let me know if any of this will be available this afternoon at any point- or when it will be.    If so, we respectfully request the information be sent via email if technologically possible.  When you can, let me know you got this okay.

Kind Regards,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Dear Mark,

Thank you for the clarification of your records request.  Please find responses to each of your requests below.

Regarding the 25 pdf files and the two additional applications for Lorraine Brown-Spencer and Juanita Smith, there was no back-up data pulled and not provided to you.  We will provide you with the additional documentation that you have requested.

Regarding the seven out of the 25 applications that were forwarded to another county, the office follows the Election Code, which does not require maintenance of a log of when an application was mailed to another county.  However, we can provide you with the date that the application was imaged in our office. 

Regarding the Frances Graham data, we will provide you with the documentation that you have requested. 

As far as timing goes, it will take at least a day and a half to pull this information together.  In light of having to use all available personnel to complete the voter roll by the October 24^th deadline for the production of the poll book necessary for election day, we are unable to provide the information to you prior to the morning of October 29, 2008. 

Please call me with any questions.

Regards,   

Sonya L. Aston
Director of Compliance
Office of Paul Bettencourt
Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

The subject story title is absolutely incorrect.  Voters are not “banned from voting” in the voter registration process.  They are either eligible or not to register to vote.

Ms. Ann McGeehan, the Director of Elections Division for the office of the Texas Secretary of State, today assured my office that neither the state nor the county has any authority to “ban” a voter.  Please confirm this with her by e-mail if you believe it necessary.

The word “banned” is not in any official Election Code documentation I’m aware of either, therefore, please change the title of your story, otherwise the public will be misinformed about the voter registration process in Texas.

Paul Bettencourt

Tax Assessor-Collector & Voter Registrar

Harris County, Texas

Cookie Ruggeri

Executive Assistant

to

Hon. Paul Bettencourt

Tax Assessor-Collector

Harris County, TX 

 Paul,

Thank you so much for your email and your input.   Both the thesaurus, and our own legal counsel advise us that “ban” is in fact a synonym for “reject”… which is certainly something that is happening to the voter applicants who are specifically in question here according to the terms used with your own office.

If it is helpful,  here is one website that may aide you in this matter.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ban

Synonym Collection v1.1

Synonym Collection v1.1
Copyright © 2008 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC.

On another matter- as you know we have asked you specifically for any follow up comment you may have to Rep. Anchia’s comments.   Also- as you know there is still quite a bit of information outstanding on the details of when you received many of the voter applications in questions, and when you may have sent any letters of rejection to any of them (from the original documents provided to you- to any of Frances Graham’s 138 voters she signed up).  As of now, still we do not have those details.  Please let us know when you plan to make that information available.

Thank you,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Dear Mark,

In response to your request regarding a statewide list of rejected voter applications, please note the following.    

I am the Harris County Tax Office Public Information Officer supervising the Open Records Requests for this office.  According to our records, neither Joy Arthur nor the Statewide League of Women Voters have requested any public information from this office. 

Neither Channel 11 nor the Statewide League of Women Voters have presented a copy of the list that you described earlier this evening to Cindy Reyna.  Also, Channel 11 did not present this list in the multi-hour interview with Mr. Bettencourt.  We can only surmise that the request was possibly made to the Secretary of State, consequently, you must present your questions to that agency.

Regards,

Sonya L. Aston
Director of Compliance
Office of Paul Bettencourt
Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

Dear Sonya,

As per our conversation of after you sent your email tonight,  it appears your office did indeed release the records we inquired about earlier.

Let me address your letter point by point, in writing here, as we just did verbally:

“According to our records, neither Joy Arthur nor the Statewide League of Women Voters have requested any public information from this office. “

Please recheck your records.   I will, for your convenience, attach herein a copy of one such records release to Joy Authur.   It is labeled by your office as Open Records Request #1616, if that  is helpful to you in locating it.  

2)   Neither Channel 11 nor the Statewide League of Women Voters have presented a copy of the list that you described earlier this evening to Cindy Reyna.  

Channel 11 did not present this list in the multi-hour interview with Mr. Bettencourt.

Indeed, we did inquire numerous times during our interview about the findings of the Statewide League of Women Voters.   We named Ms. Mary Finch as a Board Member of the Statewide League who had serious concerns about what a number of sources of public information released by your office seem to show, in their opinion. I am simply informing your office that some of those Statewide League concerns (already asked about in our interview) were based on fellow league member (but not a board member) Laurie Vanhoose’s analysis of multiple open records requests.  Those open records requests include the much talked about records released to the House Elections Committee that you have also provided to Channel 11 and that were the substance of much of our on camera interview. In addition, the Statewide League’s concerns are further based on Ms. Vanhoose’s research which includes the open records request #1616 which your office (as stated above) already released (again, see below).

The primary reason for my phone call to Cindy, who is your appointed media contact, was my concern that I had not received a response to multiple email requests for further comment from your office or Mr. Bettencourt, or the further information that is still outstanding from my in person meeting I had with you directly along with George Hammerlein and Ms. Reyna from two days ago.  I was simply taking an extra step, going beyond a normal attempt to ask for comment,  to reach out to your office in the hope we might get a response, which I am glad to see we now have.

We sincerely wish to hear more from Mr. Bettencourt or your office in regards to both the Statewide League’s findings, and his statements made before the Elections Committee, along with the details that remain UNRELEASED from your office that we decided to make part of a formal TPIA public records request in the event your office decided not to release them on your own.

In this regard, one of Mr. Bettencourt’s only responses to our questions about the Statewide League of Women Voters has been that his office has an excellent relationship with the local, Houston chapter of the League of Women Voters who Mr. Bettencourt alleged on camera disagree with everything the Statewide Office Says on this matter.    He followed up in writing with a letter to me, suggesting I contact the local office again.    Upon his suggestion, I did just that.  You should know the president of the Houston Chapter of League of Women Voters (Laura Blackburn) agreed she has an excellent working relationship with your office.  However, she refuted Mr. Bettencourt’s claim that they disagree with their statewide chapter. She noted on the record that both the statewide chapter and Mary Finch are both excellent and careful researchers, among other things, and says she has no reason whatsoever to doubt their findings.     

We sincerely hope this is helpful information and look forward to any further thoughts or response you may have.

Sincerely,

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV

Here’s is the email/open records request referenced above- which is a PART of the records reviewed by the Statewide League which we previously inquired about:

Dear Mark,

The Open Records Request that you referenced in our phone conversation, Open Records Request Number 1616 – completed June 4, 2007, was submitted to the Harris County Tax Office by Joy Aurthur representing People for the American Way and NOT the Statewide League of Women Voters.  In the interview with Mr. Bettencourt, you continually misrepresented the source of this open records request as the Statewide League of Women Voters. 

The response to the request covered rejections of voter applications from 2003 to June of 2007.  If you are using the response to Open Records Request 1616, you are using outdated information.  The Harris County Tax Office provided to KHOU Channel 11 earlier this month the most accurate information to date. 

The Tax Office strongly questions the accuracy and balance of this story as presented to the public. Therefore, the Tax Office categorically rejects the clarification of the source that you have offered tonight.  This is not the same organization you represented; this data has never been discussed in an interview and how could it possibly be the centerpiece of your story tonight?      

Sonya L. Aston
Director of Compliance
Office of Paul Bettencourt
Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

Sir,

You gave me Joy Aurthur’s name verbally along with the Statewide League of Women Voters.  When we searched our database, we were unable to locate “Joy Arthur” or the Statewide League of Women Voters.  You did not provide the correct spelling of her name or the correct organization.  When you finally gave me the Open Records Request number, we were able to quickly locate the request from the People for the American Way. 

Good Night.

Sonya L. Aston
Director of Compliance
Office of Paul Bettencourt
Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

Dear Sonya,

Thank you for your letter and your concerns.

Ms. Vanhoose obtained the said referenced request from Ms. Authur, as a PART of her review of many records your office has released.   Ms. Vanhoose also studied many other documents released by your office, as referenced in my last email to you.    It is the substance, again, of Ms. Vanhoose’s studies of multiple sources of information (including that released to the House Elections Committee) that we again are and have been asking for comment about.

Indeed, we are not only aware of the new data released to KHOU but we forwarded a summary of it to your office IN ADVANCE OF OUR INTERVIEW.

In addition, at that time we also stated in writing that we planned to ask about said information.

Again, if it is helpful to you, I will now provide that email for your review. 

We respectfully continue to welcome and ask for any comment on the substantive issues which we’ve continued to bring to your attention.

If you have any either prior to or after our broadcast, please know we welcome them, along with the remainder of the information we have repeatedly requested relating to actual voters who had their registration cards either rejected and/or forwarded to another County.  

Mark Greenblatt

I just ran across this tonight.  Did a quick number crunch of the data you provided me on reasons for rejected applications.   

Here are the counts I come up with for jan.1, 2004- sept. 10 2008.

Decoder sheet for codes above:

I will ask to put these numbers in perspective as well….

Mark Greenblatt
Investigative Reporter
KHOU-TV