Yarmouth recount: A tale of three ballots

UPDATED: The decision may or may not come down today, according to court officials.

The Maine Supreme Court could have a decision as early as today in the case between Melissa Innes and Kimberly McLaughlin, the Democratic candidates for the Yarmouth state House seat whose primary battle ended in a tie.

In the June 10 primary, both got 485 votes. A recount put Innes ahead by two votes.But in the recount, there was one ballot missing, which McLaughlin said was for her.

Then Innes challenged two ballots and McLaughlin challenged one, sending the case to the court.

The court heard arguments in the case this afternoon. Harold Pachios, representing McLaughlin, argued that the original count - administered by an optical scan machine - should stand.

Chief Justice Leigh Saufley allowed Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa, to testify by phone about the accuracy rate of the machines. After giving a detailed description about how the machines work, Jones said the error rate is about one in 10 million.

The court accepted Jones as an expert witness after he rattled off a series of qualifications, including serving as chairman of Iowa's Board of Examiners when Diebold machines were tested there.

Through cross-examination by William Keefe, attorney for Innes, Jones revealed that he was speaking about Diebold's optical scan machines in general - not the specific model used in Yarmouth. Diebold provides and maintains the machines used in Maine.

Keefe said the hand count should stand. The scan machines were brought in to enhance efficiency, not accuracy, he said. He believes the hand count to be more accurate.

Innes and McLaughlin each disputed a ballot because of erasure marks. If one was thrown out, the other one would be as well, deeming the issue irrelevant. The third ballot was disputed by Innes because of a stray mark for a different race.

After an official proceeding where election officials brought the sealed ballot box forward, opened it, allowed the court to review the three ballots, and then sealed it back up, the conversation shifted to the accuracy of a hand count versus a machine count.