SUMATE SCRUBS THE CNE'S PRELIMINARY RESULTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L CARACAS 000883 SIPDIS NSC FOR CBARTON USCINCSO ALSO FOR POLAD STATE PASS USAID FOR DCHA/OTI E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/11/2014 TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM VE SUBJECT: SUMATE SCRUBS THE CNE'S PRELIMINARY RESULTS Classified By: Abelardo A. Arias, Political Counselor, for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d). -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) The NGO Sumate presented to the diplomatic corps on March 11 its initial impressions of the signature verification data given to the opposition by the National Electoral Council's (CNE). The CNE's work is full of errors that, in Sumate's opinion, imply an intentional effort to ruin the chances of a recall referendum against President Hugo Chavez. In addition to the CNE's alleged bad faith in processing the signatures, Sumate sees fundamental logistical problems that will make a successful appeals process unlikely. While Sumate's analysis may strengthen the opposition's hand somewhat in negotiating the appeals process, the GOV more than likely hold to these numbers. End Summary. -------------- Sumate: CNE Contradicts Its Own Numbers -------------- ¶2. (C) The Coordinadora Democratica (CD, "Democratic Coordinating Committee") invited the diplomatic corps to a briefing March 11, which the Ambassador attended, to present an analysis of signature verification results supplied by the National Electoral Council (CNE). Miranda State Governor Enrique Mendoza made introductory comments about the CNE's data, which was given to the opposition on March 7 as part of the negotiations for an appeals process. Mendoza showed how errors in transcription of identity numbers at the CNE resulted in the inclusion of 80 active duty military officers in the opposition's signature list, which the Ministry of Defense cited as fraud on the part of the opposition. Mendoza showed copies of the original signature forms with the correct identity numbers as evidence that the officers had not been fraudulently included, but rather altered during transcription at the CNE (Note: A DCC representative estimated to poloff that some 120,000 identity numbers had been altered in this manner.). ¶3. (SBU) Enrique Palacios of the NGO Sumate gave an overview of the CNE's data, noting that the data received on March 7 did not/not match the figures announced by CNE President Francisco Carrasquero on March 2. For example, Carrasquero declared that 1,832,493 of the signatures were valid, but the new data gave the figure as 1,788,523, nearly 44,000 less. Carrasquero also said 876,017 signature forms were "under observation" for having similar handwriting ("planas" in Venezuelan Spanish). The new data says 893,466 forms, a difference of some 140,000 signatures. -------------- Logical Anomalies Abound -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Palacios noted that the CNE applied 38 different reasons for rejecting (or placing "in observation") the signatures, though the rules only specify five. The reasons, he said, have the appearance of being created as the work proceeded: some fingerprints were rejected for having "light fingerprints" and others for an undefined "error in fingerprint." Reason number "0," which invalidated nearly 300,000 signatures, was simply listed as "to be explained." Other reasons included "lack of information," "torn signature form," and "in physical search." ¶5. (SBU) Palacios said Carrasquero announced that 7,297 forms had been returned unused or blank, which Sumate disputes. In any event, Palacios noted that 321 signatures had been credited to forms that were officially designated as "blank." He said the CNE had found 8,526 signatures ruled out because of "similar handwriting" criterion when there was no other similar handwriting on the form, creating the logical fallacy of how only one signature line on a form could be singled out for looking like another. Though the forms only had ten signature lines, 112 signature forms have more than 10 signatures each credited to them (one form supposedly contained 37 signatures). ¶6. (SBU) Perhaps most confusing was that the 38 reasons were not evenly applied to the final disposition of the signatures. For example, reason number "1," described simply as "annulled," resulted in 78,995 signatures sent to the appeals process and 191,479 that were rejected completely. Palacios questioned how the same criteria could have two different outcomes. -------------- Location, Location, Location -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Palacios gave a state-by-state breakdown of the rejected signatures and those subject to appeal, claiming some states showed unusually high rates of rejection/appeal. Palacios showed a map of Caracas, in which hundreds of centers in the poorer western part of the city had 50 percent rejection/appeal rates, though rates of five percent prevailed in the opposition strongholds in the east. Palacios claimed this as evidence of an intent to force the opposition to mount the appeals process in pro-Chavez areas, where security risks for signers are higher. -------------- Appeals Process Not Feasible -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Palacios raised two key issues for making an appeals process work. First, how to inform those who need to go to the appeals centers. Palacios said the CNE's answer of publishing the identity numbers in a national newspaper, coupled with internet and other methods, could only reach about 500,000 people (the opposition needs a net gain of about 600,000 signatures). Second, how does one appeal the signature? The one-computer-per-center scheme offered by the CNE, in Sumate's opinion, would only allow 700,000 signatures to be processed (assuming only two days of appeals, which the GOV has said could be expanded to three days). Palacios suggested that the best solution was for all signers to affirm their signatures in the appeals process, replace computers with a simple electoral "book" that can be signed, and allow up to ten lines per center. Palacios said the opposition might need until mid-April just to get organized to make the process work. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶9. (C) While we did not expect the CNE's work to be error-free, the Sumate presentation reinforces our belief that the CNE has not been acting in good faith. Per Sumate, the CNE has twisted the signature count to match President Chavez's assertions that an opposition-perpetrated "megafraud" has been afoot. The incongruities between CNE's data and the opposition's may vindicate the opposition assertions, but it will not change the reality that the GOV continues to push them into an appeals process that will not work. Public discontent over the CNE's ineptitude and/or duplicity might give the opposition some negotiating chits, but Chavez still controls the board for this next round of the referendum process. SHAPIRO NNNN 2004CARACA00883 - CONFIDENTIAL