On the surface, the story of the District 2 election is that it was a tie between Cesar Zepeda and Andrew Butt, and Zepeda eventually won when his name was drawn from a paper bag. End of story.

A recount is in progress and will be completed sometime next week. No one knows how that will turn out.

But a lot of complications and mysteries have arisen that could still eventually affect the outcome.

One thing we know is that at least two of the votes for Zepeda were from a newly created precinct entirely in the water at Marina Bay that was, unlike the rest of Marina Bay, assigned to District 2 rather than District 5. How that happened remains a profound mystery.

Below is the map adopted by the City Council (first reading) on April 5, 2022. This specific map was included in all three documents attached to the Agenda Report, (1) the Resolution for Redistricting, (2) the Ordinance for Redistricting and (3) the District Map NDC 201 Selected by the City Council.  Note that in this map, all of Marina Bay is in District 5 (tan color), and none of the water areas of San Francisco Bay (gray color) are in any designated district.

Figure 1 - Map NDC 201 adopted by the City Council April 5, 2022.

When the Redistricting Ordinance came before the City Council for a second reading on April 26, 2022, the Resolution adopted on April 5 (assigned Number 49-22) had been altered, despite the fact that the city clerk wrote, “I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held April 5, 2022…” The altered map was dramatically different from the approved map, showing the entire water area of San Francisco Bay adjacent to the City of Richmond in District 2. However, the maps in the actual ordinance and the map attached to the April 26, 2022, City Council agenda item were the same as that adopted by the City Council on April 5, 2022.

Figure 2 - Map attached to Resolution 49-22 in the April 26, 2022, City Council packet

Apparently, it was the altered map that was submitted by the City of Richmond to the Secretary of State and Contra Costa County, not the map actually approved on April 5, 2022, and the map included in the ordinance on the second reading.

Subsequently, the County created two precincts in the water at Marina Bay, Rich 160 and Rich 162.

Figure 3 - Map showing two new precincts Rich160 and Rich162

Neither a Richmond district and precinct map prepared by Contra Costa County in September 2021 or June 2022 shows any districts or precincts in the water.

Figure 4 - County District and Precinct map from September 2021

Figure 5 - County District and Precinct Map from June 2022

Mysteriously, sometime after April 2022, and certainly by November 2022, Contra Costa County had prepared a District and Precinct Map that showed precincts Rich160 and Rich162 in the water at Marina Bay.

Figure 6 - County District and Precinct Map of November 2022

It turned out that only two voters were assigned by the County to precinct Rich162, and they both voted for Zepeda. Apparently, they were assigned to Rich162 because they claim to live aboard a boat in the harbor, but they are registered to a landside address, 1310 Marina Bay South, which is the Harbormaster Building and the previous polling place before exclusively mail ballots were used. In the 2020 election, these two voters were assigned to and voted in Rich104, where the Harbormaster Building is located in District 5, and they voted in the District 5 election of 2020.This is all very mysterious and only even possible because the City of Richmond provided an unapproved map to the County.

The Richmond city attorney has been asked to correct the record by providing to Contra Costa County the map actually approved by the Richmond City Council, but so far, he has refused, leaving litigation the only option to correct a mistake that led to a tied election.

In social media posts that number in the hundreds, arguments have been made that if the votes in the two ballots in Rich162 for a District 2 candidate are not counted, the voters will be disenfranchised. That is specious. Like every other voter in Marina Bay, they voted in District 5 in the 2020 election, and there is no reason why the rest of their ballot would not be counted. There have been serious mistakes that have resulted in a tied election. This needs to be corrected.

To add additional confusion and complications, we know that the Contra Costa County Elections Office, which is conducting the recount is somewhat in disarray.

• The County has not complied with State law for adopting security measures to protect the integrity of the recount. The County has not complied with CA Code Reg. Title 2, sec. 20817, as follows:
  
  (a) The elections official shall, within six (6) months of the effective date of these regulations,submit to the Secretary of State written security measures for recounts to ensure the integrity of the recount proceedings. The security measures shall include, but not be limited to, chain of custody controls and signature-verified documentation for all voter verified paper audit trail paper copies, voted, spoiled and unused ballots, and all "relevant material" as described in section 20811(f). If submission by the vendor of a security plan to the Secretary of State is a condition of approval of voting system use, written notice to the Secretary of State of designation of that security plan to govern recounts satisfies the requirement of this subdivision.
  
  
• The County is not keeping the entire ballot together and is only removing the B card and leaving the other three pages.  This makes it impossible to challenge a ballot that may have an identifying mark on the first (or other) page(s).  An objection has been filed based on the understanding that any identifying mark on a ballot can disqualify it, and the ability to raise such an objection has been lost. 

We also know that 1st District County Supervisor John Gioia has taken an unusual interest in this election, using abundant social media posts to defend the County Elections Office, favor Zepeda’s election and criticize those who wish to use their statutory right to question the results and request (and pay for) a recount.