US embassy cable - 04CARACAS883

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