One of the episodes in last week's vote count was the Judge Dean Lum's ruling that King County Democrats could obtain from the county a list of provisional voters with non-conforming signatures, contact these voters and submit revised registration documents to cure the signature problems. This ruling produced several hundred additional votes for Gregoire from questionable sources.
A knowledgeable reader, who has been following these proceedings closely, sent me a long e-mail explaining how Judge Lum's ruling opened the door to increased voter fraud. He forwarded a copy of a Democratic affidavit that revealed an actual case of voter fraud. Furthermore, his comments highlight some fundamental flaws in the voter registration system that raise important questions about the credibility of our current electoral process to call a winner in a closely contested election.
A few key points from the e-mail.
One problem with Judge Lum's ruling is that it permitted third parties (specifically the Democratic Party) to submit revised voter registration documents instead of requiring the voter to personally deliver the documents to an election worker. Here is how this increases fraud risk:
The problem from third party collection of new registrations resides with persons who illegally voted for another using a provisional ballot. The signatures may not match because the person signing the ballot isn't the person registered with the county. If third parties come to an address listed on the provisional ballot there is no guarantee they will be contacting the actual voter registered with the county or there is the possibility that fraud was committed but that the actual voter was complicit in the fraud or will be afterwards. A family member may not legally vote a provisional ballot for another family member but may be motivated to do so if they know that the inconvenience of voting will deter the real voter. If the family member is asked to cure an illegally voted provisional ballot by supplying a new signature, and the new registration signature is not compared to the old registration signature a fraud will have been accomplished. Similarly a fraud artist could vote many provisional ballots for persons who, from polling lists obtained late on election day, it was apparent would likely not be voting, and could list a different address on the provisional ballot. When approached by third parties, the fraudulent voter could fill out many new registrations with a signature that corresponds to the provisional ballot and the real voter would not discover the error until it was too late to affect the election.There was one documented case of voter fraud in an affidavit submitted by a Democratic Party representative to Judge Lum:
Jeremy Sher's affidavit at page two, subheading 5 of the affidavit. He describes a Parkinson's Disease patient so debilitated that she can neither speak nor write yet he concludes that she is "mentally strong." His qualifications for such a diagnosis are not provided. Her ballot is completed and signed by her husband (an illegal act by the way, others can witness but not sign ...). So this description of voter fraud, if only technically voter fraud, was used by the WSDCC as a rationale for permitting third party collections of new registrations post-election for the purpose of curing non-conforming provisional ballots. It is questionable whether a person at the advanced stage of Parkinson's Disease described by Mr. Sher was sufficiently possessed of their mental facilities to competently fill out a ballot or even designate their preferences to a third party. It might be interesting to consult with an MD on this.But most disturbing to me, beyond this particular case of voter fraud, is the rationale used by Judge Lum to permit the Democrats to act as a third-party voter verification agency. I quote directly from the a href="http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Dems%20v%20KC%201.pdf"
A word needs to be said about possible voter fraud. The Court does not place a huge amount of weight on the allegations that both parties are delivering provisional ballots to election offices. What is clear is that there is no actual evidence of voter fraud presented to this Court, and that the Republican party's suggested remedy (that the voter actually come down to the office rather than having a 3rd party deliver it) does not protect against voter fraud since King County does not certify or verify the identities of even those people who show up in person.King County does not verify the identities of people who change voter registration information. I don't know to what extent the county verifies the identity or eligibility of new voter registrations. But I suspect it doesn't do very much.
So who's voting? Is every one mentally competent? How many votes are being cast by guardians? How many non-citizens are voting? How many people are voting on behalf of non-existent housemates? How many college students are voting both at home and at school? What are King and other counties currently doing to detect and/or minimize any such fraudulent votes? Are the numbers of fraudulent votes enough to change the outcome of a close election?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 20, 2004 11:06 AM | Email ThisNow, I don't know how they're secured... but I'm thinking that if I were a poll worker and I knew people in state gov't who might lose their jobs - I could (like in the days of the Wild Wild West when cheaters had ace cards tucked in their pockets) fill out those ballots appropiately and none would be the wiser.
I would appreciate details, because again I'm convinced the election could be stolen. The above certainly doesn't help my sanity.
Posted by: Josef on November 20, 2004 02:43 PMGood points. But I very much like you see this happening: A small cabal of evildoers takes some blank ballots, marks them "appropiately" and replaces Rossi ballots with them. With the margin so close, it wouldn't take much. I mean, what's to say the pressure to cover state gov't union butts on county gov't union butts isn't great?!?
I just wish ALL counties had a policy of BEFORE a single ballot is opened on election of at 2001 hours (8:01 PM) or whenever the last poll closes of shredding their blank ballots. Then this wouldn't be a problem.
Again, good points.
Posted by: Josef on November 20, 2004 03:43 PMPoint well taken. I'd have the blank ballots inventoried and tracked at ALL points of transfer. I'd have a count of the blanks done daily, with all those used having to be logged - with the "observor from each Party present" signing 2 copies of a form to verify no antics.
Josef
Posted by: Josef on November 20, 2004 05:11 PMThis just came out over the AP wires:
-----------------------
Meanwhile in King County, the Republican Party voiced concerns about security for unmarked ballots, which are kept in the same place as marked ballots in case election workers need to replace a ballot that is damaged or for some other reason cannot be counted by machine.
The GOP sent a letter Friday to county elections director Dean Logan, who insists the process is secure. Marked ballots are kept in sealed boxes — in a gated area guarded by uniformed deputies and accessible only by 10 to 15 people. Both parties will be observing the recount, Logan noted.
State Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt issued a statement suggesting the Republicans submit an official request for a manual recount.
State GOP Chairman Chris Vance said Saturday he's not ready to do that. The requesting party must pay $420,000 for a machine recount or $700,000 for a hand tally, though the state picks up the tab if the outcome changes.
"All we asked was, one, count the number of blank ballots so we know how many there are. Two, put them in boxes and seal the boxes. Three, only unseal the boxes when there are observers observing," he said.
"I don't understand why they won't do that, but they won't do it."
-----------------------
Thanks to Google News Search and KGW - you can read the whole story HERE and now!.
Posted by: Josef on November 20, 2004 06:21 PMWell......This explains how King County has gotten away with this for at least the past decade! This also explains the Judge's apathy toward any attempt to challenge King County's voting irregularities.....
I am really glad we have gone national media with this! If anything - it will help to expose the potential for fraud in King County...and maybe help the Republicans solicit contributions for a hand recount if needed...
Posted by: Deborah on November 20, 2004 07:14 PMI am from Skagit County, where this kind of bull---- is not tolerated.
That said, I have just posted on my blog HERE about a very, very, very chilling development for Dino in King County that the State GOP is rightfully retaliating for JUST BEFORE I typed this.
You can also read about an interesting conversation invovling Dave Ross & me on the subject of Dino Rossi's candidacy & state government regulations posted on my blog HERE at this post.
Posted by: Josef on November 20, 2004 08:37 PMI remember when my aged relatives probably stopped voting, or probably ought to have. It is a tough thing on a family to actual certify that a person is no longer competent. The truth may be right there before your eyes, but nobody wants to dwell on that sort of news.
You knew I would be charitable toward this situation, although I agree a signature by a spouse is questionable. I also am confident this could only be one bad example against hundreds of good cases, based on first-hand obersvations of the phone calls that led to the visits.
I am interested in the whole check-mark thing, too. Goodness. Intent of the voter, again. If I knew for sure they would count check-marks, I would always vote check-mark. Filling in the oval is a pita.
Posted by: X on November 20, 2004 09:21 PMHere's ann update from Pierce Co. I spent 12 hours there today as an observer for the GOP. There were several D observers as well, and there were 3 GOP lawyers there at various points during the day. Two flew in from the RNC.
I feel pretty good about how they do things there. The facility is well laid out and all activity is visible through large glass windows. The controls on movement of ballots are excellent. Pretty much zero chance of a box of ballots being fed thru more than once. I've been an accountant for 12 years now, so I know something about internal controls.
The auditor, Pat McCarthy, and staff were helpful and courteous at all times. They even put a special seal on the door to the already counted ballot storage room when we requested they do so.
So, while King and other counties may still be of concern, I believe Pierce co. has a pretty good system in place.
Posted by: Kevin Shannon on November 20, 2004 09:39 PMI have updated my blog this morning with the latest insanity about the latest insanity HERE.
Posted by: Josef on November 21, 2004 08:53 AMAll this "monkey business" is just fine if it is practiced by the Republicans. Maybe you guys have a clever name for it when it's done by your side.
Of course, fraud is only practiced by the Democrats.
Posted by: John on November 24, 2004 02:20 PM