January 06, 2005
Snohomish County can't say who voted on Nov. 2

As I mentioned on Dec. 30, I found massive discrepancies between Snohomish County's voter list and its precinct canvass (which reports the number of ballots counted per precinct). I just received this explanation from the County Auditor's office:

I misread your original request. The data that you received was current data as of December 28, 2004. Snohomish County’s voter registration system is a live system, updated daily. We are unable to create reports prior to the current date on this system. The daily changes or updates include address changes, new voter registrations, requests for permanent absentee ballots, etc. Snohomish County does not now have (nor did it have on December 28, 2004) any identifiable records responsive to your request for data as it existed on November 2, 2004.

Contained within in the data is a column titled ‘ltd’ which stands for last transaction date. If a voter’s record has been updated for any reason – the date of the administrative edit will appear in the column.

Since the information provided is from our voter registration records as they existed on December 28, 2004, the numbers should not be expected to reflect the data as it may have existed on November 2, 2004.

Astonishng, no way to reconcile whether (at least from current data) how well the number of ballots matches the number of voters. That would make it harder to detect outcome-changing errors or fraud, wouldn't it. To be fair, SnohoCo might have attempted to reconcile ballots with voters at the time of certification (although I'm skeptical). I've asked for copies of any such reconciliation reports. I'll let you know what I find out.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 06, 2005 11:52 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Ask for their backup of their database from election day. If they do not have a backup, then they are either crooks or very stupid or both.

Posted by: Peter Rice on January 6, 2005 11:57 AM
2. So...how could they do an accurate abstract of the vote if they don't have accurate data? They can't. They probably never thought it was that important...and it wasn't, until now.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 6, 2005 11:58 AM
3. I vote both.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 6, 2005 11:59 AM
4. More CNN coverage:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/washington.governor.ap/index.html

Looks like were still making national spotlight! Keep it up!!!

Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 6, 2005 12:04 PM
5. Are you kidding me.....They have no data back-up. How are they passing an audit?

Posted by: Mary on January 6, 2005 12:16 PM
6. If there is no back-up available,you may be able to simulate the file as of Nov 2 or any other date with a statement if ltr =

Thanks for all the work.

Posted by: Terry J on January 6, 2005 12:16 PM
7. Rice is Right.

Surely, the highly-responsible, proactive and efficacious IT security wizards in SnoCo back-up their data and have a readily-available copy by which the SnoCo Auditor's Office should be more than happy to access for the sake of validating their "credibility."

God forbid the system crashed on the 3rd of November and fire ravaged the box-o-Republican voter registration cards.

Posted by: Armand on January 6, 2005 12:17 PM
8. It's because Bob Terwilliger is incredibly incompetent, yet keeps getting voted in every time up here. No accountability. It's just the typical thing where people blindly vote for whoever has a 'D' by their name, no matter how incompetent they are or how badly they've mismanaged their office - witness exhibit A: Christine Fraudoire.

Posted by: Scott on January 6, 2005 12:29 PM
9. Did they provide you with an electronic version? If so, is it possible to search out all instances of last transaction date that is ealier than the deadline of registration for the Nov 2 election?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2005 12:44 PM
10. If 87 percent of 31.545 provisional ballots handed out have been reconciled (see CNN story linked above) then over 4,000 provisional ballots are unaccounted for.

Perhaps this 4,100 and the 3,500 ballots more than voters are related?

Posted by: DeadWood on January 6, 2005 01:01 PM
11. Curious. If they have a live system that updates every day, how were they able to manage the two recounts? I'll bet they have a backup and are playing hide-and-seek.

Posted by: Steve on January 6, 2005 01:02 PM
12. IMHO: They ain't smart enough to play hide-and-seek.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 6, 2005 01:09 PM
13. What about a hard copy? It would be hard to imagine that a hard copy print out did not exist somewhere.

Posted by: PAB on January 6, 2005 01:17 PM
14. More news coverage

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/columnists/story/4405599p-4181486c.html

Posted by: CR ACTVIST on January 6, 2005 01:19 PM
15. Makes you wonder what happens if the system crashes? Does everyone have to re-register. This excuse sounds completely bogus for any professionally run database system.

Posted by: Terry on January 6, 2005 01:20 PM
16. Unless they are using a home-grown database, most off-the-shelf databases timestamp new record entries. They should be able to run a list of every record timestamped prior to election day.

Posted by: Kevin on January 6, 2005 01:24 PM
17. How conveeeeenient...

Posted by: South County on January 6, 2005 02:06 PM
18. As several have noted, this response probably reflects the IT ignorance of your contact person. Backups have to exist, because from time to time they MUST be used.

So it's almost certainly there, but you will have to talk to someone knowledgable about how to get the info you are seeking. Dealing with county gov't is like punching a pillow, though.

Keep going up the ladder until they refer you to someone competent. Good luck.

Posted by: SnoCoTom on January 6, 2005 02:54 PM
19. That figures.
According to the e-mail trying to drum up support for Dean Logan, Corky Mattingly (Yakima Co Auditor, loyal Dem and President of Wa State Assoc of County Auditors) wrote:
"I have been requested to send a letter in support of Dean to the Seattle PI and Seattle Times. Thanks to Bob Terwilliger we have composed this letter. I would like buy-off from you so that I can send this letter as President of WSACA----Corky Mattingly
It was sent 12/20/04 @ 2:18PM.
I guess "sideshow Bob" was so busy worrying about helping his fellow Dem. Dean Logan that he didn't notice his own ship was sinking.

How "Sideshow Bob" can write "The public can have faith in the fact that the King County recount process in the Governor's race is in good hands and is being carried out according to the laws & procedures of the State of Washington" is a universal mystery. Did Bob actually personally review the entire King Co. procedure? How would he know? The Washington Election system will not be fixed until some Couny Auditors stand up on what has happened here.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 6, 2005 03:24 PM
20. Stefan--
Keep asking for more "benchmark" data like from each of the prior counts.
I'm sure KingCo actually did a bunch of clean-up work prior to giving you what you have since BIAW asked for similiar data on 12/3/04. With all the time and energy they have, 3500+ is as close as they could come?
I would love to see the status of the database and reconciliation after the 1st 2 counts. I'll bet it was atrocious!
If you get the prior benchmark data, you can tell if any covering up has already occurred (not say that it has...but you can tell changes to the database from Pt. A to what you have now. Then after they claim to have reconciled. compare that with what you have is well. Obviously you want to ferret out all the changes.
Perhaps they have a system that keeps track of changes in records by date??? So if they touch a record after say 12/28/04, you can get a list of those records changed so you don't necessarily have to go thry the whole darn database.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 6, 2005 03:32 PM
21. I don't understand Terwilliger and his 'live' system - for all the reasons above, but for one central reason. There is a cutoff registration date, in advance of any election. That creates a "magic number." At that point, they know exactly what the potential voter count is, and who those voters are. Period.

It is incomprehensible to imagine votes equalling voters, in any county or precinct. It would mean 100% turnout - every voter voted. It can NEVER happen, because there can only be attrition - deaths, move-out of states, etc - between the registration cutoff date and the election. New voters adding to the pool is obviated by the cutoff. Votes exceeding voters is an impossibility - in an honest system, that is. Obviously, in this case, the fix was in.

Posted by: Bob B on January 7, 2005 02:02 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?