Private Radio blogger JohnnyMC has found more deceased voters in both King and Snohomish counties. He has documentary evidence.
The BIAW and its volunteers keep finding more evidence of felons who voted. 52 in Pierce County, now a bunch in Snohomish County.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 09, 2005 09:55 AM | Email ThisTell us something that hasn't happened since elections began this country.....
If you are successful with your revote lawsuit, the judges should throw out all elections for all currently elected people. That includes our current President, all our senators, representatives, city council members, school board directors, state senators, state representatives, insurance commisioners, judges -- even all the republicans!
Be careful what you wish for! You might just get it!
Posted by: jim on January 9, 2005 10:06 AM"Everybody does it" isn't a very convincing legal defense.
Posted by: Timothy on January 9, 2005 10:11 AMThe revote is because Rossi lost. Not because margins exceed other margins.
Remember...Rossi told Gregoire to concede when he head a 42 vote margins...with known issues aobut votes GREATLY exceeding 42!
It's ok..people who want Rossi should change their arguments as often as necessary to get the result they want. They are doing what they claimed Gregoire was doing: "Keep counting until you win."
Since, legally, the counts are over..Rossi has to figure out great new ways to keep counting. So...go against the constitution...go against 200+ years of American democracy and history....let's call a re-do!
We didn't re-do Florida 2000, did we? By logic, the number of votes and margins was the same issue. But that was just fine withe republicans..because Bush had more votes when the counting stopped.
I guess all your Rossi keep counting people were fighting in Florida for them to keep counting (and revote)...
Oh, of course not. That would require consistency. And logic. But this election is about getting Rossi elected (and Bush in 2000). So it's ok to be 180 degrees on the other side of where the republicans were then....
Posted by: jim on January 9, 2005 10:23 AMAn email received yesterday follows:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:18:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, _________ wrote:
“Have followed all part of this sag. Wondering if you perhaps defeated the cancellation of the ballots by holding them.
They could not take voters off voter rolls from a phone call. That would lead to bad situations from hateful neighbors, divorces, etc.
By writing deceased on the outer envelope and return to sender- I suspect they would have purged the names.
My experience: two person I shared a house with over a long time. They left for Calif. When their absentees came for the primary, I took my own advice, returning the ballots with a note they had moved to California. No ballots for the general, checked the data bank, no longer
registered. Sometimes there is a simple explanation, despite our own self view of things.”
My response was as follows:
"State Auditor sends DEATH NOTICES to the Elections at each county. They should routinely remove those who are DEAD. Has nothing to do with what I did, or didn't. It has to be obvious to you and anyone who would follow the process, that there should not be any DEAD PEOPLE on the list since the elections office is also RECORDS, which includes births, deaths, etc. Besides, what you rationalize does not explain DOGS being registered, illegal aliens, etc. Lets face it: the process is HOSED. Thanks for writing."
This elicited the following in response from the writer:
"Well, it just seems you were holding ballots that should have been returned. Might have worked better. Worded fine for my housemates who moved. But then, unless you intended to vote them, what difference does it make? Hard drive space is cheap. Your snot box reply is not appreciated. Whine on....."
My response was as follows:
"Your email back to me, closing with "Your snot box reply is not appreciated. Whine on....." had me take another look at your first email, and my response, to figure out why you took what I said as I did, other then perhaps that I do not agree with the red herrings you sent which I don't buy.
You may not like to hear it, but I have no need to make you feel happy, unhappy, or whine. For all I know, you could well be one of those who believes every vote should count, even those from dead people.
From all I know about the problem you wrote me, you are 'dead wrong' pun intended.
While it is true that a voter may not be removed from the registration list simply by someone else making a telephone call (or for that matter the person themselves making the call), it follows that the persons to whom I spoke when I tried to remove my parents from the voting rolls, should have informed me of the procedure to have those names deleted.
Because that was not done the burden of fault shifted from me to the persons I spoke to, if those persons were empowered and otherwise authorized to so inform me about how to remove dead parents form the voting rolls, but did not do so.
The suggestion by you that all it took was to write that the voter had moved, or was deceased or whatever and then mail that to the precinct or wherever you mailed it is, on its face, also totally preposterous.
#1. Where were the authorized signatures of the voters who had moved; were they not needed to removed themselves from the voter rolls?
#2. Why was not the regulation enforced that if one skips voting in a presidential election, or a voter does not vote in (three or four or more) successive elections, that one's name will be purged from the list of registered voters? This requirement to drop under these sets of circumstances has not been repealed by law.
Your initial comments raised a delicious set of red herrings predicated not so much on a feeling of smug superiority but on your own ignorance and inability to think through a problem by first inadequately modeling the characteristics of the problem and the possible solutions.
Don't bother writing a nasty gram, as it would only prove my point. I mean no insult. I am merely reflecting on what you said, which really makes little if any sense, though it may have worked for you. By your own example, had you been a disgruntled partner, and done as you did -- the elections department would have disenfranchised a legitimate voter from getting their ballot.
Perhaps you will give the matter some more thought, a chore you certainly did not the first go-around.
Thanks again for writing, and I am not being snotty. By writing me, you forced me to THINK the process through, and analyze what you were actually trying to convey. Having given your superficial analysis careful consideration, I am more convinced then ever that it was not I, the victim, who caused the problem. Rather, it was the elections department that has caused the sham they have on the following, not just my personal situation:
1) King County alone counted 3,539 more votes than the number of people who actually voted.
2) King County "discovered" additional ballots 9 different times.
3) King County disenfranchised some soldiers in Iraq who never received their ballot.
4) Poll workers fed many provisional ballots directly into counting machines, commingling them with legal ballots and circumventing the process of keeping them out of the count if they proved to be illegal.
5) Elections workers "enhanced" more than 55,000 ballots, but contrary to state law, they permanently obscured the original marks on many, preventing a review of their decisions.
6) There are 557 names in the Jan. 7 file for people who supposedly voted on Nov. 2, but who weren't listed in the Nov. 1 file. Only 94 of the 557 are in the Dec. 29 file. There are a number of pre-2004 registration dates among the 557, but many of these aren't in the June file. 280 of the 557 are shown to have registered on dates between Jun 7, 2004 and Oct. 2, 2004, yet did not appear in any of the earlier versions of the King County voter databases.
7) Seattle's Precinct 1823 counted 343 ballots, which is 71 more ballots than the 272 voters who cast them. This is the single largest discrepancy between ballots and voters in all of King County. Nearly all of the discrepancy is due to "provisional ballots".
Gore didn't file an election contest in 2000. He had no evidence which he was willing to have tested in court or judged by the legislature.
I understand that you think cheating, lawbreaking by officials, and general incompetence in heavily-Democratic areas is nothing to worry about, but I notice that you and your fellow Democrats who post here make no effort to defend the process or refute the charges.
That tells me everthing I need to know about your supposed commitment to democracy.
Posted by: ScottM on January 9, 2005 10:34 AMThis takes some explaining. I would like to know
why in a list of 300,000+ living voters a random
misplaced signature happened to fall on a dead
person's name! If it was random, it is quite
a coincidence. If it was not random, it was
fraud: search the obituraries, and attempt to
vote the dead at the polls knowing that that
voter won't expose your fraud by, later, voting
in person! Voting for the living has the drawback
that you are apt to be discovered if someone you
vote for happens to attempt to vote later in
evening.
This should be investigated!
Posted by: Bob on January 9, 2005 10:45 AMWell, if you consider that LBJ, Truman, and Kennedy stole elections, maybe they're right. Maybe Al Gore just wasn't a good enough Democrat.
Posted by: Larry on January 9, 2005 10:50 AMIt amazes me that people like you do not want to correct the flaws in our election system. Washington State's election system is a mess, it allows for far to many ways to cheat(non verification of registration addresses or citizenship, permanent absentee ballots with no updating of eligibilty, unlimited provisonal ballots, non standard signature verification procedures throughout the state, etc,etc). Even when the statewide database comes online in 2006 it will still not address these problems.
I think the topper of all is the attitude by election officials and the Sec. of State that we do not have to reconcile the number of ballots counted to the number of voters to be able to certify an election. This is absurd! To say that this has been the past practice (even though its in violation of both State and Federal Law) is to deny that we are a democracy. I pity all of these people like Jim whose partisonship is so warped that they sacrifice democratic principals yet still want to live in a democracy.
Reform the election system now! Get active!
Posted by: Richard on January 9, 2005 10:53 AMTell us something that hasn't happened since elections began this country.....
"Necro-Americans"...voting RAT since 1890.
Posted by: South County on January 9, 2005 10:57 AMThere are indications that a significant volume of illegitimate votes have been cast in this election. Double voting, ineligible voters, deceased voters, non-registered voters, doubly registered voters, and voters that misrepresent their addresses.
Is it possible that this is new phenomena, or would it potentially have tipped the Cantwell/Gorton matchup from a few years ago? And if so, is there any indication that any lessons learned/intended reforms were put into place to prevent this in this election? Were any of them effective? If not, what reasonable assurance do we have that the problems identified will result in changes that prevent such shennanigans from occuring in the future?
Though it took me a while to come on board with the push to dig deep, I find myself angry at the people, process, and the attitudes of those who attempt to justify this on the grounds that 'it always happens,' 'the recounts are done,' and 'the other side would do the same thing.'
Obviously, we learned nothing from Gorton/Cantwell. No one pushed, looked, or dug down deep enough to understand. I am glad that there's a cadre of folks out there who have the access, time, and motivation to do what our public officials, media, and overseers have abdicated. With the Internet, this all becomes transparent, and the light of truth can be and is being shown on those who were comfortable in the anonymity. Let's go through the process, shine the light, and ensure things like this never happen again.
While we aren't done with this one, wouldn't it be good to start documenting solutions to push in reforms for the future?
Would touch screen voting help?
Would electronic databases, available on the web help?
Would an audit based process checkpoint that ensured the deceased, felon, and moved voters are purged help?
Would a rewrite of the laws governing canvassing, recounts, and contesting help?
Just trying to keep to the big picture
Posted by: Steve on January 9, 2005 11:37 AMI’d say that the “etc.” part of the definition was stretched a mite to include the
dearly departed.
low-level corruption, incompetence, and possible fraud are the operating guidelines of the democratic party. history proves this. so get a grip on the reality there are these inherent characteristics with the democratic party and the potential of bringing these negative characteristics into the public eyes may have a positive effect in restroring the public faith in the election process. the democratic party and its operative have tainted the process and due recource is warranted. a revote is essential for the public perception of a renewed faith in the
election process.
Convicted Felons in Washington automatically have their voting rights (and all civil rights except gun ownership) restored upon successful completion of either parole or probation (as far as I know).
So my question is this: How does one determine whether or not these "voting felons" have had their civil rights restored - or not.
Thanks. :)
Posted by: Bellingham Von on January 9, 2005 07:11 PMFrom what I found, a convicted felon's civil rights are restored once all requirements of the sentence are met, including payment of any financial obligations.
Ironically, the county auditor's office appears to be one place to look to see if a convicted felon has received a certificate of discharge which restores civil rights, including the right to vote. (The county auditor also administers the elections.)
I saw on the TV news not long ago a segment that showed people searching through the auditor's records in one county. I think they were from the BIAW, acting in support of the GOP election contest. The report indicated that one problem is that the certificate is filed where the conviction occurred, not where the convicted felon might now be living and registered (perhaps improperly) to vote. So, the process of matching names to convictions and then finding out whether the felon has had his civil rights restored isn't easy.
I guess the law isn't followed very often, or was enacted too recently to cover many cases, or the people doing those searches don't know about it, or the TV segment just didn't mention it, but the statute I found says a copy of that certificate of discharge is also sent to the state Department of Corrections. It seems that would be a centralized database which might help avoid the trouble of going to each county auditor's office in search of those certificates of discharge.
Here are excerpts of two statutes I found that deal with restoration of civil rights after all terms of a sentence have been met (including payment of any financial obligations):
RCW 9.94A.637
Discharge upon completion of sentence -- Certificate of discharge -- Obligations, counseling after discharge.
(2) The court shall send a copy of every signed certificate of discharge to the auditor for the county in which the court resides and to the department. The department shall create and maintain a data base containing the names of all felons who have been issued certificates of discharge, the date of discharge, and the date of conviction and offense.
RCW 9.94A.030
Definitions.
(16) "Department" means the department of corrections.
You could start there and see what you find. The online "address" (URL) for the RCW section I excerpted is:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=9.94A
I also found this:
RCW 9.96.050
Final discharge of parolee -- Restoration of civil rights -- Governor's pardoning power not affected.
When a prisoner on parole has performed all obligations of his or her release, including any and all legal financial obligations, for such time as shall satisfy the indeterminate sentence review board that his or her final release is not incompatible with the best interests of society and the welfare of the paroled individual, the board may make a final order of discharge and issue a certificate of discharge to the prisoner. The certificate of discharge shall be issued to the offender in person or by mail to the prisoner's last known address.
The board shall send a copy of every signed certificate of discharge to the auditor for the county in which the offender was sentenced and to the department of corrections. The department shall create and maintain a data base containing the names of all felons who have been issued certificates of discharge, the date of discharge, and the date of conviction and offense.
The board retains the jurisdiction to issue a certificate of discharge after the expiration of the prisoner's or parolee's maximum statutory sentence. If not earlier granted, the board shall make a final order of discharge three years from the date of parole unless the parolee is on suspended or revoked status at the expiration of the three years. Such discharge, regardless of when issued, shall have the effect of restoring all civil rights lost by operation of law upon conviction, and the certification of discharge shall so state. This restoration of civil rights shall not restore the right to receive, possess, own, or transport firearms.
The discharge provided for in this section shall be considered as a part of the sentence of the convicted person and shall not in any manner be construed as affecting the powers of the governor to pardon any such person.
Posted by: Bellingham Von on January 9, 2005 09:46 PMFirst of all, what “intent” is he referring to? Where is this “intent” expressed?
Next, he states “According to state law, elections are divided in to three distinct and separate sections: (1) canvassing (or determining how ballots will be tabulated) [29A.60]; (2) recounts to verify the accuracy of the count [29A.64]; and (3) contesting an election [29A.68].” Since election law is divided into 24 separate sections, it’s debatable that those three sections are distinct and separate; especially when you look at Section 29A.60.210 which is titled “Recanvass -- Generally.” Why does it say “generally?” The dictionary defines “generally” as “in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture.” Also, the wording of the section starts with “Whenever …” It’s hard to justify the theory that the section doesn’t apply during a recount simply because it’s in a different section of the code.
The author says “The state law for recounts is clear, but the court ignored the plain language of the statute.” I’m not so sure the the law is “clear.” It seems to be open to interpretation which is what courts do -- they interpret the law. And, the Supreme Court is the “supreme” interpreter of state law.
The Recanvass law says, in part, “The canvassing board shall conduct any necessary re-canvass activity on or before the last day to certify the primary or election and correct any error and document the correction of any error that it finds.” The author states, “Once the election is certified (this year, November 30), there is no more canvassing or re-canvassing.” But Section 29A.64.061 of the Recounts Section says, in part, “Upon completion of the canvass of a recount, the canvassing board shall prepare and certify an amended abstract …” It certainly would not be unreasonable to interpret “the last day to certify” as applying to the re-certification date.
Now, about changing the rules: On December 4, before the start of the manual recount, SoS Sam Reed issued Guidelines for Manual Recount in Governor Race which stated, in part, “Counties are reminded that RCW 29A.60.210 provides that whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of an election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county, and that the canvassing board shall conduct any necessary recanvass activity on or before the last day to certify the election and correct any error and document the correction of any error that it finds.” His interpretation of the statute was confirmed on December 14 by the Washington Supreme Court in its ruling against the Democratic Party when it said “Thus under Washington’s statutory scheme, ballots are to be “retabulated” only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210.”
The first 573 of the 723 so-called “mystery ballots” were found on December 13 almost simultaneously with the Supreme Court ruling. Later, both the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court once again confirmed their interpretation of the law when the Supreme Court ruled against the Republican Party in its attempt to prevent the 723 “mystery ballots” from being counted.
In summary, the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court interpreted the law in a reasonable way, though perhaps not the only way it could be interpreted, and this interpretation was known at the start of the recount process and reconfirmed repeatedly and consistently during the recount process.
I’d also like to point out that although the “rules changing” was a big issue at one time, it doesn’t seem so important anymore in view of recent revelations. I just thought it might still be an interesting issue to discuss.
Posted by: test on January 12, 2005 07:45 AMFirst of all, what “intent” is he referring to? Where is this “intent” expressed?
Next, he states “According to state law (http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=title&title=29A), elections are divided in to three distinct and separate sections: (1) canvassing (or determining how ballots will be tabulated) [29A.60]; (2) recounts to verify the accuracy of the count [29A.64]; and (3) contesting an election [29A.68].” Since election law is divided into 24 separate sections, it’s debatable that those three sections are distinct and separate; especially when you look at Section 29A.60.210 (http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.60.210&fuseaction=section) which is titled “Recanvass -- Generally.” Why does it say “generally?” The dictionary defines “generally” as “in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture.” Also, the wording of the section starts with “Whenever …” It’s hard to justify the theory that the section doesn’t apply during a recount simply because it’s in a different section of the code.
The author says “The state law for recounts is clear, but the court ignored the plain language of the statute.” I’m not so sure the the law is “clear.” It seems to be open to interpretation which is what courts do -- they interpret the law. And, the Supreme Court is the “supreme” interpreter of state law.
The Recanvass law says, in part, “The canvassing board shall conduct any necessary re-canvass activity on or before the last day to certify the primary or election and correct any error and document the correction of any error that it finds.” The author states, “Once the election is certified (this year, November 30), there is no more canvassing or re-canvassing.” But Section 29A.64.061 of the Recounts Section says, in part, “Upon completion of the canvass of a recount, the canvassing board shall prepare and certify an amended abstract …” It certainly would not be unreasonable to interpret “the last day to certify” as applying to the re-certification date.
Now, about changing the rules: On December 4, before the start of the manual recount, SoS Sam Reed issued Guidelines for Manual Recount in Governor Race (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/pdf/Governor%20Manual%20Recount%20Guidelines2.pdf) which stated, in part, “Counties are reminded that RCW 29A.60.210 provides that whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of an election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county, and that the canvassing board shall conduct any necessary recanvass activity on or before the last day to certify the election and correct any error and document the correction of any error that it finds.” His interpretation of the statute was confirmed on December 14 by the Washington Supreme Court in its ruling against the Democratic Party when it said “Thus under Washington’s statutory scheme, ballots are to be “retabulated” only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210.”
The first 573 of the 723 so-called “mystery ballots” were found on December 13 almost simultaneously with the Supreme Court ruling. Later, both the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court once again confirmed their interpretation of the law when the Supreme Court ruled against the Republican Party in its attempt to prevent the 723 “mystery ballots” from being counted.
In summary, the Secretary of State and the Supreme Court interpreted the law in a reasonable way, though perhaps not the only way it could be interpreted, and this interpretation was known at the start of the recount process and reconfirmed repeatedly and consistently during the recount process.
I’d also like to point out that although the “rules changing” was a big issue at one time, it doesn’t seem so important anymore in view of recent revelations. I just thought it might still be an interesting issue to discuss.
Posted by: test on January 12, 2005 08:59 AM