Joe O'Donnell, who broke the story of the hundreds of unverified provisional ballots that were fed into election machines, sends us this email on the King County's military absentee ballots that supposedly went out on Oct. 7:
From Bulk Permit #1455 (the permit that is used for mailing absentee ballots)Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2005 01:42 PM | Email This
What I have found is that there was activity only on that account on October 2nd (1,605 pieces) and October 13th. (28,000 pieces) There was no activity in between those to dates.
I asked if the submission and billing occurs on the same day. And the computer showed that yes the bulk mailing was received by USPS on the 13th and billed on the 13th.
When I asked for a hard copy she clammed up saying, because it was of a political nature she would have to forward me on to her supervisor. She must have looked the name of organization on the account.
The supervisor was out at another post office branch, so I left a voice mail with him to set up a meeting this afternoon. At that time I will give him my expedited review FOIA and try to obtain hard copies of the information today.
Before I left I repeated myself "no activity from the between the 2nd and 13th?"
She said "No activity"
I will confirm with the supervisor that there are no other bulk permits used for absentee ballots.
...This looks like another "mistake"
There ya go!
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 01:49 PMThere could be several permits, for greater obfuscation--which seems to be what KC does well.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 01:51 PMConsidering how King County is already trying to set up the Post Office as the *cause* for the military ballot mailing delays....I see no reason for the Post Office to aid KC in a cover up....
This should get interesting!
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 01:54 PMThe forms you're looking for from the post office are most likely:
3600-R (First-Class Mail — Permit Imprint) OR
3602-N (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Permit Imprint) OR MAYBE
3602-NP (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Postage Affixed)
These are the numbers for the DATED Domestic Mail Statements that are submitted when you bring mail to the post office.
NOTE: It is possible that the county (or other governmental agencies) use different form numbers, but I don't think so. Also, it MAY be that forms for bulk mail destined for overseas military are different. Regardless, there MUST be some sort of postage statements for every mailing brought to the post office.
Hope this at least gives some leads to follow.
Posted by: Mark on January 10, 2005 02:01 PMDon't we long to hear someone say those 3 little words to Sims, Logan, Huenneken, et al: "You're under arrest..."
Posted by: Michele on January 10, 2005 02:12 PM------
Summary
King County went the extra mile to meet the requirements of federal and state law in serving our military personnel and overseas voters – and in providing access to a ballot.
------
First they never talk about what was required vs. what they did, so we have no way to judge for ourselves whether or not they actually went "the extra mile" as they claim.
Second, does anyone have a link to what the Federal and State law say about this? I thought they were supposed to have the ballots in the mail not later than 45 days prior to the election. Even if we accept that they mailed these on Oct. 7th, that's still only 25 days prior.
Posted by: Jason on January 10, 2005 02:19 PMThe worst part is that King County has been dishonest and in denial ever since the recounts started and has hurt the cause of an honest outcome. They have enabled Gregoire's win ..... so far.
Posted by: dennisw on January 10, 2005 02:49 PMCLARIFICATION: I checked with the post office. They said that King County would use the same forms as any other direct mailer (either Non-Profit Standard Mail or First Class). Also APO/FPO addresses are treated as domestic mail. So... Again, you're wanting to request these forms and all similar or related documents:
3600-R (First-Class Mail — Permit Imprint) OR
3602-N (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Permit Imprint) OR MAYBE
3602-NP (Nonprofit Standard Mail Letters and Flats — Postage Affixed)
Posted by: Mark on January 10, 2005 03:29 PMDoesn't anyone that works in KC elections have the 'nads to step up and be that person...not just anonymously?
Posted by: Shaun on January 10, 2005 04:07 PMI received the form email response from Clibborn that you excerpted. I also received this one from Fred Jarrett R - 41st district:
Max,
Thank you for your note regarding the re-vote and petition efforts.
I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of
State have been going through to determine who, in fact, won the
election. While it has been a difficult and messy process, it has
followed the law as passed by prior legislatures, and it seems
appropriate for it to follow that process to the end.
I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the
Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden
of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the
legislature.
I am prepared to make that judgment, but only after the evidence has
been laid out by the campaign. That has not been done yet. Until then,
I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being
"quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the
outcome is given.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your views and
concerns. Please stay in touch as we work through the next phase of
this process. The history of this election certainly suggests it will
have more surprises!
Sincerely,
Fred Jarrett
State Representative
41st Legislative District
---------------------------
I don't get it, Fred.
Posted by: max on January 10, 2005 04:15 PMmax - I agree with you - it seems Fred has also been in office too long, and might be another example of a rep caring too much about getting good press for being "indepednent thinking" (i.e., a self-hating, no-guts rep) from the lib media - what the heck is he talkng about, is is voting "yea" or "nay" to issue the certificate of election!
Posted by: Tony on January 10, 2005 04:37 PM"Until then,
I view the legislature's role in making a judgment as being
"quasi-judicial", or simply stated, similar to that of the courts and
one where appearance of a fair process is lost once an opinion on the
outcome is given."
This is what Fred views as fairness. It also means that Fred has not been given a plum committee assignment (yet).
But, perhaps, I am being unfair to the Honorable Representative...
I heard Bill Heunnekins (or however you spell his name) on the Dave Ross show this afternoon who came on in response to Ross's mention of the main post here (that there were no absentee ballot mailings on the 8th).
He said that the ballots were turned over to "the military" - the US postal service was not used, and he still says they were mailed by or on the 8th, "with some small exceptions." (?) If that's true, and I don't think there is any reason to think otherwise, you're looking in the wrong place for a paper trail. Anyone have any idea who to call to ask about military mail and how to track it?
Another thought: if someone really was told to change the data to show a mailing on the 8th instead of the 10th, whoever did so in the elections dept. would likely have known that it would be difficult to discover when the mailing occurred if it was handled by the military.
Posted by: srogers on January 10, 2005 05:24 PMNow, turn your prejudice switch to the other position and read what he said again.
He said, in plain English: that the evidence has not yet been presented and heard by the legislature; that the legislature must make the decision after hearing the evidence; that he is prepared to make that decision only after hearing the evidence; and that he will not form or express an opinion about the appropriate outcome until he has heard the evidence.
Contrast that with the people with a "D" following their names. They have already made up their minds. They claim there is "no proof" even though there has been no hearing and no evidence presented.
Come on, people. Read! Don't let your own prejudices blind you to what is in front of your own eyes.
Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 05:28 PMI even cut the relevant point and made fun of it...I am ashamed.
I defer to your greater prowess at uncovering truth...especially when it is so obvious...
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 05:51 PMThis statement itself is a prejudgement of the evidence that he admit he has not seen.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 10, 2005 05:58 PMHuh? And Dave Ross didn't ask for specifics. ??? As previous posters have noted, anyone who has served abroad (I have) would find this to be a strange answer.
I have never heard of this type of procedure (direct turnover of mail/ballots to "military") and would like anyone familiar with it to make comment. Military mail and parcel processing are solely (I thought) the prerogative of the APO system.
Anyone have more info on this, or is it possibly a mis-statement by Mr. H?
BTW, Dave Ross is now on KIRO from 3:00pm to 6:00pm - he took over the last hour of Dori Monson's time slot. Dori's now on from noon to 3:00.
Posted by: srogers on January 10, 2005 06:29 PMMicajah, Jarrett did say this: "it has
followed the law as passed by prior legislatures"
This statement itself is a prejudgement of the evidence that he admit he has not seen.
Can't find your prejudice switch, Bostonian?
To paraphrase a fine American, it all depends on what the meaning of "it" is.
Look at Jarrett's statement in context:
"I have been closely watching the process the counties and Secretary of State have been going through to determine who, in fact, won the
election. While it has been a difficult and messy process, it has followed the law as passed by prior legislatures, and it seems appropriate for it to follow that process to the end.
"I anticipate the Rossi campaign may ask the legislature to overturn the Secretary of State's certification and declare a second election in
February. If so, the request is an appropriate one, however, the burden of the case for the re-vote rests with the Rossi campaign. And the
responsibility for judging their case will rest with those of us in the legislature."
The use of "it" clearly refers to the process that the counties and the SecState have gone through to count, recount and recount again.
"It" surely was "difficult and messy." But, I don't see that as an inappropriate characterization by Rep. Jarrett of what has occurred so far.
To say that the process of counting and recounting followed the law is to say that each of those steps was a step provided in the law to try to arrive at an accurate result.
Now, as Rep. Jarrett noted, "it seems appropriate for it to follow that process to the end." In other words, the next step after the final recount is to examine how those counts were done, to see if the apparent results of the election should be set aside because of illegal votes and/or other illegalities which make the apparent result an illegitimate result.
People at both extremes in this public debate (argument?) are wrong. The Democrats are wrong in believing that the legislature should ignore the contested election and issue a certificate of election to Gregoire without deciding that contest. The Republicans are wrong in demanding a re-vote before the contested election has been decided.
Maybe there are a lot of people who haven't looked for their prejudice switches in so long that they can no longer find them. Or maybe their switches are rusted and immovable at the current position.
Our right to govern ourselves according to the law was purchased with the blood of those who have gone before. Is it too much to ask that those of us who enjoy that right stop and think long enough to understand that a contested election must be decided according to law, rather than partisan loyalty?
Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 06:39 PMI'm surprised that you all cannot understand what Rep. Fred Jarrett said. Let's make it a little easier for you. Go back and look at the letter following his name: "R" -- yes, he is a Republican
So, if he were a "D" then the attacks would be justified? ;-)
Micajah, you may have a slight appreciation of what I occasionally see on this board. A Democrat, saying the exact same words would be "spinning the party line."
I understand why many people honestly believe that the legislature should handle this, rather than the court. Unfortunately, while I believe that most Republicans would simply intend for the investigation and vote to deal with the issues at hand, some would work very hard to make political hay from it, even (perhaps especially) against those that had nothing to do with this mess.
Instead, we'll get a relatively meaningless party-line vote which, except for the party faithful (both sides) will be promptly forgotten. (The folks that will be yelling from the rooftops that they will "never forget" are the same folks that would never vote for a Democrat, even if the Republicans ran a rabid wolverine for their candidate.)
This should be followed by a court-ordered, scrupulously honest re-vote, with both Democrats and Republicans insisting and ensuring that every legal vote gets counted the first time through, (and the King County people being quietly told that if they screw up again, we Democrats will be passing out the rifles for the firing squad.)
You may begin to see how this has to play out from the Democrat side for us to come out of it without fracturing our party. While many on this board would find that a desireable outcome, you'll have to excuse us for declining to commit political suicide.
I'm expecting a lot of bi-partisan effort and some real results in fixing these problems. I'm also hoping that King County does a complete overhaul of its election procedures. Obviously just changing the head wasn't enough. A whole new process is needed there, and perhaps in other counties as well.
How will they be *scrupulously honest* re-voted?
I'm glad others are calling for a complete overhaul of the whole system...it's my main gripe with all the elections of the recent past...
How will we ever get past this acrimony so evident in this nation unless we do overhaul the whole mess and make ALL of it transparent, verifiable and accessible?
Posted by: G Davis on January 10, 2005 08:00 PMThe PAO for the Navy/AF/Army should be able to explain how they handle mail.
John Barelli -
On occasion I find my fingers doing something they shouldn't, usually in the region of my nose. Sometimes, it takes an astute (or maybe suicidal) person to recognize that I am doing something disgusting, and tell me to stop it.
I hope you recognize the number of double -entendres in this...
And have a good night! You are good people...
Posted by: smegma on January 10, 2005 08:35 PMWhoa! That was fast!
When you are cornered...lie - quickly ..(and publicly!)
The Post Office is Federal territory...even the Big Bad King County can't get them to alter their records.....
This is turning into an *F* word....(Federal....)
Talking to my personal postal worker..(everyone should have one!) I'm told that if King County mailed thousands of military absentee ballots out - they would be processed through the Bulk mailing department - and King County would be given a receipt! That means the Post Office would have a record of that transaction....Complete with the date and time of the mailing....
Posted by: Deborah on January 10, 2005 08:39 PMI think, from the "smiley face," that you know I didn't mean what you posted above: "So, if he were a "D" then the attacks would be justified? ;-)"
But, just in case, let me point out that the next line after the one you quoted conveys my meaning:
I'm surprised that you all cannot understand what Rep. Fred Jarrett said. Let's make it a little easier for you. Go back and look at the letter following his name: "R" -- yes, he is a Republican.
Now, turn your prejudice switch to the other position and read what he said again.
Only prejudice could cause literate people to read Jarrett's letter and totally misconstrue what he said.
Sometimes we humans see only what we expect to see, rather than what is actually in front of our eyes.
Right now, I'm getting ready to watch the TVW re-run of today's Senate proceedings. We'll see if I can believe my own eyes and ears as I try to understand what they did.
Posted by: Micajah on January 10, 2005 09:16 PMA recruiter? Drive them down to the base? Send a courier to Washington DC?
There are a limited number of options that can be either confirmed or ruled out.
Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 08:00 AMPAO stands for "Public Affairs Officer" They are officers that have been appointed by CO's of every command to deal with the press and community reguarding any questions posed by the general public.
AS far as the mailing of letter/boxes...et all. The previous poster is correct when he stated that ALL, even gov't mail, that is sent to soldiers/sailors go thru the US Postal Service until it reaches the APO/FPO, New York for east coast; San Francisco for waet coast. It is there that it is turned over to the military mail system to be delivered to overseas stations and underway ships.
I remember telling my wife to put a # on the bottom corner of letters so that I would know what sequence to open them. We used to get batches of letters at once so it was possible and very likely that you would receive multiple letters that were mailed days, even weeks apart.
Frank (22 Year Navy Vet)
Posted by: Frank on January 11, 2005 09:32 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002147549_recount11m.html
------
Yesterday was the second time in two days that King County elections officials corrected a factual error. They changed the county's election Web site Sunday to correct the date when absentee ballots were sent to 3,055 military and overseas voters. The county initially reported the ballots were mailed Oct. 10, two days after a deadline negotiated with the federal government.
The online fact sheet now says ballots were mailed Oct. 7.
Logan said Sunday that he discovered the date on the fact sheet originally posted by King County was in error. He said numbers on the report, which he produced himself, were inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site.
------
So, I've done a fair amount of web publishing myself, and I can't remember a single occasion where a 7 turned into a 10 simply because I posted my text as HTML.
I like how they use the term "code" to add mystery and complexity for the everyday person who doesn't know that HTML is just plain text.
I also like the fact that Dean Logan is now personally implicated in the fabrication of dates for when these military ballots were mailed out :-)
Posted by: Jason on January 11, 2005 09:34 AMLogan said Sunday that he discovered the date on the fact sheet originally posted by King County was in error. He said numbers on the report, which he produced himself, were inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site.
Anyone who has created a web page knows this is a lie. You don't have to convert words and written numbers to any "code" to put them on a web page. You write the sentence just the way it would appear.
Posted by: Scott on January 11, 2005 01:40 PMMilitary absentees are not sent using King's bulk mail account; they are sent federally.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 01:02 PMI've already heard conflicting accounts from King County. They were mailed on the 10th. Oh, wait, that's a typo (an unlikely one), they were really mailed on the 7th! Well, actually, we handed them off to a contractor.
This shouldn't take a rocket scientist. Who passed the ballot mailings to whom, and when, and exactly when did they enter the chain of federal custody. What does the federal paper trail say? The ballots were "mailed" the moment they entered federal custody. When was that? So far we have nothing but allegations and evasions. Give us confirmable evidence!
Posted by: Tully on January 13, 2005 07:42 AMMilitary ballots sent out on time, county logs show
Posted by: Tully on January 13, 2005 09:03 AMHere’s a reference: http://www.oconus.com/Main/oArticle.asp?50
Note that mail must have a “complete APO or FPO return address” in order to qualify for free postage. Washington State does not qualify for an APO or FPO address, unless they are no longer part of the continental United States.
Posted by: David on January 14, 2005 08:50 AM