(image © Brian Crouch 2005)
UPDATE: Timothy Goddard has done the work of ten lawyers.
Check it out for in-depth analysis of the laws affecting the
election contest.
Go team!
Posted by Brian Crouch at January 13, 2005 08:44 AM | Email ThisLooks like a role reversal on the federal level:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Protesters will march through Washington, stage a “die in” across from the White House and turn their backs on President Bush (news - web sites)’s limousine during his inaugural celebration next week, organizers said on Wednesday.
In Washington state, the orange crew are playing the part of the black garbed anarchists in Washington DC:
In a separate event, black-clad anarchists will wave puppets and beat drums to protest capitalism and organized government, said Lila Kaye of Anarchist Resistance.
Posted by: Erik on January 12, 2005 09:18 PMYes today was a disgusting display but I think it will be worth the wait, the democrats know that we are seriously not going away.
Thats just gotta make ya feel better.
I emailed my 2 guppy democrat reps, follow the leader now but I am already campaigning for your opponent next time.
I have never worked on a campaign but I will now and so will my 18 year old republican daughter who got a christmas card from the President and Mrs Bush. Posted by: chardonnay on January 12, 2005 09:18 PM
Looks like a role reversal on the federal level:"
No, it doesn't. And no, it's not.
But why look at the facts, Erik?
Posted by: Shaun on January 12, 2005 09:36 PMThat is what it boiled down to the last couple days. We have seen the following:
1. The Dems in Olympia ignored the voters... they will suffer accordingly.
2. "The System" delivered an empty victory to their anointed. Notice that certain parties (Sims) are suddenly laying low. The differences between the "professional pols" and the people is so obvious even the left is noticing!
3. The Legal fight is launched. Sure the Dems are spinning but it isn't getting traction. Better minds than mine are working out legal battle plans. Win or lose there is so much good capital for the Revoters that we can go far with it. 2006, 2008... Even entrenched Dems (Can'twell, Murray, MeDemerit, ect) are worried. NOW is the time to find and prepare excellent candidates besides Dino for these coming contests. Remember part of the reason we had such sucess in 2004 is that we had QUALITY candidates to offer. Voters are watching!
4. The Rossi folks and the Revoters have cracked open the chokehold of the Dem machinery. We must keep going to clean this huge mess up!
5. We've also smoked out the co-opted politicians in the state... Reed for example.
I know that those defending the inexcusible actions especially in KC say the problems are no big deal. Just get personal and reply: What if it was your vote tossed in favor of a questionable ballot?
We can win if we stay focused and don't get flustered. Just keep working and enjoy their pale expressions when they see our ORANGE!
Posted by: Victor on January 12, 2005 09:45 PM"Gregoire, who last month called the state's election system a "model to the rest of the nation and to the world at large," said she plans to create a task force headed by Secretary of State Sam Reed to come up with recommendations on how to improve the system."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002149396_webgov12.html
Posted by: Dan on January 12, 2005 09:48 PMI was just going to post that quote!!
Great minds think alike.
That quote MUST be repeated over & over again the next 2 years. For this to be said by the sitting Attorney General is irresponsible and silly.
She should have waited for all the facts.
Timothy--
Thanks for your hard work.
I believe the Court will NOT isolate each individual allegation....that they will CONSOLIDATE the impact of the combined allegations. So, dead voters will matter...even if it's say 100.
People that voted twice will matter...even if its say 50.
Clearly forged signatures ie: same handwriting on multiple ballots will matter...even if it's 50!
And the other issues you outlined certainly do matter...any single one of them alone could overturn the election.
Or on the 348 illegally processed provisional ballots where signatures weren't validated:
Say the Court applied the margin of victory to these: 18% X 348=63
You can see then the felons, dead, double-voters, forgeries etc. may very well matter.
A lot of UNCHARTED Washington State legal waters here...that's for sure.
Sounds like the infraudual ball was dullsville, but perhaps it was livened up with some homeless folk and masquerading dead people. Either way it actually goes, Rossi wins ! (sooner or later)
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2005 10:10 PMhttp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=16122&item=6505106417&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Posted by: Dan on January 12, 2005 10:18 PMNow I can get some sleep.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 12, 2005 10:38 PMBut, it is sort of a satisfying image as well. I picture GreGore not as the wife, but as the husband, getting slowly nicked away at, until the point that she is clearly dead and the wife (the Democratic Party) eventually having to push her asside for the feeding frenzy to commence.
On the other hand, there is the Surpreme Court of the state, which unlike the rescue fleet in Open Water, will inevitably be there to save the day for GreGore.
The analogy still holds for the party though. GreGore spent all of their political capital in this state and they are floating in open water with sharks at their heals now.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 12, 2005 11:01 PMNice work. Great job with Photoshop. You can tell by all of the canned emails back from the legislature to all of us concerned voters that basically say "there was no proveable fraud" and the way the media are writing this up as a Gregoire slides into home safely" that the Dems are still very worried. They are proceeding with the "We made it to the inauguration, so now we are safe" strategy.
But in truth, it's just getting interesting. I predict that Shark and the Repubs have a few smoking guns that we have not yet seen that will detonate and completely explode the Fraud Star once and for all.
Stay on target.
When the trolls start again with their *liberal* interpretations of our election laws - we can just direct them to the link instead of spending valuable bandwidth here - repeating ourselves! over and over and over........
Thank You!
Posted by: Deborah on January 12, 2005 11:08 PMSome examples of interesting media pics on my blog:
www.plucrs.blogspot.com
Keep it up guys!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 12, 2005 11:15 PMI'm a big online computer game player. One of my favorites right now is called Call of Duty, and is based on famous battles of WWII. So I'm playing tonight, and I notice that one of my teammates is named Dino Rossi. Of course I don't think it's really him, as you can give yourself any name you want in these games. So I yell "Go Dino!" and pretty soon other people start noticing and chimming in as well, with comments like "Keep fighting the good fight Dino", "We are all behind you, 100%" and such. Clearly everyone on this particular server was well aware of what was going on, and everyone was in support of Dino. Not that I doubt that Democrats play games too, but it was like we were having our own little rally in virtual reality :-)
Posted by: Jason on January 12, 2005 11:17 PMGregoire=Ashlee Simpson of Olympia
GOOOOD BURN!!!!!!! In more ways than one.
Gregoire is guilty of lip-synching for the Big Labor Union bosses, lip-synching for the hand-out crowd and lip-synching for every single whacked out Left-wingnut Moonbat group in the entire state that has 129 or more members!!!! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 12, 2005 11:18 PM
Whatever... Posted by: dmjole on January 12, 2005 11:22 PM
GRIDLOCK GARY IS GONE!
Even though we get Comrade Fraudoire for a while (well hopefully not for too long) at least we don't have to deal with Looser Locke anymore!
Of course, Gridlock Gary and Fraudoire are basically the same, neither has any balls and they both have a passion for rubbing the people the wrong way...
How 'bout a rally in Chelan County?
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 12, 2005 11:31 PMChristine Gregoire was able to clean up from her disastrous 'Healing Tour' stop in Wenatchee yesterday in time to attend what one Seattle blogger referred to as the Governor's 'Fraudural' Ball. Though for the first time ever the event was not sold out, six guests did show up, bringing some 'Cheez Whiz' as a gift for Gregoire and 'the first husband'.
She wore a genuine 'diamondoid' necklace and a yellow polyester knit pantsuit purchased from the haute couture department of Walmart. They danced to the song stylings of the Thurston Elementary 3rd grade beginner band, with a special appearance by Gregoire's favorite singer, Ashlee Simpson.
Posted by: Michele on January 12, 2005 11:43 PMThat is funny! I am glad to hear the gamers are with us too.
Posted by: Miriam on January 12, 2005 11:44 PMGo Dino!
I attended the rally and only one person that I have talked to in the last 2 weeks about this supports Fraudoire!
Posted by: Skeptic on January 12, 2005 11:48 PM
It WAS funny, but I don't like the idea of criticizing GreGore for her humble background.
In my case, my disdain for her has nothing to do with the fact that she probably couldn't afford much better than polyester as a child and has sort of a hick background.
Rossi, as far as I have read, comes from a pretty humble background too.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 12, 2005 11:52 PMIsn't that what all the bean sprout eating, boot wearing chicks in Seattle want?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 13, 2005 12:31 AMGoldy's date to the Inaugural Ball was his ex-mother-in-law!!!!! What a pathetic SOB he is.
Can you imagine that? I guess it kind of accounts for his Goldy perspective on life...that is HE HAS NO REAL LIFE!!
I suggested that he ask Julia Childs..but then I remembered she died. But she voted!!! TWICE!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 13, 2005 12:47 AM"bean sprout eating, boot wearing chicks in Seattle"????
Where I come from son, we jest call 'em
Hairy-legged broads! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 13, 2005 12:49 AM
GS - don't you understand that taxes DID NOT go up, you raised your own taxes by allowing your house to appreciate in value. You should have either destroyed part of it, or moved to another house of lessor value.
The raised gas tax is your fault too - you kept consuming gas.
Ditto all the other taxes.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 13, 2005 01:11 AMFortune likely would have choreographed something other than the odious display of self-loathing and diffidence we witnessed from the burgled and buggered during the grand larceny in the House Chamber yesterday. What a contemptible bunch of pathetic little eunuchs! I've seen more manhood on the Castrati in a Puccini fare. The bumbling dunces actually stood in deference while Gregoire acted out the last ignominious scene of her two-faced little charade that shows up the republican party in this state for the maladroit laughing-stock it is. Remember we're the folks who couldn't call Patty Osama Murray home; voice of the salmon, imagemaker to the jihadists.
Why were those sheep even present? And if they were going to stand, turning around would have been good. But then what should we expect when one of the caucus' is presided over by a swish who only recently emigrated from the left so he could stay viable in his eastside district.
I thought I was seeing the social ists and Communists in the Reichstag circa 1933.
BAAAAAAAAHHHH! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!
Posted by: Jim on January 13, 2005 03:39 AMHere's a question -- If Gregoire thinks she's a short-timer, what kind of damage might she and the Legislature out there do? Just something to ponder. Maybe it's something for another post at soundpolitics.
Keep up the good work!
Ron in Virginia
Posted by: Ron on January 13, 2005 04:51 AMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/national/13gov.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all
Posted by: Dan on January 13, 2005 06:56 AM
Governor Gregoire is now the lawfully elected Governor of THE BLUE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Get over it, move on
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 13, 2005 07:20 AMRepublicans should buy those slow moving tickets and boooo when she's announced...make her the Ashlee Simpson of Olympia.
Or everybody who believes that she is an illegal officeholder should repeat the word "illegal" out loud 5 times every time they see her. It's all she'll hear all day every day wherever she goes. Even she will get the message.
Posted by: jay bird on January 13, 2005 07:40 AM"But then what should we expect when one of the caucus' is presided over by a swish who only recently emigrated from the left so he could stay viable in his eastside district."
Whom are you talking about? Is it Senator Finkbeiner?!!?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 13, 2005 07:43 AMOne thing we simply can't do is move on.
Whatever happens, remember who did this to us.
Comrad Logan delivered this election to CG under the watchful eye of the Times and PI, King,Kiro, KOMO. Let these spokesmen for the machine make a living off the trolls they control. Remember who sold you out and stop supporting the instruments of tyranny.
Where Democracy is at stake, we can't move on.
Gre-Gore came in to their break room while they were eating to thank them for their work and he said he didn't even turn around to look at her. LOL
I can't imagine that she wouldn't be effected by the lack of attendence. Wouldn't you think she'd find it a blow to her personally? I know I'd take it personally and be totally depressed.
Anyway, my husband worked there last night and said it was a bust. I'm glad to hear it.
Posted by: megs on January 13, 2005 07:53 AM"At the Tuesday rally, Republicans chanted "Re-vote! Re-vote!," while Democrats, in a much smaller rally, held signs that read, "Don't waste our tax $ on your hurt feelings."
Referring to those signs, isn't that what the Dems did when they ordered the hand recount?
2nd thing - Gregoire commented on both counts that it was a tie...why is it not a tie now??? She was able to recount until it came out in her favor, but Rossi fighting to overturn the election and request a ReVote is bad sportsmanship? We need to all play by the same rules here and I seriously doubt that if the tables were turned Gregoire and her supporters would certainly have their rear-ends in court fighting the same way. This isn't 3rd grade dodgeball here, it's real life and frankly if Rossi had just given up and moved on I think many may have lost what little respect they had for the election process.
On that note, this isn't rocket science - seems to me that the whole state should be voting with the exact same ballots/type of voting rather than leaving it up to the counties to control.
I'm one that had minimal previous interest in politics but this mess really has my blood boiling - I'm tired of the status quo in Washington as I think are the ReVote supporters - this state has been poorly run and will continue to be if Gregoire gets to keep her position. I'm so glad for this blog to get some useful information rather than the piddly amount from the papers....thankfully I subsribe to the News Tribune so it's not quite as biased as the Seattle papers!
ReVote!
Posted by: Melba on January 13, 2005 07:59 AMIt is always interesting to see facts dispel claims.
Good thing we have the courts to sort out the hysterical claims (e.g. "hundreds of dead people voting" -- Vance) from the facts.
Posted by: James on January 13, 2005 08:01 AMAnd yet we hear the Dems and other libs invoking the law in defense of their golden girl and the farce they made of one of the most sacred institutions in a free society.
So here is my question: if for whatever reason the courts uphold Fraudoire's position, can we citizens take other action? For example, can we initiate reform from the ground up via initiative process?
Also: I don't want the proces to focus strictly on the state. I want to go after the King County Council and Ron Sims in particular, who has kept a suspiciously low profile since all of this broke.
How can we, who hold productive jobs and have families and other responsibilities, put an organized and effective citizen's "legal militia" together?
I don't want this forum to be just another way of commiseration with one another. I want this to be a springboard for effective political response to the travesty that our elected officials have perpetrated.
I want to make those responsible hurt in their careers and their pocketbooks for a long, long time.
Does anyone have any ideas? I will gladly contribute any way that I can. THIS IS IMPORTANT!
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 13, 2005 08:03 AMThe sun will come up tomorrow. The people of Washington may win or lose in court, but this race turned out to be more than I ever hoped.
Posted by: South County on January 13, 2005 08:05 AMNow that Hillary Gregoire is in charge we can expect the King County White Water land deal (CAO) to go state wide.
Republican Attorneys should place ads on TV now and at least try to make some money filing suits against the Counties and eventually the State for stealing peoples property rights.
#1 focus this year, de-throne
King Ron Sims County Executive.
voter photo identification legislation
You'll see a clear pattern of Democrats opposing photo IDs at the polls.
Don't take my word for it. Take a look for yourself. These politicians are largely not interested in protecting voters' rights--and the record is there for all to see.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 08:28 AMIt is always interesting to see local papers taking King County's word for it, without even checking with the post office to see if they processed that bulk mail when KC claimed to have sent it.
Good thing we have the courts, I'll agree with that!
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 08:31 AMYou say the paper didn't check the facts -- it took KC's word for it. This is 100% wrong -- as the article says it checked the logs and saw the mailings. Geez, when you slam the paper, at least read the article! Your credibility has been reduced significantly.
To the rest of your comment, the detractors claimed since the bulk mail stamp wasn't used, they couldn't have sent them out when they said. However, the article points out that military mail doesn't need the bulk stamp...and in fact they were sent postage free under a military stamp!
So...the county SAVED taxpayers money by using the law and doing things on time -- and in return gets slammed by people who didn't bother checking the facts.
I can, thus, only assume that some (many?) of the other claims made by KC detractors did similar (non) fact checking (no reason to believe fact checking was better for all the other claims than for this one). Using bits of data, assumed conclusions as the basis of complaints doesn't pass a basic test for accuracy (and much less fairness).
Posted by: James on January 13, 2005 08:45 AMWhat happened to political outrage?
It does not matter if fraud is committed by a republican or democrat. The issue is not if fraud is perpetrated by the voter, public official, candidate, independent agent, campaign staff or election worker.
What matters is that fraud may have been committed of any sort. Investigate, analyze and prosecute! Anything less is unacceptable.
Failure to carry out a thorough investigation of irreconcilable election issues by the persons placed in this authority in is itself an act of complicity. Voters cannot allow our election officials and our representatives in state government just sweep all these irregularities under the rug and “fix it” next time?
Regardless of whether or not a revote occurs, accountability for the state of this election must happen. I fully expect that as my representative in the state house, you will work tirelessly not only for future election reform, but to hold accountable all those responsible for any identifiable illegal election processes.
We cannot let illegal acts and shoddy election management stand.
The paper checked the OUTGOING logs....not the logs of the military mail personnel.
Your attack on Bostonian is not warranted.
Posted by: Peter on January 13, 2005 08:49 AM(Gregoire: from acceptance speech)
"Clearly the election recount ordeal of the last two months has challenged us, and among our challenges this session is election reform," she said. "We want every vote to count -- and to be counted right the first time."
Sounds to me like this carefully worded statement is a call to solidify the the current shady system we have in King County.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 08:50 AMNo good union-fearing Demo like Miz Fraudoire would EVER go to Wal-Mart.
I think it probably came from the K-Mart on Aurora, provided it was new. Most likely, Value Village (not that I have anything against Value Village).
Otherwise...I LOVED your post!
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 13, 2005 08:50 AMPutting on my tinfoil hat, but that article smells like (further) coverup. The only evidence presented in the article is that provided by King County.......precisely the people who are staring right in the face of a Federal lawsuit if they are wrong. HHHMMMMMMMM....
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 13, 2005 08:51 AMIt sure does. You won't see her asking for photo ID at the polls, that much is certain. Democratic politicians continually oppose photo ID at the polls.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 08:53 AM"Don't waste our tax $ on your hurt feelings."
How rich! These people support reparations for slaves, as well as affirmative action, in order to soothe bruised minority egos! These people want leniency for pedophiles and murderers on Death Row (and thus put on the public dole until they die in prison) because they may have had a sh#tty upbringing! These people want "free" (i.e. subsidized) mental health care...and they want to lecture us about tax dollars spent on "hurt feelings"?
"Hello, Mr. Pot! I'm Mr. Kettle!"
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 13, 2005 08:56 AMGOVERNESS GREGOIRE.
It has all the elements I want from a political nick-name. Governess indicates both that I don't believe she is legitimate and that she just wants to "take care of us" with big government and a "healing bus tour"
Fraudoire just sounds... too snarky for my taste ;-)
Posted by: George on January 13, 2005 08:56 AMIt's perfect! Thanks again, Brian, you're awesome!
For any of you who are getting down. Get back up, darn it! While they think they are within the law having her sworn in, ultimately, the law is on our side. I'll say it again, pray about it. There is a reason for the delay of the court hearing.
Megs, sounds like you've got a great husband, thanks for the report.
Don
Posted by: Donald Cheney on January 13, 2005 09:13 AMThere's some serious misinformation being perpetuated by this blog.
I've been doing some research on the WA Gubernatorial Election, specifically King County's role with the military ballots, how and when they were mailed and the different options for active duty military people to vote.
You can see my initial efforts here:
http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2005/01/truth_or_conseq.html#c1866
This blog needs to take a deep collective breath and take in all the facts.
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 09:16 AMWhy didn't we think of that?
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 13, 2005 09:19 AMBen Franklin
Posted by: Susan on January 13, 2005 09:21 AMBleeding Heart:Why didn't we think of that?
Me: Perhaps if you had, this blog wouldn't be spouting it's current rhetoric on the handling of military ballots by King County.
Go figure.
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 09:40 AMWhen a blogger gets something wrong, it does more damage to the rest of the blogosphere than when someone in the MSM gets something wrong. they just ignore it and go on with their business. A blogosphere error ir held up as an example tarnishing the rest of us.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 13, 2005 09:43 AM"Bloggers aren't usually held to the same standard as journalists. It's clear that the kind of sourcing and fact checking usually done by journalists isn't part of the blogosphere, in general. However soundpolitics is making some very serious charges (and working hard to self promote in the wake of these charges). Their readership is whipped up into a frenzy without all of the facts.
This tossing about of serious wrongdoing coupled with dubious sourcing and fact checking is irresponsible."
I guess it's a shame that sound politics cannot maintain the same high standards that others (like CBS and Dan Rather) in the MSM do.
(chuckle)
Have the files/records necessary to support the
court case been safeguarded?
Would it be useful to submit a formal request to the ...ah, sitting governor to issue a directive to all election offices to preserve and secure all records relating to this election? (As if that would do any good) It seems to me that such a request would place her in a delightfully difficult position.
I fear that I will read this Sunday of an overnight fire that unfortunately gutted the records section of the KC Elections office. As
we all know, "There's not a shred of evidence..." Posted by: RC on January 13, 2005 10:12 AM
Even if ballots were sent on 10/7...that is still less than a month before the election. I still find it hard to believe that a 7 can change to a 10 by accident in HTML. I guess I need some enlightenment here too.
Posted by: megs on January 13, 2005 10:18 AMThere's some serious misinformation being perpetuated by this blog.
I've been doing some research on the WA Gubernatorial Election, specifically King County's role with the military ballots, how and when they were mailed and the different options for active duty military people to vote."
Well there you go! The revote is off!!! Carla has found evidence of competent conduct from KC elections!!! I guess that all the other problems will now evaporate because if King County can mail the military ballots out ON TIME, under threat of a federal lawsuit, then that just seals it for me.
I can now forget about the 348 improperly administered provisional ballots, the confirmed votes of deceased persons (imagine: I still actually care about that), the 1,800 tally difference between votes and voters, the 50,000 illegally enhanced ballots,
precinct 1823, confirmed felons' votes...
Whew. Nothing to see here. Move along, people.
"Blogger without facts,
like Rather without Anchor"
Old Silly Jim says...
"Only the facts, only the truth,
without that, you don't have jack"
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7yxro/Election_Contest.htm
The second legal reason for an election contest is misconduct on the part of those running the election. Again we need to start with a definition – misconduct. The legal definition of misconduct is “improper and/or illegal acts by a public official, which violate his/her duty to follow the law and act on behalf of the public good” (Law.com online legal dictionary). Improper acts are when a public official does not do what they know (or should know) they should do and/or when a public official does what they know (or should know) not to do. As you can see this does not have to include fraud. The standard to prove misconduct is far less than the standard to prove fraud. The Rossi camp will only have to show that election officials did not follow proper procedures and/or did not establish procedures to act on behalf of the public good. Once misconduct is proved then according to the RCW the election can be “set aside” if the misconduct is such that the enough votes were effect to change the result of the election.
How to handle the illegal votes caused by misconduct if different than illegal votes by identifiable voters. RCW 29A.68.080 indicates that all the votes in a precinct or precincts would be rejected. What is implied is that if the vote in a given precinct has been tainted by the misconduct then the vote of the precinct should be rejected. For example let us say in precinct 1823 there are 344 total votes (204 CG, 87 DR, 17 RB, 23 other) with 71 voterless ballots and say 5 felons. That would mean that 76/344 (22%) of the ballots are illegal. The court would rule that the vote (all the votes) in precinct is to be rejected. In the case of this one precinct that would change the out come by 179 votes. As you can see this one precinct is enough to overturn the election. I would think that for misconduct that effects ballots that can be traced the court could reject only those ballots. A good example of this would be the 55,000 that were enhanced in King County. If it is found that misconduct occurred in handling these ballots, I believe they could be traced (they should have been marked). Then all of them could be rejected. Misconduct on the part of election officials must not be taken lightly and the court will act accordingly.
Please feel free to give me your input.
I intended to swipe at the press and did not do my homework.
***
The fact that the military ballots were sent out of a different county is necessarily a nefarious sign, either. It could be that KC believed the ballots would arrive faster if sent from a more central location. Is that possible?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/123735/891
Hmm. Maybe, just maybe, she has an agenda?
Posted by: GS on January 13, 2005 10:29 AMYou caught me. I have an agenda.
It's called getting out the facts. You can also find links to my information at Centerfield blog, as well as PreemptiveKarma.com.
You can also find a link to my story at Orcinus blog.
Now if only Sound Politics would post my story..it could be on a righty blog, too. :)
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 10:32 AMAgain, I"m glad the courts will sort out the facts. And thanks to all for pointing out where I err.
The Franklin quote is interesting...I don't think people have felt that way in the US for a long time....certainly the past 40 years....regardless of whether Rs or Ds are in control...
Posted by: James on January 13, 2005 10:33 AM"This blog needs to take a deep collective breath and take in all the facts."
The blog exists to provide topical information from as many sources as are are motivated to post. That's what makes it interesting and informative.
Not all information is 100% accurate. With your assistance (and that of many others) we can quickly separate out the truth from the fiction and focus our resources.
I, for one, am happy to see it happen.
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 13, 2005 10:34 AM***
Let's see if she turns up any counterevidence to the other problems in KC:
55,000 ballots that KC admits to "enhancing."
348 provisional ballots not verified, as admitted by KC.
Judge with incorrect registered voting address.
Etc.
***
Let's see if she turns up any counterevidence to the other problems in KC:
55,000 ballots that KC admits to "enhancing."
348 provisional ballots not verified, as admitted by KC.
Judge with incorrect registered voting address.
Etc.
Sound Politics was contending that the military ballots weren't mailed out until October 13. That information is patently false and should have been factchecked by the writers at Sound Politics before it was ever posted. The date of the mailing for the military ballots was negotiated with the federal government as October 8. That deadline was in fact met by King County. Further, information posted by Sound Politics on the handling of the military ballots was also false and also very easily checked.
The main reason these ballots are mailed out so late is that Washington's primary isn't until September. Military ballots can't be mailed out until the primary is completed and ballots can be printed and organized. A one month turnaround isn't a lot of time for such a large number of ballots.
The HTML issue on the website is pretty obviously a clerical/date entry error when the fact sheet was converted to put up on the website. It hardly seems like fodder for a conspiracy given how the rest of this story has fallen apart.
btw....you can also find a write up on my story at IndieCastle blog.
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 10:35 AMSen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, took it a step further, skipping the swearing-in ceremony, which he called "adding insult to injury."
"Rather than participate in these formalities, I'd rather wait and see who the real governor is," said Swecker.
Why does seattle have to be overrun with filthy hippies? Too much to ask to have a livable city with a livable political climate?
Posted by: dpmiv on January 13, 2005 10:35 AMIt's really worse than that, because we aren't talking about a problem that involves a few conspirators connected to Kingfish Simms or GreGore.
The issue is the general disdain Seattle and King County officials have for our military personnel. This was grossly evident in the debate the carbon copy kooks of the solipsistic Seattle City Council had about making a simple statement, "Seattle supports our troops."
This disdain lead KC election "officials" to do the LEAST ALLOWABLE UNDER LAW regarding to mailing ballots out to military personnel. (Maybe a little less than the least allowable; others can argue that point though.)
While they were working on supposedly making sure "everyone has there voice," and including in that this stupid idea of provisional ballots and registration drives among the indigent, none of them seemed to stop to think, "hmmmm, we have citizens in combat. What can we do to make sure their voice is heard in this election?"
To me, that is the real and inexcusable crime they committed.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 13, 2005 10:38 AMI look forward to the editors of SoundPolitics posting a correction to their allegations of military ballot fraud by the County, given the new evidence. Failure to do so will be telling.
I also welcome Timothy Goddard's approach to the contest--referring to applicable state law. I don't agree with his conclusions; a self-professed lawyer makes the same comments on them that I've been making for over a week now, but an honest debate over what the law actually says is the only way to go about this. Inflammatory charges, childish namecalling and derogation of the "others" in this race, are not.
I think we all can agree that the crew at Sound Politics has done yeoman's work in trying to uncover all the issues that call into question the integrity of this election. That some potentially troubling problems (i.e. the military ballots) turn out to likely be benign is but a step in this process. It will be for the courts to decide whether there are actually valid issues sufficient to invalidate the present election result.
Posted by: GS on January 13, 2005 10:42 AMFeel free to read my article, part of it is above, and let us debate.
Why didn't we think of that?
That was more polite than my response would have been.
Posted by: South County on January 13, 2005 10:45 AMGS--as long as SP fronts a correction, I think the reputational damage due to the error will be ameliorated.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 10:47 AMOld hippy saying...
"Man that's harsh, aaaah.... dude did you say something?"
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 10:50 AM
The only issue I've had time to do any indepth research on in regard to the WA Governor's election are the military ballots. I have a regular job and I'm a mom. Blogging is a part time gig for me.
It's entirely possible that people here (and Kos) have spread other false information or told factual information. I can only speak to that which I've been able to factcheck and source myself.
But that said, the folks that run this blog knew about my story yesterday morning. I emailed it to them. I also invited them over to my blog to comment. Not only have they not bothered to awknowledge it (that I have seen..please direct me otherwise if they have), they have not worked to correct the misinformation from their blog entries.
To Kos' credit, I have seen him post corrections numerous times when they're brought to his attention. That gives him some cred in my eyes.
I agree it's up to the courts to decide (although when it looked like Rossi was going to win..he went out of his way to say the vote should be decided by the people, not the courts) the ultimate outcome now. Unless Rossi bows out gracefully, which is appearing less and less likely, it looks like the courts are inevitable.
I plan to do more research on the other issues surrounding this story as I have time. I will post them on my blog as the facts continue to present themselves to me.
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 10:54 AM
My take is a somewhat different than Tim's so you comments there are not useful.
Posted by: Barry on January 13, 2005 10:55 AMWe were so far behind with putting registrations in the computer that at one point the supervisors just made a set of boxes with thousands of registrations "disappear" overnight.
(And no, they were not entered. We had a night crew, but not a night crew so big or experienced that they could input thousands of registrations overnight.) We were weeks behind with no way to catch up and they were telling everyone and the papers that we were caught up. It was just a nightmare. We never would have gotten to these people anyway before the election even if the box had not disappeared. I bet that these cards will magically reappear after the election as registrations that were "too late" for this election. But they weren't. I saw when they came in. They were in on time, and now those people didn't get to vote or voted a provisional ballot that won't be counted.
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 13, 2005 10:56 AMYou're assuming your information is correct and the last word on the subject. Certainly you don't mind if others indulge in fact checking before posting?
Posted by: South County on January 13, 2005 11:01 AM***
We're back in WorldNetDaily today as well:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42364
"It's necessary because I cannot imagine the megalomaniac greed for power – nor the miniscule character, values and judgment – that would drive Ms. Gregoire to want to govern under such circumstances."
***
Corrupt Governor
Christine Gregoire
a telling pattern
I think I address all your arguments in my article. Also, you will find that the endless debate about how to address illegal votes is explained in much better terms than it has been here.
Check the article and give me you comments, if you want to debate.
Posted by: Barry on January 13, 2005 11:08 AMOf course not. I'd expect it. But frankly there are 13 listed writers who contribute to this blog. Exactly how many does it take to factcheck this simple information? I did it by myself in 3 hours in one afternoon.
In regard to the person who wrote about military ballots having to go out 45 days before the election....fact check, please. Counties in Washington State have a separate, negotiated deal with the feds on this due to the state's very late primary.
Posted by: carla on January 13, 2005 11:15 AM
This court case may be a little quicker than we thought. Since this blog is credited with bringing a lot of information to the battle...the (apparenlty relatively easy) process of discrediting it may make the court process zoom by.
Apparently, checking with primary sources is something that is beyond the basic requirement for making pronouncements here...which get picked up the Republican party and Rossi himself and used for their cases, their PR, etc.
The wheels do seem to be coming off...
Posted by: Scared for USA on January 13, 2005 11:15 AMKing County is a primary source. They have admitted the following:
1800+ voterless ballots - no checking needed an admission
340+ prov. ballots not vetted - no chekcing needed an admission
55,000 ballots enhanced - no checking needed an admission - with testomy of Bennett that they were not following an proceedures
These three are more than enough evidence to overturn the election. All coming for a primary source.
Slam dunk.
King County is a primary source. They have admitted the following:
1800+ voterless ballots - no checking needed an admission
340+ prov. ballots not vetted - no chekcing needed an admission
55,000 ballots enhanced - no checking needed an admission - with testomy of Bennett that they were not following any proceedures
These three are more than enough evidence to overturn the election. All coming for a primary source.
Slam dunk.
>"There's some serious misinformation being perpetuated by this blog."
>"This blog needs to take a deep collective breath and take in all the facts."
Ok everyone, let's pause and take a deep breath. Whew, that's better! Now it's time to look at the facts.
FACT #1: This blog is a discussion forum. Just like any other internet forum, there is no guarantee that anyone posting at any time is being 100% honest. Shocker!
FACT #2: Since this is a discussion forum, and not CBS, it's not required that posters or commentors check out ALL the facts before posting theories or discoveries. Facts and discoveries are often posted right away to help others in their researching efforts as well. If you have noticed, this is a COLLECTIVE effort.
FACT #3: The supporters of this blog are not blindly following whatever Stefan or the others are telling us to believe. Stefan et all are simply laying out their discoveries and theories for us to consider and possibly dig deeper on our own.
FACT #4: "Military ballots sent out on time, county logs show." So? That's great, crosses one item off of KC's list of things to explain. Now how about hearing some explanations about the rest of the stuff?
FACT #5: The fact reported by joe about the bulk mailing dates remains a fact. The fact reported by Stefan about the google cache website discrepancy remains a fact. No misinformation there. Now we know more to the story, great! (Though I too would like to hear what USPS has to say on this)
All we are doing here is challenging the system, mixed in with some healthy skepticism. I for one, think we will be a better state/county/city because of it!
.070 says 'was such as to procure'. This does not imply that the misconduct was for the specific reason to get votes for a certain candidate. That would be called fraud. It means that the result was substantially affected.
Posted by: Barry on January 13, 2005 11:31 AMIt's undoubtedly true that those who you spoke to told you what you said they told you. However, especially where King County is concerned, as assertion or even an explanation isn't enough. There's a name for those who take undocumented assertions as fact...the mainstream media.
We understand what we understand because of those who didn't stop there.
Posted by: South County on January 13, 2005 11:33 AMPlease explain how there aren't already 14th Amendment issues regarding certain ballots in King County being validated after the election, while others in and out of KC were not afforded that same luxury? Posted by: Snowy Owl on January 13, 2005 11:35 AM
"unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes."
it can only be annulled if the conduct was done with the intent of having someone who didn't win, declared the winner. You're absolutely right that it means "fraud," which is the entire point being made--the standard is such that fraud must be shown in the misconduct, otherwise it cannot be annulled.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 11:38 AMI am going to post RCW .070, and ask you to break it down (point by point) to make your arguement.
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 11:44 AMIf you're referring to the 723 additional King County ballots that were originally invalidated in error, that remedy was available to other counties as well.
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 13, 2005 11:47 AM
South County--the logs shown to Ervin are not assertions or explanations, they are primary evidence.
It was pretty clear from statement by the KC Elections people that they were responding to a direct threat on October 7th of a federal lawsuit if they didn't get the ballots out by the 8th. That's an interesting way to "negotiate"...
carla: "The HTML issue on the website is pretty obviously a clerical/date entry error when the fact sheet was converted to put up on the website."
As a blogger, I assume you know something of how text is converted into HTML. Most semi-computer literate people would copy and paste from the source into the HTML file, or simply save the document in HTML format. Even if someone was re-typing the information, how do you fumble-finger a "7" into a "10"? Seems kinda lame to me.
Plus, no one has yet adequately answered the question of why the correction was (coincidentally) made on the same day (Sunday) that the news was breaking about the federal lawsuit threat.
KS--link, please.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 11:51 AMit can only be annulled if the conduct was done with the intent of having someone who didn't win, declared the winner. You're absolutely right that it means "fraud," which is the entire point being made--the standard is such that fraud must be shown in the misconduct, otherwise it cannot be annulled.
Posted by torridjoe at January 13, 2005 11:38 AM
Ok, I read what you quoted and no where in there does is say or even imply that the "the irregularity or improper conduct" must be intentional, only that the result must be that the person who was awarded the office recieved less legal votes, but appeared to recieve more votes than the person not awarded the office.
How do you get "intent" out of that language?
Posted by: Ranger on January 13, 2005 11:52 AMThe HTML issue on the website is pretty obviously a clerical/date entry error when the fact sheet was converted to put up on the website.
This is implausible. Do you really think they re-typed that fact sheet when they put it on the Web? Whatever software they use should have a "Save as web page" option, don't you think? If not, they're wasting taxpayer money by retyping (and risking errors...).
If they used a "military permit" to send those ballots, there should still be a USPS log showing acceptance of the mail. (I don't know this - a reasonable assumption, but perhaps not the case.)
Regarding the excuse that the primary is too late to prepare ballots: What I would do in that situation is to prepare multiple files for printing the ballots - in advance of the primary - with the most likely outcomes. Then, if I guessed right, I could send the right file to the printer the very minute after the primary was certified. If I guessed wrong, I could make a few corrections and get the ballots printed. Is that unreasonable?
Posted by: Lee on January 13, 2005 11:55 AMYou assume that the interpetation of this part of the RCW points to "intent".
I read it as defining any "irregularity or conduct" to be an inclusive statement that encompasses all acts intentional or unintentional that result in individuals or bodies that go against elections regulations and laws.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 11:57 AMKC - But if you find a stack of ballots in a warehouse they must be valid for counting ;)
Posted by: Jon on January 13, 2005 11:58 AMhttp://www.metrokc.gov/elections/news/2005_01_05.htm
I still don't think this is a big deal, nor did I ever see it as a smoking gun or conspiracy. I just think KC is ridiculously burdened w/ buracracy (pardon my spelling) and incompetence. I've worked for state and city governments and this is one of the biggest flaws.
As for not getting a response back right away from the 13 folks associated w/this blog...I'm sure they also have jobs and other things going on...not only that, they are researching many other irregularities, most of which have been discussed here. You focused on one single post regarding military ballots being mailed on a certain date. I still am not convinced that the whole story here has come out...not because it was some huge conspiracy to deny soldiers/marines/et al their vote, but because of incompetence, laziness, apathy, etc.
If it comes out that the ballots were sent on time, fine, but as several others have mentioned here...that doesn't explain the rest of the irregularities that, in my mind, are much more serious.
Posted by: megs on January 13, 2005 12:01 PMIf the lawmakers intended what you imply, they would have used the word fraud. It is not there. Misconduct is far from fraud.
For sure, much of the case turn on how the interprets .070. This case is in civil court and civil courts are first and foremost courts of equity. That is the must be fair, equitable and reasonable.
Your interpatation is none of these. The code may leave room for debate, but allowing the amount of illegal ballots that are in King County to be the determining factor in the current result would be neither fair, equitable nor reasonable.
Take the example of just precinct 1823. Over 20% of the ballots being illegal and you are saying there is no legal recourse. In fact by you logic over 50% (may be even 100%) of the ballots could be illegal and nothing could be done. That is not reasonable
1,342 write-in ballots received and 1,081 validated and counted.
I think that is a lower validation rate than the provisional ballots. I wonder what the errors were on those invalidated ballots?
Any info?
Posted by: Jon on January 13, 2005 12:10 PMTorrid - No, I don't have the same criticism for Pierce County. Democracy is best when it is kept as local as possible. As an unfortunate resident ok Kingfish County (unforunate for you as well, because I don't sit still while my rights are stripped), my focus is on my own county. It's up to the residents of Pierce Co. to criticize problems there.
I know that will be difficult for you to understand, as you probably believe in centralized control.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 13, 2005 12:12 PMI assume that it is reinforced in this section or other sections. You cannot really "build" an understanding of the section on this word alone.
Although, in my reading of the definition, when it is used for intangibles (solution) the usage is different than your reading of it torridjoe.
pro·cure (pr-kyr, pr-) KEY
VERB:
pro·cured , pro·cur·ing , pro·cures
VERB:
tr.
To get by special effort; obtain or acquire: managed to procure a pass.
To bring about; effect: procure a solution to a knotty problem.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 12:14 PMYou are leaving a few words out when you talk about ‘procure’. The statement ‘improper conduct was to procure…’ (your quote) and ‘improper conduct was such as to procure…’ (.070) mean two different things. The first implies fraud. The second implies that the improper conduct effected the result.
Posted by: Barry on January 13, 2005 12:17 PMAs for fairness, it's entirely fair to say that because the voting pattern of illegal votes cannot be ascertained, there is no basis to make any statement on their outcome. Making an assumption about their patterns would be the unfair choice, because any assumption is necessarily a weak one. We have no idea who the votes are for. None. It's entirely reasonable not to set aside an election, when you have no factual basis for the suggestion that the current certified winner is not in fact the winner.
Jon--that looks like 81%. I believe KC says all their provisionals were running about 90% validity.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 12:18 PMjaybo--you're using the same definition I am. To procure indicates intent, special effort, obtaining. You must intend to procure, in order to procure.
Barry--look at my post of 11:57AM. It uses the word such as, just like .070. Your interpretation of that definition uses the wrong spelling of effect--it's AFFECT. Procurement is an affect; a result is an effect. To say that the conduct was such as to procure, is to say that the conduct was to intentionally seek or obtain a particular outcome.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 12:25 PMI would agree that the code sets out a standard. When taking the whole code in context the standard is that the misconduct had a material effect on the election. Thousands of illegal votes vs. 129-vote difference is a material effect. If it were more like 200 to 129 then the effect may not be material.
We can debate what the meaning is of this forever.
Your arguments seem to be evolving. At first you argued against the facts. Now that enough facts are out to indicate many illegal votes, you no longer argue the facts. Then you argued the meaning of illegal votes, that didn’t work either.
Against these facts:
1800+ votersless ballots – illegal votes
340+ unveted provisional ballots – illegal votes
50,000+ enhanced ballots – many of which are now illegal
These also are probably traceable – which would blow you current argument out of the water.
And the underlying intent of the “Election Contest” code, that is to insure that elections are not materially affected by misconduct of election officials or by voters voting illegally. The above facts clearly demonstrate a material affect has occurred as a result of misconduct of election officials.
Your argument is now based on semantics that can be just as easily argued in a fashion that agrees with the intent of the code.
Posted by: Barry on January 13, 2005 12:55 PMYou are back to the distribution of the illegal votes. According to (.080) this is not necessary for misconduct. In (.080) the vote (all the votes) in affected precincts would be rejected.
So that leaves us with our disagreement on what (.070) means. That is one for the court to decide and I would agree that much of the Rossi complaint hinges on how the court interprets (.070).
#10)His business is still open in King County.
#9) He sent off his B and O taxes yesterday.
#8) He is still hauling food into Seattle for its
Princes.
#7) He kept his lights on during Dark Tuesday.
#6) He is not blockading Seattle city haul with
his horse carrier.
#5) His kids are still going to government
schools.
#4) He is planning on paying his property taxes
this Spring.
#3) He will be driving his car on FueldownFriday.
#2) He still refers to the socia1ist rags and
socia1ist broadcasters as the mainstream
media.
And the number one reason Issachar doesn't mind being a slave?
He still owns a television.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:22 PMPage hits to Sound Politics have fallen by a third since the innaguration.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:30 PMPosted by torridjoe at January 13, 2005 12:37 PM
You are taking the purpose of .070 and turning it on its head. The point of law that this section establishes is that you cannot annul an election for "irregularity or improper conduct" unless "the irregularity or improper conduct" is sufficient to change the outcome. In this regard, intent is irrelevant. This section is a protection against frivolous challenges and setting aside elections where the result is clear and would not change even if all alleged "irregularity or improper conduct" were proven. You are trying to interpret that to say that you must prove fraud to annul a result. That is totally outside the point of law that .070 is establishing.
I believe that you are probably right.
Posted by: jaybo on January 13, 2005 01:52 PM"The point of law that this section establishes is that you cannot annul an election for "irregularity or improper conduct" unless "the irregularity or improper conduct" is sufficient to change the outcome."
Would that it says this, but of course it says no such thing. Your use of quotes leaves out several words. What it actually says is what I maintain--that it may not be annulled unless the misconduct is such that it PROCURES a different result. You further claim that proving intent is outside the point of law that .070 establishes, which is odd, since the point of law it establishes are the terms under which an election may be set aside. The terms of which are that the misconduct must have occurred to PROCURE a change in the result--not that a changed result might have occurred.
It's very easy for you to claim it says something, but if you ignore the actual text it's very hard to substantiate your claim. It very clearly says you CANNOT annul unless the misconduct was done to procure a specific result.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 13, 2005 02:04 PM