The most recent oddities discovered in the King County Voter Lists involve funny voter registration dates.
The first issue, as I reported the other day, is that several dozen registration dates had been changed between the Dec. 29 and the Jan. 7 versions of the voter lists. The second (and heretofore unreported) discovery is that the thousands of voters who registered after the October 2nd deadline, but before the October 18th final deadline, had their registration dates recorded as: October 2nd.
I spoke with King County Superintendent of Elections Bill Huennekens and spokeswoman Bobbi Egan at length on Tuesday about both issues. I include their explanations below.
Changed registration dates
As I reported last weekend, the latest King County's latest voter database indicates that somebody recently altered the registration dates for several dozen voters. These late changes affected the registration records of several voters who voted on Nov. 2 but whose registration dates (as shown in the KC database files of Nov. 1 and Dec. 29) were after the mail-in registration deadline of Oct. 2. About 35 of these had original registration dates that were after the final Oct. 18 deadline.
King County's explanation: the original registration dates were the result of clerical errors which were corrected after Dec. 29. I asked how the votes could have been accepted in the first place, if the record showed that the voter registered past the deadline. Huennekens said that the original voter registration cards would have been checked.
Backdated registration dates
The King County voter file shows that 12,453 people registered to vote on Oct. 2, the deadline for mail-in registration. Lumped into this group were the thousands who registered in person after Oct. 2 but before the Oct. 18 deadline, including everybody in this news article. The new American citizens who were mentioned in this article as having been naturalized on Oct. 18 and registered to vote that day, are also recorded with Oct. 2 registration dates.
King County's explanation: The county's (new) election management software can only handle one registration deadline. In order to print the polling books, they had to impose a single cut-off date and record all post-Oct. 2 in-person registrants as registered effective Oct. 2. In order to enforce the rule that late registrants can only vote absentee but not at the polls, their records in the poll books were marked the same way as other absentee voters (i.e. provisional only).
--
The county's explanations of both of the above curiosities are plausible. But they're also somewhat disconcerting. State law mandates that election officials maintain every voter's "date of registration". The law does not make a provision to record an arbitrary date for administrative convenience. I haven't seen irrefutable evidence that any of the late registrants actually voted inappropriately. On the other hand, backdating voters' registration dates -- both before and after an election -- doesn't increase confidence that the safeguards to prevent ineligible people from voting are being applied consistently. It only makes it harder for citizen watchdogs to verify whether or not ineligible voting might have occurred.
The only way to verify whether or not ineligible late registrants voted is to check the original voter registration forms. The general public doesn't have access to these documents. But the Rossi legal team should be able to get a subpoena to inspect the registration forms of the voters whose registration dates were changed after Dec. 29.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 20, 2005 05:47 PM | Email Thisand they better do it fast before "revised" registration forms with signed affidavits are provided by the Democratic Party with the full cooperation of Dean Logan & Co...........just like they did for the ballots that were rejected.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 20, 2005 06:21 PM"The county's explanations of both of the above curiosities are plausible. But they're also somewhat disconcerting. State law mandates that election officials maintain every voter's "date of registration".
How to follow the Law (see civil code)
How to circumvent the Law (see civil code)
Don't mean to be silly, but you are working against a system set up precisely for it's own preservation. I think you will prevail, but this issue is one that can only be undone from the inside. That means the Court at this point, though I have seen some signs of serious cracks in KC.
You are doing great work. Keep it up!
Posted by: smegma on January 20, 2005 06:54 PMAre these registration deadline dates in the State laws - or exclusive to King County?
What evidence have you seen that indicates any of the late-registering people voted?
You said: "I haven't seen irrefutable evidence that any of the late registrants actually voted."
Does that mean you have seen refutable evidence that they did vote?
What evidence would be refutable?
Posted by: Micajah on January 20, 2005 07:40 PMAs opposed to 'were?'
Nice weasel language.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 20, 2005 07:55 PMI'd like to know more about this *new* election software.....
1. When was this software purchased?
2. Who designed this software?
3. How much did the county pay for this software?
4. Who in the county approved this software?
5. How does King County election software compare to the other counties?
6. Was this software, with it's deficiencies, legal to use in elections?
Whoa! He's right!
What the heck is King County pulling here?
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 08:10 PMMicajah: My proofreading was sloppy. I corrected the statement to read: I haven't seen irrefutable evidence that any of the late registrants actually voted inappropriately. i.e. the only late registrants I could find voted consistent with their late status, absentee or provisional
Patches Pal: don't read anything into the words "would have been checked". That's my paraphrase. It's not an exact quote.
Richard Pope: I asked Huennekens about the poll books. He says that all voters, including absentee voters and late registrants, are listed in the poll book. They're designated as absentee voters and only permitted to cast a provisional ballot if they attempt to vote at the polling place. Can you either confirm or refute this?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 20, 2005 08:21 PMWhat the heck were they doing modifying the registration dates right after an election? The spotlight has been on King County for several months, so they should not have been making any changes lest they draw attention. Shouldn't there be a freeze on these kinds of modifications surrounding an election?
Thus one is left wondering if the registration information was changed to fit the results of the election, or to generate the election results in favor of Gregoire.
Even if the whole process was above board, it should still be illegal to manipulate the database after the election to generate the outcome that is desired, and there would most likely have been mistakes in tabulation given that this process involves manually checking pieces of paper, exactly the kind of human activity that introduces error. Hopefully, the discovery process will answer these questions.
In the meantime, is anyone here still not completely outraged and shocked by the fact that an election could be conducted by partisan appointeees? I was naive enough going in to this election to think that elections officials were non partisan and elected.
Unreal. Absolutely unreal that there is so little accountability in something as important as a presidential/ gubernatorial election.
We have to fight this election to the finish.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 20, 2005 08:24 PMCome to think of it, do taxpayers get away with that kind of excuse when their tax returns are suspicious?
Posted by: Boonie on January 20, 2005 08:51 PMI can confirm that the poll books are filled with voters names, at least half of which are marked as "absentee ballot" voters. That is the signal for a poll book judge to send that voter to the inspector to resolve the problem, i.e., issue a special ballot.
Posted by: hawkes on January 20, 2005 09:07 PMIf a fraudulent absentee ballot is filled out on behalf of a person who shows up at the polls to vote, how exactly is that handled? Does the poling-place vote take precedence, with the absentee ballot being thrown out, or does the person get deprived of his right to vote on account of the fraudster?
Personally, what I'd like to see would be a system where, except for military ballots, absentee ballots are required to be sent to the poling place so as to arrive prior to the election. If a person who had cast an absentee ballot shows up, that person is handed the absentee ballot envelope and given three options:
However, RCW 29A.08.140 says that the registration files have to be closed 30 days before the election.
The special procedure for late registration under RCW 29A.08.145 allows someone to register and vote absentee up to 15 days before the election. However, such late registrations do not reopen the registration files.
So, firstly, the poll books should only contain the names of the people who actually registered on or before the registration file closing date of 10/02/04 or 30 days before the election.
Secondly, they should keep a separate list of the late registrants to check their absentee ballots against, including their actual date of registration, but not add this list to the overall general database (i.e. registration files) until after the election takes place.
Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to put a fictitious registration date (in clear violation of RCW 29A.08.125 to reflect the actual date of registration), even if the general registration database is maintain using lame-a$$ software. Simply put the late registrants in a separate database.
Or better yet, they can even be put into the general database. There could be a field coded for special late registrants. But it would be sufficient to cut the poll books off with the voters actually registering on 10/02/2004. People registering after that could only use the special procedure and they should also not be in poll books.
Or even print these late registrants specially in the poll book, for crying out loud. Put everyone's registration date in the poll book, and specially flag the late registrants.
But changing the registration dates in the database is both unnecessary and illegal.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 20, 2005 09:42 PMOh..Puh!......Snohomish county again?! What a coincidence!
Well, I'm sure the Felon, Jeff Dean, gave both counties a great deal on the election software he designed.....
snicker.....
I'm chuckling..but there is a part of me that really wonders................
Now keep in mind, voters could still request absentees after the 6 day prior Poll book cut-off date. Therefore, there are voters who will be listed in the Poll book AND have been given an absentee ballot. I believe the Auditors call these HOLDOVERS. When they are processing ballots, they run a list of these HOLDOVERS and check both the Poll book AND Absentee's Received List to make sure no one voted twice. This is standard operating procedure! (according to Jefferson Co).
Hearing about some of these County's altering registration dates makes me a bit nervous. Did all the other Counties review HOLDOVERS to make sure no one voted twice????????
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 10:13 PM1- Justice Mary Fairhurst served for 16 years in the AG’s office, first under the previous AG and then with Gregoire for 12 years. Gregoire gave her the “Steward of Justice Award” as well.
2- Justice James Johnson served as Assistant AG with Christine Gregoire.
How can we, as the Washington State Citizens, be assured that this case would be heard with non partisan ears and be allowed to make non partisan judgement in this case?
How can these 2 judges be permitted to serve on this case with such close ties to Gregoire??
They would only be required to make a notation in the poll books to indicate to the poll workers that the person was issued an absentee ballot -- and therefore must not be issued a regular ballot at the polling place. If the person showed up at the polling place and asked for a ballot -- claiming not to have received or voted the absentee ballot -- a provisional ballot would be issued.
When someone appears at the polling place asking for a ballot, and that person's name isn't on the poll books, the person cannot lawfully be issued a regular ballot. Instead, the person is issued a provisional ballot.
Since the result is the same, whether the person's name is in the poll book with a note alongside it indicating an absentee ballot was issued, or is not in the poll book at all, Jefferson County must be trying to make their system foolproof by removing as many of the absentee voters' names as possible. Then, they don't need to rely on the poll workers to notice without fail the notation that should tell the poll workers not to issue a regular ballot.
Either that or you misunderstood what they said.
Since they seem to be so careful about reconciling their results, I would bet that you correctly described what they do.
Richard Pope, I agree that there is no reason at all to include in the poll books the names of people who registered too late to vote a regular ballot at the polls. Those people would either get their absentee ballots and never appear at the polls, or would appear at the polls claiming not to have received or voted the absentee ballot -- and would be issued a provisional ballot even though not listed in the poll book.
The provisional ballot is used to avoid preventing someone who is a properly registered voter from voting because of a clerical error.
The contrast between the practices of Jefferson County and King County just keeps popping up, doesn't it?
Stefan, one thing to keep in mind with the late registrants who registered by mail -- the date of their registration is the date they mailed the registration application, not the date it was received. If the application didn't have all the needed info, but the voter answered a request for info and corrected the omission, then the date of registration is still the date the application was mailed. (RCW 29A.08.110 -- http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.08.110 )
Closing the registration lists 30 days before election day ought to allow those who registered by mail to be included in the poll books when the books are printed -- even allowing for tardy arrival of the mail.
Their dates of registration wouldn't coincide with the physical act of the election workers when the registration is entered into the lists of registered voters, so poorly trained workers might screw up the registration dates.
Making up a fictitious date in order to fool the software so the late registrants' names could be printed in the poll books makes no sense, unless the person who chose to follow that practice wanted to train his employees to be dishonest in all things great and small. Start with the little lies and work up to the big ones. "The actual date doesn't matter -- it's just so we can work around the bug in the software. Don't worry." Yeah sure. (Am I being too harsh? I get cranky when I suspect I'm not being told the truth.)
If the applications were mailed by Oct. 2, then the date of mailing and therefore the date of registration would be prior to the software's cutoff date for compiling the precinct poll books.
If the applications were mailed after Oct. 2, then there is no purpose to be served by putting the names of those people into the poll books. (It would be better not to have them in the books, since poll workers would surely not miss the fact that there is no name at all in the book and mistakenly issue a regular ballot at the polling places to someone who walked up and asked for one. Or would they? What was it Dean Logan said about 1800+ ballots issued without requiring the people to sign the poll books? Arrggh!!)
It's my understanding that the Jefferson County Auditor DID remove names of those who asked for ABSENTEES up to the 6 day prior to election cut-off date the Auditor imposed for printing the poll books. Like I said, ABSENTEES issued AFTER the poll book cut-off date (referred to as HOLDOVERS--I think) still would have had their name in the poll book....thus had access to 2 ballots potentially (POLL & ABSENTEE). HOWEVER, as part of their canvassing, one of the election staff ran a list from the voter registration database of those LATE ABSENTEES and compared it with Poll Books AND Absentees to make sure that person did not vote more than once. I was told they had no case of that.
HOWEVER, late absentees are an example of how someone COULD potential have access to 2 ballots. The same goes for people who requested replacement ballots (lost or ruined). All these should have been tracked...however?
The other way someone could have more than 1 physical ballot is if 1 or more were unaccounted for (missing) when the precindt did their reconciliation election night. Every precindt MUST reconcile BALLOTS ISSUED to Ballots Accounted For.
EFF launches two new projects to ensure free and fair elections in Washington state
Foundation releases recommendations to legislators
Press Release | January 20, 2005
Check their site.
Posted by: ctmohr on January 21, 2005 04:40 AMAccording to the "new state law" they, the voting offices, are supposed to keep electronic records of registrations. The law, although maybe not specific enough, implies this is the OFFICIAL list of registrations.
Worse than that, are we led to believe that a "GOVERNMENT" that tracks thousands of data elements for thousands of items/people can't keep track of what 8-12 data elements properly or record them accurately?
This only leads to two conclusions?
1 - This government is so pathetic that nothing it does could truly be trusted.
2 - This is being done on purpose.
Take your pick.
Basic Server - $3,000
Windows 2000 - $688
SQL Server - $1,500
You can report of ANY mix of ANY data elements with ANY criteria at ANY time for millions of data items/people in 1 minute or less.
And you can track EVERY field by EVERY individual and keep EVERY point in time backup if you wanted for probably around 10 years.
I would LOVE to get the contract to track the voting registrations for King County, and would gladly do so for 1/2 the cost of what is currently being classified as STAFF!
Posted by: Jim Frederickson on January 21, 2005 08:04 AMYou may recall a couple of years ago when Julie Ann Kempf was Elections Director, there was a snafu regarding the timely production of absentee ballots. They were very late. When pressed for an explanation, her first response was that the ballots were being printed in Maryland, which was at the time being terrorized by a sniper. That turned out to be a lie. The real reason the ballots was delayed was that the ballot construction software had been written by some guy who wasn't making enough money, and was hired away from King County by the state, and nobody in the office new how to make changes to his code.
(There is a classic cartoon of a grieving widow and her children standing beside an open grave in the pouring rain, and a nervous fellow whispers into her ear, "I know this is an awkward time, but did he happen to ever mention anything about source code?")
Anyway, here is a link to one of the Kulie Ann Kempf storied in the Seattle Times...
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=ballot20m&date=20030520&query=julie+ann+kempf
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 21, 2005 08:57 AMIt's not just that all the error adds up in the same direction, to the benefit of the party running the department...
It's not even just that anyone pointing out the holes in the system is subject to attack...
Nor just that there are so many issues that need to be explained...
...or that the entire system, from Logan through Reed, is demonstrably deaf, dumb and blind, totally uninterested in problems, the last to know...
It's that all of this is true...and is no big deal to those charged with running the system.
I seem to have missed something in KC's explaination: what about the 35?
Posted by: Bob Edelman on January 21, 2005 11:56 AMAnd why isn't anyone getting arrested? People out there forged names on faked votes (like dead people) and should be held accountable. And if election workers were so incompetent, whey aren't they being held accountable?
If I make huge mistakes at work, I get fired and my company is held liable. Why is this differnt?
Privatization of the vote count. Maybe it's time. Can you imagine the hoops the government would make YOU jump through to assure accuracy and fairness? At least we'd have acredited software and checks and balances that actually happen.
Posted by: scott on January 21, 2005 12:14 PMWell, I'd also want proof that (1) the number of contestable ballots exceeds the margin of victory, and (2) the malfeasance may have been done by someone who wanted the "winner" to win.
Otherwise, you'd open the door for anyone to spike an election their candidate lost.
Posted by: supercat on January 22, 2005 11:46 AM