It's not only common sense that dictates you can't certify an election unless the number of ballots matches the number of voters. There is even a Secretary of State agency rule that mandates as much. Somehow the election was certified even though it's pretty clear that King County didn't even come close to reconciling their ballot and voter numbers. The following "emergency rule" was issued on August 24, 2004:
WAC 434-253-204 Precinct or poll site ballot reconciliation -- Precinct count optical scan and direct recording devices. Poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:For whatever reason, King County determined it was unnecessary to comply with this agency rule. But it did everything possible to comply with the agency rule allowing everybody and their dog to register at the county administration building.(1) Each precinct or poll site ballot counter shall print out results immediately following the closing of the polls. A copy of the results will be posted at the poll site or otherwise made available for public inspection.
(2) The total of votes cast from each counter shall be reconciled with the number of signatures in the poll book(s) prior to transporting to the counting center. The total number of ballots reported on the results printout should equal the number of signatures in the poll book(s). Discrepancies shall be reported and explained by the Inspector.
(3) In a sealed container, the data pack/chip of each ballot counter shall be transported to the counting center with each results printout.
(4) The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, any out-sorted ballots, spoiled ballots.
(5) Any discrepancies must be investigated. At a minimum, the following areas must be checked until the discrepancy is resolved:
(a) Check the accuracy of the ballot accountability form.
(b) Recount the signatures in the poll book.
(c) Ballot counter/direct recording device results.
(d) Check the spoiled ballots.
(e) Check the provisional ballots.
(f) Count the ballot stubs.
(g) Check the poll site supplies for ballots.
(h) Manually count the number of ballots.
(i) Call the poll workers.
(6) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election may be certified.
hat tip: Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the Croker Sack blog
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 18, 2005 07:55 AM | Email ThisBut did they even bother filing the required forms?---
"(2) The total of votes cast from EACH counter shall be reconciled with the number of signatures in the poll book(s) prior to transporting to the counting center. The total number of ballots reported on the results printout should equal the number of signatures in the poll book(s). Discrepancies shall be reported and explained by the Inspector." Also (4).
And
"(6) All steps to reconcile EACH precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election may be certified."
In all your research, have you seen any such reports BY COUNTER/PRECINCT? Perhaps you've already covered this---there's been SO MUCH to follow. But I don't recall hearing anything about these precinct reports (if they exist).
Posted by: JeanneB on January 18, 2005 08:19 AM"If it feels right then it must be right" is their guiding light!!!
Posted by: Norm Gilbertson on January 18, 2005 08:31 AMAll counties should have a uniform ballots and voting machines. Hand (subjective) recounts, ballot enhancements, and using public buildings as a residence should not be allowed. The State is to provide ballots and machinery to the counties and oversee county canvassing efforts. Vote tallies should equal registered voter rolls and Counties should be barred from certifying their results unless all is accounted for.
We are witnessing a change in power in the US that is engulfing the country state by state, county by county. It is an enormous change and it seems irreversible.
Each county that goes from blue to red is accompanied by its own death rattle, some too low to be heard ...others with a soul piercing scream. One can only imagine the anguish that the demons who routinely have "delivered the goods" now feel as the spotlight turns on them. Never in their worst nightmares did they believe this could happen.
It not only has, but it grows. The legion of gouls who cry "voter disenfranchment" are now silent...... stupified by the unrest in Washington and Wisconsin.
There will be more piercing crys of anguish as we move on. The chains have been removed.
Posted by: Ken Muller on January 18, 2005 09:00 AMThere's a sense of drip, drip, drip..... as all of this comes out, but at some point, the legal case becomes overwhelming to invalidate the election
Posted by: rob on January 18, 2005 09:01 AMWhat's silly is that if king county had followed that rule and simply took longer and took the care to reconcile everything BEFORE they certified, there would most likely not be a challenge.
Had King County followed the rule, the outcome would almost certainly have been different: eliminate the number of ballots in excess of the number of voters proportionately to the votes of both candidates in the County, and Rossi wins.
It is such an amazing coincidence that the Democrats almost always turn out to be the ones who don't follow the rules, or don't plan adequately for elections, and the subsequent messed up results almost always favor the Democrats. What are the odds......
Posted by: rop on January 18, 2005 09:25 AMI'm glad to see you've caught up with the latest news:
http://crokersack.blogspot.com/2005/01/sam-reeds-24-august-2004-emergency.html
I figured that telling EFF WA about those emergency rules might finally get someone's attention.
It helps to have a bullhorn, not a penny whistle of a blog.
Posted by: Micajah on January 18, 2005 10:47 AMWell said! The sad thing is that studies of reform in organizations reveal that the bulk of the wrong-doing needing correction is the fault of the leadership. Institutional hegemony is a potent force, corrupting all but the most resistant individuals. (See studies of whistle-blowers for more information on this.)
Reform must come from the top. I certainly hope your scenerio of change is correct. But pity the poor "demons" caught in the meshes of corrupt politics, just a little--okay?
Posted by: RLG on January 18, 2005 10:48 AManother thing to remember.....what the Democrat party has done is past incompetance, even though the word "Democrat" and the word "incompetance" go hand in hand.....what they have done is orchestrated voter fraud for their canidate...it was absolutely purposeful.....
Posted by: lee on January 18, 2005 11:02 AMRighto! I have no such sympathy for members of a voluntary organization such as the Democrat Party, BTW. Their corruption is without excuse. Pressures to conform are present within the Party, but they are free to leave. And the good news is that many are now exercising this option! The present mess and embarrassment at KC elections office, etc. is giving more and more motivation to those previously ignorant of the true nature of their political affiliation.
As for Reed, I'll go along with "spineless" as suggested by Cid.
Posted by: RLG on January 18, 2005 11:17 AMIt's too late, this story is gaining widespread attention due to Stefan, and SP et. al. Ron Sims and the other corrupt politicians and appointees in King County are going over the falls!
Thanks for everything you've done !
Posted by: Citizen Rain on January 18, 2005 12:00 PMI believe more and more County Auditors will step out like Donna Eldridge od Jefferson County and tell the voters of Washington exactly the way it ought to be...whether Sam Reed & Dean Logan want to hear the honest truth or not.
While I believe Reed & Logan are well-intentioned, I believe this spiraled out of control due to their unwillingness to admit publicly, upfront the huge problems with this election. AND a failure to subsequently investigate this election while trying to shift our focus to look ahead. It's usually the cover-up OR trying to minimze big issues that gets guys like Logan & Reed into more trouble than if they were totally transparent about the troubles from Day 1.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 18, 2005 12:36 PMThat's when they began to steal ballots right before our eyes out of desperation.
The reason we're catching them now is because common sense is becoming more popular for voters these days and has given us a win above and beyond the liberal cheating.
AND because people like Stefan, who are going out of their way to preserve election justice, have the online ability to reach out to others like never before - even bypassing the mainstream media bias and censorship!
Go justice!
Posted by: TADD on January 18, 2005 01:14 PMLook at 203's paragraph (2) which says, in part: "The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted." 204's paragraph (2) says, in part: "The total of votes cast from each counter shall be reconciled with the number of signatures in the poll book(s) prior to transporting to the counting center."
It looks as if for some precincts they're only concerned with reconciling ballots issued with ballots counted while other precincts must reconcile ballots counted with voters.
What's up with that?
`
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 18, 2005 02:37 PMI'm going to donate - Heck!...just for the satisfaction Stefan gave me when he slapped torridjoe upside his *embarassed* head!!
Posted by: Deborah on January 18, 2005 02:45 PMYes there were two very similar rules issued at the same time. One was for reconciling the numbers when the ballots are processed and the votes counted at a counting center, rather than at the precinct polling place. The other was for doing the reconciliation when the ballots are counted at the precinct using "an optical scan and direct recording device."
Since the two procedures are done in different places in different ways with different equipment, the two rules are slightly different.
Here is the beginning of each rule, where they each state to what circumstances they are intended to apply:
WAC 434-253-203 Poll site ballot reconciliation -- Central count optical scan and punchcard. Using the poll site ballot accountability forms, the poll books, and election night precinct results, poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
WAC 434-253-204 Precinct or poll site ballot reconciliation -- Precinct count optical scan and direct recording devices. Poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
While I'm not familiar with the equipment used in the situation to which -204 applies, it appears to be equipment which accepts the ballot from the voter, scans the votes on the ballot, and records them. When reconciling those, I suppose the thing you would look at is whether the number of ballots fed into the machine equals the number of voters who signed the poll book -- just as the rule states.
Posted by: Micajah on January 18, 2005 04:15 PMI'd say that is a HUGE sign of confidence in his election contest!
Posted by: Deborah on January 18, 2005 04:32 PMSorry, I was working when burnin'(41.14C)joe turned up. Good spanking!
Posted by: smegma on January 18, 2005 05:31 PMIf you look at the voting systems used by each county, it appears that 203 applies to 32 counties and 204 applies (partially?) to only 7 counties. So does that mean that 32 counties only have to reconcile ballot forms and not voters as specified in paragraph (2) of 203?
Posted by: Alan in Las Vegas on January 18, 2005 06:42 PMD - Don't worry about invalid Ballots
E - Enhance as many ballots as possible to make your candidate win
M - Make others feel inferior
O - Openly criticize others for doing the same thing you do
C - Create mistrust in the name of doing the right thing
R - Rationalize doing something wrong because you want to win
A - Abstain from taking the hard right over the easy wrong
T - Tell everyone you won fair and square (even though it costs the taxpayers $700 K)
S - Simply say "Let's put this behind us and move on." in the hope that no one will notice you bought an election!
Ken Muller, You make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck! I think you should write the screenplay for the movie. Nice job!
Personally, I'm guessing that Stefan and the rest of the Dirty Dozen are sifting through movie offers even as we speak.
I'm for Muller writing the screenplay, too!
...does that mean that 32 counties only have to reconcile ballot forms and not voters as specified in paragraph (2) of 203?
I can't claim to understand the whole process, but I believe one more piece of the puzzle is needed to see how the reconciliation happens in the -203 rule involving ballots counted at counting centers -- namely the ballot accountability form.
I haven't yet looked to see if there was a standard form that was required, nor have I looked at any county's form.
I have looked at the printed instructions given to poll workers in Kitsap County, so I have an idea of what goes on the ballot accountability form. They record the number of "spoiled ballots," provisional ballots, absentee ballots (some people drop an absentee ballot off rather than mail it or take it to the election office), and regularly voted ballots. They also count the number of signatures in the poll book. The idea is to check to see if everything balances -- so they know whether there is a discrepancy that needs to be investigated before they pack up and go back to the counting center with all the ballots in the transport container.
If you look at the language of subsection (2) and compare it to what they do at the polling places in Kitsap, you can see that the people at the counting center are required to double-check what was recorded on the form by the poll workers and compare it to what they find when processing the ballots in the container from the precinct:
(2) Each precinct's results shall be reconciled with the precinct's ballot accountability form. The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, spoiled ballots.
If you then look at subsection (3), you see that the people at the counting center are supposed to take action to figure out why any discrepancy exists:
(3) Any discrepancies must be investigated. At a minimum, the following areas must be checked until the discrepancy is resolved:
(a) Check the accuracy of the ballot accountability form.
(b) Recount the signatures in the poll book.
(c) Check the spoiled ballots.
(d) Check the provisional ballots.
(e) Count the ballot stubs.
(f) Check the bins in the ballot counter.
(g) Check the poll site supplies for ballots.
(h) Manually count the number of ballots.
(i) Call the poll workers.
And then, of course, subsection (4) says there is supposed to be a record made which documents "all steps to reconcile each precinct...including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved."
So the ballot accountability form is a record of what the precinct poll workers found when they counted everything up after the close of the polls on election day -- before they put it all into the transport container and took it to the counting center.
The counting center personnel are, then, comparing what they find in the ballot transport container to what ought to be there according to the ballot accountability form completed by the poll workers.
It seems like it would be a good enough system to make it possible to recognize that a problem exists in a precinct -- except possibly for one thing. I don't see any indication that anyone double-checks the poll workers' count of the signatures in the poll book unless they need to do that to try to resolve a discrepancy.
Maybe that step -- checking the poll books even when there isn't a discrepancy -- is done, and I just haven't noticed it in what I've read so far.
If no one at the counting center counts the signatures in the poll book during this process, it seems like a significant flaw in the reconciliation process. You might end up with 1800+ "voterless ballots" at the end of the counting process -- and you wouldn't know where they came from until you went back and counted those signatures in the poll books for each precinct and compared your count to what the ballot accountability form had on it.
And, if you found that you can't match 1800+ voted ballots to voters when you go through the poll books to update voter registration records by crediting voters with participating in the election, you might also wonder if the number of signatures in those books isn't the same as the number of ballots you counted.
If you felt obligated to resolve the discrepancy, even after certifying your election returns, you might go back and re-count those signatures in each poll book and compare it to what you thought was the number of signatures.
Indeed, if you wanted to be sure of not getting caught in such a bind, you would use that little barcode-reading wand to go over those poll books very carefully to do two things before certifying your election results: (1) keep your list of voters who participated in the election current in "real time," so the list can be used to keep people from voting more than once; and (2) find out whether someone has slipped more ballots into the pile at the precinct than you can account for by looking at the signatures of people who can be identified as having been issued ballots at the polls.
Hmmmmm. I wish I knew exactly what steps King County followed. I don't even know if -203 applies to their procedure. But I also don't see any routine double-checking of the poll book signature count in -204.
Although Logan claims that producing that list of people who participated in the election isn't intended to be part of the fraud-prevention process, it sure seems to me that it points to a need to go back and very carefully double-check the number of signatures in those poll books and compare what you find to the number you thought it was supposed to be for each precinct.
Posted by: Micajah on January 18, 2005 09:54 PM