There are election boards — St. Louis comes to mind — that have been associated with so much fraud that no honest person should trust them. There are other election boards — Broward county in Florida comes to mind — that are so incompetent that no one should trust their results. (Some in this area are beginning to think that King County belongs with Broward, if not with St. Louis.) Usually these election boards are headed by elected officials or appointed directly by elected officials.
Now one could say that these counties get what they deserve. If their voters aren't willing to choose officials who will provide honest, well-managed elections, that's their fault, and they should suffer the consequences. The problem with that argument is that the results in these counties affect their states, and the rights of voters outside these counties, who never have a chance to throw the rascals out. In Washington state, the continued failures of King County have cast doubt on many recent close elections. But the roughly two-thirds of the state's voters who live outside King County never have a chance to remove county executive Ron Sims from office.
What to do about this? I think that secretaries of state should have the power to ask for court orders to suspend county election boards that fail in their duties. If, for example, the King County elections office is unable to do something as basic as balancing voters and votes, then the rest of Washington should have the power to replace them with an organization that can. (I would suggest hiring a private accounting firm to do the work.) If Ron Sims and company are unwilling or unable to fix the problems here, then the rest of the state should have the power to do so. There are at least a few states that have a similar process for local school systems, so the idea is not unprecedented.
Many in the Republican party have been critical of Washington's secretary of state, Sam Reed. I am not pleased by everything he has done, or failed to do, myself. But we should recognize that he has little direct control over the King County elections office, or those in other counties with dubious election results. I'd like to give him a little more power — so we can hold him much more responsible.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
More: Florida does have a procedure for removing failing election officers, and Governor Jeb Bush has used it to remove one of the worst.
A hearing officer Tuesday recommended that the state Senate uphold Gov. Jeb Bush's decision to remove former Broward County Elections Supervisor Miriam Oliphant.
. . .
Bush suspended Oliphant without pay in November 2003 for alleged neglect of duty, incompetence and misfeasance stemming from the 2002 primary election.
That Oliphant. a Democrat, fouled up a primary election must have made it easier for Bush to remove her. And I must say I like the fact that she lost her pay, too.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 18, 2005 09:22 AM | Email ThisNot sure I understand your logic here. Sam Reed is either "on the take" incompetent, or both. I don't want him having more power, that would just lead to more chaos.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on January 18, 2005 09:33 AMJudging by the 60% want for a revote...there are not just a few Dems that are irritated with our present situation.
I am still of the opinion that the gerrymandering process in King County should not be decided by those in power. It should be done by outside parties in the spirit of fairness. Since when does a controlling party do anything in the spirit of fairness…what was I thinking!
Even when the auditor was caught re-marking ballots in secret there was nothing that could be done.
The Secretary of States office has no authority other than rulemaking. There is no penalty for breaking those rules.
The courts would do nothing stating it was a political matter.
So how do you vote the person out of office that counts the votes?
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 18, 2005 09:49 AMEven when the auditor was caught re-marking ballots in secret there was nothing that could be done.
The Secretary of States office has no authority other than rulemaking. There is no penalty for breaking those rules.
The courts would do nothing stating it was a political matter.
So how do you vote the person out of office that counts the votes?
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 18, 2005 09:51 AMRemoving responsibility for conducting, counting or performing any electoral functions through 2010 is not only rational, it is the right thing to do.
Posted by: Baynative on January 18, 2005 09:55 AMBy the same token, the Legislature must in turn endorse the SOS' certification with one of their own. If they do not have the authority to withhold certification of a botched election, why does the Constitution require them to certify? As has been previously pointed out, the Sos and the Legislature stand as gatekeepers; their certifications (given or withheld) serve as checks and balances on the electoral process.
So, no, the SoS is NOT powerless in this case.
Posted by: Patrick on January 18, 2005 10:00 AMSomething like "Auditor charged $10000 for each incident of:"
A dead person voting.
Someone successfully double-voting.
Non-reconstructed felons voting.
Unexplained discrepancies between 'ballots cast' and 'voters who voted'.
A reward for actually doing their job and catching these things seems silly - but if it was opened up to _anytone_, then there'd actually be a monetary reward for peering into each and every election as you all have done this time. That would be a mighty strong incentive to clean up. Quick.
Posted by: Al on January 18, 2005 10:13 AMBe careful what you ask for. Punishment I could agree with, but it could get dicey. However, giving incentives for doing thing correctly, could be even more problematic. In some cases, there are people out there, when given the chance, that will make sure certain things will happen (while remaining undectectable) that will give them the chance to 'be the hero' and gain some $$ at the same time.
I know this to be true because I have seen this applied to my line of work. Folks find out that they'll get more incentives, (e.g. $$, etc...) for fixing problems. All of a sudden more problems start showing up from everywhere and they swoop in and fix them, while collecting the $$.
Just be careful when you do this. If a system could be put in place to monitor how the problems arise, and it could be traced back to that point/person of origin, then I think it could be good.
One last point...I'm expected to do my job everyday (like most others in the state not employed by the state) and I don't get any "special incentives" for doing my job right. I think that we need to raise the level of expectations for the jobs these folks sign up for in the service of the people, (i.e. county, state, federal employees.)
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on January 18, 2005 10:28 AMThanks to citizen activists willing to take action based on good information supplied by researchers like Stefan et al. at Sound Politics, a degree of public awareness is being generated.
As for Secretary Reed, I earlier voiced the suspicion that he simply lacked the courage to take the political heat by refusing to certify the election. This prompted Jason to supply an imaginary Seattle PI article:
"Today the Washington Secretary of State, himmself a Republican, refused to certify the governor's election in which Democrat Christine Gregoire won the third and final recount in what has become a highly politically charged election contest. When asked if this was partisan meddling, Mr. Reed replied, 'I am simply doing my job.' However, Mr. Reed hadn't raised these same objections when Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate, was ahead in both the first count and the mandatory machine recount. Many Democrat observers are claiming bias on the part of Mr. Reed, and the State Democrat Party has filed suit in King County Superior Court to force the Secretary of State to certify the election."
Thanks again to Jason for depicting the likely response to Reed's really "doing his job."
Posted by: RLG on January 18, 2005 10:32 AMGood point...add "spineless" to my description of Sam above.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on January 18, 2005 10:45 AMI understand the thinking to date on the "Recall Reed" has been mixed. Interestingly enough, Dino Rossi himself is opposed to recalling Sam Reed. This reluctance to follow the RCW's and WAC's which spell out the process is curious.
It will be the court that decides if the charges are sufficient to warrant a recall of Sam Reed.
Put simply in plain English, Sam Reed violated RCWs, WACs, and his oath of office. How nice a guy he is makes little difference. Bob Williams from the EFF, with his excellent research, has summed it up like it is.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on January 18, 2005 12:21 PMI understand the thinking to date on the "Recall Reed" has been mixed. Interestingly enough, Dino Rossi himself is opposed to recalling Sam Reed. This reluctance to follow the RCW's and WAC's which spell out the process is curious.
It will be the court that decides if the charges are sufficient to warrant a recall of Sam Reed.
Put simply in plain English, Sam Reed violated RCWs, WACs, and his oath of office. How nice a guy he is makes little difference. Bob Williams from the EFF, with his excellent research, has summed it up like it is.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on January 18, 2005 12:21 PMRinghofer is correct. Read Bob Williams post at effwa.org (Evergreen Freedom Foundation). Sam's job to certify the election at the state level included getting reconciled reports from the counties with signatures of the auditors (or other folks) stating that the results of the election had been certified by the counties, (one would think this logically would include the reconcilation of the ballots vs voters for each county).
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on January 18, 2005 01:20 PMFirst - how come nobody has started a recall Gregoire campaign. It seems to me this should have been started before a recall Reed effort.
Second - How come this has not been picked up by those that want to split King County. I mean, if you really want to diminish the effect of King County, make it smaller by splitting the county.
Posted by: TJ on January 18, 2005 02:48 PMThis would provide a strong incentive for counties to clean up their acts (since failure to do so could be expensive). It would also provide an incentive for counties to scrutinize other counties' elections (since finding fishy votes in other counties would diminish their portion of the revote funding). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would cause sloppy officials to be held accountable. In Democrat-leaning areas, people probably won't mind an official who fudges things a little to benefit a Democrat candidate. But nobody's going to like an official whose fudging causes them to have to pay for a revote.
Posted by: supercat on January 18, 2005 04:12 PMI agree that there's opportunity for malfeasance if done sloppily. But what we've _got_ has been done sloppily - and people are more interested in prosecuting someone that's embezzled money than someone who conveniently backdated voter registrations.
And I was proposing that you make it an _open_ bounty, not restricted to the elections workers. The list of registered voters, the list of felons, the list of the recently deceased - these are things that _should_ have been examined in excruciating detail PRIOR to the first ballot being mailed out. The parts that _are_ public records should _be_ public. Post them at wa.gov somewhere. A scam set up internal to the elections office would then be on thin ice. There's the possibility of being beat to the punch by someone good at Perl, and the possibility of being actually fired from a government job if any sort of scam is discerned.
Speaking of FOIA info, has anyone requested the list of voters for the February elections yet?
Posted by: Al on January 18, 2005 04:19 PMThanks for the clarification. I agree with your suggestion, except for one thing. It might cause a huge logjam, bottleneck etc, for the courts to figure out which are 'genuine finds' and which are not, as I'm sure both parties would be presenting boatloads of evidence to prove their point(s). However, I for one would love to see the tap dancing that officials would be doing if this ever was instituted.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on January 18, 2005 04:31 PMI think to recall Gregoire at this point - would in some ways - *validate* her position as Governor.....
Why on earth would we want to do that prior to the outcome of the contest?
It's extremely likely that the courts will recall her before any public effort could get underway.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 18, 2005 05:00 PMMr. Reed did not have to certify the election results if he truly believed them to be flawed or fraudlent. He could have resigned his office in protest, or as a pricipled response to the conflict he faced between fulfilling his oath of office and signing his name to a document attesting to a result he did not believe was legitimate. Where would a resignation by the SoS have left the process? Is there a second-in-command who would have acted in his place?
Granted, such a course of action would require some measure of courage and sacrifice. But principled leadership sometimes leads one down such a path. It is for each of us to decide which master we will serve.
Posted by: Interested Observer on January 18, 2005 05:35 PMI do think there will come a time for my (nasty) focus to turn to the illegal actions of the SoS, but at this point, we have only the courts to concentrate on.
Martin Ringhofer, I know it will become a focus, but for now, I need to dig into my...
wallet and help RCP out. What, did you think I would say something else?
Cheers, my friend...
Posted by: smegma on January 18, 2005 05:43 PM