We reported two weeks ago that the Seattle Times managed to obtain an exclusive copy of the state's voter registration database that included birthdates.
The Secretary of State claimed that it released the birthdate data in error and in violation of the law and demanded that the Times return the data. The Times claims that the SoS interpretation of the law is incorrect, and that it was legal for the data to be released in the first place.
Now the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had its lawyers write a stern letter to the Secretary of State demanding that it too be allowed to obtain a copy of the birthday file.
I support both the Times and the P-I on this one. The law does not preclude the Secretary of State from releasing voter birthdates, which is vital public information. Especially since our election officials insist that it's not their job to enforce voting eligibility rules, it's the electorate's job. The electorate deserves the data. That includes the Times, the P-I, and everybody else in the state. And if the SoS is going to refuse to release the data to the P-I, shouldn't the Times simply make the data available to the general public? Isn't it their duty to publish information, even (especially) when it's information the government is inappropriately keeping secret?
And kudos to the P-I for fighting to get this data. I look forward to their investigative reports!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 26, 2005 05:32 PM | Email ThisIt is interesting how much faith the SoS has in the theory of "Closing the barn door AFTER the cow escapes."
Posted by: smegma on January 26, 2005 05:49 PMThey would never have shared the e-mail string with us.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 26, 2005 06:21 PMSo you can double check the government's work?
Given that logic, what isn't "vital public information?" Should the government release all tax returns (why trust that they were done right otherwise)? Should the government release all social security information (after all, we can't trust them either)?
Where are the libertarians here?
Posted by: jim on January 26, 2005 06:39 PMShould we have Bush and Rumsfeld send in the 3rd infantry division?
Should we try to get Jimmy Carter and the UN to go monitor your next elections?
I would laugh, but it really isn't all that funny. -Spin
Posted by: SpinDaddy on January 26, 2005 06:44 PMWhat are you afraid of? I don't get overly excited about birthdates (though I certainly *do* have a healthy libertarian streak). Doesn't seem to me there's much to worry about. Oh, unless it has something to do with the public's ability to see election fraud.
Posted by: Moscow Mark on January 26, 2005 07:04 PMI do agree with having this information released to the parties involved with the election contest for the sake of discovery! I believe the Republicans and the BIAW - along with the Democrats, should have free access to this list!
Fortunately in the case of our tax returns, for those of us who file tax returns we are the ones either preparing or filing the returns and we have a strong vested interest to ensure they are properly filed and calculated. I don't rely on the state to verify my tax return. There is no need to disclose our tax returns, unless perhaps we are running for public office (or unless we are Sen & Theresa Kerry who got away with only with a single limited page of disclosure...typical DemonRAT).
And in the case of Soc Security nos, maybe we need to go instead to some type of national voter id in order to prevent or minimize the DemonRATS tendency for dead people voting, double-triple voting, out-of-staters voting, illegal aliens voting, felons voting, etc.
Posted by: Ralph R on January 26, 2005 07:19 PMThe only residential addresses that are not are public record under RCW 42.17 are the residental adddresses of State Employees.
Social Security Numbers are exempt under private tax information.
Posted by: Gil on January 26, 2005 08:31 PMRalph: you chide Mrs. Kerry with the tax return issue. Careful, Dino Rossi himself refused to provide his tax return (yet Gregoire did)....want to chime in on that?
Posted by: jim on January 26, 2005 08:39 PMNot only did Dino Rossi not give out his tax return, you are dead wrong about Senator Kerry. I assumed you were talking about his wife; but no, you said he and his wife gave one page.
That is yet another example of postings here that don't reflect the most rudimentary fact checking. A simple google search provides Kerry's full tax returns from 1999-2003.
And just for the fun of it, check out what our President did: "Note: For tax year 2001, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney released partial returns. For tax year 2000, Bush released only his Form 1040; Cheney provided a summary of his taxes, but released no forms."
Here you go: http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/thpwebsite.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument
Posted by: jim on January 26, 2005 08:48 PMIn Stefan's 12/30/04 posting entitled, "Residence, Schmesidence" (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003330.html), The Shark said, "Intriguingly, one of the people in King County who has registered and voted at an illegal address is a very prominent citizen for whom a felony conviction (or even an investigation) for fraudulent voter registration could end their career. This is someone I think a lot of Democrats would feel bad about losing if they end up being sacrificed in this tsunami of illegitimate voting."
In a 1/9/05 Matt Rosenberg posting, a John Fund article was referenced. The Monday Jan. 10, The Wall Street Journal article said, "A noted local judge and her husband have been registered at the county building for years." Mr. Fund contacted her and got the “Mexican Mafia” line (posting found here: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003430.html).
I have been assuming that the "prominent citizen" Stefan referred to and the judge that Mr. Fund referred to were one and the same. I think I have identified the judge (see below), but its possible that Stefan and Mr. Fund may not be referring to the same person.
By the way, I am posting this information not to cause Judge Fletcher any grief (especially since my conclusion may not be accurate), but to illustrate another potential example of the poor job that the county elections officials may have done at making sure that a voter's mailing address and their residence are the same.
Now, here's the big question: is there some allowance for Federal judges that permits them to use the King County Elections Office address as their offical residence for some reason? If so, I've not seen that mentioned in any of the discussions thus far.
Here's what I found using the SoundPolitics (really cool) voter database:
FLETCHER BETTY B 50e 4TH AVE SEATTLE Abs
FLETCHER GEORGETTA 50e 4TH AVE SEATTLE Abs
FLETCHER ROBERT L 50e 4TH AVE SEATTLE Abs
Via Google:
Judge Betty Binns Fletcher
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Nominated by Jimmy Carter on July 12, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1979, and received commission on September 26, 1979. Assumed senior status on November 1, 1998. Born 1923 in Tacoma, WA Stanford University, B.A., 1943; University of Washington School of Law, LL.B., 1956
Betty B. Fletcher’s voter information is as follows:
Precinct: SEA 37-1823. Voter Registration Number: 0722243xxx
Her current address: 500 4TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (which is the King County elections office)
Her previous mailing address was: 1010 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 (which is the U.S. Courthouse)
Robert L. Fletcher has the same address information under voter registration number: 0722243xxx, so I assume this is the husband referred to by John Fund, and one of the reasons I think this may be the person referenced in his article. (I haven’t found information on Georgetta Fletcher, which may not be relevant).
Anyway, does anyone know if this is all cool, or is this another example of a problem in King County?
Just look at how many times we provide people with DOB, Drivers License Numbers, etc., when we are asked by store clerks, financial institutions and others. Financial institutions are selling your information to others for the purpose of solicitation. The bottom line is the State of Washington has one of if not the most liberal set of disclosure laws in the country. Now, it might just come back and bite them.
Posted by: Gil on January 26, 2005 08:52 PMFrankly, the more I hear about this guy, the better recalling him sounds. Can you say doofus?
Posted by: Boonie on January 26, 2005 08:53 PMSo you can double check the government's work?
Given that logic, what isn't "vital public information?" Should the government release all tax returns (why trust that they were done right otherwise)? Should the government release all social security information (after all, we can't trust them either)?
The difference, of course, is that if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will make sure every dollar is accounted for...that's what they do.
Dean Logan says preventing voter fraud is not his job.
Posted by: South County on January 26, 2005 09:18 PMjim...points well taken. However the essence of this discussion is that if KC or the SoS are not going to do the due diligence to validate their voter registration lists, than ordinary citizens need to step into the gap and help to clean this up and prevent or minimize repeat occurances of fraud due to erroneous voter registration lists.
Posted by: Ralph R on January 26, 2005 09:42 PMDoes anyone here know who Greg Overstreet is, he is cc'd in the PI counsel's letter...
He was appointed by AG McKenna to work out Public Disclosure rules with client agencies. Essentially he is the "damage control" for the PDRs...looks like the PI is awful serious about getting what they want, especially since they are apparently working with the AG on this issue, and not just threatening Wrong Turn REED!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 26, 2005 09:55 PMOh dear.....
This just get's more interesting every day!
Posted by: Deborah on January 26, 2005 10:14 PMAs for identity theft via a voter file...believe me, there is far more information out there about you than you might believe, and much more easily obtainable than thru a voter file. For instance: Ever fill out a warranty card? Or how about a charitable donation?
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 26, 2005 10:29 PMpersonally I think that if the KC officials are going to give out peoples names and addresses to PARTY officials that giving out DOB info is not too much to ask, especially, as people have pointed out, the SOS does not feel its his job nor the election board's job to legitimize voters.....its up to us....
yep, Sam Reed.....a person you vote for without any reason why, just because, and now look what what that attitude has brought us....another weasel....
Posted by: lee on January 26, 2005 10:46 PMI can only guess that getting Rossi in the governor's seat trumps all long-held views of the republicans (such as privacy, reducing government interference in lives, etc.)
I also guess that if the proceedings were such that the Democrats had requested birthdates of voters (assuming they believe it would have helped keep Gregoire in the office), the outrage here would have been monumental.
Ah, the joys of transforming views to achieve ends...we all do it...just fun to watch.
My teenage stepkids are thrilled about this new concept. For years they've been saying "...so what are you gonna do about it? Hold a gun to my head? You can't really do anything..." Now the government endorses not following rules and laws. These are great times for rebellious youth!
Birthday databases don't scare me; try calling your bank or cell phone company and pass their security questioning- birthday's aren't really the final identifying factor.
But now that people do have access to my birthday, I expect some Godiva boxes and flowers next year...