Nearly two years after her fatal accident, Rachel Corrie is still registered to vote in Thurston County.
The voting history (not online) shows that Corrie last voted in 2001. But it seems weird that she's still registered. The nominal excuse must be that she died outside the state, so she was never listed in the Vital Records reports. On the other hand, a lot of registered voters must die out of state and there would have to be some way for county election officials to figure out when to cancel the registration of someone who dies out-of-state. You'd think they would at least figure out after 70 articles in the local newspaper that Rachel Corrie has left the precinct. How many less prominent Thurston citizens have died and are still on the voter list? How many of them are still voting?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2005 12:08 AM | Email This/moonbat
Posted by: EIDE_Interface on February 1, 2005 12:19 AMGreat show on Ch.21!
Posted by: P. Scott Cummins on February 1, 2005 12:31 AMWow, and a double-booking? Back-to-back replays! Hope to see you @ PLU next week.
Posted by: bmvaughn on February 1, 2005 12:43 AMJust think. That would mean that Ms. Corrie could not only remain registered, but she could probably still vote!
Posted by: JeanneB on February 1, 2005 06:33 AMIt is just too bad the real criminals--her professor and the rest of ISM--wasn't beside her when she dove behind the bulldozer. But they were safe and sound when it happened.
Posted by: iconoclast on February 1, 2005 08:31 AMNow, if she had voted, it would be a different story. Assuming that it is the same Rachel Corey, that would be clear evidence of fraud.
While it would be nice if someone in county records had "connected the dots" and taken the initiative to verify that it was indeed the same Rachel Corey, faulting them for not doing so without some sort of official death notification seems to be stretching. After all, Thurston County is hardly the smallest in Washington, and neither "Rachel" nor "Corey" are terribly uncommon names.
Barring a national ID, and centralized database, I'm not sure what the county should have done. Of course, if someone here wants to verify that it is the same Rachel Corey, then write the Thurston County Auditor a nice letter, I'm sure it would be appreciated.
Oh, and as for the comment from FedUpWithThis, "We will always remember Rachel as "St. Pancake." Will someone please find him the other half of his wit.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 08:44 AMDid they explain to you the procedures for removing deceased voters off of the rolls?
Carla@PreemptiveKarma
Posted by: carla on February 1, 2005 08:58 AMCarla@PreemptiveKarma
Posted by: carla on February 1, 2005 09:00 AM"Carla, you're missing the point. It is the responsibility of the government to protect voters' rights. By failing to keep the voter rolls clean, they are neglecting that core responsibility."
Again, what exactly would you have Thurston County do? If someone sees a newspaper story about a death, should they then check the voter rolls and verify everyone of that name?
My last name (with this spelling) is quite uncommon (I was, for many years, the only "Barelli" in the Navy), but there are several other people named "John Barelli" in the country, at least one with the same middle name as well. Verifying obituaries and newspaper stories of deaths would keep them pretty busy every time John Smith dies.
Now, if they had been officially notified, my answer would be different.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 09:33 AMCarla appears to be deflecting the argument by saying that this county is not to blame for the problem.
But that does not make the *problem* itself disappear. The problem is very real, and no amount of citing from rule books makes it go away.
I have no idea myself who should get the blame: Thurston County, the legislators of the past decade, or what. It is clear, though, the honor system is over.
Posted by: Bostonian on February 1, 2005 09:53 AMI don't think we have a system for tracking deaths in this country, but having a central database would eliminate many opportunities for fake IDs, which would be a good thing by itself. And it would be easy to connect that database to the voter rolls.
By way of a vague analogy... here in the state of MA, you cannot register a car without proof of insurance. If you cancel your insurance policy, the insurance company tells the state, and presto, the authorities know to pull you over.
***
Sometimes you have accused us here of complaining without offering suggestions. That's not entirely fair.
It is not hard to think of ways of closing the security holes. The key impediment to getting legislation is, I think, lack of willpower rather than lack of ideas.
I think it is important to document specific cases such as these. It seems to me that there will not be enough pressure to enact legislation unless people are thinking of specifics rather than generalities. Specific cases appeal to the imagination and cause a stronger reaction. Kudos to Stefan for digging these things up!
Posted by: Bostonian on February 1, 2005 10:05 AMJohn B., the point of the original post, I believe, is that the current system has giant holes, and this case provides more evidence of that.
The system, as I understand it, has several safeguards. Some of these have not kicked in yet.
First, if someone dies in the county, the auditor should be provided with that information. That didn't happen as she didn't die in Thurston County or Washington State.
Next, if mail from the auditor goes unanswered (or comes back marked "deceased"), she can be removed. Also didn't happen.
If a friend or relative notifies the auditor, she can be removed after it is verified. It must be carefully verified, however, as there has been some fraud in getting people's registration cancelled. (Oddly enough, in all the cases of that happening that I have heard of, it was a Democrat that had their registration cancelled. Oh, well, different parties, different ways of messing with the system. Both wrong.)
If the person does not vote in several consecutive general elections, a letter is sent to verify that the person is still alive and in the county. The problem there is that it takes several years for this safeguard to kick in.
A proposal has been made for a statewide database to help with some of these situations, but even this would not have caught Ms. Corey's case, as she died outside the state.
This particular case seems designed more to inflame passions than to solve a problem.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 10:20 AMSuit yourself, but I think it's outrageous.
Posted by: Bostonian on February 1, 2005 10:25 AMWhich "vital records search" are we speaking of? if it is a statewide, cross-indexed by county record that the auditor has access to, then you have my apology. If that's the case, they should have known and taken action.
We aren't funding or providing sufficient manpower for the counties to perform routine checks on all voters, each time a name comes up in a newspaper story or even an obituary.
The safeguards take too much time, granted. Perhaps a letter should be sent if you miss one general election. Of course, we could also require that anyone who dies get the permission of the county, and there be a one-month waiting period. ;-)
Now, if you want to modify federal law and allow the Social Security database to be used for that purpose, I'll even write my Senators and Congressman in support. My letter might even carry more weight, as they're all in my party.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 10:35 AMDon't confuse clerical error with systmes that are designed to enable or outright encourage voter fraud. When anyone can walk into the county and give a county office as their address, voter fraud is a real and legitimate concern. When the state's largest county has trouble matching ballots to voters, there is a real and legitimate voter fraud concern.
The Rachel Corrie registration is nothing more than an ironic coincidence, and it trivializes the other finds and claims that Sound Politics has discovered.
Stick to the serious arguments if you want your argument to ever be taken seriously.
Now if she had voted...
Posted by: kevin on February 1, 2005 10:56 AMHowever, HAVA allowed two year waivers from this deadline, based on a showing of good cause. Sam Reed obtained the maximum two year waiver, and this does not have to be done in Washington until January 1, 2006.
Rachel Corrie might be in the Social Security database, since there is some procedure when U.S. citizens die in foreign countries and the U.S. consular authorities are aware of these deaths -- as they surely were in this case.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 1, 2005 11:13 AMWe would need to seriously consider what to do to prevent "homeless" from being abused.
Absentee ballots would have to be rerequested every time one registered. (and should, IMHO, be only for those who are going to be out of town/infirm and stuck at home at the time of voting. In any case, no permanent absentee.)
Stronger burden of proof for someone who is having their ballot sent out of state (military ID, going to school, or whatever) Perhaps even a notarized "witness" that you do, indeed, live in Washington state. (For example, if a man were going to be in Austria on a business trip, he could get his company or a neighborhood friend to notarize a witness that his residence was in Washington state as of a certain date. Or something)
Provisional ballots definitely a different color from regular.
I realize that there is always a possibility of fraud or good-old fashioned human error in any election, but I don’t feel it’s unreasonable to provide certain basic safeguards. Those who seek to win by any means necessary should not (and I never thought I’d ever actually use this word) "disenfranchise" those of us who obey the law.
Posted by: Evil Killer Dust Bunny on February 1, 2005 12:10 PMThe solution is simple: require photo ID at polling places, and limit absentee ballots to voters who are physically unable to vote in person. Do away with permanent absentee status. If someone has died and is still on the roll, it should be nearly impossible for someone to vote in their stead.
'Course, some indelible blue ink on a finger wouldn't hurt either...;)
Posted by: Patrick on February 1, 2005 12:18 PMI asked a simple question. I think it's very legitimate.
What did Thurston County say to Mr. Sharkansky when he called to ask what their procedures are to remove deceased voters from the rolls?
I still await an answer, fyi.
Carla@PreemptiveKarma
Posted by: carla on February 1, 2005 01:03 PMEvil Killer Dust Bunny wrote:
I’m all for a system that requires periodic re-registration. I believe most people tend to confuse a privilege with a right. If I want to drive, I have to provide proof of auto liability coverage when I renew my driver’s license every four years, as well as when I have my car inspected (including mandated emissions testing) every year or renew my license plates. Heck, I even have to provide at least two forms of proof of residence in order to keep my public library card active.
No, I've got it straight. Driving and checking out library books are privileges, voting is a right. I've posted the Washington State Constitution article enough times that regular readers should have it memorized by now.
Now, having said this, reasonable, non-restrictive methods of verifying voters' identity and eligibility can be initiated. Many have been suggested here on these boards.
The trick is, we must remember that voting is a right, and that anything we implement must not interfere with that right. Heck, I'd go along with an ink stain on a finger, but I think more Republicans would object to that than Democrats.
As to cutting back on absentee voting, there's another one I'd go along with. Of course, I'm also of the impression that more absentee voters are Republicans than Democrats.
From: THE NATION; July 15, 2001
Absentee Vote Did It for Bush
WASHINGTON -- In an extraordinary get-out-the-
vote effort that helped put George W. Bush in
the White House, Florida's Republican Party
mounted an aggressive appeal to party faithful--
complete with a letter from Gov. Jeb Bush--to
cast absentee ballots before the Nov. 7 election.
"Vote from the comfort of your home," Jeb Bush
urged in the letter, which was superimposed over
what appeared to be an image of the state seal.
And vote they did. A survey of Florida's 67
counties shows that more than 700,000 Florida
voters--or almost 1 in 8--voted absentee. George
W. Bush, the governor's brother, captured about
125,000 more absentee votes than his Democratic
rival, Al Gore.
Since I'm of the impression that voting is important enough to roust me from my easy chair and make me drive the 2-3 miles to my polling place, I've got no problem with this. Of course, the RNC might not like the idea quite so much. ;-)
(Heck, Florida law doesn't allow for absentee voting for convenience, but that didn't stop anyone.)
More seriously, many people vote from home for no reason other than convenience, and I'm not really opposed to that, even for Republicans. But if we are going to offer this convenience, perhaps we should require that a request be renewed annually?
You lost any trace of your credibility back in your first post (above)--where you spelled Rachel Corrie's name wrong five times. You
spelled it "Corey." Sorry, half-wit, that's wrong. By the way, I think you'd agree that if people have to check names on voter rolls, they at least have to get the spelling right.
Rachel Corrie was flattened by exercising her solidarity with Palestinian sucicide bombers, terrorists, and murderers. And yet she is revered
by the "McDermott wing" of the Democratic Party as some kind of "peace" activist, even though she was a stooge for murderers. That's how she earned her nickname, "St. Pancake."
Other than that, Barelli, learn how to spell.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on February 1, 2005 02:28 PMFedUpWithThis, don't pick on the guy's spelling. And Corrie's story has nothing to do with voting, so I think it's better to leave it out.
Posted by: Bostonian on February 1, 2005 02:45 PMNormally, I reserve the personal returns for a private e-mail, but since you don't seem to feel a need to put a name or e-mail address with your anonymous attacks, I'll have to do it here.
Sorry I got Ms. Corrie's name wrong. Frankly, she just isn't that big a "patron saint" with me, although I agree she deserves the respect of my spelling her name properly. To her friends and family, my sincere apologies.
I don't however, deliberately poke fun at someone who has put their life on the line to defend their beliefs, even when I disagree with them. My own life was on the line for too many years, defending what I believe in for me not to treat such a person with some respect, name misspelling notwithstanding.
I am also willing to stand up for what I write, and as such, I do not cower behind some lame handle and fake e-mail address, although I found "fedup.com" to be quite amusing (you should check it out.) You are welcome to reply off-line, at the e-mail address I provide in the link on my name. You are also welcome to check on my statement about my own life being on the line at: http://www.lonesailor.org/log.php?search=yes&navy_log_id=247310&lname_search=BARELLI&fname_search=JOHN&page=1
Some on this board believe that Ms. Corrie was misguided. Fine. I'm not so sure I disagree. But the fact that she was willing to back up her beliefs with her life speaks volumes for her character, and I will not disparage it, nor will I tolerate fools that do.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 03:30 PMNot relevant?
Mr. Sharkansky is saying that Ms Corrie is still on the voter roll in Thurston County. He further says "there has to be some way for county election officials to figure out when to cancel the registration of someone who dies out-of-state."
It appears that Mr. Sharkansy believes that there is no process in place for county elections officials to remove these deceased voters. So it's clear he believes it to be the county's responsibility to see that it gets done.
Therefore it stands to reason that he would contact Thurston County to find out what their procedures actually are.
Posted by: carla on February 1, 2005 04:18 PMPlease let us know when you have moved, changed your name, or have any other registration updates. It could affect your eligibility to vote on the correct candidates and issues in an election.
State law requires Election Departments to mail a confirmation notice to your registered address if any of the following are returned by the Post Office as undeliverable:
- a voter identification card
- a mailed ballot
- a jury notice
- a notification of a precinct reassignment
Your registration will be placed on inactive status until you respond.
So, since I see no other method approved for removing someone that is known to be deceased, I would simply write a letter to the Auditor.
I'd also keep it pleasant and polite, as from her bio page, it seems that her hobbies are kickboxing and weightlifting. ;-)
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 04:31 PMNo, he didn't vote in 2004!
Posted by: Tom on February 1, 2005 06:04 PMI have never been able to find a record of her body being returned to the U.S. and buried there, or alternatively, as her PLO friends might have preferred for the spectacle of it all, and buried in the Gaza Strip.
I have emailed several reporters who covered the story both from her parents' home somewhere in the SE US and in national media about this omission, which is curious - given the massive publicity her 'death' got, and haven't gotten an answer. Her parents came out here to the PNW to appear at various leftie public events, but didn't take advantage of the opportunity to have a big lugubrious funeral.
I saw some stuff on the Internet that questioned the authenticity of the pictures that were given to the press purporting to show how she was mercilessly mown down. Yet, the IDF 'admitted' that she had been killed 'accidentally.'
So now, I'm developing some theories, but they are too flaky to relate here. Does anyone know how to find out when and where and whether she was actually buried? Surely, the ace bloggers on this site can help on this????
Posted by: Mac on February 1, 2005 07:10 PM