Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger filed this declaration (under penalty of perjury) in Borders v. King County:
Petitioners allege that Snohomish County election officials “counted votes in excess of the number of lawfully registered voters that participated in the election.” This is a false statement. I have reviewed the records in Snohomish County pertaining to the November 2004 general election. As of election day, November 2, 2004, there were 352,238 registered voters in the county. My office received ballots from 96,231 polling place voters, 194,019 absentee voters and 9234 provisional voters, for a total of 299,484.[Emphasis added]
The petitioners allegation pertained to "registered voters that participated in the election". Terwilliger's number of 352,238 is simply the number of (active) registered voters in the county, without regard to whether or not they participated in the election. In fact, an e-mail from Terwilliger's public requests officer that I quoted at this post stated very clearly that Snohomish counted at least 282 more ballots in excess of the participating voters that they counted.
So what's the deal, did Terwilliger commit perjury in his declaration, or does he simply not understand the difference between a registered and a participating voter?
Another filing from Snohomish County attempts to explain:
RCW 29A.44.231 and RCW 29A.60.180 require that records be kept of those who voted at polling places or by absentee ballot respectively. These records are created after an election has already been certified. WAC 434-324-035. There is no requirement for a reconciliation of these records with the number of votes cast. Voter credit statistics provide no information indicating whether there were double voters or whether unregistered voters voted. As detailed in Respondent Terwilliger’s Declaration of January 31, 2005, Paragraphs 8-10, the November 2004 general election was conducted in Snohomish County with controls in place to prevent double voting or voting by unregistered persons from occurring, contrary to Petitioners’ speculation.Amazing. Voter credit statistics don't indicate the number of people who voted, there were "controls in place" to prevent fraudulent voting, but no duty to verify whether or not the "controls in place" actually did their job.
Perjury? Cluelessness? Gross negligence? I don't know.
Terwilliger's own website says that an Auditor is "One authorized to examine and verify records in the public trust.". The people of Snohomish County would be right to ask themselves how well Terwilliger has been exmaining and verifying the records in the public trust.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 02, 2005 12:20 PM | Email ThisWhich would be more effective, shaking some sense into Terwilliger, or slapping some sense into him?
This guy is either thick as a brick, or completely disingenuous. Either way, not acceptable qualities you want in "One authorized to examine and verify records in the public trust."
Posted by: ewaggin on February 2, 2005 12:38 PMThe thing I don't get (yes, I know, ad infinitum, ad nauseum) is that IT IS NOT HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF WHO VOTED, WHEN THEY VOTED AND WHERE THEY VOTED. Do it on a legal pad, a ledger book, something...I don't care, just keep track. They were able to do it in Iraq while at risk of loss of life. What's Bob problem? Fear of a sunbreak? Geeeeeezus, let's get in the freakin game...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 2, 2005 12:50 PMThis tallies the results of the manual recount by county. According to this Snoho counted 297,187 ballots in the hand recount. So where did Terwilliger get the number (299,484) he cited in his filing??? Out of his a**?
Posted by: SweetNSassy on February 2, 2005 12:58 PMHe didn't say how many were counted.
Same old Democratic CR*P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on February 2, 2005 01:04 PMThe GOP ignoramuses refused to fight the election results when they were close but Dino, the Flintone's dinosaur, was ahead. Only when they don't like the results do they whine like a Muslim pig.
NOW, they want a revote, but without changing the process. So if the results are close AGAIN, they would have to have ANOTHER revote. Unless of course Dino the dinosaur was ahead. THEN they would argue it was legit.
Their double standard sucks worse than a 50 year old Hoover.
The irony of the endless diatribes about the gubernatorial elections somehow always escapes the non critical thinking trolls of the extreme right wing of the GOP.
The practicality is they will continue to tilt at windmills, wallowing in their heavenly hubris and godly greed till they get hoisted on their own petards and finally come to the realization..... THEY LOST!
Procrustes would be proud of the Dino sympathizers and collaborators.
Flames >>> dev/null
Posted by: Zeno on February 2, 2005 01:32 PMLife has certainly gotten more interesting since we've had to struggle with the meaning of "is." But this is what contesting elections in a court of law with testimony under oath is designed to grapple with while seeking that elusive goal of the truth behind this 129 "win."
Posted by: RLG on February 2, 2005 01:38 PMMaybe if you even knew what the term "perjury" means and entails you would have a clue. But instead the wallowing in self pity by the right wing continues.
I can't wait to see who and what else you lose.
It is somewhat amusing.
Flames >>> dev/null
He stated that the number of ballots accepted by the voting machines at polling places “is reconciled” with the number of signatures in the poll books – but he made no statement about the result of that reconciliation effort. In other words, he didn’t say whether or not the numbers matched in any precinct, much less all precincts.
This is Terwilliger’s statement in paragraph 8 on page 3:
“A vote cannot be cast on an electronic voting machine without a voter activation card and an individual cannot receive a voter activation card without being listed in the poll book as a validly registered voter. Each DRE machine tracks the number of ballots cast during the day and this information is reconciled with the number of voter signatures in the poll books at the end of the day.”
Terwilliger also dodged the issue regarding absentee ballots, and again it’s important to recognize what he didn’t say.
He said duplicate absentee ballots wouldn’t be sent out to people who had already returned their previously requested absentee ballots; but he didn’t say that duplicate ballots wouldn’t be sent out, if requested, before a previously sent ballot had been returned. (In other words, more than one ballot could be obtained by a voter, so long as the extra ballots were requested before mailing the first one to the auditor’s office.)
More important is the fact that Terwilliger didn’t describe any other procedure used by his office to avoid counting the votes on more than one ballot per absentee voter. He described only the process by which his office avoids sending out another ballot after receiving a voted ballot. (He also mentioned no effort at all prior to certifying the returns to reconcile the number of ballots and the number of voters, whether by precinct or on a county-wide basis.)
This is his statement in paragraph 10 on pages 3 and 4:
“When an absentee ballot is returned to this office, the voter’s voter registration file is flagged to indicate their ballot has been returned. Should an absentee voter request a duplicate ballot, the flagging showing a returned ballot prevents the issuance of a second ballot and, therefore, prevents more than one ballot being counted for that voter.”
Now, don’t you think he would have described the precautions his office took to avoid counting the votes on more than one ballot per voter if such a procedure had been followed?
As I’ve said before: Get the written instructions that existed in Snohomish and King County, and which their election workers were supposed to follow when receiving, processing, verifying and counting the votes on ballots – whether received by absentee ballot or at the polls. Then, look for any procedure by which they used their computer system’s capabilities to weed out the second, third or thirtieth ballot received from any voter. I don’t think you will find any such procedure. (If Snohomish had one that they used, Terwilliger would surely have included a description of the procedure, wouldn’t he?)
Zeno, if there is a revote, it will not be close. Dino will win by a much larger margin the next time.
Despite your clever wordplay, your message is ineffective because it does not consider your audience here. If all you are going to do is rant, and call us bad people, please go away.
Gary
Posted by: Gary on February 2, 2005 01:48 PMThe popping sound of their head coming out would be make a sonic boom seem quiet,
Posted by: Budster on February 2, 2005 01:55 PMBut back to Sideshow Bob - his statements could only possibly fool five year olds or liberals. They are so carefully worded as to be completely transparent. Fewer votes than registered voters? Really? Mon dieu, then everything is okay! This whole thing stinks more by the day.
Posted by: Larry on February 2, 2005 01:55 PMAre your feelings so fragile you can't take a little dissent? I love the whimpering from the right!
You can always put me on ignore or get the owner to delete my comments. This would fit into a fascist worldview though. Sort of reminds one of how Bush makes policy! Ignore any facts that contradict the conclusion!
Flames >> dev/null
Posted by: Zeno on February 2, 2005 01:57 PMHowever, Judge John E. Bridges will be intensely interested in numbers of votes vs voters, and since he faces lawyers for hours every day he will be immune to verbal diarrhea.
Irrelevancies such as Zeno aside, the case of a botched election looks irrevocably made already.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 2, 2005 01:59 PMOh yeah, and I have a littel education for you Zeno: Muslim don't like pigs.
Talk about ignoramuses...
Posted by: thecomputerguy on February 2, 2005 01:59 PMIn the meantime, folks, don't feel obligated to waste time and bandwidth responding to factless anonymous trolls.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 2, 2005 02:03 PMOpinion: Your suggestion to ignore dissenting opinions is in contrast to your claim you will consider new or even existing facts. (Anonymity rebuttals are the excuse of those who can't rebut content.) The so called facts the Dino thralls posts are just commentary and opinion. When you claim so and so committed perjury it NOT a fact but an opinion.
Words mean things.
And once again. you aren't going to stop the dissent. The more you try and oppress and repress the stronger the reaction.
America will not be conquered from without, but will committ suicide from the low moral standards of conservatism and fascism.
Flames >> dev/null
Posted by: Zeno on February 2, 2005 02:16 PMViolation of the oath required in taking a sworn affidavit-Willful neglect in failure to address the issues of the legal suit filed against him. He failed to address the discrepancy of votes with specific regards to the requisite numbers stated by the plaintiff. He also exhibited willful neglect in addressing the number of illegal votes (felons, dead, etc.)found to date in Snohomish county. Anyone know the exact count of illegal votes found to date in Snohomish county? I believe willfull neglect stems from his failure to address and even conceal these issues from the court in his affidavit.
Otherwise he suffered a violation of his oath of office by either failing to reconcile votes to votes before certification or deliberately overstating the total number of votes although some were without voters (fraud). Also, he failed to fulfill the requirements of his office if there was a failure to removal all illegal votes from felons and dead voters. By his own admission both of these issues are a requirement of his office. Is Snohomish one of the counties which failed to properly certify their results according to state guidelines? That would push the BS meter up another notch on him by revealing his office's predisposition to fail to follow rules and regulation. Predisposition through historical occurances has legal precedent in the courts, your judged on auto insurance for a poor credit score for example. Judging his prior actions I would think he's sweating bullets about going to court. I'm thinking the threat of recall is shaking him up pretty bad. He loses this court case and there are grounds for a recall through mismanagement and failure to fulfill the duties he was assigned. Probably won't happen but he's got to be sweating the posibility.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on February 2, 2005 02:21 PMPosted by: KS on February 2, 2005 02:25 PM
Reading through your diatribe, I repeat my comment that logical consistency is not your forte. Your transition from fact 2 to fact 3 implies:
Law was not broken = Process is not broken.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And facts 4 and 5 are not facts at all. The GOP would like a change to the process implemented on Nov. 2, and that would be for King County Election Commission and the county auditors to follow the law. No dead voters, no felon voters unless they have reapplied, no illegal alien voters, and no double voters.
Do you have a problem with that process change?
Posted by: Larry on February 2, 2005 02:25 PMDid you Vote Zeno? If you did, was it counted? If you didnt vote, was "your" vote counted anyway (assuming you are registered). Is your neighbor still living? If not, did she/he vote? Did he/she vote twice?
These are all questions that the Citizen's of this state want answered. I can care less if R's or D's, but as a citizen and taxpayer of this state, I want to know, and I have that RIGHT.
Soooooooo Zeno, go find another place to land...
His affidavit is almost like that GI Joe doll that the terrorists are holding captive. It's hard not to laugh.
Why do democrats make this so easy?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 2, 2005 03:21 PMthe logical fallacy that a GOPer posted saying it was implied that if no law was broken equates to the process not being broken is a straw man argument. This is a typicla method of non critical thinking spindits. Weak.
FACT: The GOPers have not proposed ANY process changes they want in a revote. NONE. They may have proposed some process changes but not any for a revote because they know they can't get the process changed before the date they want the revote.
His other comments would seem to say that the 238 voterless ballots couldn't exist because of the processes SnoCo followed.
Posted by: Jack on February 2, 2005 03:47 PMWell that statement sure sums it up Zeno....The Dem's obviously dont CARE if the Dead Vote, and they dont want to disenfranchise the Illegal Aliens as their spokesperson mention yesterday in her "brief". Zeno, you dont really care do you, since your Govenor is in office. You dont really care do you?
And frankly, Your FACT doesn't mean Poop and has no revelance to this topic. Where in the LAW does it state you have to have Process Changes established prior to going to Court. Horse before the cart if you ask me.
Zeno history:
"His principle was that "all is one" and that change or non-Being are impossible."
'Nuf said...
Posted by: smegma on February 2, 2005 03:55 PM2nd "Fact: No law was broken in the process. Not one indictment has been filed. No law enforcement official has even alleged a law has been broken regarding the election process."
Just because there hasn't been an idictment yet doesn't mean laws weren't broken. I guess by that logic then if I steal something I haven't really broken the law until charges are pressed and I go to jail???
I really don't feel like addressing the rest of your "facts" right now. How about this. Why don't you do some research and prove to us that Gregoire really did get more legal votes and all the laws were followed? We'll certainly listen if you present us with an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to the FACTS.
Posted by: SweetNSassy on February 2, 2005 04:20 PMZeno (342?-370? B.C.) was a Greek philosopher and founder of Stoicism according to my dictionary.
Maybe he is also a dead voter.
Today's Zeno does not play well with others, so don't bother talking to him (her); he (she) doesn't really want to hear views that are different from his (her).
Zeno is just participating in online primordial scream therapy with racism/prejudice/hatred added for good measure.
This shows that the Democrats are desperate. Probably another séance at midnight tonight.
Where, oh where, is torrid joe when you need him.
Just kidding, t.j..
So, typical legal maneuvering seen daily in every courthouse. Conflicts in testimony that nonlawyers often think are perjury are oftentimes what judges call "fact issues", meaning that the judge can't resolve the conflict and the matter should go to trial. We'll know Friday before noon, since the motion is slated for 9 a.m., unless Judge Bridges takes it under advisement.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 2, 2005 09:19 PMThe figure 297,187 represents the number of votes cast on the race of Governor, as tabulated for the hand recount results. The figure 299,484 represents the number of voters who voted in the entire election, according to Terwilliger's affidavit.
If the numbers provided are both correct, then the difference between the two is the number of undervotes, or persons who did not vote on the race of Governor. One always needs to distinguish ballots or votes for a particular race with the overall number of voters.
Another anomaly is that the total of Gregoire, Rossi, Bennett, and Write-in votes exceeds the number of votes for Governor, but that is because two write-in's were for Chris Gregoire and also counted in Gregoire's column, so an adjustment of minus two had to be made on the hand recount totals so that write-ins and Gregoire votes were not double counted.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 2, 2005 09:55 PM