I have filed suit against Secretary of State Sam Reed to compel disclosure of the state's voter registration file, including birthdates.
This issue arose last month when the Seattle Times obtained a copy of the birthday file, which the Secretary's office later demanded back, saying it was released by mistake and in violation of the law. The Seattle Times has rebuffed the Secretary's demand to return the file, on the grounds that there are not, in fact, any legal grounds for the Secretary to withhold voter birthdates and that his office was obligated to release the file all along.
Voter birthdates are essential to enable the electorate detect illegal voters, such as those of double registrants, felons, deceased persons and non-residents. Election officials have made clear their position that
Safeguarding the legitimacy and maintaining the accuracy of [voter registration] records is a shared responsibility between government and the electorate.”I'd prefer to delegate nearly all of that duty to government, but if government punts it back to the electorate, then shared responsibility requires shared access to information.
I submitted a public disclosure request to obtain the birthday file on January 27. (my Mom's birthday, as it happens). My request was denied.
How would I use the birthdate information? As with the other information I post in the online database, I would balance the primary concern of integrity and transparency of the voter rolls with legitimate privacy concerns and use the minimal set of data that seems reasonable for the purpose. For example, I would not publish complete birthdates, but only the year of birth so as to enable the public to tell whether two individuals with the same name at the same address are plausibly a parent/child pair, or a likely double voter. Second, I would make it possible to compare two registrations and determine whether or not they had the same birthdate, without disclosing the actual birthdates.
The first hearing in Sharkansky v. Reed will be held before Judge Hicks in Thurston County Superior Court, Friday, Feb. 25 at 9am. Plaintiff's counsel is Shawn Newman, known to listeners of the Mike Siegel Show as Prof. Shawn Newman, Esq.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 11, 2005 03:17 PM | Email ThisAnd again, it's no biggie. Those birthdates are available on other files too. Just got one from a famous list broker in Bellevue for a very (in)famous state in the SE corner of the country...and it has birthdates for practically everyone. Got one from another list broker in a Midwest state...and it has birthdates for practically everyone.
Seems to me Smiling Sam and the Gang are playing hard to get. Good luck and Godspeed in your suit.
The people of this state owe you an incredible debt of gratitude, for not only this excellent site but also for your inexhaustable efforts in the pursuit of a fair election, and exposing the flaws and corruption in the system.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Thank you from a greatful rez.
Posted by: Boomer on February 11, 2005 03:46 PMI am a newcomer to your site and I ditto Boomer's comments. Sam Reed is a lame excuse of a Secretary of State. He has done nothing to ensure that the election process was above reproach. He is much lamer as a republican, seriously in need of a backbone.
Chopstix
Posted by: chopstix on February 11, 2005 04:25 PMCan you translate this paragraph of the complaint?
25. Award Plaintiff the maximum fine of $100 per day for each and every unlawfully
withheld public record; each voter with date of birth is a separate public record compiled
onto a single CD.
Is this asking for $100 times each voter times each day the records are withheld, from what date? Or is it just $100 times each day the records are withheld, from what date?
Posted by: Roleigh Martin on February 11, 2005 04:43 PMYou seem to have a handle on the RCW's, so I have a question about the monetary fines for refusal of public records.
It was reported late last year in my doorstep paper about some of the rulings that Gregoire made as AG. One in particular dealt with changing what the fines for refusing public records would be based on.
In the article it mentioned (I'm going from memory here) that previously, the law held that the fine was for every denied document/day, and that she changed that law to state that will now be based on complaintant per day. That is to say that Stefan would only receive $100/day regardless of the amount of documents withheld.
Like I said, I am going from memory here but I do distinctly remember that it drastically reduced the award.
I skimmed through the RCW's but nothing stood out at me.
Posted by: Boomer on February 11, 2005 09:04 PMI found a refference to Gregoire's record on public disclosure in a post on this site dated Oct. 26 2004 by Stefan titled "The Government's Governor or the People's Governor?".
It more aptly describes the changes she initiated as AG about the public disclosure fines.
Posted by: Boomer on February 12, 2005 09:31 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002071957_gregoirepda25m.html
...
The other case involved a lawsuit filed by Armen Yousoufian, who had sued King County Executive Ron Sims for illegally withholding for nearly three years documents relating to the costs of the Seahawks stadium.
Yousoufian had argued that the county should face the daily $5 to $100 fine for each document it withheld — a calculation that could have cost the county up to $30 million for failing to turn over those public records.
Gregoire's lawyers argued that agencies should not be penalized on a per-document basis. The court adopted that argument, saying the penalties should be assessed on a per-request basis. The penalties levied on the county had added up to about $26,000, but the trial court now must refigure that total, based on a ruling that will increase the amount.
The "Yousoufian [case] was not a means to get out from underneath penalties," Krier said. "The issue was how to calculate those penalties and the possibility that it could cost the taxpayers millions."
Morton Brilliant, Gregoire's campaign spokesman, said her record on open government can perhaps best be measured by her decision, in 1994, to prevent state agencies from settling lawsuits in secret.
"As a result of that decision, she herself has taken some pretty hard knocks in the press," Brilliant said.
I do not know how they determine the number of records when they are in electronic form. The definition of a record is any thing that will hold data. For instance, if an inspector or agency worker makes a note on a book of matches, the information on the match book becomes a public record if the information is not exempt from disclosure. I have actually copied and mailed out such items. I suppose that the court could decide that each name on the data disk constitutes a record; but, I just do not know because I never ran into that situation.
Posted by: Gil on February 12, 2005 03:33 PMYour hearing will be on my birthday.
Good luck.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 12, 2005 03:48 PMThe hell of it is, you are only doing what was asked of you. If elected officials abdicate their responsibility to assure honest elections and instead throw that burden on the electorate, the least they can do is assist those in the electorate who step up to the plate and take on the responsibility that those same officials shirk. Providing legitimate and useful information that goes to a fundamental question of voter eligibility is only reasonable given the burden you have been asked to bear.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 12, 2005 06:19 PMThe environmental regulatory agencies work on the same premise, they too abdicate their responsibilities to the applicant, and then create an obstructionist environment to disuade further progress.
It may come as no surprise that Fraudoire was head of the DoE in '88.
This stuff is just getting too easy to perdict; see also: Clinton's tactics, P. Murray, Cantwell, et al.
$300 million/day is nothing compared to $300 million * (signatures on revote petition.).
Someone would have a cow.
Posted by: Al on February 12, 2005 10:09 PMFrom the way I read it, the monetary fines are based more on the requests than on the number of documents, thus there is less incentive to actualy release the documents (birth dates- in this case).
If this is true, would it be advantagous to have more applicants/ litigants?
If so, can they be represented by the same attorney or in the same suit, or would the court treat this case by case?
BTW, I have no personal interest in the monies, just the result.
Posted by: Boomer on February 13, 2005 06:58 PMOne attorney can represent all provided there is no conflict of interest. Whether having multiple plaintiffs helps or hurts is anyone's guess. I don't think it matters much in this case. The judge (Hicks) is pretty no nonsense and will focus on the issue.
Posted by: Newman on February 13, 2005 07:39 PM