February 22, 2005
Election Reform Public Meeting Tonight in Spokane
Secretary of State Sam Reed will be holding a public meeting of the Election Reform Task Force this evening in Spokane -- 6 - 8 pm Tuesday, Feb. 22 - Spokane Community College Lair Student Center.
Be there if you can, wear orange, and call for serious election reform, along the lines of what Rep. Toby Nixon and Sen. Pam Roach are proposing. Specific suggestions --
1) Have a revote for governor, so we can have a legitimate governor with an actual mandate.
2) Clean the voter rolls. Require everybody in the state to reregister, with photo ID, proof of citizenship and proof of residence.
3) Require ID to be shown before casting a ballot
4) More provisions to accommodate military voters
5) Require that ballots and voters be reconciled before certification. In the event that there are irreconcilable discrepancies, any race where the apparent margin of victory is less than the total discrepancy should be automatically set aside.
It wouldn't hurt to bring up the issue of former Spokane Congressman Tom Foley and how and under what conditions former residents of Washington state can maintain voting rights here; It also might be a good idea to ask Secretary Reed to follow up on the serious mistakes and missing reconciliation data out of King County.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2005
11:20 AM | Email This
1. How about giving a timetable in the future for re-registring to make it easier to pass? How about by Jan 1, 2008?
2. Have a revote for governor, so we can have a legitimate governor with an actual mandate.
This has nothing to do with election reform. Have your re-vote before election reform and you'll likely end up with no different a result - a contested election with the same problems as before.
In step 5, the certification itself should contain the number of irreconcilable ballots like:
"I, Dean Logan, certify the King County election of Christine Gregore by a vote of X to Y with a maximum error of Z"
Then pass legislation to make lowballing Z a crime. This doesn't make them responsible for errors "beyond their control", it just makes the signatory legally responsible for TELLING THE TRUTH by proclaiming a _maximum_ error.
Ray: Timetable to reregister - let's see more primitive, wartorn Iraq - several million registered with photo ID in something like 6 weeks --then there is enlightened - super progressive Washington State - home of cutting edge software, aerospace, coffee merchants, medical and med/tech -- come on here -- 3 years to register 3 million - duh -- what's the problem -- reregistering could be done within 6 months -- probably much less --
Daniel: At first thought, revote as soon as possible makes the most sense -- but then - nooo - wait - drag it on a little longer - get fraud picture a lot more clearer and some real investigations starting up - heh heh heh--
To All: -- one of the most important things is to cut back on the absentee voters -- most absentees are just too damn lazy to go to the polls - absentee voters should have to have very specific reasons af business, health, or military to vote by absentee -- and have to request absentee at every election - no automatic holdovers -- spot checks should be made and anyone caught fraudulently obtaining absentee ballot(s) should be barred from ever voting absentee again.
Anyone that can be proven to have voted twice in any way -- should be permanently barred from the voter rolls.
5. If someone is homeless would you deny them the right to vote?
Homeless can vote...
Headless cannot vote!!
Vote-By-Mail, Senate Bill 5744 and House Bill 1754, threatens to negate any meaningful election reform. Sam Reed is a proponent.
Reed said this about the possibility of Vote-By-Mail-Fraud, "we hear rumors (of) but we have not had anyone prove.".
So, there are "rumors" but it is up to someone else to prove them true, rather than the backers responsibility to prove the rumors false.
Mark my words, this Bill is going to pass. Vote-By-Mail-Fraud is coming soon to a mail box near you.
8. One more reform to add to the mix: require the counties to allow official major party observers (at the expense of the parties) to sit in on 1) every Elections meeting, 2) every Elections process, and 3) every Elections audit. This should be 24/7, 365 days a year. Official observers should be allowed to sit side-by-side with every Elections worker.
I'll go further, I don't think you should be allowed to vote unless you are a property owner and that voter registration should be tied to tax records. Why should a non property owner be able to vote on tax issues?
10. I like NONE OF THE ABOVE as an option below all candidates names..... that way no-one can fill in a candidate's name because the rest of the ballot is all democratic or republican trying to claim "VOTER INTENT"
The Washington State Constitution states the following qualifications for voters, “All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote…”(Art. VI sec. 1) . RCW 29.01.140 defines residence for the purpose of registering and voting as a person’s address where he physically resides and maintains his abode.
Therefore I'd say that Homeless people are in fact not allowed to vote. No abode, means no address. No address means no residence. No residence mean no vote.
Its not about being mean, or unfair, or elitiest. Its about making sure that only those people with a legitimate stake in our community have any say in how our community is run.
If you have an address here, and you live at that address, then you have a stake in your community, and you should be entitled to vote. Of course the other qualifications need to apply as well, e.g. over 18 years of age, not a convicted felon (unless your voting rights have been restored). And of course, those in Federal service and away from their home communities becuase of that service should still be able to vote here.
"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers.
"I'll go further, I don't think you should be allowed to vote unless you are a property owner and that voter registration should be tied to tax records. Why should a non property owner be able to vote on tax issues?"
As a former landlord, I can answer this, even though I'm not entirely happy with the answer.
When the taxes or association dues went up on the condo I had rented out down in California, the next step was a nice note to the tenant, giving her notice of a rent increase.
While I wrote the check for the taxes, they came out of the rent she paid me. It even said so every year in the income tax return I filed, accounting for my rental income.
So, should California-based landlords get to vote on Washington taxes? I didn't get to vote on the California taxes on my condo.
Daniel: "Have your re-vote before election reform and you'll likely end up with no different a result - a contested election with the same problems as before."
Oh, I really really doubt that. The voters of the state are a lot wiser than they were in November, and I doubt the same shenigans would be permitted. The voters would not tolerate the same kind of sloppiness, and the election officials already know that.
Excluding renters from voting, or in other words making real property ownership a requirement for voting, is far too extreme by any standard. It is quite possible to have a valid and vested interest in one's community without owning land there. However I would still argue that you ought to "live" there, i.e. have a residence there, to be allowed to vote there. If you don't live there, you aren't subject to the consqeuneces of what you voted for.
And for the retirees who shift residences on a seasonal basis, you ought to vote where ever it is you spend the bulk of your time. If you live 7 months of the year in Seattle, and 5 months of the year in Scottsdale, then you ought to vote in Seattle.
15. I like NONE OF THE ABOVE as an option below all candidates names..... that way no-one can fill in a candidate's name because the rest of the ballot is all democratic or republican trying to claim "VOTER INTENT" -Posted by sgmmac at February 22, 2005 02:31 PM
I think a very clear, unambiguous "VOTER DECLINES TO VOTE FOR THIS RACE/ISSUE" choice would be much better and less open to 'creative interpretation' than "NONE OF THE ABOVE".
If someone is homeless would you deny them the right to vote? -Posted by headless lucy at February 22, 2005 12:45 PM
Yes, particularly since statistics show most homeless are tragic cases of unattended mental disease.
No permanent address, no visible role in society: no influence over society.
You libs like to trot out the "right" to do this, the "right" to do that and the "right" to do whatever other (in this case the "right" to vote) but you always seem to conveniently forget to mention the RESPONSIBILITY part of the equation.
16. Unfortunately, Bill in his response to me is arguing what "can" be done. Instead, my argument is an attempt to talk about what is politically possible. If you want to argue it must be immediate or not at all, you will be disappointed to find the latter occuring. Instead, argue whether it should be done in time for the 2006 primaries, or whether it must be postponed until before the 2008 primaries.
17. Until people who commit voter fraud go to prison, we will never fix the problem. Everything else is just windowdressing.