Secretary of State Sam Reed concluded last week's webchat at The Olympian accusing bloggers and talk radio of spreading misinformation about the election.
I followed up by asking the SoS office to present specific examples of misinformation that appeared on blogs and/or talk radio programs, particularly on this blog. Assistant Secretary Steve Excell responded that "You and Kirby [Wilbur] and John [Carlson] have been pretty good" about presenting accurate information, and he couldn't give me any examples of errors made on this blog. I was also told that Secretary Reed himself stated on Kirby Wilbur's show that KVI and Sound Politics were "pretty good".
I do my best to get the most up-to-date and accurate information about the election out there.
Excell mentioned four specific examples of what he thought were common misperceptions that he hoped the public would get better information on. I don't believe this blog propagated any incorrect information about any of these issues, but if there is misinformation out there, we'll do our best to help explain the issues.
1) MYTH: "There were more ballots counted than registered voters". FACT: "more ballots were counted than were registered voters who participated in the election". I have in fact, corrected other people in the media who were on their way to making this mistake.
2) MYTH: "The Secretary of State did not properly certify the election because the county certification documents did not carry the proper seals". I read this claim, but never reported it because it didn't seem to be a substantive issue. As the SoS explains, the seals were present on the original documents, they just didn't show up on certain photocopies upon which the reports were based.
3) ISSUE: "The provisions made in this state to permit the homeless to vote are against state law". The main controversy is over WAC 434-208-100, which permits those who live at a non-traditional residence to register at a public building. Some have asserted that this violates state law. The SoS argues that case law from court rulings in other states has established a precedent for making this sort of provision for the homeless. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not in a good position to make a legal argument. But I will say that the concerns I've expressed about the current provisions for homeless voting are not necessarily that it's against the law, but that the system can and has been easily abused e.g. it's facilitated double voting and people who are not homeless registering at public buildings.
4) ISSUE: "Purging the voter rolls is an easy way to get rid of ineligible voters". The SoS asserts two problems with this approach. The first is that it would be an enormous and error-prone data entry task to re-register everyone from scratch. The second is that the federal "Motor Voter" prohibits the wholesale cancellation of registrations.
The first is a reasonable concern and I believe that Rep. Toby Nixon addresses that in HB 2158, which does not actually purge the rolls, but merely places every registration on inactive status unless the voter reregisters. I cannot say whether or not that is still an issue with Motor Voter, but I would hope that we can be as aggressive with reregistration as is permitted under federal law and, if necessary, also lobby Congress to change federal laws so as to permit reregistration.
The Secretary of State has also posted a page of "2004 Governor's Race Election Administration Issues; Most Frequently Asked Questions", that addresses these and other issues.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 24, 2005 12:51 PM | Email ThisI just wish while you are following this election, someone can get up on the potential energy rate fiasco promoted by Bush.
Posted by: swatter on February 24, 2005 01:30 PMI think you've done a much-more-than-credible job of reporting on your blog. Some folks may have made some "ludicrious" comments
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 24, 2005 01:34 PMI am afraid that without the Bloggers (Good and Bad) and Talk Radio (again...Good and Bad), this story (the mishandling and possible fraud involverd in the hijack of the Gov. Race) could have been swept under the carpet. Politicians, Media Outlets and others are now able to be held in check more than ever! Keep up the good work Shark! Thanks for giving us a voice!
Posted by: flexnfx on February 24, 2005 01:40 PMHB 2158 doesn't address a couple issues (unless I'm missing something here) regarding reregistration:
1) How will people be notified they need to reregister, and how will that stop the same people who were previously illegally registered from doing so again? I can conceive of the same holes providing for the same mistakes.
2) The bill allows provisional voting by people who have yet to reregister. This would undoubtedly cause a huge increase in the number of provisional votes cast, and this was one of the areas we know worked the least well. The system needs to be fixed before we lean on it to such an extent.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 24, 2005 02:28 PMI found the first one to be the most interesting.
It says in words that are close to plain English something that is undeniably true: The SecState does not have the legal authority to "certify" the outcome of the election and therefore did not "certify" the outcome of the gubernatorial election.
The silly "Recall Reed" effort went down in flames in the Thurston County Superior Court for that reason. The SecState cannot be recalled for something he neither did nor had authority to do.
When will the rest of the world catch up to the facts? The election returns of each county were "certified" by each county's canvassing board. No county could "certify" the outcome for the statewide vote. The SecState simply has the duty to deliver those returns to the legislature. The outcome of the election was "certified" by the legislature when the presiding officers of the two houses issued a certificate of election stating that Gregoire had been "duly elected" as governor.
Here is the last part of Reed's answer to the question, "Why did the Secretary of State certify this election?" [The word "up" in the phrase "sealed up" was erroneously omitted in this part after having been correctly included earlier, so I put it back in. I wouldn't want anyone to be misled into thinking the SecState actually has the authority to open the "sealed up" returns from the counties -- because he doesn't!!! They are to be opened by the speaker of the house at a joint session of both houses -- and not by anyone else nor at any other place or time.]
Once certified by the canvassing board, the results are "sealed [up] and transmitted" to the Secretary of State by those county officers. Washington law dictates that upon receiving those results, the Secretary of State "delivers the same" to the Legislature. Under Washington law, the Legislature is then the entity which is directed to "open, publish and declare the results."
Thus, the role of the Secretary of State under the state constitution is a ministerial one of delivering the results of the county certifications to the Legislature rather than investigating or questioning those results.
Some 'fixes' are merely following current law and regulation, but there is no will in King County to fix anything, or even to adhere to regulations. Will they not 'enhance' votes next time?
Major fixes need to occur and instead a deckchairs might be rearranged, but that's it.
Posted by: Shannon K on February 24, 2005 04:10 PMI appreciate that in addition to providing lively reading, you and your co-bloggers deal in facts and data. So if you or your associates (or other readers) can let us know whether these laws have actually taken effect, and if so, the extent to which they were complied with, it would go a long way toward helping us all understand what is going on.
Thanks for all you do. Best regards -- Boonie
Posted by: Boonie on February 24, 2005 04:21 PM"Are there plans to get the military ballots out sooner next time - without being forced to by the Feds?" Because of the late date of the WA Primary makes it is extremely difficult for counties to get military ballots out by the Oct. 8 deadline required by the DOJ. All military ballots were issued by the October 8th deadline except for Island County, they were a couple days late, but even they were issued before the State deadline.
“Is anyone coming up with some plan to count and match ballots to voters before they're run through the machines?” You can’t really do that – because many counties use optical scan to touch screen voting and those ballots are “run through the machine” by the voter. What you are looking for is a reconciliation of ballots cast to voters. There is a disagreement between the Snark and King County on whether of not this happened, but KC says it did, the Snark doesn’t buy it. Time and discovery will tell.
“Will they not 'enhance' votes next time?” Sure they will – in fact they are required to. WA is a “voter intent” state and if the machines can’t read a ballot but the voter intent can be determined, then ballot enhancement is required. Many counties do this before the first count, but since KC uses optical scan machines, they only get to this process if an when there is a recount.
(1) The maintenance of voter registration records;
...
(3) Standards for the design, layout, and production of ballots;
(4) The examination and testing of voting systems for certification;
...
(8) Standards and procedures for the preparation and use of each type of certified voting system including procedures for the operation of counting centers where vote tallying systems are used;
(9) Standards and procedures to ensure the accurate tabulation and canvassing of ballots;
(10) Consistency among the counties of the state in the preparation of ballots, the operation of vote tallying systems, and the canvassing of primaries and elections;
...
(12) The use of substitute devices or means of voting when a voting device at the polling place is found to be defective, the counting of votes cast on the defective device, the counting of votes cast on the substitute device, and the documentation that must be submitted to the county auditor regarding such circumstances;
(13) Procedures for the transportation of sealed containers of voted ballots or sealed voting devices;
...
(16) The use of voter registration information in the conduct of elections;
(17) The coordination, delivery, and processing of voter registration records accepted by driver licensing agents or the department of licensing;
(18) The coordination, delivery, and processing of voter registration records accepted by agencies designated by the governor to provide voter registration services;
...
(22) Procedures for canceling dual voter registration records and for maintaining records of persons whose voter registrations have been canceled;
(33) Standards and procedures to prevent fraud and to facilitate the accurate processing and canvassing of absentee ballots and mail ballots;
(34) Standards and procedures to guarantee the secrecy of absentee ballots and mail ballots;
(35) Uniformity among the counties of the state in the conduct of absentee voting and mail ballot elections;
(36) Standards and procedures to accommodate out-of-state voters, overseas voters, and service voters;
(37) The tabulation of paper ballots before the close of the polls;
...
(39) The aggregation of precinct results if reporting the results of a single precinct could jeopardize the secrecy of a person's ballot;
(40) Procedures for conducting a statutory recount;
...
(42) Procedures for the statistical sampling of signatures for purposes of verifying and canvassing signatures on initiative, referendum, and recall election petitions;
...
(50) All data formats for transferring voter registration data on electronic or machine-readable media for the purpose of administering the statewide voter registration list required by the Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252);
(51) Defining the interaction of electronic voter registration election management systems employed by each county auditor to maintain a local copy of each county's portion of the official state list of registered voters;
...
(52) Provisions and procedures to implement the state-based administrative complaint procedure as required by the Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252);
Posted by: Boonie on February 24, 2005 04:39 PMThe seals were NOT present on all 39 original documents on 12/30/04.
The bit about "they just didn't show up on certain photocopies" upon which the reports were based is pure and unadulterated hogwash. To take Sam Reed's word and doublespeak with total lack of evidence is foolish and irresponsible journalism.
How is it not "a substantive issue."? The entire election rests on this foundation. If Sam Reed was not required to CERTIFY, why did he? This is not a discretionary act he can elect to do, or not do.
He is required to do it, and there are specific requirements that must be met, which were not met.
This is not trivial. If people want to set this aside, that is a choice; but Sam Reed did NOT have a choice in the matter.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on February 24, 2005 04:47 PM
The seals were NOT present on all 39 original documents on 12/30/04.
The bit about "they just didn't show up on certain photocopies" upon which the reports were based is pure and unadulterated hogwash. To take Sam Reed's word and doublespeak with total lack of evidence is foolish and irresponsible journalism.
How is it not "a substantive issue."? The entire election rests on this foundation. If Sam Reed was not required to CERTIFY, why did he? This is not a discretionary act he can elect to do, or not do.
He is required to do it, and there are specific requirements that must be met, which were not met.
This is not trivial. If people want to set this aside, that is a choice; but Sam Reed did NOT have a choice in the matter.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on February 24, 2005 04:47 PM
Read what the constitution says in Article III, section 4 (first sentence):
"The returns of every election for the officers named in the first section of this article shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government by the returning officers, directed to the secretary of state, who shall deliver the same to the speaker of the house of representatives at the first meeting of the house thereafter, who shall open, publish and declare the result thereof in the presence of a majority of the members of both houses."
The counties certify their returns to be accurate statements of the votes cast and counted.
The counties' returns are "sealed up" -- that means they are sealed inside some container. It has nothing to do with putting an official seal on them.
The "sealed up" returns are sent to the SecState.
The SecState must deliver them to the speaker of the house -- STILL SEALED UP.
The speaker of the house OPENS the "sealed up" returns.
The SecState has no authority whatsoever to do anything other than receive the "sealed up" returns and deliver them to the speaker of the house.
If you read that sentence to mean anything other than its plain meaning, please explain your peculiar interpretation of it.
Posted by: Micajah on February 24, 2005 06:15 PMI think the "Shark" wrote the above and he could not be more wrong."
A lot more information was requiered, and missing, besides the seal. For instance the narrative of errors and how they were reconciled is to be included BEFORE the election is certified. After the election was certified, in response to a public records request, Reed responded "no counties had provided a copy of their written narrative documenting errors and discrepancies discovered and corrective action taken for the recent hand recount."
That's the narrative where King County would explain how they ended up with at least 1,800 more votes cast that election than registered voters who voted. That narrative is pretty important would'nt you say? In fact Reed himself said in response to a question reported in The Opympian, that he requires counties to match up voters to ballots.
You are dead wrong about reed having no choice but to certify anything handed to him. Over and over and over again in the RCW's and the WAC's the SOS is instructed (they use the term "SHALL" a lot) to return any incomplete abstracts or canvass reports to the county until they are complete, only then, when he has all the numbers, narrative documenting errors and reconciliation, oaths, seal etc, THEN he can use it in the final certification. After the SOS has accepted a county return as complete (everything is provided that is requiered by law) then yes, he has to just accept them even if he thinks there is something funny going on.
At that stage, this is where the SOS himself canvasses the returns, even though he has to accept the canvass he can include his own narrative saying what he thinks is wrong with the returns, and that goes to the legislature.
Reed could have done his job at two junctures.
1. He was requiered by law to NOT accept returns without a narrative documenting errors and how they were reconciled. He did, in blatent disregard for the law. How do you think things would have gone down if Reed had said to King County, "Hey you've had errors all over the place, where's your narrative? I'm not accepting these returns until I get your narrative?"
2. If King County would have provided the narrative and other information requiered by law, and Reed still thought things were wrong he had the legal authority to include his own narrative in the certified returns he gives to the legislature. If Reed had included a narrative appropriately reacting to the overwhelming failure of this election process, how easy would it have been for them to turn a blind eye to it? The SOS has a duty to acknowledge what he is requiered by law to notice and to pass that information on to the legislature (the public).
Posted by: ethical on February 25, 2005 07:11 AMYou are dead wrong about reed having no choice but to certify anything handed to him. Over and over and over again in the RCW's and the WAC's the SOS is instructed (they use the term "SHALL" a lot) to return any incomplete abstracts or canvass reports to the county....
Well, then, "ethical," you will have no problem citing just one single RCW or WAC section that supports what you claim. Since it's there "over and over and over again," you must have had a hard time picking one out to cite -- so go back and try and again. And next time, don't come away without a specific cite to a specific law.
Here is an example of how to do it. Quoted below is the only statute which states the job of the SecState in canvassing the returns of a general election. All the words are there. The section number is there. No one -- not even you -- needs to search high and low to see what I'm referring to.
Now, read the darned thing. It assigns no responsibility to the SecState to canvass returns which are required to be canvassed by the legislature. It assigns no responsibility to the SecState to send a report to the legislature regarding any county return.
Nothing in law other than the first sentence of Article III, section 4, describes the responsibility of the SecState regarding the counties' returns in a gubernatorial election.
If you know of some other law, cite it. If you don't, then please don't use silly statements like "you are dead wrong," in an effort to hide your own ignorance.
RCW 29A.60.250
Secretary of state -- Final returns -- Scope.
As soon as the returns have been received from all the counties of the state, but not later than the thirtieth day after the election, the secretary of state shall make a canvass of such of the returns as are not required to be canvassed by the legislature and make out a statement thereof, file it in his or her office, and transmit a certified copy to the governor.
[2003 c 111 § 1525; 1965 c 9 § 29.62.120. Prior: Code 1881 § 3100, part; No RRS. Formerly RCW 29.62.120.] [Emphasis added.]
WAC 434-262-005 Authority and purpose. These rules are adopted pursuant to RCW 29A.04.610 and chapter 34.05 RCW in order to establish uniform procedures governing the canvass of primaries and elections, general and special, and to ensure the accurate and timely certification of those election returns. ( See attachment ‘Constitution, RCW’s, WAC’s Cited: Request for Reconsideration
WAC 434-262-070 Official county canvass report. Upon completion of the verification of the auditor's abstract of votes and the documentation of any corrective action taken, the county canvassing board shall sign a certification that the abstract is a full, true, and correct representation of the votes cast for the issues and offices listed thereon. The certification shall also state the total number of registered voters and votes cast in the county. The certification shall contain the oath required by RCW 29A.60.200 , signed by the county auditor and attested to by the chairman of the board of the county legislative authority, and shall have a space where the official seal of the county shall be attached. This certification, the auditor's abstract of votes, any adding machine tapes produced during the verification process, and the written narrative of errors and discrepancies discovered and corrected, if applicable, shall constitute the official county canvass report. This report may not be subsequently amended or altered, except in the event a recount conducted pursuant to chapter 29A.64 RCW, or upon order of the superior court, or by the county canvassing board reconvened specifically for that purpose. The vote totals contained therein shall constitute the official returns of that election.
WAC 434-262-080 Auditor's abstract of votes -- Secretary of state to receive certified copy -- Transmittal. No later than the next business day following the certification of the returns of any primary, special, or general election at which votes were cast for or against state measures or for candidates for federal and statewide office or for state legislative and judicial offices whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county, the county auditor shall send a certified copy of that part of the auditor's abstract of votes covering those issues and offices to the secretary of state. This copy must be no larger than eleven inches by fourteen inches and have a certificate identical to that accompanying the official county canvass report, bearing the county seal and original signatures of the officers required to sign that document attached or affixed thereto. A copy of the written narrative documenting errors and discrepancies discovered and corrective action taken shall accompany the abstract if applicable. Copies of the adding machine tapes used during the verification process need not be sent to the secretary of state.
WAC 434-262-090 Receipt of certified copy of auditor's abstract of votes by secretary of state. The secretary of state shall ensure that all material required to be submitted pursuant to state law and these regulations has been included in the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes transmitted to his or her office. In the event the secretary of state determines that the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes is incomplete, he or she shall notify the county auditor of that fact and shall request that the missing part of the abstract be forwarded immediately. No county's certified copy of the abstract of votes shall be considered as complete for acceptance by the secretary of state until all of the material required by statute and regulation has been received by the secretary of state. In the event the certified copy of the official abstract is illegible or in improper form, the secretary of state shall return that abstract and require an immediate resubmission of the abstract in proper or legible form.
WAC 434-262-100 Canvass of returns by the secretary of state -- Powers and duties. Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office.....The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects. The secretary of state may include in the official canvass, a narrative which details or describes any apparent discrepancies discovered during the canvassing procedure, and may notify the county or counties involved of such discrepancies.
WAC 434-262-100 Canvass of returns by the secretary of state -- Powers and duties. Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office. This shall be done by adding the certified returns from each completed county abstract of votes in order to determine the final results for those offices and issues he or she is required by law to certify. The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects. The secretary of state may include in the official canvass, a narrative which details or describes any apparent discrepancies discovered during the canvassing procedure, and may notify the county or counties involved of such discrepancies.
WAC 434-262-120 Certification of general election returns by the secretary of state. Upon completion of the canvass of each county's certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes and no later than the thirtieth day following a general election the secretary of state shall certify to the governor the returns for all candidates for federal and statewide offices, for those state legislative and judicial offices whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county, and for all state ballot measures. In the event the secretary of state is unable to certify all or part of a general election by the thirtieth day following that election because he or she has not received completed certified copies of the auditor's abstract of votes from one or more counties, he or she shall certify those candidates for which completed abstracts have been received. The secretary of state shall also set forth, by letter to the governor, those reasons which render him or her unable to certify the entire election. The certification of the remainder of the election shall take place when all outstanding certified copies of official abstracts have been received.
You have cited rules issued by the SecState.
The SecState cannot give himself powers he has not been given by the constitution or the statutes enacted in accord with that constitution. So, the rules he issues should not go beyond his existing authority – and they don’t.
The rules were issued based on this statutory authority:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.04.610&fuseaction=section
RCW 29A.04.610
Rules by secretary of state.
The secretary of state as chief election officer shall make reasonable rules in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW not inconsistent with the federal and state election laws to effectuate any provision of this title and to facilitate the execution of its provisions in an orderly, timely, and uniform manner relating to any federal, state, county, city, town, and district elections. To that end the secretary shall assist local election officers by devising uniform forms and procedures. (Emphasis added.)
Note how the statute agrees with the ruling of the Thurston County Superior Court which dismissed the recall petition (at page 7 of the memorandum opinion):
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/Superior/Recent%20Opinions/Sam-Reed-Opinion.pdf
“The Secretary of State’s role in the electoral process, then, is to set standards and assist the counties in conducting elections correctly.”
Neither the statute nor the court says the SecState can certify the election returns of the counties in a gubernatorial election. The SecState simply delivers to the legislature what he receives from the counties.
You apparently believe that some written narratives should have accompanied the official election returns, but first notice what is contained in the “auditor’s abstract of votes.” It is a straightforward and simple statement of the numbers of ballots and votes. Then notice that it is only when this “auditor’s abstract of votes” is corrected by the canvassing board that a narrative is created.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-030
WAC 434-262-030 Auditor's abstract of votes. No later than the tenth day following any primary or special election and the fifteenth day following any general election the county canvassing board shall meet and canvass all absentee ballots not previously processed under the provisions of chapter 29A.40 RCW, together with all special and challenged ballots. Upon completion of this canvass the board shall direct the county auditor to include all absentee ballot totals and all challenged and special ballot totals, or legislative district subtotals if applicable, in the preliminary abstract of votes prepared pursuant to WAC 434-262-020. The county auditor shall then add these totals to the existing precinct totals. The ensuing report, containing a count of all ballots cast in the election, subtotal reports by legislative district, and county-wide totals shall constitute the auditor's abstract of votes.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-050
WAC 434-262-050 Errors or discrepancies discovered during the verification of the auditor's abstract of votes. In the event that the county canvassing board, during the verifications process, discovers that errors exist in the auditor's abstract of votes or that discrepancies exist between that abstract and the manual or adding machine totals for registered voters and votes cast produced pursuant to WAC 434-62-040, the board shall investigate those errors and discrepancies. They shall be empowered to take whatever corrective steps a majority of the board deems necessary, including changing or modifying the auditor's abstract of votes if the error or discrepancy is discovered in that document. The canvassing board may then proceed to verify votes cast on measures or for candidates if a majority of the board believes that the nature of the errors or discrepancies discovered warrant such further action on their part.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-060
WAC 434-262-060 Documentation of corrective action taken. If the canvassing board decides to take corrective action with respect to any part of the auditor's abstract of votes, they shall prepare a written narrative of the errors or discrepancies discovered, the cause of those errors, if known, and the corrective action taken. In the event the auditor's abstract of votes is altered or modified by the canvassing board, those alterations and modifications shall be initialed by each member of the canvassing board, additionally, the written narrative shall be signed by each member of the board.
The narrative report of errors and corrective action is not the report required by the August 2004 emergency rules issued by Reed. Those emergency rules required precinct-level reconciliation of voters, ballots and votes – and a report of any errors had to be made to the canvassing board before certification. That report is not part of the auditor’s abstract of votes, and it is not part of the official returns forwarded to the SecState.
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/wsr/2004/18/04-18-028.htm
NEW SECTION
WAC 434-253-203 Poll site ballot reconciliation -- Central count optical scan and punchcard. Using the poll site ballot accountability forms, the poll books, and election night precinct results, poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
(1) Reconciliation must begin as soon as practical after the election.
(2) Each precinct's results shall be reconciled with the precinct's ballot accountability form. The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, spoiled ballots.
(3) Any discrepancies must be investigated. At a minimum, the following areas must be checked until the discrepancy is resolved:
(a) Check the accuracy of the ballot accountability form.
(b) Recount the signatures in the poll book.
[I’m skipping to the end.]
(4) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election can be certified.
NEW SECTION
WAC 434-253-204 Precinct or poll site ballot reconciliation -- Precinct count optical scan and direct recording devices. Poll site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:
(1) Each precinct or poll site ballot counter shall print out results immediately following the closing of the polls. A copy of the results will be posted at the poll site or otherwise made available for public inspection.
(2) The total of votes cast from each counter shall be reconciled with the number of signatures in the poll book(s) prior to transporting to the counting center. The total number of ballots reported on the results printout should equal the number of signatures in the poll book(s). Discrepancies shall be reported and explained by the Inspector.
(3) In a sealed container, the data pack/chip of each ballot counter shall be transported to the counting center with each results printout.
(4) The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted. Ballots not counted may include, but not be limited to: Provisional ballots, ballots referred to the canvassing board, ballots to be enhanced or duplicated, ballots with write-in votes, any out-sorted ballots, spoiled ballots.
(5) Any discrepancies must be investigated. At a minimum, the following areas must be checked until the discrepancy is resolved:
(a) Check the accuracy of the ballot accountability form.
(b) Recount the signatures in the poll book.
[Again, skipping to the end.]
(6) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election may be certified.
Now look at what the SecState’s rule says about his own authority regarding what is submitted by the counties: “The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects.” He doesn’t claim to have any authority to reject, modify, change, or question the accuracy of their election returns.
If you believe he has the authority, point to the part of the constitution or a statute which gives him the authority regarding the election of a governor.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-100
WAC 434-262-100 Canvass of returns by the secretary of state -- Powers and duties. Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office. This shall be done by adding the certified returns from each completed county abstract of votes in order to determine the final results for those offices and issues he or she is required by law to certify. The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects. The secretary of state may include in the official canvass, a narrative which details or describes any apparent discrepancies discovered during the canvassing procedure, and may notify the county or counties involved of such discrepancies.
And, finally, as with the section of the constitution and the statute I already asked you to read, here is the SecState rule which describes his duties regarding general election returns. Note that he sends a report to the governor regarding those returns which the secretary of state canvasses – not to the legislature. Article III, section 4 of the constitution describes his role regarding the returns for the election of a governor -- deliver the “sealed up” county returns to the speaker of the house.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-120
WAC 434-262-120 Certification of general election returns by the secretary of state. Upon completion of the canvass of each county's certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes and no later than the thirtieth day following a general election the secretary of state shall certify to the governor the returns for all candidates for federal and statewide offices, for those state legislative and judicial offices whose jurisdiction encompasses more than one county, and for all state ballot measures. In the event the secretary of state is unable to certify all or part of a general election by the thirtieth day following that election because he or she has not received completed certified copies of the auditor's abstract of votes from one or more counties, he or she shall certify those candidates for which completed abstracts have been received. The secretary of state shall also set forth, by letter to the governor, those reasons which render him or her unable to certify the entire election. The certification of the remainder of the election shall take place when all outstanding certified copies of official abstracts have been received.
If you want the SecState to have authority to declare who wins elections for governor, lieutenant governor, etc., then you need to amend the constitution.
He has no such authority now – not in the constitution, nor in statutory law, nor even by “bootstrapping” himself into a position of authority through rules he issues.
Direct your ire at the people who did (and still do) have the authority to declare who won the governor’s election – the legislature.
"“The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects.” He doesn’t claim to have any authority to reject, modify, change, or question the accuracy of their election returns.If you believe he has the authority, point to the part of the constitution or a statute which gives him the authority regarding the election of a governor."
You have to make up words to put in my mouth because I don't say what you want to say.
I said Reed has the authority and duty to NOT accept INCOMPLETE abstracts of votes from counties. The WACs are clear on this.
WAC 434-262-090 Receipt of certified copy of auditor's abstract of votes by secretary of state. The secretary of state shall ensure that all material required to be submitted pursuant to state law and these regulations has been included in the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes transmitted to his or her office. In the event the secretary of state determines that the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes is incomplete, he or she shall notify the county auditor of that fact and shall request that the missing part of the abstract be forwarded immediately. No county's certified copy of the abstract of votes shall be considered as complete for acceptance by the secretary of state until all of the material required by statute and regulation has been received by the secretary of state. In the event the certified copy of the official abstract is illegible or in improper form, the secretary of state shall return that abstract and require an immediate resubmission of the abstract in proper or legible form.
I said Reed had the authority to include his own narrative detailing errors in a county's abstract of votes once he has received a COMPLETE abstract of votes from that county. The WAC is clear, he does have that authority.
WAC 434-262-100 Canvass of returns by the secretary of state -- Powers and duties. Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office. This shall be done by adding the certified returns from each completed county abstract of votes in order to determine the final results for those offices and issues he or she is required by law to certify. The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects. The secretary of state may include in the official canvass, a narrative which details or describes any apparent discrepancies discovered during the canvassing procedure, and may notify the county or counties involved of such discrepancies.
Posted by: ethical on February 26, 2005 08:25 AMThe SecState cannot give himself authority that doesn't exist in the constitution or the statutes -- and he hasn't.
You haven't pointed to any section of the constitution or any statute which would give the SecState the authority you wish he had.
But that's OK. I'm finished with this conversation.
Posted by: Micajah on February 26, 2005 10:47 AMOn your last post, you make some interesting comments, which I’d like to understand.
For instance, you said:” The WAC sections to which you refer are issued by the SecState. The SecState cannot give himself authority that doesn't exist in the constitution or the statutes -- and he hasn't.”
Explain. I do not doubt you are on to something, which must have slipped by most people. Just take us through the logic and help us understand what you mean and what you base your conclusions on. I have an open mind and am interested in understanding what at the moment I don’t, based on your statement of conclusion with no foundation to evaluate your conclusions by.
You also said: “You haven't pointed to any section of the constitution or any statute which would give the SecState the authority you wish he had.”
Explain. Seems to me that “WISHING” has nothing to do with what authority the Secretary of State has or is given. You sound very confident in your conclusion. Help the rest of us who don’t get what you mean – get it! Like Larry the Cable Man says … “GEEEEEET ‘R d o n e!”
You closed with: “But that's OK. I'm finished with this conversation. “
C’mon, Micajah: don’t be sounding like a 13 year old whose mom and dad are loaded, give you little if any attention, and when you feel like you don’t want to play anymore – you pack up your stuff and find another place to play with others who will give you the attention you don’t get from your mom and dad, or those who lost interest in you.
Take a big step, and go where you have not gone before. Lay your thoughts on the line. Help us understand.