I found more proof that King County Election officials are telling a cock and bull story when they say that voter crediting is just a "file-maintenance chore" that "has nothing to do with ballot-counting". From King County's "STATEMENT FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT COUNT RELEASE; NOVEMBER 10, 2000"
For those not familiar with the processing of absentee ballots, all ballots received have to first be sorted by precinct, which is how they are counted, just like the poll votes. Then each has to have the signature of the voter verified against a digitized facsimile maintained in a special computer file, and the voter credited so that no one can vote twice.Confirms what I wrote last Wednesday, doesn't it? Crediting is not a post-certification clerical chore, it's an integral part of the ballot-counting process. The number of absentee ballots that King County counted from Nov. 2004 is about 500 more than the number of absentee voters credited. (this is after subtracting the number of federal write-in ballots and Address Confidentiality Program voters, who show up in the ballot count but not the voter file). Almost half of the unaccounted for absentee ballots (226) did not exist in the first certified count, but materialized out of thin air in the recounts.
I suspect that King County is telling the cock and bull story that crediting is unrelated to ballot-counting in a (lame) attempt to cover up the massive number of ballots that cannot be explained by actual voters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 27, 2005 11:29 PM | Email ThisOnly HorsesAss Democrats can delude themselves into believing that everything went so perfect in this election that the 129 vote margin of victory is well above the number of errors.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 28, 2005 12:44 AMIn their eagerness to achieve, they got caught up in things, not anticipating or not believing that a contesting of the election would ever bring to light all their zealous acts on behalf of their beloved candidate. When did a Republican ever contest an election? Now, no amount of frantic efforts to delay while seeking to invent coverups will suffice. The jig's up. Their hand is now firmly caught in the "big binder."
Posted by: RLG on February 28, 2005 12:56 AMWhat amazes me is not so much that fraud occurred, but that it seems to have occurred so brazenly during the recount process.
I can only think of two possible explanations for why GreGore and company thought they could get away with it. First, it could just be that they believe that the people of WA are such sheep and so naive that they just would never fight back. Looking at the past, that was probably a reasonable assumption to make. They didn't see the Shark coming though.
The other possibility is that the perp actually wants to get caught. Many brilliant criminal minds leave small hints behind as part of a game, others actually because they want to be caught. I have a feeling that the small group within the Democratic Party of WA that perpetrated this fraud is actually taunting us, daring us to try to figure out the puzzle and catch them.
The evidence of the crime is clearly visible. Finding who did it, and how, is going to be the tricky part. But, what they didn't count on is that for some people, that is actually the FUN PART.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 28, 2005 01:02 AMThe secretary of state and the county auditors disagree with your interpretation.
Unless you cite some source to support your conclusion as to your unique interpretation, its not going to have any relevance outside this blog.
In dismissing the lawsuit against Sam Reed's recall, the court already largely dismissed your interpretation on this process.
Posted by: Erik on February 28, 2005 01:29 AMThe document that I linked to is a source. So is the administrative rule that Sam Reed himself issued
WAC 434-240-250
The special ballot shall be securely retained until all absentee ballots have been received and credited.Did anybody ask Sam Reed about the crediting of absentee ballots? I don't think they have. Most of the discussion is about the crediting of polling place ballots, which are processed differently from absentees, and which have a more complicated story. As I gather more information about this, it appears that the newspaper quotes about crediting of polling place ballots are either taken out of context or generated by malinformed reporters who have relied more on King County official statements than on independent research. Stay tuned for more.
In the meantime, Erik, why don't you try to produce a knowledgeable source who can (a) confirm that King County did not credit absentee voters before certification, and (b) describe in great detail what King County's procedure was for tabulating absentee ballots and preventing multiple ballots from being counted from the same voter. We'll see how far you get...
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 28, 2005 01:52 AMI try. The lawsuit was dismissed because there was not a legal sufficiency to it. In Washington, a recall effort cannot proceed without a threashold legal basis to it. The judge ruled there was none.
I read what Stefan is quoting from the KC statement
Yes. However, that is not proof of anything. At best, it shows statements in 2000 were different than 2004.
Proof would consist of something to support Stefan's interpretation of "voter crediting."
Posted by: Erik on February 28, 2005 02:02 AM
Hmm. I don't think you read HA much. Most people certainly agree with your statement.
The numbers of errors is likely well over a thousand votes.
Posted by: Erik on February 28, 2005 02:07 AMYes, I see you have linked to WAC 434-240-250.
No, your interpretation of the WAC is not one shared by the SOS or the county auditors. Nor does a simple reading of the WAC support your silver bullet theory.
Nor does the Rossi campaign appear to believe this theory is going to assist them much in the election contest.
That may be the most jaw-droppingly stupid statement I have ever read.
Bravo.
Posted by: ScottM on February 28, 2005 07:45 AMAre you serious? This is the most damming evidence of fraud yet, IMO!
Posted by: VaCSProf on February 28, 2005 07:47 AMThe county has convinced many people, even the self professed genius Dave Ross, that vote crediting is more complicated than it is, and since we, (the non-geniuses) don't properly understand vote crediting, we can't effectively understand the meaning of the discrepency between votes cast and ballots counted. If you want to count yourself as one of those who believes KC's obfuscation, be my guest. I am not that gullible.
The recall suit against the SOS was dismissed because the pleading did not allege the type of malfeasance in office that the RCWs require for the case to proceed. There was NO DETERMINATION whether or not any of the allegations against Mr. Reed were true, or whether his interpretation of the RCW or WAC were correct. For that to be true, there would have had to have been a trial (to determine the factual issues) and then an appeal, if either side would have filed one (to determine whether the law was applied correctly by the trial judge). That's the way it works; your statements based on the dismissal of the case are wrong, and based on ignorance of the legal process.
Posted by: srogers on February 28, 2005 07:52 AMyour interpretation of the WAC is not one shared by the SOS or the county auditors. Nor does a simple reading of the WAC support your silver bullet theory.
Nor does the Rossi campaign appear to believe this theory is going to assist them much in the election contest. Please document or retract.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 28, 2005 08:40 AMOK, so if you HAs do believe that the number of errors is 1000 or greater, then why aren't you calling for what we here at SP are calling for: further investigation, cooperation and openess from KC Elections, a court contest, tossing out this election and reforms to make sure that this does not happen again?
Instead the party line over at HA is: "Sh-t happens, try again in 2008."
Democrats are unwilling to face the truth and ask for another fair election because that's not what being a leftist is really about. The ends always justify the means in the leftist's mind. Gregoire is in office, so you could care less about the truth.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 28, 2005 09:44 AM"Even if [the opposition party] does well, [the current leader] will always play another trick to keep it out of power. The voters' roll includes names of 500,000-odd dead people or fake names that could yet be used to fiddle the result."
The leader in question is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. It's interesting to see that the WA Democrats aren't the only ones using this strategy. One wonders if they'll eventually be "hiring thugs" to "break up opposition rallies, smash windows and punch, kick and stab anyone who seems loth to cheer the" governor. After all, if the results of an election under such circumstances were 'certified', we'd all have to just accept it, right?
Great observation, but you left out the part where ZANU-PF has booted all independent media reporters out of the country. That exactly corresponds to the Times' and P-I's indifference to the growing evidence that the Washington elecition in general, and the King County election in particular, were both mightily fiddled.
Stefan had better watch out for hordes of new positions at King County being created, with titles like 'Exile Officer'.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 28, 2005 11:09 AMI have no idea what kind of training they have, they're either very good or very forgiving in my personal case.
When I filled out my voter registration card, I filled it out 'First Mid-Initial Last' all written pretty neatly.
When I voted I used my normal signature 'Middle Last' written in the sloppy dialect of cursive.
I was credited with voting.
So either (A) a professional caliber handwriting analysis was performed, or (B) someone assumed 'close enough for me' - ONE piece of the name lines up somewhat.
The movie "Black Sheep" was prophetic in orchestrating how voter fraud occurs. There was undoubtedly voter fraud in King County and as well as Snohomish with the infamous Bob T. and several other counties that were unable to reconcile the same number of votes as voters. Documenting orechestrated voter fraud has largely been already done, but one can simply look back that the manual recount and understand that once rules were changed in the middle of the recount in King County, at that time; Rossi was increasing his advantage. At that time, the rules were changed to allowed more votes to be sent to the canvassing committee. Also, those 10,000 ballots that were found in a box in the corner in the initial count - were found to tilt heavily to CG and they weren't examined before they were counted.
It would be revealing if Logan, Huennekens, Bobbi Egan and other high ranking KC Elections officials were subjected to lie detector tests, to flush out the truth being obscured by stonewalling, use of the shredder, coincidental disappearance and changing the "binder" to hide the evidence of fraud and the truth. Anything less will let these people's crooked ways continue. This is not a conspiracy theory - it is just connecting the dots, looking at cause and effect. It is time to make waves and label fraud for what it is and make some heads roll, if the court does not happen to buy the evidence uncovered by discovery here.
Posted by: KS on February 28, 2005 12:57 PM
RE: HB 1222 ensures harassment of petitioners
House Bill 1222 (requiring petitioners to sign an affidavit vouching
for the validity of signatures on petition sheets) ensures harassment of
petitioners. Other than the Seattle Democrat who sponsored the bill, Pat
Thompson of the Washington Association of County and City Employees was
the only one who testified in favor of the bill. No wonder. During the
last signature drive, he and Chris Dugovich sent out their thugs to
heckle, harass, and even spit on petitioners. We videotaped a 300 pound
goon harassing a small Hispanic woman who was registering citizens to
vote. Not only did he verbally harass her and physically interfere with
her efforts, but he chased off a Hispanic man who she was helping register
to vote.
Imagine if they had access to the names and addresses, provided on
petitions because of HB 1222, for the signature gatherers. They could
continue their harassment of petitioners by calling or visiting them at
home, calling or visiting them them at work, or vandalizing their
property.
Just to show you that the unions' tactics are by design, they sent
out a secret memo outlining their plans and the following appears on the
public employee unions' website:
Keep an eye out
The best way to beat this is at the signature gathering stage. Please let
us know if you see those paid signature hunters in your area and let them
know in no uncertain terms what their job will do to your job! Every
signature we stop is one more Eyman has to pay for.
The year before, their flyer was even more explicit, "Try to slow
down, or stop, their signature gathering efforts."
HB 1222 forces citizens to register with the government when they
exercise their constitutionally-protected right to petition. It opens
citizens up to further harassment and intimidation simply for
participating in the process. It's a clear infringement on our rights and
impedes the signature gathering process.
And this bill ensures the harassment of petitioners on any issue.
Imagine a pro-abortion initiative and anti-abortion folks harassing the
petitioners for supporting it. Or a pro-gay marriage initiative and gay
opponents intimidating their signature gatherers. HB 1222 is a Pandora's
box of retaliation against citizens who simply want to give the voters the
opportunity to vote on issues at the ballot box. It's dangerous and
destructive.
In addition, the age-old tradition of putting unattended petitions on
community bulletin boards will be banned by HB 1222. The opportunity to
sign a petition, without a petitioner asking you to sign, is a
time-honored way for citizens to exercise their right to initiative and
referendum. Conservative, liberal, and nonpartisan issues have relied on
community bulletin boards to help gather signatures. This practice is
banned by HB 1222.
HB 1222 is also a very stupid bill. Before an initiative qualifies
for the ballot, the signatures are checked for validity. This bill is
completely unneeded and intended solely to impede and restrict the
citizens rights and to kill the people's initiative through needless
regulation and bureaucracy.
WOW! We actually AGREE about something!
This is precisely why I am opposed to expanding the use of absentee ballots, and am for requiring photo ID at polling places on Election Day. I endorse absentee voting as an option for voters who can show that they are unable to vote in person, either because of health restrictions or travel. Limiting the use of absentees to these cases minimizes the risk of vote fraud through impersonation of an absentee voter. On the other hand, wholesale use of absentee ballots throws the door wide open to abuses. As you say, how many county election workers are qualified to determine whether a signature is genuine? Most people can at least compare someone's face to the photo on their drivers license or other ID and make a pretty good determination - I have to do it every time I proctor the SAT exams at our local high school.
(Come to think of it, the SATs are controlled more securely than our elections are...!).
Posted by: Patrick on February 28, 2005 01:38 PMThis is precisely the reason responsibly run Election Depts. like Jefferson Co. reconciles votes and voters! They want to assure themselves AND the public that no one votes TWICE! You cannot assuredly do this unless you reconcile.
KingCo has ADMITTED sending out thousands and thousands of unnecessary duplicate ballots. The ballots are out there folks. KingCo admits it!!
So how many of those "extra" ballots found there way into the hopper??? NONE??!! Are these Lefty whacks serious??
Logan can try as hard as he might to talk his way around the necessity of a reconiliation. In fact, I encourage him to keep talking. Because the more Logan talks, the more unbelievable and irresponsible he looks.
Between provisional ballots, polls, absentees, military etc. etc. along with inappropriate reissuing of replacement ballots, improper processing of provisionals (admitted), people requesting LATE absentees so their name is both in the pollbook and absentee....there is plenty of room for duplicate voting. Reconciling is critical. How many voters got a ballot in their maiden and married names or an alias??? Who knows?!!
Reconciling is critical for detecting duplicate voting AND potential BALLOTBOX STUFFING and UNSTUFFING.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 28, 2005 01:46 PMIt appears, according to (Mondays edition) New Tribune that a few counties, and county auditors are refusing to be dismissed in the court process. They say they want to remain "IN", as that is what their Voters in their counties want.
I think we should encourage those Auditors and County Councilpersons to run for Gov., they seem to listen well to their constituents.
Posted by: Chris on March 1, 2005 06:40 AM