This is a smoking gun that something went very seriously amiss in King County Elections during the canvassing and recounts last year.
In partial fulfillment of my public records request, King County released this "Mail Ballot Report". It doesn't carry a date, but they tell me it was delivered to the canvassing board on Nov. 17, 2004 for the certification of the first count.
The key numbers are:
Total number of ballots returned: 568,333
Total number accepted as valid and counted: 564,222
Total number of ballots rejected: 4,111
Two other numbers not in this report:
Total number of absentee ballots counted in manual recount (before the "no signature" ballots were included): 564,448
Total number of absentee voters credited (excluding "no signature" voters): 563,640
What is wrong with this picture?
How did they know when this report was created that the exact number of ballots returned was 568,333? Did they simply back this out from the number of ballots that were counted during the canvassing or was there another process on the front end that counted the number of ballots that entered the system? How could it be that the number of credited voters is 808 less than the number of ballots returned and validated? (I believe that 320 of this difference should be attributed to federal write-ins and Address Confidentiality Program voters. But what about the rest?)
If there is a process that counts the number of ballots that entered the system and is independent of both the canvassing and the crediting, it's nice to know that the number of valid ballots received was exactly the same as the number of ballots counted -- 564,222. But if that's the case, where did the 226 ballots that materialized in the recounts come from and why were they allowed to be counted? On the other hand, if there is no independent process to count the ballots that entered the system (other than crediting) how can we have confidence in the fickle number of counted ballots that changed from 564,222 to 564,448?
The only thing that's clear is that something wasn't right.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 07, 2005 05:57 PM | Email ThisMind you, this was a 0.036% discrepancy in the results here...
Posted by: bmvaughn on March 7, 2005 06:15 PMSeeing that distributed vote fraud, on average, benefits democrats.. perhaps someone noted this and re-included the ballots as a way to help Gregoire when, at this point, she was behind in the count.
Posted by: bmvaughn on March 7, 2005 06:17 PMHow on earth could there be ballots returned for the wrong election. I'd like to see a list of those people. And have they kept those ballots.
#4.f -- Returned multiple ballots
I'd like to see a list of those people and see how many times each of those individuals tried to vote. IMO, these people should be prosecuted. And have they kept those ballots.
Two questions,
First do you think the item #1 included the multiple ballots that were sent out to some people? Evergreen's report stated some duplicates were sent, but I read awhile ago in the PI (I think) that the workers didn't know the software and some voters were sent as many as 4 ballots.
Second, item # 5 listed 6959 as being undeliverable by the USPS. This number seems real high to me, but shouldn't these voters names have been flagged and or removed?
The Evergreen report also said that there were some federal votes with one party line votes that were NOT counted for the Governor's election. They arn't the same federal votes that you are discussing are they?
If they don't have a process to identify which absentee ballots have been received back then how did they know that there were 203 returned multiple ballots?
Have a Great Night!
Dana
In sections 4e and 4f, there are ballots which probably represent voters who were credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected.
"After validation" refers to verifying that the signature on the envelope matches the one on file.
Once the signatures are verified, the envelopes are passed along to the next stage -- where they are opened and the inner secrecy envelope and ballot are separated from the outer envelope.
Once the inner and outer envelopes are separated, so that the secrecy of the ballot is protected by the removal of the outer envelopes from the area, the inner envelopes are finally opened and the ballots are finally taken out and examined.
The voter would already be credited with participating in the election before anyone could possibly see that the voter put a ballot from the "wrong election" in the secrecy envelope. There's no way to go back and "un-credit" that voter, because no one could possibly know who he or she was.
Section 4f refers to "returned multiple ballots," which could be either of two situations. It could be voters who submitted more than one ballot -- but submitted each ballot in a separate envelope. Or, it could be voters who put two ballots into one envelope and only put one signature on the outer envelope.
Since they supposedly have the ability to screen out (at the signature validation step) people who cast more than one ballot by sending the ballots in separate envelopes, the "multiple ballots" probably refers to people who put two ballots into one envelope.
If it refers to multiple ballots in the same envelope, then all of those voters would have already been credited with participating before the inner envelope was opened. Until it's opened to see whether both ballots were voted identically (in which case one ballot is accepted and the other rejected), no one would know whether it is correct to credit the voter with casting a valid ballot -- but they already credited the voter with voting when the signature was found to match the one on file. And, once credited (based on a valid signature) it's too late to go back and "un-credit" the voter in those situations where both ballots are rejected because they aren't voted identically. (The election officials aren't supposed to pick one of the ballots and reject the other when they aren't voted identically, since no one could know which of the two ballots belongs to the person who signed the envelope. In that situation, they reject them both.)
So, the 203 voters who returned "multiple ballots" may represent 203 voters who were credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected after the signatures were verified.
Bottom line: There certainly are 89 and there may be 292 voters credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected.
Those voters will appear to be "ballotless voters" simply because there is no way to go back and "un-credit" them without violating the secrecy of the ballot.
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 07:29 PMSigned - Disgusted TimMan
Posted by: timman on March 7, 2005 07:55 PMI wonder why King County reported the number of absentee ballots as 566,291 in their updates on 15 and 16 Nov. 2004 and in their final absentee ballot count posted on 18 Nov. 2004. (Just to keep things interesting, when you add up the numbers of ballots listed in that Nov. 18 report down in the section where they're reported by council district, the total is 566,251 -- not 566,291.)
564,222 were supposedly valid according to this report you've obtained from them. That's 2,069 less than 566,291.
Unfortunately, the updates issued by King County stopped saying how many absentee ballots had been counted after the Nov. 15 report. Up to that point, they would say how many had been returned and how many had been counted. On Nov. 15, their update said 562,483 absentee ballots had been counted -- which apparently means that is the number which had been validated and accepted as of Nov. 15.
I can tell from their updates on Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 that they needed to validate and count 1739 to end up with 564,222. And, I can tell from the Nov. 16 report that they claimed to have counted 1352 absentee ballots. That leaves 387 to be counted on Nov. 17 -- but that is just arithmetic, there is no information in the last update to say how many of the 1446 ballots counted on Nov. 17 were provisional and how many were absentee. (Their provisional ballot numbers don't add up either, so I couldn't get at the numbers from that direction.)
Before that Nov. 17 update, it was possible to subtract the number of provisionals from the total counted that day and arrive at the number of absentee ballots.
Maybe there was a reason the updates they made available to the general public became less informative as the deadline for certifying their returns approached. Or not. I wouldn't want to be accused of suffering from paranoid delusions, so I'll leave open the possibility that the end of useful details in their updates occurred for innocent reasons.
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 07:56 PMSuch an audit trail would show how many absentee ballots had been returned.
As soon as practical after the ballots come in the mail, the bar codes on the outer envelopes should be scanned to capture the information that identifies who supposedly submitted the ballots. By doing it soon after their arrival, you know how many ballots you need to account for (and you can figure out pretty closely how many you have left to count -- unless you're in King County and want to surprise everyone on Monday morning two days before the deadline for certifying your returns, in which case you say you have about 10,000 left to count and then say "oops, it's closer to 21,000").
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 08:06 PMBut in that part of their report they give the numbers of absentee ballots by legislative district -- not council district -- so I should have said "legislative district."
The alternative would seem to be that someone actually added ballots to the total before or during the recounts, which would mean that King County officials (who else would have had the opportunity to add ballots to the mix?) deliberately stole the election.
I think that Occam's Razor (or the principle of parsimony) points us toward accepting the first explanation.
Posted by: ScottM on March 7, 2005 08:28 PMI have a really hard time following you here, but maybe that's because I haven't followed all your previous posts on this, nor do I have the time to memorize the figures and where they come from.
But:
You ask where did the "additional" 226 absentee ballots come from on the recount.
How about from 1561 "not voters signature", some of which were later determined to be valid signatures during the recount.
You seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill here. There is nothing inconsistent between this document and the later recount results, is there?
And of course none of this is evidence of improper or illegal ballots that resulted from official misconduct, and that also in fact changed the results of the election. That is what is what must be shown to succeed in the election contest.
Micajah's questions are more puzzling, but don't indicate any serious problems to me, since some of the documents he relies on don't purport to be a complete enumeration and thus might not match the final tally.
I want to know when we get to the part where we can finally throw the bums out.
Anyone have any ideas on that one? Because while we scream about the injustice, those b**tards in Olympia continue perpetrating more of it. How much damage are we going to continue to allow them to wreak?
Stefan, you are doing tremendous work. You really are. Keep it up. But I for one am getting really, really, REALLY tired of learning about yet another UNCONTESTED Democrat effort to reestablish institutional racism, raise my taxes, take my land, neutralize my rights, and defend the employment of perverted teachers.
When we get the part where we start kicking some *sses out of office, wake me up.
(Just an impatient rant, folks. Bear with me.)
Posted by: ERNurse on March 7, 2005 08:42 PMWhatever else happens, we can throw the bums out in 2006 and 2008. If we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That's what it means to live in a Republic.
Posted by: ScottM on March 7, 2005 08:46 PMI'll settle for utter incompetence. Thankfully, at least so far, so will the court. ERNurse will see the bums thrown out.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on March 7, 2005 08:46 PMOn the other hand, if yo are having a little treouble understanding that, I don't blame yo.
Posted by: ScottM on March 7, 2005 08:48 PMThey appear to be lists of voter ID numbers split up into legislative districts.
They supposedly add up to 566,291 or 566,251.
Those numbers probably came from the scanning of bar codes on regular absentee ballot envelopes.
The 1342 Federal Write-in Absentee Ballots received, and the 1081 FWABs validated and counted would have required manually typing in the voter ID numbers, since the envelopes containing those FWABs wouldn't have had bar codes on them. Note that the FWAB is used by voters who are already registered to vote and have already requested an absentee ballot, but who didn't receive their absentee ballots in time to vote with them.
However, I don't think the FWABs would have been included in this "mail ballot report," since they aren't ballots issued by the elections office. This report appears to be the absentee ballot reconciliation required in WAC 434-240-270. There would be no requirement to reconcile the FWABs as part of this report, since the FWABs aren't issued by the elections office.
Perhaps those 1,081 FWABs that were validated and counted need to be added to the 564,222 absentee ballots in this mail ballot report.
That would bring the total to 565,303 -- which is still short of the 566,291 (or maybe 566,251) total reported on Nov. 18.
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 08:58 PMif 203 people voted twice equalling 406 ballots and 203 votes were deleted doesn't that leave 203 illegal votes? Posted by: JimL on March 7, 2005 09:54 PM
You said: "What part of "before the 'no signature' ballots were included" are yo having treouble understanding?"
I saw that. You are referring to the 520 "no signature on file" (nsf)ballots. But there were 1561 "not voters signature". These are probably different categories, but even if they aren't there are plenty of votes in the 1561 that might have been added on the recount beyond the 520.
Stefan's new piece of paper doesn't add anything to his argument. He already pointed out that"unexplained" new votes were added on the recount. But isn't this true of almost every other county in the recount, which also added new votes on the recount.
Posted by: chew2 on March 7, 2005 09:57 PMWhen is the next court hearing in Wenatchee?
Posted by: Teri on March 7, 2005 10:00 PMThanks for that piece of the puzzle -- the "Mail Ballot Report."
With that, I was able to get pretty close to the number of ballots King County reported as their total of valid ballots on which they counted the votes in their initial canvassing and certification on November 17.
I'm still 86 ballots off, but that's a lot better than 1,074.
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 10:02 PM"As I understand it, you are looking for "official misconduct" and proof that the official misconduct changed the outcome of the election. That standard has already been put to bed.
I'll settle for utter incompetence."
I've always wondered where the hell do you GOP folks come up with the claim that you only have to show "incompetance" or that the election was "too close to call" to prevail in an election contest. Now micajah has posted some arguments, but what about the rest of you.
Can any of you cite me your legal authority for these wild claims?
Why There are two potential grounds for an election contest, 1) illegal votes, 2) official misconduct:
RCW 29A.68.110 (illegal votes) reads:
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
RCW 29A.68/070 (misconduct) reads:
No irregularity or improper conduct in the proceedings of any election board or any member of the board amounts to such malconduct as to annul or set aside any election unless the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes.
Really what has the GOP been putting out to you folks that you believe that you can get by with less?
Posted by: chew2 on March 7, 2005 10:08 PMI know, I know. I need to chill out and let them hang themselves- which is exactly what they are doing right now. I just hate to stand by and watch them. Inaction bugs me.
I just hope that when the time comes, we will actually be able to do without the scumbags throwing our votes out and stuffing the boxes like they did last time.
Which leads me to the burning question:
With the current leadership, how is it that we can reasonably expect a positive outcome when it appears that they can simply rig the vote in their favor with impunity?
All this outrage, and what has changed?
Posted by: ERNurse on March 7, 2005 10:15 PMIMPOSSIBLE - not happening...
Thereupon enters a the legal term called "reasonableness" that will enter into judgments such as this. Sorry to burst your bubble, Chew2 - but a judge who complies with the constitution would judge the case this way.
That means that the votes would likely be pro-rated based upon how the votes of that particular county or- if possible precinct were distributed. Both instances of misconduct and illegal votes appear to be in play here. Does any other UNBIASED legal expert care to weigh in on this ?
Posted by: KS on March 7, 2005 10:29 PMYou're just making that up. You're not a lawyer, a judge. So point me to some law or some legal authority, not your own wishful thinking.
Here you guys are all screaming about how you can't ignore the 5 day time limit for freedom of information requests on pain of death. Then you claim you can ignore the plain words of the election contest statute based on your own subjective standards of "reasonableness". True conservatives call that judicial activism. A judge will want more than that.
Look I know you guys aren't lawyers. But somewhere someone has been telling you that you can ignore the statutes. Who are they and what exactly are they claiming?
Posted by: chew2 on March 7, 2005 10:39 PMI suppose most of the time the two ballots returned in one envelope are from two different people -- husband and wife, for example. For some reason, a few people during each election will choose to put both ballots into one envelope and then forget to have both voters sign the envelope.
Unless it's a very, very stupid person, I doubt it happens in an effort to vote more than once. Anyone who got more than one ballot issued to him would also get more than one envelope. To have any hope of slipping more than one ballot through the validation process, a crook would surely send them in separate envelopes.
If they have both voters sign, then both ballots are valid.
But, if both don't sign, then only one ballot is valid -- if both ballots are voted identically.
It's apparently rare, but it happens often enough to prompt issuance of a rule to ensure consistent treatment of the situation. (In King County, out of more than 565,000 absentee voters, only 203 apparently did it in the last general election. That's a tiny portion of the total number of people voting by absentee ballot.)
The rule is stated in WAC 434-262-150.
Note that the rule also covers a situation in which someone at the polling places tries to slip two ballots into the ballot box rather than one. When two ballots are found folded together in the ballot box, both are rejected -- whether they are voted identically or not. I guess that's a sort of rough justice to handle a situation in which someone got hold of two ballots and tried to vote them both at the polling places. The best chance of slipping them past the polling place workers and observers would be to fold them so they appear to be one ballot. But, when the ballot box is opened, they can be seen to be two ballots folded together -- and the penalty for the unknown double-voter is rejection of both.
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 11:27 PMYou're getting a little ahead of things with your certainty about the proof that will be required.
But, while awaiting a ruling by the Chelan County Superior Court (and, I suppose, by the Supreme Court), you might go back and read this article by Rebecca Cook of the AP published in The Sun on Feb. 14, 2004:
Rossi and his attorneys say it's enough to show that illegal votes put the 129-vote margin of victory in doubt. The Democrats say Rossi will have to prove whether the illegal votes went for Gregoire or Rossi, and then subtract proven illegal votes from both their totals, and then show that Rossi would have actually won without the illegal votes.
The state's election challenge law is not crystal clear. Bridges indicated there may be different standards for illegal votes cast by felons and dead people, as opposed to illegal votes that were counted because of errors by election workers.
Talmadge said he doesn't believe state law will require Republicans to match every illegal vote with a candidate, despite Democrats' arguments that it should be done that way.
"It's almost impossible to prove how any one of those ballots were cast," Talmadge said. "I have to believe it would be something that doesn't require proof of an elector's vote."
Talmadge said Republicans will probably be allowed to do some sort of statistical analysis to show how many of the illegal votes likely went for Gregoire or Rossi. That's the standard of proof the secretary of state's office is backing as well, Even said.
Both attorneys said Republicans will have to prove that illegal votes changed the outcome of the election, and that will be a tough sell in the absence of obvious fraud or skullduggery.
The fellow named Talmadge is described in the article as a "liberal Democrat" who is a "former Supreme Court Justice" in case you don't recognize him as Phil Talmadge.
So, I would say that the people who disagree with your interpretation of the law are being told that there is an alternative interpretation -- and they are being told by GOP lawyers, by an Ass't AG named Even who represents the SecState, and by a Democrat who is a former Supreme Court Justice. And, of course, by me. ;-)
Posted by: Micajah on March 7, 2005 11:42 PM2 On the 203 duplicate votes. KC should contact the individuals to determine if the multiple voting was intentional by either the voter or an impersonator. Then KC should prosecute the case.
3 About the 503 no signatures, those are what KC should have been limited to verifying during the first machine recount.
4 Of the 1561 invalid signatures, what number came from elderly care facilities or other opportunities for voter fraud as has been discussed here?
5 Finally, how the devil do you get 89 ballots in "the wrong election". The envelopes are preprinted with the address. What did these people do, vote the Iraqi party ticket or did they hold their votes over from 2000 just to vote Gore one more time?
At least KC got their basic math right on this page.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on March 8, 2005 12:27 AM
It's called common sense, is that good enough for you? It also just so happens mesh very well with the standard of rationality that the courts use.
Also funny how KC's incompetence was enough to get those extra ballots counted, but in your mind it's not enough to overturn an election. Weird logic.
Posted by: chris storer on March 8, 2005 12:58 AM
Stefan's new piece of paper doesn't add anything to his argument. He already pointed out that"unexplained" new votes were added on the recount.
If you're going to try to participate in an intelligent discussion, please take time to at least know what you're talking about...
Posted by: South County on March 8, 2005 05:33 AMIt is impossible to determine who each of us voted for, because votes are by secret ballot and WHO each of us votes for is NOT documented by the individual voter. But then you knew that and so do the Democratic spin doctors who keep claiming that it should be the burden of proof for this election. They are spinning it because they know that no-one could do it, to include themselves.
I think the way they will do is to first prove all of the illegal ballots by felons, dead people, double voters, illegal aliens, and what-else-ever. Then identify where (what county/precinct) those votes occurred. Along the way they will also prove some misconduct by various officials.
If you want proof of misconduct, read the Evergreen Election Report that was just released. It is a long read, but you should realize at the end of it that we should not be in the situation we are in now, if our officials had followed the laws and regulations.
Once the evidence is supported, Election statistics experts can be called to testify, and the illegal votes would be subtracted from all three candidates on the same mathmatical basis that each county reported percentage of votes for each candidate. If the majority of illegal votes are from heavily democratic voting counties, more votes will be taken away from the democratic candidate.
The Judge can then decide that illegal votes did occur and or official misconduct did occur. He will then decide to do one of three things. Nothing, throw out the election results and make the LT Gov step up, or toss the election and declare the person with the most LEGAL votes the winner.
If he choses to do nothing, all Washingtonians LOSE. Either of the latter, we win! Because the message will be clear to all, that elections MUST be fair and honest and laws must be followed.
Posted by: sgmmac on March 8, 2005 05:54 AMYou and I have already discussed the standard of proof on your website, (and read the legal briefs and transcript of the hearing.) I wanted to know where these other folks got the idea that you could get by on a claim of "incompetence" or a claim of "too close to call".
I was hoping that these other folks could point me to something other than a news report about a GOP lawyers conclusory PR statement. I'd like to see their reasoning and authority behind it, and was hoping for something more than it's "too hard to prove how the felons voted" as a rationale (which you and I know is not going to fly).
And as you know I haven't foreclosed the possibility of some statistical apportionmnent of the illegal vote (based on geography, sex, race etc.), although I'm skeptical that really is too speculative. But such an apportionment will have to show that the illegal votes changed the outcome of the election.
Posted by: chew2 on March 8, 2005 07:18 AMIf you've digested and memorized all these figures then more power to you!!
Posted by: chew2 on March 8, 2005 07:20 AMWishful thinking on the part of chew2 from a leftist perspective and later you backpeddle on your earlier post and mention what I believe what will likely happen.
"And as you know I haven't foreclosed the possibility of some statistical apportionmnent of the illegal vote (based on geography, sex, race etc.), although I'm skeptical that really is too speculative. But such an apportionment will have to show that the illegal votes changed the outcome of the election."
The Rossi team believes that they can show that, but it must pass the muster of Judge Bridges.
I don't pretend to be a legal expert here, but alot of this stuff is based on "common sense". Others with more of a legal background like Micajah, Sgmmac and Mark Beyer have weighed in and are pointing to a common sense speculative approach. It all comes back to the question; "How do you prove the unprovable ?"
and will add - which cannot be overlooked.
"The clerk shall issue subpoenas for witnesses in such contested election at the request of either party, which shall be served by the sheriff or constable, as other subpoenas, and the superior court shall have full power to issue attachments to compel the attendance of witnesses who shall have been duly subpoenaed to attend if they fail to do so.
"The court shall meet at the time and place designated to determine such contested election by the rules of law and evidence governing the determination of questions of law and fact, so far as the same may be applicable, and may dismiss the proceedings if the statement of the cause or causes of contest is insufficient, or for want of prosecution. After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.
"If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
Of course, we are not asking for Rossi to be declared elected, because we agree that that would require proof (not merely the current state where it is highly probable) that he actually received more legal votes. That standard is not metioned in the previous paragraph.
As far as RCW 29A.68.110 (illegal votes), you are correct that the illegal votes alone would not be sufficient to set aside the election without proof that they swung the election to Gregoire.
As for RCW 29A.68.070 (misconduct), that refers specifically to the misconduct of an election board, defined in RCW 29A.04.049 as "a group of election officers serving one precinct or a group of precincts in a polling place." That is, the election board are those people sitting behind the table when you go in to cast your ballot.
You may be correct that the undoubted misconduct on the part of one or more King County election boards would, thanks to a system designed to cover up the results of such misconduct, be in itself legally insufficient to set aside the election.
However, it could certainly be argued that the standard "the irregularity or improper conduct was such as to procure the person whose right to the office may be contested, to be declared duly elected although the person did not receive the highest number of legal votes" (necessary to set aside the election on grounds of election board misconduct alone) is a different and lower standard than "it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes" (necessary to award the election to another candidate).
But in any case, the irregularities in this election go far beyond the counting of illegal votes and the malfeasance and incompetence of a few election boards.
Essentially what you and other Gregoire partisans are saying is that even if an election is stolen there is no legal recourse, because the system is designed to keep investigators from separating out illegally-cast ballots.
If the system is designed so that we can be cheated at the ballot box and have no hope of relief in the courts, then how can we continue to work within the system?
If the judge rules that the facts are insufficient to set aside the election, I will vehemently disagree.
But if the judge rules that the law does not permit relief even where massive official misconduct throws an election into doubt, that will strike at the very heart of republican government, and will call into question the legitimacy of the Washington State Government.
Posted by: ScottM on March 8, 2005 12:24 PMHowever, all 292 voters who cast the wrong ballot or multiple ballots were credited with voting in the election by casting an absentee ballot. This was done when the outer ballot envelope was inspected and the signature validated as that of a registered voter. Only after that validation (and crediting of the absentee voters) was the outer envelope opened, the inner envelope separated, and then the inner envelope opened after it could no longer be associated with the voter.
We had 563,640 voters credited with absentee ballots (prior to the "Larry Phillips" ballots) and 564,448 ballots actually counted (again prior to the "Larry Phillips" ballots). This was considered to be a discrepancy of 808 net voterless mystery absentee ballots. The 251 unregistered FWAB voters and the 69 ACP voters were then subtracted, resulting in 488 actual net voterless mystery absentee ballots.
However, 292 of the voters credited with casting valid absentee ballot outer envelopes did not submit valid absentee ballots in the inner envelopes. While they were credited with voting, they did not cast a valid ballot and presumably no valid ballot was counted for them (perhaps a foolish presumption in King County, but the legally proper presumption in any event).
So the 563,640 voters credited with absentee ballots (prior to the "Larry Phillips" ballots) actually cast only 563,348 valid absentee ballots that would have been counted. Since 564,448 absentee ballots were actually counted, this means there were actually 1100 total voterless net absentee ballots, or an adjusted figure of 780 after subtracting the 251 unregistered FWAB's and 69 ACP's. A change of 292 in each of the relevant figures of course.
One question I have about the mail ballot report -- what about those voters who were dumb enough not to submit any sort of ballot whatsoever in their inner absentee ballot envelope? If 89 people were stupid enough to return a ballot for a different election, there must have been at least a few envelopes out of the 568,333 supposedly returned which contained no ballot whatsoever, someone's City Light payment check, or perhaps a derogatory note complaining about government in general.
Since there is no separate line on the mail ballot report for "returned no ballot", and since there were probably at least a couple of dozen voters who did this out of over half a million, I have to seriously question the validity of King County Elections recordkeeping and statistics. (Of course, I was already strongly predisposed to do so anyway without considering this obvious anomaly.)
We are a nation of laws. The courts do not have the unilateral authority to right every wrong. That would be judicial tyranny. They have to follow the law.
Here the statutory law specifies the grounds on which you can contest an election (illegal votes or official misconduct), and the level of proof (the illegal votes or misconduct) must have been such as to change the outcome of the election. All I'm saying is you can't ignore those requirements simply because you can't meet them. If you can't meet them you lose your case. If you think the rules are unfair, then your beef is with the legislature which made the laws.
I think the legislature's intent is pretty clear here. They wanted to make it hard to overturn an election in the interests of finality and to spare the cost and delay of challenges and new elections. So they said that you can't overturn an election unless you can show that the errors actually changed the outcome of the election. They knew that illegal votes and official negligence and misconduct could occur in many if not most elections, but didn't want to overturn every election on that ground alone. In this case 3 million voters voted, if you set aside the election there votes will be disregarded. So they required the challenger to prove or show the outcome would have been different. Could they have done someting different sure. The could have said you can set aside an election if the results are "uncertain". But they didn't.
One question:
You claim that there is massive official misconduct here beyond the illegal votes. What exactly is that massive official misconduct, and how did it change the result of the election.
I'm glad to see that you read some of the comments posted here.
Maybe I should claim that my name is Richard Pope, since this earlier post under the name "Micajah" is nearly identical, but totally ignored:
Stefan,
In sections 4e and 4f, there are ballots which probably represent voters who were credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected.
"After validation" refers to verifying that the signature on the envelope matches the one on file.
Once the signatures are verified, the envelopes are passed along to the next stage -- where they are opened and the inner secrecy envelope and ballot are separated from the outer envelope.
Once the inner and outer envelopes are separated, so that the secrecy of the ballot is protected by the removal of the outer envelopes from the area, the inner envelopes are finally opened and the ballots are finally taken out and examined.
The voter would already be credited with participating in the election before anyone could possibly see that the voter put a ballot from the "wrong election" in the secrecy envelope. There's no way to go back and "un-credit" that voter, because no one could possibly know who he or she was.
Section 4f refers to "returned multiple ballots," which could be either of two situations. It could be voters who submitted more than one ballot -- but submitted each ballot in a separate envelope. Or, it could be voters who put two ballots into one envelope and only put one signature on the outer envelope.
Since they supposedly have the ability to screen out (at the signature validation step) people who cast more than one ballot by sending the ballots in separate envelopes, the "multiple ballots" probably refers to people who put two ballots into one envelope.
If it refers to multiple ballots in the same envelope, then all of those voters would have already been credited with participating before the inner envelope was opened. Until it's opened to see whether both ballots were voted identically (in which case one ballot is accepted and the other rejected), no one would know whether it is correct to credit the voter with casting a valid ballot -- but they already credited the voter with voting when the signature was found to match the one on file. And, once credited (based on a valid signature) it's too late to go back and "un-credit" the voter in those situations where both ballots are rejected because they aren't voted identically. (The election officials aren't supposed to pick one of the ballots and reject the other when they aren't voted identically, since no one could know which of the two ballots belongs to the person who signed the envelope. In that situation, they reject them both.)
So, the 203 voters who returned "multiple ballots" may represent 203 voters who were credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected after the signatures were verified.
Bottom line: There certainly are 89 and there may be 292 voters credited with voting even though their ballots were rejected.
Those voters will appear to be "ballotless voters" simply because there is no way to go back and "un-credit" them without violating the secrecy of the ballot.
Posted by Micajah at March 7, 2005 07:29 PM
I took your point to be that if the judge ruled against you on the facts you would "vehemently disagree" and that if he ruled the law didn't provide you a remedy for your alleged misdeeds the very foundations of the republic would be shaken.
I responded to that point and tried to say that you can't make up the law just to achieve a just result.
You said: "But if the judge rules that the law does not permit relief even where massive official misconduct THROWS THE ELECTION INTO DOUBT..."
I took that to mean you were saying that "DOUBT" was in fact the legal standard. Was I wrong? If you were arguing for some sort of "DOUBT" standard, you're dead wrong. That's not what the statute you cited says. I didn't want argue the law with you, because I wasn't sure what you were trying to say or whether you understood the legal language you quoted. So I responded to your broader point about the foundations of the republic.
the fact that the Dems motioned for Judge Bridges to rule that misconduct by Elections officials does not constitute grounds for annuling the election, and that the Judge refused, stating that misconduct and errors by Elections officials could be sufficient grounds?
Posted by: ewaggin on March 8, 2005 06:00 PMNo I didn't overlook Judge Bridges statement, although I think he may be wrong as a legal matter.
I've conceded that misconduct can be a ground for an election contest, but that to prevail you must show that the misconduct changed the outcome of the election.
Posted by: chew2 on March 8, 2005 08:15 PMJust so I get this correct:
If Space Aliens added 4 billion votes for Tinkerbell, the election would still be impossible to throw out in chew2's legal opinion.
1) We could prove there were 4 billion illegal votes.
2) We could prove through three or four separate demographic studies that 95% of space aliens preferred Tinkerbell.
3) We could not however prove that any individual ballot _specifically_ was illegal because of voter privacy issues.
4) 4 billion affidavits 'I voted for Tinkerbell' neither 'prove' nor really even come close to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' really.
If this version of reality is correct, there is absolutely no reason preventing not just incidental single-voter fraud, but massive organized vote fraud.
Posted by: Al on March 8, 2005 10:17 PMThe election statutes aren't perfect. Unfortunately they weren't designed to address the space alien problem you raised. Perhaps that should be on the GOP election reform agenda?
Let me address (seriously) a point that you folks repeatedly make: that somehow it is impossible to find out how these illegal votes were cast and therefore you should just ignore the law requiring you to do so.
1) If that's so, you lose. Your beef is with the legislature which drafted the law, not to make up your own law.
2) It's hard but not completely impossible. In some of the court opinions I've read, there was evidence of how ilegal votes were cast. How? Because the voter told someone how they voted. So go out and ask those felons. Some of them will probably tell you how they voted, as they have to the newspapers. Their testimony is not invalid simply because they've been convicted of some crime long in the past, like possessing a baggie of some pot. I'm not sure that you can compel them to testify (I recall cases saying you can't, but I also recall an out of state case saying you could grant them immunity), but you can seek voluntary testimony. If you can't win with that, then go back to answer 1), tough you lose.
I'll bet that as many, if not more King County felons voted for Rossi than Gregoire. I've read that 70% of them were male, only 15% were black. Red blooded WHITE MALES most probably voted for republican Rossi over a democratic WOMAN like Gregoire even in King County.
BTW: Studies suggesting felons vote democratic are based on projections from demographic factors, primarily race, e.g. most felons are black. I don't believe there are any studies that survey how felons actually voted.
1 You make it appear a quote of a subsection of a law should be added at every point made here. Those quotes don't need to be repeated at every entry and those quotes have previously shown it isn't necessary and may be illegal to force breaking the secrecy of the ballots cast.
2 Your ignoring additional statistical evidence. There are significantly more non-caucasian males who are felons than there are caucasians, especially in metropolitan areas. Add to that the felons who are female, all of whom are predominately liberal, especially in a metropolitan area. You state only 15% were black, that doesn't automatically make the rest of the males caucasian. There may be only 10-15% total caucasian males in this slice of population. Your argument doesn't wash chew2. With every evidence that the numbers more inclined to vote democrat it still makes it more likely they would increase the impact of their vote by falsly stating they voted Republican. Enough would do it to make political hay for the Republicans or set up a significant Rathergate problem for the Democrats.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on March 9, 2005 09:19 AMI don't mean to be unkind but it appears that you weren't paying proper attention when you watched those LA Law and Law and Order tv reruns.
You said: "PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE is a legally valid argument which has been used to convict criminals for hundreds of years. Preponderance doesn't have to prove anything, just raise such a shadow of guilt it is illogical to not convict the person."
Avid watchers of LA law know that the proper standard for conviction is ...."PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
But my knowledge of television law is very limited so I don't want to discuss it.
You're right, I didn't take your example seriously. How could I!
If you are saying that you have 4 billion affidavits showing that the illegal voters voted for Gregoire then you should deduct 4 billion votes from her vote total, and win the election contest. If you have 5000 affidavits out of 4 billion then you can set aside the election, but maybe can't have Rossi declared the winner (assuming there aren't 5000 other affidavits saying "I voted for Rossi)".
But I thought your claim was that you couldn't show how they voted. If not, then my mistake.
But no more space alien law for me now.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2005 10:12 AM