The Secretary of State's office has publicly expressed dismay about what it says is incorrect information that has been aired about the election, including, in particular, what it characterizes as unproven claims about non-citizen voters. Now that I've seen what appears to be solid evidence from government records that non-citizens really did vote in Washington in the last election, I emailed this information to Assistant Secretary Steve Excell. His response is worth posting in full --
None of the counties nor our office received complaints about aliens voting. So when it popped up on the EFF web site and in the EFF report about the problems with the Governor’s race and recount, it was very disingenuous and misleading as to what really happened. (And enough mistakes were made to stick with the real facts without making up new ones)
In 2001, we proposed and won passage of the Voting Integrity Act that requires Driver’s License Examiners and registrars to warn prospective registrants they must be U.S. citizens. Some legal aliens inadvertently registered because they were asked “Do you want to register to vote?” when they took their driving test without being told they must be citizens.
The Border Patrol, INS and Customs have various databases of both legal and illegal aliens. To date, they have not shared this data with state election officials. The State Senate just passed an amendment directing election officials to compare data with the INS list of aliens. Until Congress changes the federal law governing the INS, we will request the data and be turned down by the Feds. So that amendment is a non-solution.
Some US Attorneys do report federal felons to the Secretaries of State (as they all are supposed to do under NVRA of 1993, but mostly don’t). Some of those offenses may involve violation of federal immigration, border or customs laws. But, this is not a very good safety net for catching aliens who may be voting.
Until January 01, 2006, the County Auditors are responsible for the integrity of the voter rolls that are used to prepare the poll books and absentee ballot mailings. As with any alleged offense, the burden of proof is on the accuser who files the complaint and on the prosecutor alleging a violation of the law and prosecuting the case. A citizen does not have to prove themself innocent. So if you have specifics about individuals who are aliens and voting, send the details in a written challenge to their registration to Dean Logan. They will hold a hearing at which both you and the alleged aliens can respond, then they will make a final determination. If a written complaint, with sufficient details, comes to our office, we will forward it to the counties until Jan 01, 2006. After that date, both our office and the counties will be able to follow-up on those complaints since we will have unified, statewide system for the first time.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 09, 2005 11:27 AM | Email This"Stop picking on us!!"
Posted by: bmvaughn on March 9, 2005 11:33 AMthere are no winners in politics
Posted by: Eric on March 9, 2005 11:58 AMAnd, yes, they have counted the cost and are willing to do it.
I, too, would be willing to register to vote every year. It's not a difficult process to fill out a form. And there are many more things done yearly already -- doctor's checkups, etc. Having to prove where I live would not be a heartache either.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on March 9, 2005 12:06 PMWhy is this not being seriously considered? Why does everyone seem to think they have a sacred right to remain registered in perpetuity as long as they don't miss too many elections in a row?
Better yet, how about reregistering every four years (once per presidential election cycle, counted from one's original registration date)? This would spread the reregistration process evenly across the four years, so that it wouldn't require a huge effort on the part of election officials. Registrants would have to provide photo identification and current proof of residency, and be checked against criminal records to ensure their voting rights haven't been suspended.
This might even accomodate continued use of absentee ballots for convenience, rather than absolute need (though I still don't like it!), since having to re-register every four years would at least weed out voters who have died or moved out of state.
Hmmmmm.
Posted by: Patrick on March 9, 2005 12:10 PMJames
Posted by: James D. Schandel on March 9, 2005 12:10 PMMessage to WA Sec of State..... Sam, be careful for what you wish for, as you may get it!
Where would you be with "vigilantees" running around all the counties everywhere challenging the voter roles? Lead, follow, or get out of the way! I am sure you will eat your words and come to regret them.
Posted by: Bob on March 9, 2005 12:21 PM Steve Excell mentioned filing a written challenge. That reminded me, whatever became of the challenge against the Doctor from Georgia who voted here? Last I heard Dean Logan was supposed to make a ruling in a few days, but I think it's been a couple weeks now.
Yet it's not too much of an effort for Citizens to be responsible for discovering, investigating and challenging in court or before Dean Logan each and every illegal vote.
Talk about inconsistent...
Posted by: saxa on March 9, 2005 01:05 PMPlease note Berendts answer re" Provisional Ballot Affadavits. He is confident every provisional ballot COUNTED is legitimate.
I think that's debatable and will be debated.
But Berendt's choice of words makes me think Berendt turned in some phoney ones that were caught.
What a piece of work this guy is!
WA State gets $30+ (emphasis on the plus) each year when we register a vehicle. How about paying to register to vote? How about a $5 voter registration fee each year? What's one more small fee in this state. At least we would get voters who want to vote and some money to pay for the new election office digs in KC.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 02:19 PMSure if they actually start doing their job, otherwise the money needs to go to guys like Stefan and the BIAW that are doing their job for them.
Here is 8 USCS 1373 in its entirety. Note in particular subsection (c). (This statute was challenged and found to be constitutional.)
"Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries. The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information."
Honestly, does anyone really believe that most government workers are interested in doing their job well? It might not give them justification to hire 10 more employees to do their job and create a new department (of inefficiency).
Investigating alien voters is not on the election offices agenda - only excuses of why they can't. Sound typical? More money and they "might" be able to do better. Yea right. But, a voter registration fee could be a new revenue source for CG to champion. Why not? We're already in the leading regressive tax states in the nation.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 03:00 PMSounds like a reasonable solution to me. But when would you officially scrub the roles? The elections office and liberal legislature certainly don't have time or interest. They aren't even concerned about citizenship status.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 03:15 PMImagine this scenario. Because you must be a citizen to be eligible to vote, and because in order to be a citizen you must either be born here or attain citizenship, and because in order to attain citizenship a person must be able to speak, read and write English, we station a person in every precinct around the state and when we see people speaking a language other than English, bringing intreputors etc. we challenge every single one of them:))
Posted by: Hanna on March 9, 2005 03:17 PMIn my mind the Dept of Licensing would be responsible for sending in "expired" voter registrations when the license expired just as they register voters when a license is issued.
Seemed simple enough to me. Out of state absentees would have to re-register through a special program (probably a notarized form once every 4 years or so). But the vast majority of voter validation would be handled by the same machinery as the license (and identity card) bureaucracy.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 03:45 PMSeems like a National ID card would be very helpful in process. But some might argue their unalienable right to anonymity as a citizen might be compromised. You know, the ones who cast the voterless ballots.
Posted by: Mike J on March 9, 2005 04:14 PMI think the D's object to identification of voters (to at least the level required by Hollywood Video or cashing a check anywhere) because it unduly scares some voters from exercising their franchise. Utter horseshit, but by repeating it with a straight face enough times some people start believing it.
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 04:39 PMThe motor voter act should be declared illegal in WA as it is now in many states - it is unconstitutional. However, I doubt if the Politburo in Olympia would hear of such a thing - hurry up and let's get on with the court case - Republicans !
Posted by: KS on March 9, 2005 07:28 PMThe following is becoming the standard for these elections officials....
"So when it popped up on the EFF web site and in the EFF report about the problems with the Governor’s race and recount, it was very disingenuous and misleading as to what really happened."
So..here they are saying what the EFF report stated was misleading?
But then they go on to claim that the Feds won't provide them with the necessary database to check for illegals and non-citizens....
"The State Senate just passed an amendment directing election officials to compare data with the INS list of aliens. Until Congress changes the federal law governing the INS, we will request the data and be turned down by the Feds. So that amendment is a non-solution."
So........How could it be that the EFF report was misleading if the Secretary of State's office claims they cannot verify alien voters? The SoS can't have it both ways!
Then..the SoS says that it is OUR (the citizens) job to catch these illegal voters and turn them in?? Hah! I can see it now! Walking under the viaduct with a clip-board in my hand..taking names and information! Or maybe I could just cruise through the international district? Maybe though Yakima? Take my clipboard with me and start taking names? Asking if people are in this country legally and if they have registered to vote?
I've got it! I'll just hang out at the Drivers license offices (with my clipboard..of course) and ask non-english speaking new license recipients if they also registered to vote! Don't the DoL offices have cameras? Can't we just review some daily footage of alien voter registration and get them that way?
Does the State really want *the people* to be in charge of busting illegal voters? Cause I'm up for it! But I don't think they will like what I do.....
Posted by: Deborah on March 9, 2005 07:43 PM
On the basis of such calculations, the now defunct INS estimated that the resident illegal alien population was about seven million in 2000. http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1184&c=13
What's more, the INS estimated that at the end of the 1990s, the net increase in that population was about 500,000 every year.
In 2003 that would indicate about 8.5 million illegal residents -- with other estimates as high as 11 million. In addition, there are illegal aliens who are here temporarily (often for seasonal labor). It is estimated, that, on average, there are about one million of these transient illegal aliens here at any point.
Characteristics of the Illegal Alien PopulationOne way to get a sense of what the illegal alien population is like is to look at the illegal aliens who were given amnesty in the late 1980s (under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986).
This group of almost three million illegal aliens, all of whom had been in the United States since before 1982, was made into legal aliens and has since been surveyed by the federal government.
The government study (INS Report on the Legalized Alien Population, M-375, March 1992) found that out of the amnestied illegal alien population:
94 percent had migrated for economic reasons.
55 percent lived in California.
70 percent were from Mexico.
13 percent were from Central America.
74 percent had never been apprehended.
15 percent spoke English.80 percent used public health services.
49 percent had no health insurance.
Their median age was 32, with an average household of four, seven years education, an hourly wage of $5.45, an annual individual income of $8,982, and annual family income of $15,364.
Remember, at the time of this survey, many of the illegal aliens were well established, having lived in the United States for over ten years. Many less successful illegal aliens would have left the country.
The above profile of amnestied illegal aliens represented the most successful people in the illegal alien population. A profile of the overall illegal alien population could be expected to be much worse.
On the basis of this and similar information, estimates can be made of the costs to our society from illegal immigrants. Additional factors must be taken into account for cost estimates, such as the illegal aliens' school-age children (who number roughly 1.3 million) and economic displacement (the roughly 730,000 low-skilled native workers a year who lose their jobs because of competition from illegal alien workers).
The total costs are enormous, even after counting to their benefit the tax monies contributed by the illegal aliens (giving the net cost). The net cost of illegal immigration to our society totals more than $24 billion every year.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on March 10, 2005 07:00 AMJames
Posted by: James D. Schandel on March 10, 2005 07:02 AMIn regard to the issue of identifying illegal aliens who have registered to vote unlawfully, add a feature to your blog which will allow anyone to report “suspected unlawful registration and voting” by such illegal aliens.
RecallReed.blogspot.com would tackle this but does not have the resources to do it justice. Such a reporting mechanism would allow anyone to report someone in Washington State who is suspected to be an illegal alien who may have a driver’s license and may be an unlawfully registered voter.
An organization called http://www.noninvaders.org/ http://www.noinvaders.org/report_employers.php has already developed a state-by-state directory of photographs and profiles of employers /individuals who hire illegal aliens.
Anyone who knows someone who currently employs aliens not lawfully allowed to work in the United States can report contact information of employer/individual so www.noninvaders.org can post information in their directory.
Posted by: martin ringhofer on March 10, 2005 07:54 AM