My report on this morning's hearing in the case of Sharkansky v. Reed --
Judge Hicks denied my request motion to compel disclosure of the voter birthdates. But not without also expressing some misgivings and making some interesting observations. I'll try to get a transcript of his on-records remarks, in the meantime, these are the main points as I understood them:
* He acknowledged that there was a "collision" between the Public Disclosure Act which requires broad disclosure and the elections statute which has broad exemptions.
* Acknowledged the legitimate concern about identity theft and, in his words, the fact that "The Lady doesn't want to tell her age"
* Expressed dismay that the exemptions to the Disclosure Act are "mushrooming", both in statute and case law.
* Said that this is an important issue that should be "put on the table" for public discussion.
* Seemed to suggest that he hoped somebody would appeal the decision, but ultimately he didn't feel that RCW 29A.08.710 was sufficiently vague for him to rule against it at the Superior Court level.
Again, I'd prefer not to have to ask for birthdates in the first place. I'd prefer that Sam Reed and Dean Logan and the rest of our election officials would just do their jobs and clean up the voter rolls without pretending that the electorate has the tools to do this. I can't afford to pay for an appeal out of my own pocket, but I wouldn't mind appealing in order to force the two issues of (a) cleaning the voter rolls and (b) defending the Public Disclosure Act.
There was one bright spot. I see that the Attorney General's Office doesn't believe that the former Attorney General is really the governor. Take a look at the signature page of the "Order Dismissing Action".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 18, 2005 06:50 PM | Email ThisHow much for the appeal?
Estimate?
I've donated twice and will continue that, but I might be able to do a little more, am retired though and I live on that and my VA disability.
It's for a great cause.
Thanks for taking on this issue. I hate to admit I voted for that totally incompetent Sam Reed. He and his cronies like Dean Logan are a discrace. Oh, what am I saying... we had the "most accurate election in state history" and it was a "model to the world." Can I barf now?
Posted by: Tucker on March 18, 2005 08:31 PMAnd yes, SS is to be commended for his efforts.
What really bends logic is that the Rossi camp, the state Rep office, and SP et al are portrayed as quixotic, tilting at windmills, when in this case, it is the windmills that are dysfunctional. Gilbert and Sullivan were less topsy-turvy.
Posted by: scott158 on March 18, 2005 10:10 PMIf nothing else I give Jeff Even credit for being one of the senior attorneys on the AG staff that is actually willing to talk directly to citizens when they call the AG's office. I managed to get him on the phone for a couple minutes a few weeks ago, when I called with a specific question on a local election issue; he was very helpful.
Methow Ken
would be nice to see certain left-leaning caucasian flakes - troll types get their wish and go live in Canada, France - or a number of other countries that they like better than the USA.
Those liberal flakes and nuts would likely be as surprized as you would be to learn that the while the BC "Liberal" party has the name liberal, it is actualy the party of the right. The part of the left are called the "New Democrats".
GO figure!
Posted by: DeadWood on March 19, 2005 12:15 AMDear Martin
I am responding to your request that I submit a file of Grant County’s voter registration list to the INS and the IRS for them to compare to their data base and identify non citizens who are registered to vote.
The Public Records Act allows you to request copies of public records, but does not give you the ability to require me to submit our registered voter data base to another agency.
This issue is being considered by the State Legislature and there are some proposed bills being considered.
I have discussed this with the Secretary of State’s Office and was informed that they contacted the INS several years ago regarding this issue and got nowhere with them.
I understand there is a law requiring the INS to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual but it doesn’t say that we can send a large data base for comparison.
As you probably know, the state is developing a statewide voter registration system.
I was told that the state will probably be contacting the INS after the system is up and running and discussing this issue with them again.
I think it is better to have the Secretary of State’s office deal with the INS for the entire state than have individual counties contacting the INS.
I also want to see the outcome of any bills that may be passed by the legislature during this session.
Bill Varney
Grant County Auditor
PO Box 37
Ephrata, WA 98823
509-754-2011 ext. 333
Aint an informed electorate better than a bamboozled one?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 19, 2005 07:48 AMWake up, SPers! Stripped of window dressing, Sharkansky just told you that the judge says that RCW 29A.08.710 *specifically* does not allow the public records request (that is, the judge "didn't feel that RCW 29A.08.710 was sufficiently vague . . . .").
So, you've got a specific legal prohibition against getting the private info that Sharkansky wants. Wake up -- you're not going to get it! (Oh and by the way, I'm an experienced attorney who's worked litigation cases for 10 years -- I know a thing or two about this.)
By the way, where are the so-called conservatives who are allegedly against "judicial activism" -- do you think the judge should just *ignore* the *specific* legal prohbition on giving out this information, by creating a judge-made exception? Sounds like legislating from the bench, doesn't it? But don't worry, because as I said earlier, you can dream of appeals all you want, but you're not going to get a panel of appeals court judges to ignore the statute any more than this judge is going to.
Happy windmill-tilting. I probably shouldn't be writing this, because my real hope is that as many Repubs as possible keep pushing this Rossi and Rossi-related stuff for as long as possible, in a futile effort that only weakens y'all for the next several elections.
Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2005 08:27 AMThe County has a much greater burden than any ordinary defendant because of the public trust, and public officials can be held to account for anything that "looks" like misconduct or fraud.
I would be surprised if spoliation of evidence respecting the binder and other discoverable materials are not a major issue as well as failure to comply with statutory requirements to maintain the records in a reasonable condition.
I agree that an appeal is important for obvious reasons, but even if one does not take place, the materials sought by Stefan will inevitably be produced.
I too support the appeal and will contribute what I can.
Stefan: Good effort and thanks very much for your stick-to-itivness.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 19, 2005 10:15 AMAfter review of RCW 29A.08.710, I must grudgingly agree that Mike is correct when he says that it specifically disallows the public records request made, and that you're not going to get a panel of appeals court judges to overturn Judge Hicks.
While the reasons for the limitations are altogether unclear, the statute was constructed to limit disclosure.
“The voter's name, gender, voting record, date of registration, and registration number. The address and political jurisdiction of a registered voter are available for public inspection and copying except as provided by chapter 40.24 RCW. No other information from voter registration records or files is available for public inspection or copying.”RCW 29A.08.710 (2)
Age as a primary determinant of voter eligibility will have to be discovered during the pre-trail discovery process.
We really didn't need the short resume from Mike, his surly attitude gives him away. Nevertheless, an over reaching attempt to obtain voter information is not an effort to encourage judicial activism.
Mike hopes for things that will resolve contrary to his interests. His side is wrong, our case is stronger every day, the pressure is building, and Rossi will be our Governor.
Unless of course it is the responsiblity of our election officials to ensure that only eligible citizen residents cast votes (which I had always supposed was the case before said officials declared otherwise...). I can only assume that this was the implied meaning of the statute.
Posted by: Patrick on March 19, 2005 12:00 PMApparently, the poll book (which is a public record) contains the month and day of birth, but not the year. Presumably, the content of the poll book sheets is determined by a WAC regulation issued by the Secretary of State Sam Reed.
Since county auditors thereby release the month and day of birth (but not the year) as a public record, you should at least be able to force Sam Reed to release this same information on a public records request -- and in a statewide database CD format. You should ask the judge for reconsideration on this issue at least.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 19, 2005 04:28 PMYou claim that because "election officials have declared that it is the electorate's job to police the voter rolls," we have "a direct conflict" with the specific law against giving out citizens' private information.
That's not the way it works. Statements by public officials about the way that the laws work don't change what laws require. (Can you imagine if it were otherwise? What if "election officials" claimed next week that the electorate has "absolutely no responsibility" to help catch improper voter registrations? Would Shark's suit then have no merit and be properly dismissed? And what if then, a week later, they reversed themselves -- or said something vague that could be read either way? Is Shark's suit then reinstated -- or half-reinstated?)
The point is, the law says what it says. It's clear, and there isn't another LAW on the books that can be read reasonably to contradict it (if you think I'm making that up, read the Republican AG's response to Shark's complaint). If the law needs to be changed in order to better promote voter-checking, then the LAW can be changed -- by the legislature or by an initiative. But you can't just set up a conflict with a law and choose to ignore it on the basis of what any public official said in the last several weeks (or over any time period).
Keith --
You ask, "Why do you waste your time reading SP?" I would ask you the same question! As for me, I like seeing what the other side thinks -- even when it makes no sense. Or, I should say, *especially* when it makes no sense. Then I know how little we've got to worry about.
Mike doesn't care. He is obviously smart enough to know the election results are uncertain. He wants power any way he can get it.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on March 20, 2005 09:28 AM