I went to the King County Elections office yesterday afternoon to pick up some documents and data files in response to my public records requests. The thing I'm chasing down at the moment is the discrepancy of the nearly 900 more absentee ballots counted than absentee voters identified. The most critical piece of the puzzle is the complete Absentee Ballot Audit Trail that they're required to maintain.
It's obvious they don't want to release the audit trail. In their letter explaining why they don't want to deliver other documents in a timely fashion, they don't even acknowledge that I've asked for the audit trail. They don't even acknowledge They've released the batch slips, both in raw hard copy form and some summary spreadsheets (more on this later). But the audit trail is the most crucial piece. They also gave me a CD (I had to pay $12.50 for it) containing some data files, which turned out to be completely worthless with out the rest of the audit trail data.
I just sent this email to King County Elections, cc:ing members of the County Council and a few members of the press:
The data files on the CD you issued to me yesterday are not an acceptable response to my Public Disclsoure Act request for King County's audit trail of absentee ballots. Indeed, these data files are completely worthless and unusable without the rest of the information that I have requested and which has not been provided. I am frankly frustrated at this point. I first requested this information in writing more than seven weeks ago. Yesterday's response appears to be just the latest example of the King County Elections office apparent pattern of delay, evasion and obfuscation in order to conceal serious mistakes. I ask that you issue immediately a new CD containing the complete audit trail of absentee ballots that I have requested.
The data files on the CD you issued to me yesterday are not an acceptable response to my Public Disclsoure Act request for King County's audit trail of absentee ballots. Indeed, these data files are completely worthless and unusable without the rest of the information that I have requested and which has not been provided. I am frankly frustrated at this point. I first requested this information in writing more than seven weeks ago. Yesterday's response appears to be just the latest example of the King County Elections office apparent pattern of delay, evasion and obfuscation in order to conceal serious mistakes. I ask that you issue immediately a new CD containing the complete audit trail of absentee ballots that I have requested.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 14, 2005 11:59 AM | Email ThisMy outstanding Public Disclosure Act request, dated Feb. 22, is for "all documents pertaining to the reconciliation of absentee ballots and absentee voters from the November 2004 election.". My objective is simple: to verify whether all absentee ballots that were returned and counted were properly accounted for. The data that that your office has released so far is insufficient to determine whether all ballots were properly accounted for, nor is the information sufficient to determine the actual magnitude of discrepancies between ballots returned and ballots counted.
I amended my Feb. 22 request on March 21 to clarify that King County's response should include the audit trail on absentee ballots that is required by WAC 434-240-270.
The files of PSI data that are on yesterday's CD in the folder titled "November Data Disk" contain only ballot serial numbers. I did not at any time request files that are composed exclusively of ballot serial numbers. Ballot serial numbers are worthless without corresponding records that associate ballots numbers with voter ID numbers. My request specifically identified voter ID numbers as a necessary data item. You might correct yesterday's CD by issuing a file that associates the ballot serial numbers with the corresponding voter IDs. However, it would be a comparable effort to simply produce the complete audit trail that I have been asking for all along..
A responsive file must include following data items for every absentee ballot that was returned for the November 2004 election.
* ballot serial number
* voter ID
* date the ballot was received
* absentee ballot "batch" number
* disposition of the ballot (accepted, or rejected; and if rejected, the "challenge code")I have no doubt that these audit trail records are readily available in the form in which I have requested them -- These records are required by WAC 434-240-270; it is also apparent from other county documents I have seen (for example, this screen shot from an elections office software application) that the county's computer systems do in fact maintain these records in the database.
I demand that you release this data without additional delay.
This is reminiscent of Soviet "elections" (minus the Public Disclosure requests, of course). The result is the same however: Neither you, nor Soviet citizens, ever received meaningful information about the "elections."
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on April 14, 2005 12:37 PM"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis
Can anyone say "Ron Sims, Dean Logan, and Christine Gregoire"????
Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 12:45 PMI, for one, am really happy to see a rock-ribbed right-wing Republican like yourself finally get a conscience and attack that total fraud, Tom DeLay, who does indeed continue to evade the truth and obfuscate the public.
He's a menace to good government and it's nice to finally see other Republicans going after that horrible man!
Posted by: Nelson on April 14, 2005 12:45 PMWAC 434-240-270 Maintenance of an audit trail on absentee ballots. Each county auditor shall maintain an audit trail with respect to the processing of absentee ballots which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(7) A reconciliation that all absentee ballots counted plus all absentee ballots rejected is equal to the total number of absentee ballots received.
How could King County comply with requirement (7) if the numbers didn't match?
How many did they recieve?
How many did they count?
How many did they reject?
What is a county auditor supposed to do if they can't meet requirement number (7)?
Posted by: PW on April 14, 2005 12:46 PMDid you finally wake up from your nap, little one (you're not yawning any more)?
After we work on your addition and subtraction skills, we'll do some attention and focus exercises. Then you can learn to color between the lines. By that time your mommy will be here to pick you up.
Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 12:51 PMCan or did the Rossi legal team request the audit trail as part of discovery?
If the audit trail is a public record, you may have better success going through the Rossi folks. If they have it already, they should be able to provide you a copy.
Posted by: Michael on April 14, 2005 01:03 PMAre you saying that the only part of PSI's data released to you was a long list of ballot serial numbers?
Was nothing included about the date of receipt?
No batch numbers?
If so, then how many serial numbers are there in the data they released to you?
The serial number shouldn't be in the PSI data unless the ballot was returned by the voter, should it?
The total of all serial numbers would at least indicate how many absentee ballots were returned by mail -- although obviously it wouldn't tell how many were mailed in time, received in time, later found to be valid, etc. (And wouldn't tell how many absentee ballots were returned at polling places or other authorized receiving points prior to the close of the polls on election day.)
Then I realized how ridiculous a thought that was.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 14, 2005 03:38 PMIf you want to write and/or read about Tom Delay, why don't you start your own blog? Or aren't you intelligent enough?
Oh, that's right - Lucy had a blog...and she kept getting outwitted by her commentors.
Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 04:08 PMIt is true, though, the stupid, unenlightened, red-neck, uneducated, dim, etc., all of which in lib-speak means republican, does not understand such words. We are all so impressed with your sophisticated, enlightened, well articulated counter points that you have laid out for us. We are so grateful that you will protect us from ourselves as you know what is best for everyone.
One heartfelt THANK YOU!
Posted by: Fred on April 14, 2005 04:13 PMOh... he's guilty all right... really guilty... of being a Republican.
There are many, many other Congressman and Senator's that have done and continue to do exactly what Tom Delay has done, namely, pay members of his family to work on his campaign. Barbara Boxer for one paid her son $150,000... but do you see this in the papers? Nope.
Posted by: Tucker on April 14, 2005 05:23 PMSince this blog entry isn't about Mr. DeLay, I'll simply point you to a blog entry that spells out a number of issues (http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2005/03/delay-should-resign-sign-petition.shtml). In the past month there have been further discoveries of ethics violations to the point even Rick Santorum is calling for him to answer the charges.
Oh, and Larry, I have my own blog, and have written about it.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 14, 2005 05:47 PMThat's ok; most thoughts by leftists are ridiculous.
Posted by: otto on April 14, 2005 06:05 PMIf you have your own blog and you've written about it, why do you feel necessary to bring it up here? Especially when it is completely unrelated to the post? Do you have feelings of inferiority because nobody reads your blog, while thousands of people read this one? Are you trying to ride Stefan's coattails for some free publicity? Do you appreciate when you write about Tom Delay on your blog and people bring up the fact that Clinton was impleached for lying under oath, and that will be his legacy, and therefore all Democrats are lying sacks of you-know-what and can't be trusted? What's the matter with you?
Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 06:19 PMThe reason I brought up DeLay was the fact Shark's title looked like a posting about DeLay (Delay) for those of us that have been following that issue. The fact Sound Politics seems to have no interest in the ethics concerns of DeLay is itself interesting. Why is that?
Meanwhile, I couldn't give a rats ass if nobody read my blog to be honest, especially patrons of this Web site who invariably would not agree with much that say, but irregardless of this crowd, I feel I have things I want to write about and doing so through other people's blogs eventually screams for having your own, and since I can, I do.
Cliff - Perhaps you are right. Perhaps DeLay is not guilty of any of these well documented ethics transgressions. Or perhaps these thing did happen, but the question of whether they were ethics violations is up in the air. Perhaps it is all part of a left wing conspiracy. That in itself would seem to be worthy of Sound Politics coverage wouldn't you think, especially if the whole thing ends up costing him his leadership role in the House?
Posted by: Daniel K on April 14, 2005 08:41 PMOkay, I'll accept that answer, and offer one of my own....
Is the fact that Sound Politics does not discuss Tom Delay interesting? Not really. It's about as interesting as the fact that the Seattle Times Sports section never seems to have articles on the Chicago Cubs. Nor do I read anything about the Seattle Seahawks in the Chicago Tribune.
If you want national political coverage from our point of view, maybe you should check Instapundit, Polipundit, Vikingpundit, Vodkapundit, PowerLine, PatrickRuffini, etc. But you already knew that.
Posted by: Larry on April 14, 2005 09:44 PM"When it comes to cashing in on family connections, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's relatives can't hold a candle to the clan of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who's sponsored legislation that netted his son hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees."
For the rest of the story, check out;
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/14/223831.shtml
We'll start to criticize Delay when you chastize the despicable DemoRAT Senate Minority Leader. Until then, whine on !
Actually, it was Daniel K that wrote that. I prefer to deal in facts, not hypotheticals. But your comment is spot on concerning the earlier statement.
Posted by: Larry on April 15, 2005 09:16 AMEvade and obfuscate all you like, but even the Republican leadership is losing patience with this DeLay.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 15, 2005 10:55 AMSeeing how this IS a local blog maybe we should be discussing our local politician Jim McDermott.
McDermott ethics probe blocked, GOP aide says
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050414-115251-4578r.htm
He actually WAS found guilty of something and paid a $60,000 dollar fine. BTW.. he was the top Democrat member of the Ethics committee until he resigned for illegally leaking a tape of an illegally taped conversation conversation...
The Democrats are not only refusing to convene to clear Tom Delay they are also holding out because of the ethics complaint against one of their previously top Democrat members Jim McDermott our own local politician.....talk about Delay, Evade, Obfuscate....and you have the guts to bring Tom Delay up here?
Say after me Daniel.....Delay, Evade, Obfuscate...Delay, Evade, Obfuscate...
I agree, we should discuss Jim McDermott!
Here's what U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan had to say about him: "{his} willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice in this case."
WILLFUL...KNOWING...MISCONDUCT....MALICE!! And we're talking about Tom Delay, who has yet to appear before the Ethics Committee, let alone a court of law?
Daniel K, I think you are picking and choosing your ethics violations, and you're only picking Republicans. Jim McDermott is the gold standard of the current Democratic intelligentsia - and his willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice!
By the way, he was fined $60, and he has to pay $545K for the Republican lawyers. But I suppose you can make a few donations, Daniel K, to cover your poster boy.
Posted by: Larry on April 15, 2005 02:18 PMI agree, we should discuss Jim McDermott!
Here's what U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan had to say about him: "{his} willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice in this case."
WILLFUL...KNOWING...MISCONDUCT....MALICE!! And we're talking about Tom Delay, who has yet to appear before the Ethics Committee, let alone a court of law?
Daniel K, I think you are picking and choosing your ethics violations, and you're only picking Republicans. Jim McDermott is the gold standard of the current Democratic intelligentsia - and his willful and knowing misconduct rises to the level of malice!
By the way, he was fined $60K, and he has to pay $545K for the Republican lawyers. But I suppose you can make a few donations, Daniel K, to cover your poster boy.
Posted by: Larry on April 15, 2005 02:23 PMI see you would rather talk about a Senator from another state getting admonished for trivial mistakes rather than talk about a local politician committing a crime and getting fined for it like McDermott was...
Nuff said...we understand now...