The file that King County Elections gave me in fulfillment of my request for the "Absentee Ballot Audit Trail" is a complete mess. The Audit Trail is required by WAC 434-240-270 and is supposed to account for every absentee ballot that was issued, returned, counted and rejected. Either King County violated state elections rules by failing to maintain a proper audit trail, or it refuses to release a valid audit trail for fear of what it would show.
In either case, this looks like irrefutable evidence that King County simply cannot account for the absentee ballots that it processed. The public has absolutely no reason to be confident that every absentee ballot that was counted came from an actual voter, and that ballots were not lost, miscounted or outright stuffed into the pile.
Here are more details on the audit trail and some of the things that I found which indicate that the accounting for ballots was so shoddy and inept that it shouldn't give us much confidence in the work product of King County Elections --
The file that the elections office gave me is supposed to contain a row for every ballot that was issued, including the voter's ID number, name, residence and mailing addresses, the date the voter requested an absentee ballot, the date the ballot was returned (if it was), the "batch" in which the ballot was returned and the "challenge code" if the ballot was rejected. The file itself is in MS Access format and over 200MB. It's too big for me to post for download, but the Elections office should make copies available for anybody who asks for one. Only $12.50 for the CD. Along with the CD they gave me this document that explains some of the data fields and offers some explanations why the data is not going to be complete. Of course, the WAC requires that all absentee ballots be accounted for. Except for the records of individual Address Confidentiality Program voters, there is absolutely no excuse for failing to disclose the audit trail for every absentee ballot. Nevertheless, the information that was issued is even less complete than what the document tries to lay out.
* Various news releases claim that 646,468 absentee ballots were issued. The county's summary spreadsheet of batch slips puts this number at 646,537 The Absentee Ballot Audit Trail file (ABAT) contains records on only 645,622 ballots (plus some corrupted records), i.e. it is about 900 records short.
* More than 1,000 voters are listed in the voter registration file as credited with voting absentee, but who are not listed in the ABAT.
* 5,638 ballots are listed as with a return date, but without a batch number. 5,620 of these voters are credited with voting absentee.
* The Elections office gave me a different set of files earlier in the week that identify most ballots returned by mail and pre-sorted into batches by PSI (Diebold). Out of 494,000 ballots listed in the PSI batches, over 3,000 do not appear in the ABAT at all. Another 6,500 appear with different batch numbers than in the PSI batches.
* Comparing the batch counts in the ABAT with the batch counts in the county's batch slip summary spreadsheet and (with a sample of original batch slips) shows huge discrepancies. The batch counts in the ABAT are, in the aggregate, short of the batch slip counts by thousands.
* The batch slip summary spreadsheet counts over 5,700 rejected absentee ballots. The ABAT identifies only about 2,200 with challenge codes.
* The ABAT does not show any ballots challenged for certain obvious and common errors, such as late postmark, or a redundant submission by the voter.
These discrepancies compound the previously identified and unexplained problems with accounting for absenteees:
* nearly 900 more absentee ballots counted than voters credited
* hundreds of missing voter ids from the web page purportedly identified all returned absentee ballots
* The falsified Mail Ballot Report that was presented to the canvassing board, and Dean Logan's unwillingness to correct it.
* The PSI batch files that were given to me last week inexplicably fail to include all ballots that were returned on October 29.
* The 94 uncounted absentee ballots that were discovered 5 months after the election and didn't show up in any previously released ballot accounting.
* The dozens of batch slips that either show ballots appearing out of nowhere or disappearing into thin air without any explanation.
In a nutshell, this abominabe excuse for accounting should not give any of us confidence that the numbers in the 2004 election are anything but a fiction.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 18, 2005 02:08 PM | Email ThisAre we there yet?
Posted by: Ken Muller on April 18, 2005 02:33 PMThe time has run out on Queen Kristeen's campaign.
It is time for a new election.
Posted by: Big M on April 18, 2005 02:39 PMBlah! Blah! Blah! Y A W N!
By this time you would think the left would feel a bit decapitated, or what's next Lucy?
Posted by: Fred on April 18, 2005 02:44 PMThe trumped up stink in Ohio this year, and in Florida last time, pale in comparison to this. yet our "liberal" media turns a blind eye to this "old news" story. What as shame, as this could be someone's Pulitzer in the making!
Yup, the election was just typical liberalism incarnate again -- tell the people what you want to tell them based on what you think they want to hear, and they will lap it up. Only this time it just did not work out that way.
Thanks again Stefan for all your hard work!
Dan
Posted by: dan on April 18, 2005 02:59 PMSend the moving vans to the Gov. mansion and start loading up that O'Gregoire stuff! Helloooo Gov. Rossi!
Posted by: Michele on April 18, 2005 03:01 PMAll along I felt that Rossi had won this election by 4000 to 6000 votes. And I think time will validate that point of view.
Do you mean the sum total of absentee ballots rejected because of the receipt of a prior ballot was exactly ZERO?
You said: "* The ABAT does not show any ballots challenged for certain obvious and common errors, such as late postmark, or a redundant submission by the voter."
What a relief!!! My faith in my fellow citizens is restored. Not one person in King County tried to vote more than once by using mistakenly issued duplicate absentee ballots or absentee ballots and provisional ballots in combination.
Kill the fatted calf: It's time to celebrate.
Posted by: Micajah on April 18, 2005 03:21 PM"NIB or 'not in batch' means the voter returned a ballot from a different election. Please note, the ballot is not removed from the batch record although it was obviously not counted. In addition, the voter history would not credit the voter."
The footnote supposedly explains this entry in the table in the memo: "N-I-B Absentee is not in the batch."
Now, let's see: What would the "challenge code" be when the envelope and its contents were once in the batch (when they were scanned into the database and recorded on the CD), but the envelope and its contents are no longer in the batch of envelopes being processed at the initial verification stage?
In other words, what code would be entered when the person checking signatures finds that an envelope is missing from the batch tray?
I think it might be "NIB," but then the memo writer would be wrong -- and we can't have that.
So, how can the person checking the signature tell that the ballot sealed inside two envelopes is a ballot from some other election?
The memo writer must be correct, so how many employees do they have that can see inside two envelopes without opening them?
Imagine that King County doesn't have employees with superhuman abilities. Here's the process followed:
Once the signature is verified, the voter is credited.
Then at the next stage, the outer and inner envelopes are separated.
Then the inner envelopes are opened and the ballots are removed.
Then the ballots are eyeballed.
Only at the last step described above could anyone know that it's a ballot from a different election.
By then, it's impossible to identify the voter credited with casting that ballot.
Unless, of course, King County routinely takes a peek inside envelopes before deciding whether to accept the ballots. (But that would be illegal, so they surely never do that.)
Thank you Micajah
"So, how can the person checking the signature tell that the ballot sealed inside two envelopes is a ballot from some other election?"
"The memo writer must be correct, so how many employees do they have that can see inside two envelopes without opening them?"
Posted by: Bob on April 18, 2005 04:48 PMYep, guys--never again.
Posted by: Michele on April 18, 2005 07:38 PMIf the court rules (properly) that they can't change the rules after most of the game is played (like they did in KC), then the bleeding hearts will claim that Republicans denied a complete review of the errors across the state.
Like I said, ever the morons.
Posted by: Danny on April 18, 2005 07:56 PMSo, it would appear that they are getting their way and we aren't. It would be a mistake to make the same error that angry and emotional Democrats make - that Republicans are all fat and stupid.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the collosal Dem machine operating in the state got sloppy and assumed the lemmings would go where directed. They aren't used to super smart people like the Shark and Micajah peering through the haze of fraud and misinformation.
The history of the Republican party in Washington state has indeed been one of moronic behavior. But, it would appear that this is changing.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 18, 2005 08:51 PMI think it's time to pass the baton from the indepth investigative blog research (Stefan) - to the big boys....(Feds)
At this point...Stefan should not be the one finding this serious evidence......He should not be doing this alone...This should be Federal now.
Think about it....
Posted by: Deborah on April 18, 2005 09:08 PMWAC 434-240-250 states,
Absentee voter attempting to vote at the polls. In addition to maintaining a record of all persons requesting and being issued an absentee ballot, each county auditor will, to the extent time allows, make a notation on each poll list of the persons who have been issued an absentee ballot. Whenever any voter whose name has been so marked attempts to vote at the polling place, the precinct election officers shall issue that voter a special ballot. The special ballot shall be securely retained until all absentee ballots have been received and credited. If the voter did not return his absentee ballot, the special ballot shall be processed as a valid ballot. If the voter has returned an absentee ballot, the ballot shall not be counted and should then be referred to the canvassing board for their disposition.
This regulation and WAC 434-240-260 shall not apply to any county that does not tabulate absentee ballots until the poll books have been examined to ensure that no voter has voted twice.
In short:
1. Mark poll lists of all voters requesting and having been issued an absentee ballot.
2. Issue a special (provisional) ballot to those so marked attempting to vote at the polls.
3. Hold those (specific, not all) (special, provisional) ballots until All absentee voters have been credited and then check for double voters.
4. WAC 434-240-250 and WAC 434-240-260 do not apply if All absentee ballots are held until poll and special/provisional ballots are credited. (Not the same as #3).
WAC 434-240-260 states,
Absentee ballots returned after the poll lists have been marked. Absentee ballots which are issued and returned to the county auditor after the poll lists have been marked to indicate those persons who have been issued an absentee ballot shall be segregated from other absentee ballots, and shall not be tabulated until the poll lists have been examined following the election to ensure that those persons did not vote at the polls on election day. In the event the county auditor determines that an individual voted at the polls and returned an absentee ballot, the absentee ballot shall not be counted and a copy of the poll list and the returned absentee shall be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney for his consideration. Any county manually tabulating absentee ballots that is unable to comply with the provisions of this regulation shall, not later than January 1, 1989, adopt an automated absentee ballot system that will permit compliance with this regulation.
In short:
1. If poll lists are marked, than absentee ballots (not marked) issued after the poll lists are finalized and printed for each precinct (indicating voters mailed an absentee ballot), shall be held until all other absentee ballots (those issued and marked in the poll lists) are counted and voters credited to check for double voters.
King County started crediting provisional ballots (11/10/04) prior to completing absentee ballots (11/17/04). The only reason that they can do this (within the letter of the law) is to count provisional ballots issued to those not marked in the poll lists as having been sent an absentee ballot. They are only required to hold those ballots where the poll lists are marked as ‘absentee voter’. There is a code ‘PDC – Poll book check (Ballot issued after last poll books were printed) in the ABAT (according to the PDF file). Where is the record showing the time and date the poll lists were closed for marking? What is the check and balance against those who received an absentee ballot after the poll list was printed and that may have (also?) cast a provisional ballot?
Stefan: Please define rubbish. Here are three definitions:
1.) Refuse; garbage. - King County Elections Commission official elections presentations.
2.) Worthless material. - King County Elections Commission Absentee Ballot Records
3.) Foolish discourse; nonsense. - King County Records Management methods and the discussions to the King County Council.
Now that's Engrish 1000001.3141592857
NUFF SAID!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 18, 2005 09:25 PMOT, but I couldn't help it.
THERE vs THEIR - A very common mistake made by many.
THERE as 'over there', 'there was', 'there were none', etc.;
THEIR as 'it belongs to them' 'their heads'
With all due respect;
European American
Egan’s April 15 memo says: “Please note that the totals on the AV file will not equal ballots cast on the voter history file for several reasons. Ballots that are batched in-house, issued over the counter, ACP and Federal Write-in ballots are not represented on the AV tape.”
Why aren’t “in-house” batches in the database? They are issued by the elections office and returned directly to Logan’s agents – rather than via the Postal Service. Their issuance and disposition have to be recorded just like any other absentee ballots issued by the elections office.
In order to compare the signatures on the envelopes to the digital images on file, they need to retrieve the images. That is normally done by batch number, so that an entire group can be retrieved without typing into the computer each individual’s name to get them one at a time.
The “In-House Batches” sheet in their spreadsheet shows that there were “DIMS Upload Reports” for most of the in-house batches. That means the bar codes were scanned and the data was uploaded into the computer system.
Granting that it wasn’t done by the contractor, as was done with ballots received by mail, but it was done.
So, if there is data missing for in-house batches, it isn’t because it was never entered into the system.
I think it is supposed to work like this.
Make a notation in the poll books to identify all registered voters who have been issued absentee ballots -- so their provisional ballots (if any) can be set aside to wait and see if the absentee ballots are returned. (The information on the provisional ballot envelope is supposed to say that the voter requested an absentee ballot, but is voting at the polling place instead.)
If an absentee ballot is issued after the poll books have been marked, set any such ballot aside until you've checked to see if the voter cast a ballot at the polling places.
The loophole is as Stefan indicated: Anyone can go to any polling place and request a provisional ballot.
People who go to polling places other than the ones serving the precincts in which they are registered will be issued a provisional ballot -- but not because of any knowledge by the precinct officers about the absentee ballot that was issued. They are issued a provisional ballot simply because their names aren't in the poll books for the precincts using that polling place.
Those provisional ballots wouldn't be set aside to wait and see if the absentee ballots are returned, unless one or both of two things occurred: (1) the voter honestly tells the precinct officers that he was supposed to get an absentee ballot, and that fact is noted on the provisional ballot envelope; or (2) the poll book information on each voter who cast a provisional ballot is first entered into the computer database so that it would be feasible to discover that John Doe went to a polling place and cast a provisional ballot in addition to his absentee ballot.
Posted by: Micajah on April 18, 2005 10:00 PMWhy don't you get a tally of the absentee ballots from Spokane and see how that lines up and do a true alignment of the counties to see how far off this one is with others, of course adjusted for population. Can you report those results to us?
Posted by: Kermit on April 19, 2005 01:14 AMQuestion which may be a bit off topic but goes to the Dems current grabbiness in Olympia...if/when it is decided that the election is invalid, and that therefore Ms Gregoire was never elected Gov, what happens to all the bills she (the not-Gov) signed? Do they all become invalid? Or are they considered valid law because all parties were acting on the good faith that she was the Gov?
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 19, 2005 03:21 AMAfter the gavel falls, there will be more than a few job openings.
Are any of you ready to 'step up'?
Politics are like computers, (GIGO) garbage in / garbage out.
My understanding from having talked with a former felon whose rights HAVE been restored, but in such an event, all rights are restored. Including the right to own firearms.
Ummm, are the donkey types arguing for more people owning guns, just to get a couple more legitimate votes? And more importantly, how do they FEEL about that?
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 19, 2005 06:43 AMWhy does the April 15 Egan memo refer to the data as the "AV tape"?
“Please note that the totals on the AV file will not equal ballots cast on the voter history file for several reasons. Ballots that are batched in-house, issued over the counter, ACP and Federal Write-in ballots are not represented on the AV tape.”
Are they still using their very old computer system for processing absentee ballots, or do they simply use tape to store archived or backup files?
If the file provided to you on a CD came from data stored on tape, does the data exist anywhere else in some other storage medium?
What does PSI retain? (Perhaps the litigants are the only ones who could get anything from PSI.)
Posted by: Micajah on April 19, 2005 10:42 AM