I couldn't find the Democrats' original motion, but this Republican response shows that the Democrats filed to exclude any non-citizen votes from the tally of illegal votes in the election contest, unless the non-citizens were challenged before the election.
Secretary of State Sam Reed filed a motion in support of the Democrats' position:
under the election contest statute as currently written, "illegal votes" do not include votes cast by improperly registered non-citizens1 unless their registration was challenged before the election. For that reason, the Democrats' motion concerning this interpretation of the election contest statute should be grantedGreat. So our unique voting franchise as "citizens" is, in the Reed/Gregoire interpretation of our election laws, mostly worthless. At least Joni Balter can no longer claim with a straight face that "State election officials are not aware of a single documented instance where a non-citizen voted in the governor's race".
You know, there's a point at which it will become tempting for somebody to pay hundreds of thousands of people in Hyderabad to register and vote by mail claiming a permanent address at the King County Elections office.
A certain out of state doctor comes to mind!
Posted by: Joe on April 27, 2005 02:12 AMEvery Washingtonian, no matter how they voted in the last election, should be up in arms over this "ruling". It means that you are in very real danger of being disenfranchised. Your vote can be cancelled out by a non-citizen that somehow slipped through the challenge process. What if a few hundred thousand non-citizens registered to vote over the next few years, trickling in, a few at a time, here and there. Who is going to catch that? Hell, the KC election officials can't even reconcile their own ballot totals. Who is going to do the sentry duty over the next few years to assure that this kind of fraud doesn't happen? Those same election officials have stated on the record that they don't think it is their job to do so.
But, you know, maybe we're going about this wrong. If the 'Rats are going to play these crooked games, maybe we have to beat them at their own game. As loathe as I am to not play fairly, if your opponent isn't going to play fair, you're probably setting yourself up for a beating if you are the only one playing the game straight. So, heck, sign me up now to vote. What's the address of the King Co. elections board, or wherever it is "homeless" people can register as their address?
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 27, 2005 05:19 AMAnd, we all know that the language will get challenged on consitutional grounds, for these aren't non-citizens so much, as 'undocumented' citizens, so Logan would need to approve every one of them.
Sam, when you read this, please know that this should be a source of shame for you. You have either advocated for noncitizens sufferage in this state, in direct contravention of our State's constitution during the course of your duties, or, have set the motions in place for witch hunts on the part of the citizenry to find these people prior to elections through your abdication of your responsibilities.
If that's what you want, having citizens go out and do your job for you, in an uncoordinated fashion, keying on apparent and stereotypical differences in surnames, building a sense of distrust and vitriol, then, Sir, you need to resign immediately. And anyone accepting Mr. Reed's logic here really needs to think of the 'message' being sent here. For, if that's the world you want to live in, where roving bands of people run around making accusations, then you'd better think about shutting up when it happens.
I find myself absolutely aghast at all of this. The party of taxing has consolidated their position, has done everything they can to force their agenda through, despite the will of the people, and is running rampant through the state to ensure their power isn't interrupted. This corrupt and power mad group is without shame, and others are doing everything they can to enable them.
Bring in the feds! It's a better idea than setting up a situation where witch hunts on the part of the citizenry are necessary to affect change.
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 27, 2005 05:33 AM
I think he's offering a legal opinion about the statute. Now, that statute sounds like it's in desperate need of rewriting, and the implications are ridiculous (that without enabling the citizens to do so, the law says they are the only ones that can contest voters and it must be done prior to the certification).
BUT
If that's what the law on the books says, we can't expect Reed to do anything different in regards to the ruling. We sure as heck can expect him to do something different in terms of pushing for TRUE election reform.
Posted by: SafeRB on April 27, 2005 06:03 AMIt also is strange that the Republicans have to challenge the non-citizens before an elections since no DumbocRAT will, so the guy on the east side needs to challenge the non-citizens for this November since we can't challenge last NOvember's (remember, NO means Gregoire lost) non-citizens voting populace.
But, now that the Secretary of State has stated this in a legal brief, it does allow the non-citizens challenges to start. Now Joni Balter and her friends can't claim racism anymore. We know she will but it will be a hollow call. BTW, where did Balter attend to acquire her higher educational writing lies skills? She must have went to liberal collegeland or how else could she learned to write those no non-citizens voting or the Maria Cantwell puff pieces.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 27, 2005 06:31 AMDear Mr. Ringhofer:
The King County Superior Court (the "Court") received your e-mail dated April 14, 2005 in which you ask a series of nine questions relating to the juror qualification form that prospective jurors are required to complete pursuant to RCW 2.36.070 and Supreme Court General Rule 18(d).
The Court has also received your related e-mail dated April 18, 2005, and your public disclosure request dated April 19, 2005 that was forwarded to the Court by Tony Adams on April 20, 2005.
With respect to the latter, you ask for the following:
A list of names and addresses of summoned jurors for 2002, 2003 and 2004, who either indicated on their returned questionnaire, or in any other manner, that they are (1) not King County residents, (2) are unable to speak English, (3) are not at least 18, (4) are not U.S. citizens, and (4) have Felony Conviction withour having full right restored, and were disqualified to serve as Jurors in and for King County.
This is the Court's formal response to your questions and the above request for records relating to the business of Court.
1. Has anyone in King County ever cross-matched the 32,525 Disqualified Jurors with Registered Voters in King County? If not, why not?
Response: The Court has not. The requirement that the Court establish a means for preliminary determining a juror's qualification for jury duty is set forth in state statute, RCW 2.36.070, and court rule, General Rule 18(d).
2. In an e-mail of Tue. 04/12/05, Greg Wheeler, Manager - Jury Services, said: We receive requests for exemption via writing. We review those, grant the exemption or deny and then shred the letter." Is this true? If so, what gives the King County Court the authority to "shred" these "letter" or any document?
Response: The Court is not required to keep correspondence from jurors, and out of respect for the privacy of the jurors, we do not retain any written materials received.
3. Does the Court retain returned completed questionnaires from summoned jurors, or the information disclosed by summoned jurors on these questionnaires? If not, why not?
Response: Information on completed juror qualification forms is checked against the information in the Court's juror database. If the database needs to be updated then the appropriate notation will be made in the system. The original juror qualification forms are not retained.
4. Does the Court have raw data or information to identify the names and addresses of summoned jurors for 2002, 2003 and 2004, who either indicated on their returned questionnaire, or in any other manner, that they are not US Citizens? If not, why not?
Response: There is a database that contains information relating to disqualified jurors during the time period stated in your question. However, and in response to your April 19 public disclosure request, RCW 2.36.072 and General Rule 18(d) clearly state that such information provided to the Court for preliminary determination of qualification for jury duty may only be used for the term such person is summoned and may not be used for any other purpose. RCW 2.36.072. Accordingly, this information is not available for public inspection.
5. Does the Court have raw data or information to identify the names and addresses of summoned jurors for 2002, 2003 and 2004, who either indicated on their returned questionnaire, or in any other manner, that their status on Residency, Inability to speak English, Age (Must be at least 18), and Felony conviction without having full right restored. If not, why not?
Response: See answer to Question 4 above.
6. The juror and jury selection process being open to the public, wouldn't the Court be required to retain information on disqualified jurors, including their name, address, basis of disqualification, other disclosed data?
Response: As noted above, the Court does receive information from jurors and enters it into the database.
7. If the data concerning disqualified jurors, including their name, address, basis of disqualification, other disclosed data, is retained: what would it take to perform a cross match with King County Registered Voters?
Response: This task is not a function of the Court and we are not qualified to answer.
8. Has anyone in King County Government, or anyone, thought of or suggested to perform a cross-match between disqualified jurors and registered King County voters? If yes, who? Was it performed? What was the outcome?
Response: We are not aware of any such effort.
9. If the answer to #8 is no, can such a cross-match be performed? If yes, and no on has to date requested it, I request it be done and the results be made public.
Response: No response is necessary to this question.
I trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiries.
Very truly yours,
Paul Sherfey
Chief Administrative Officer,
King County Superior Court
This is what happens when we elect rinos into the party.
All that statement does is give credence to allowing for the "non-citizen" vote.
How much longer until we will have a hard time even claiming to be a sovereign nation.....
Posted by: jaybo on April 27, 2005 07:28 AMI really couldn't give a tinkers damn whether or not a politician is a Democrat or a Republican, what I care about is honesty and competence, in that order.
My main opposition to the Democrats in this state is that the corruption and incompetence are a way of life with them. Rigging elections are part and parcel of their operation and it is so transparent that it is ridiculous at this point to deny it.
Republicans who show the same indifference to honesty are held in equal contempt, if not more so. If I find out that the State Republican Party lifts one finger to defend this incompetent (at best) boob they will have lost all credibility and demonstrated to me that they are not interested in holding those responsible for this mess accountable.
As used in this chapter: "Information required for voter registration" means the minimum information provided on a voter registration application that is required by the county auditor in order to place a voter registration applicant on the voter registration rolls. This information includes the applicant's name, complete residence address, date of birth, Washington state driver's license number, Washington state identification card, or the last four digits of the applicant's social security number, a signature attesting to the truth of the information provided on the application, and a check or indication in the box confirming the individual is a United States citizen. If the individual does not have a driver's license or social security number the registrant must be issued a unique voter registration number and placed on the voter registration rolls. All other information supplied is ancillary and not to be used as grounds for not registering an applicant to vote. Modification of the language of the official Washington state voter registration form by the voter will not be accepted and will cause the rejection of the registrant's application.
So I guess Sam Reed has the authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce.
This one is the straw the broke the camels back. I have been loosing respect for the man since this fiasco started. This is too much Sam has got to go.
Posted by: JCM on April 27, 2005 07:36 AMThose responses were eye opening, especially the answer to question #9. It ain't my job!!!!
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 27, 2005 07:46 AMFelons with federal records are even more likely than state felons to be on voter registration roles. Logan told me his office gets only "sporadic" notification of federal court convictions. "Are there hundreds of federal felons they've not notified us about? Who knows?" says Logan's spokesperson, Bobbie Egan. Logan is planning to ask the federal court to furnish updates as regularly as possible.
The only way to solve this is to clean the voter rolls. Throw them all out, and have state-wide re-enrollment. Do not allow mail-in registration - only in-person, and with proof of identity (for those legally stationed overseas for a long stint, registration could occur on the base).
But after the ballots are totalled, I don't see how you can realistically dig out the bad votes. If you invalidate the vote because of illegally cast ballots, where do you draw the threshold? 100 votes? Margin of victory? 1?
Think about this - if the threshold is sufficiently low enough, then all you have to do as a candidate/party is have enough bad votes claimed as cast to throw the entire election into doubt. Whether they were cast or not.
We should put our focus on cleaning the voter rolls to start with - I just can't see how after the fact expunging of votes would work.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on April 27, 2005 08:11 AMI imagine Reed is trying to "go both ways" thinking it will advance him politically. He probably thinks he will automatically retain most of the republican support and gain enough democrat support to advance him politically. However, I think his "ambidexterity" will ultimately cause his political downfall.
Trying to appeal to all voters and taking wishy-washy positions will show that he is a self-serving politician lacking any firm convictions.
Be either hot or cold. Being lukewarm will cause you to be spit out of the voters' mouths.
The only difference would be that Democrats wouldn't be able to say 'Well, Sam Reed certified the election - and he's a Republican!'
Posted by: Larry on April 27, 2005 08:17 AMAm I reading that right? Is it essentially saying that *anybody* can register to vote as long as they check the little box that says it's ok for them to vote?
Isn't it specifically allowing people to register even if they have no proof of ID or citizenship?
What kind of mockery is this?
Aren't the Democrat legislators specifically against cleaning the voter rolls?
Is it just me or doesn't it allow anybody at all to walk in, register to vote, using the court house as their permanent address, with absolutely proof of anything?
Anybody with legal background know whether hundreds/thousands of us could go and do just that (perhaps multiple times) as civil disobedience to an unjust law?
Posted by: lee egg on April 27, 2005 08:54 AMI just love the law of unintended consequences.
I wonder if the Democrats and the politically correct really understand that they are encouraging the formation of Vigilante committees to systematically challenge foreign voters? Probably not. If we do, then they will say what we are doing is racist.
I just hope that somebody confronts these folks who say that government must accept illegal alien voters unless they are challenged prior to an election and that local governments will not perform such challenges. The Catch-22 they are creating has an obvious solution and that is citizen action. Unfortunately, organized citizen action is the last thing these folks want.
VIGILANTEISM!
VIGILANTEISM!
Posted by: Bob on April 27, 2005 09:21 AMWhat's so upsetting about this is not so much the obvious fact that voters who should not be allowed to vote have done so, but that most likely many who may not even be able to speak English, have little or no knowledge of the candidates or issues, and were otherwise programmed by handlers such as their boss, family member, preacher, etc.
I'll let everyone take a guess as to which party is more likely to have programmed illegals to vote for their candidates.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2005 09:23 AMRead David Frum's contribution in today's NRO. In it, he posts an op-ed piece from the Jerusalem Post about a play written about Rachel Corrie (the dead Evergroovy State student). Link here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp
Posted by: Danny on April 27, 2005 10:12 AM So the democrats want to say this sorry
excuse for a secretary of state is better
than katherine harris.The fact of the matter
is he couldn't carry her briefcase.
She followed the law in florida and
did her job.All the dems could do then
was villafy her.Now because good old
sam reed says its ok to cheat the dems
love him.that ought to tell you what
democrats are all about.
Oh yea, you silly liberals, dont give me that weary old 'what about the 2000 election'. Move on!
Posted by: Son of Liberty on April 27, 2005 10:54 AM"It's about winning any way you can at whose cost you couln't care less."
Tell that to fomer AG Gregoire. Who paid for the THIRD recount?
Dan S.
Posted by: Dan S. on April 27, 2005 11:06 AMJust so you know, you'll be disenfranchised this November. My fiancee is a Polish citizen, but not yet a U.S. citizen. She'll register to vote shortly before the election, and there will be no challenge of her registration.
She's a good Polish catholic woman, and she adored Pope John Paul II. She'll vote a straight Republican ticket and she'll vote against any spending increases, even for schools and teachers, just like me. She likes George W. Bush, and she thinks an abortion is a crime against God.
I just wanted you to know that you shouldn't be suprised when the other team plays by your rules.
Posted by: Larry on April 27, 2005 11:08 AMWhat was happening with Sam Reed when he was interviewed on John Carlson's radio show yesterday afternoon regarding the disclosures in Dean Logan's deposition? Something did not ring true. Before it was over I had the feeling that someone has their thumb on Sam Reed.
John Carlson asked Reed to respond to several examples of the egregious errors and omissions that Dean Logan acknowledged took place in KC. Reed's replies struck me as being so casual as to amount to: "Well, yes - uh, well, yes, that was sort of a - well maybe that should have been done differently." (Parody - not an actual quote.)
Reed came across as being completely uninformed of the documented evidence and analysis that has been published on Sound Politics and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation websites. Hasn't he even had the curiosity or interest to read these analyses? Heck, there's been all this free coaching available to him on how to do the job he's supposed to be doing for the citizens, and it seems like he hasn't even looked at it?
I wonder if he is even aware of this Internet documentation of his wishy-washy views: http://www.effwa.org/vip/SOS%20Side%20by%20Side. Bob Williams, in the above link, challenges the SOS with a list of 18 points of non compliance with laws and regulations in the November election. To each point, the SOS responds with the same sort of "scripted" spin that he mouthed on radio yesterday. Williams comes back and challenges each and every one of Reed's replies (translated "It's not my job. Legally I can't do that.) with documented arguments, using that very law to support Williams's position that the SOS is out of compliance in regard to the duties of his elected position, and that Reed is misreading the law. (Deliberately?) Yesterday on radio, Sam Reed still clung to the position that by law he "has no authority to . . ."
He deserves to be embarrassed by this revelation of his passive attitude regarding his elected post. The office of Secretary of State is the first line of defensive oversight to ensure that each citizen's vote counts (is not diluted or misappropriated). Reed has not, and is not, fulfilling this function for our state. From Bob Williams's Voter Integrity Project Report: "Unfortunately, most of our state election officials did not implement these new laws, which went into effect July 2004." There's been a whole lot of our money wasted because no one made sure that existing laws and new laws were implemented. It seems to me that is why we have a Secretary of State, so that election regulations are in place and are assured of being implemented.
Non-citizens are not allowed to vote, and no amount of Clintonesque parsing of the elections statutes will change that.
Neither is Washington State allowed to grant non-citizens the franchise in defiance of Federal law and the Constitution.
There is no principled argument in favor of allowing non-citizen votes to stand, and the Democrats and Reed have revealed a disturbing lack of ethics and integrity by advancing such a position.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 27, 2005 12:51 PMFirst, he fails to recognize the difference between "elector" and "voter". The WA constitution, art. VI, sec 1, states in relevant part: "QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and ... shall be entitled to vote at all elections." A non-citizen is not an elector and thus any purported vote is void from the beginning. Reed tries to say a non-citizen's vote is merely voidable--if he is caught in the right way. Thus, the issue is one of constitutional magnitude, not mere construction of a statute.
Second, he similarly misconstrues the meaning of "improperly registered". A non-citizen is not just "improperly" registered--he is illegally registered and has committed a class C felony as stated in RCW 29A.08.210. Compare the following language in RCW 29A.08.810 (the voter challenge statute addressed in RCW 29A.68.020): "A challenged voter may properly transfer or reregister until three days before the primary or election." Note the word "properly". It refers to someone qualified to vote--assuming they "transfer or reregister".
Now why is it that Sam Reed seems so willing to roll over when the Democrats growl (apart from the fact that such responses seem to have been instinctive for Republicans for the last 50 years)? It could be the company he keeps, specifically the lawyers he uses.
Besides the figurehead name of the Attorney General himself, the brief is signed by 5 lawyers. According to PDC and or FEC records:(1) assistant attorney general Maureen Hart gave $1000.00 to Christine Gregoire (and also $200 to the Republican Party); (2) assistant attorney general Jeffery Even gave $50.00 to Christine Gregoire (as well as donations to Reed and Hart, who ran unsuccessfully herself for Supreme Court); (3) Thomas Ahearne gave $250.00 to Democrat Wesley Clark; (4) Hugh Spitzer gave donations totalling $343.00 to 3 Democrat party organizations, $250.00 to another Democrat party organization, $450.00 to Howard Dean, $250.00 to John Kerry; and (5) Marco Magnano donated to Democrat Ron Sims (and $1250.00 to his partner, Vaska).
Of further interest is that the last three attorneys are from the firm of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, whose individuals donate primarily to Democrat candidates in Washington. Specifically, 22 employees of the firm gave $6,965.25 to Gregoire and a total of $14,095.00 to Democrat candidates.
Only 1 employee, Mike Vaska, gave to Rossi ($250.00). Vaska, a partner in the firm, ran himself unsuccessfully for attorney general as a Republican and received $19,275.00 from other firm employees. Except for donations to Vaska, the firm only gave $3,285.00 to other Republicans in non-federal races. And two of the three Foster Pepper attorneys who signed Reed's brief didn't even donate to their Republican partner Vaska.
One would at least hope the Republican party in the lawsuit is represented by Republican lawyers and firms.
Bingo!
Non-citizens are NOT allowed to vote in our National, State and local elections....Period!
To do so would allow an extreme risk to our national security. Imagine 4,000 French citizens, 10,000 Israeli's, 50,000 Mexican Nationals, 25,000 Canadians and 100,000 citizens of India, 250,000 Chinese citizens voting in West coast state general elections......They could realistically change the outcome of our nations congress, presidency, and state and local races....! Imagine the same thing happening on the East coast...
Just looking at the King County database - with hundreds of voters registered from out of the country (Not military) - and using the King County admin. and office building's as their residence addresses - and their out of country addresses for mailing...they have virtually no verifiable citizenship or residency here in the United States! Yet - we allow them to vote in our elections?
Allowing non-citzens to vote in any state in our union - corrupts our national election process and open's up our country to election manipulation by other countries!
This is a Federal issue.....
Posted by: Deborah on April 27, 2005 08:00 PMOK, Chris, how about it? How about admitting that even when "Republicans" like Sam Reed win elections, they sometimes wind up knifing the people that elected them in the back.
Boy, if it's not one thing, it's another. Sam Reed, the defecting Republicans in the legislature giving cover to the Democrats on the gas tax, or even George Bush calling the Minutemen "vigilantes."
I've voted Republican for the last twenty years, but I'm really burned up by the constant stream of RINOs that are selling all of us down the river.
Posted by: John on April 27, 2005 08:39 PMPosted by Interested Observer at April 27, 2005 05:19 AM
Why not send in the entire voter registration database and challenge it? That way, according to 'The System' they would check. It may be a backwards way of having the entire database checked, but - whatever it takes!
Posted by Fred at April 27, 2005 09:25 AM
What kind of mockery is this?
Aren't the Democrat legislators specifically against cleaning the voter rolls?
Is it just me or doesn't it allow anybody at all to walk in, register to vote, using the court house as their permanent address, with absolutely proof of anything?
Anybody with legal background know whether hundreds/thousands of us could go and do just that (perhaps multiple times) as civil disobedience to an unjust law?
Posted by lee egg at April 27, 2005 08:54 AM
Combining the above listed posts, into one single idea, I propose registering a few hundred english speaking Indians from Hyderbad to vote in the November 2005 election. Pay them $5 each ( is that function of paying them $5 consider an illegal act? Yes?, well just put it together with the other illegal acts. The Democraps are not for following the law anyway. So I can have it this way in my fantasy voter league :>) ) Get an address list of Indian friends living there.
Sign them all up to register to vote in King County, with the 500 5th Avenue mailing address? ) Come August 8th 2005, show Dean Logan and Ron Sims the list of illegally registered voters. Ask for their comment. Now that the voter roll is totally polutted with illegal voters, they will have to clean the voter rolls. When can they accuse the Democraps, of being racist against Indian sounding surnames on the voter rolls. So to be fair to all, we should wipe the slate clean and have every potential voters re-register and show Washington State ID !!! Drivers License or Washington State ID card with photo. This would be a well spent sum of money. Nobody will convict a person living in India. Yes, the guy conducting the registration of illegal voters, might get wacked by the long arm of the law. At worst if Sims and Logan refused to clean the voter rolls, we could swing the vote with our illegal indian voters couldn't we.
FastVoteFred says, thanks JDH for your sharp posts. I voted for Sam Reed, but now I Know better. He should resign or be thrown out on his keister. Thanks to Gary Preble for point out Sam Reeds "companions he keeps". Basically Sam, sees money from Democratic Laywers and therefore speaks wishy-washy and does not read EFFWA Bob Williams pointed arguments on how to perform the duties of Sams position.
Now why is it that Sam Reed seems so willing to roll over when the Democrats growl (apart from the fact that such responses seem to have been instinctive for Republicans for the last 50 years)? It could be the company he keeps, specifically the lawyers he uses.
One would at least hope the Republican party in the lawsuit is represented by Republican lawyers and firms.
Posted by Gary A. Preble at April 27, 2005 04:26 PM
Richard Pope, looking for your respected comments on the laywers working around / with Sam Reed. " I can certify the election is complete and valid, but I offer no stance on non-citizens voting illegally in this election"