The tabulation of absentee ballots must not commence until after 8:00 p.m. on the day of the primary or election.Logan deposition transcript, p. 77:
We start counting -- actually tabulating absentee ballots beginning at 7:00 o'clock in the morning on election day,hat tip: reader RG Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 27, 2005 11:54 AM | Email This
Dean Logan followed the RCW statutes exactly when they benefit Democrats by rushing incomplete results to meet the certification deadline.
However when the RCW would not benefit Democrats by, for example requiring absentee ballots to be counted after polls close so that they could be verified agaisnt poll books to prevent double voting, then the laws were ignored.
How convenient. I think I will try to use Dean Logan's a-la-carte application of law to myself the next time I get pulled over for a traffic stop.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2005 12:19 PMLOGAN "Weird Al Yankovic lookalike" THEME SONG:
Shoe-fly don't bother me.
Shoe-fly don't bother me.
Show-fly don't bother me.
Cuz Logan belongs to somebody!
However, regarding the Kerry-bestickered car, they were probably precinct workers. They spend the day calling up known Democrats to remind them to vote, then maybe check the polls to see if those people have voted. If they haven't, they call again. Republicans do the same thing. . . although the posted list I find a bit strange.
Posted by: Shannon K on April 27, 2005 12:52 PM"Absentee ballots that are to be tabulated on an electronic vote tallying system may be taken from the inner envelopes and all the normal procedural steps may be performed to prepare these ballots for tabulation."
With a million or so absentees, starting the preliminary procedural steps at 7am on election day makes sense.
And, even if you assumed they started feeding the ballots into the machines then, how does that effect one party or another? Sounds like Harmless error, at best.
So, I guess this is just another instance of blog fraud.
Posted by: JDB on April 27, 2005 01:32 PMThere is nothing at all sinister about the second sheet. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, 501(c)3, et cetera organizations have people who check those lists to make sure their supporters have voted.
The second sheet is not the official list of who voted. Only the poll book, where you sign, is official. In fact, I believe the policy is that the election judge of each polling place takes the posted sheets and all blank pages home after the election and retains them for six months and then throws them away.
But, as one who has examined those sheets at every election for many years, I say, PLEASE PRINT. CLEARLY. NO CURSIVE WRITING.
Posted by: Party apparatchik on April 27, 2005 01:32 PMSheesh, get a clue. Did you see the last sentence you quoted?
"...to prepare these ballots for tabulation."
Logan clearly stated that they began tabulating at 7 am.
And yes, it does matter, because if you begin tabulating them at 7 am, how can you check to make sure someone didn't vote at the polls at 7 pm?
Looks like just another instance of JDB intelligence fraud. How old were you when you had your brain removed?
Posted by: Larry on April 27, 2005 01:41 PMHow does one tabulate? Isn't the first you do is prepare the ballots for tabulation? I read over the sections of the depositions sited, no follow up questions are asked, so one must assume that he meant they started to prepare the ballots at 7am. As you, yourself, cited, that is perfectly legal.
Beyond that, your justification is just laughable. You can start counting at 8pm, as soon as the polls close. So obviously the law is not meant to provide for the double vote cross check you imagine.
Oh well, at least you are maintaining that thrilling Sound Politics batting average. You are a smart man, I'm sure you will agree, thank God it isn't three strikes you are out or no one would be able to post here.
Posted by: JDB on April 27, 2005 01:52 PMSorry, but the law clearly states that you must start counting ballots after 2000 the day of the ELECTION. Logan must have decided that laws don't apply to King County.
Posted by: KLRMNKY on April 27, 2005 01:57 PMLogan says that TABULATION of absentee bllots commenced at 0700 on election day.
So he began TABULATION of absentee ballots a full 13 hours before the RCW law says he could.
therefore he isn't doing anything illegal or wrong? I bet that if this was a Republican doing this it would be talked about long and hard on every major enwscast.
Posted by: KLRMNKY on April 27, 2005 02:05 PMLogan says that TABULATION of absentee bllots commenced at 0700 on election day.
So he began TABULATION of absentee ballots a full 13 hours before the RCW law says he could.
therefore he isn't doing anything illegal or wrong? I bet that if this was a Republican doing this it would be talked about long and hard on every major newscast.
Posted by: KLRMNKY on April 27, 2005 02:05 PMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/WAC/index.cfm?section=434-240-230&fuseaction=section
The Secretary of State has defined "tabulation" basically to mean getting the actual vote total from the computer system. The WAC allows the ballots to be run through the machine, but not for the totals to be gotten from the database until after 8:00 p.m. on election day.
Someone sued over this in September 1996, and got a TRO preventing running the ballots through the machines in the primary before 8:00 p.m. on election day. But apparently they lost at trial or dropped the suit or something. So now they are back to the old way of doing things.
I think Shawn Newman knows something about the legal action back in 1996.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 27, 2005 02:50 PMGuess it helps to get an early head start so you can know how many extra ballots to 'print on demand' in case Rossi looks to be running away with it.
Posted by: Michele on April 27, 2005 02:59 PMHowever, it appears out "Nationally recognized Election Expert" aka Dean "Weird Al Yankovic lookalike" Logan also suffers from using terminology interchangeably and inappropriately.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on April 27, 2005 03:13 PM1) Two days ago, the Minnow promised lots of damning admissions, and so far this is the only one he has posted.
2) This one turns out to be perfectly legal.
Wow, just when I thought the Rossi case could not get any weaker, it gets weaker.
Just another case of blog fraud, saddly.
Posted by: JDB on April 27, 2005 03:27 PMYour twisting semantics are what is laughable. So my justification for the law was mistaken. Does that make it okay that the law was violated?
Tabulation is not to start until 8 pm. That's the law. Tabulation started at 7 am. That's what the witness said.
As for your assertion: "one must assume that he meant they started to prepare the ballots at 7am". Why MUST one assume that? Because one trusts Dean Logan to follow the statutes word-for-word?
Keep trying, JDB. Someday!
What makes you think that this blog is Rossi's case? Just to make sure we're on the same page:
1. We're not Rossi's lawyers;
2. You're not Gregoire's/the Democrats lawyer.
Maybe in your fantasy world you're actually arguing the case in a court of law. Have fun!
Posted by: Larry on April 27, 2005 03:41 PMIs the legislature the left hand, while the SecState is the right hand? Or the other way around?
Here's the second paragraph of the statute:
(2) After opening the return envelopes, the county canvassing board shall place all of the ballots in secure storage until after 8:00 p.m. of the day of the primary or election. Absentee ballots that are to be tabulated on an electronic vote tallying system may be taken from the inner envelopes and all the normal procedural steps may be performed to prepare these ballots for tabulation.
How could "secure storage" possibly include taking them out of storage and running them through a counting machine?
Yet, the SecState indeed did what you say:
"Tabulation"means the production of returns of votes cast regarding candidates or measures in a form that can be read by a person, whether as precinct totals, partial cumulative totals, or final cumulative totals.
So, what do we need a legislature for? The SecState can do any damn thing he wants.
Check out the different deadlines for receipt of absentee ballots:
The legislature enacted a law which said "each absentee ballot with a postmark on or before the date of the primary or election for which it was issued and received ON or before the date on which the primary or election is certified, must be included in the canvass report." (Emphasis added to that "ON.")
The SecState said "stick it in your ear, legislature, this is the deadline":
the day prior to certification of the primary or election.
Why don't we just amend the constitution to give the SecState legislative authority and make an honest man out of him?
Posted by: Micajah on April 27, 2005 04:03 PMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on April 27, 2005 09:03 PMPudster--you are a credit to the Right. A warrior. Do you care if the LEFTIST PINHEADS call you mean things? I sure don't.
In fact, I WEAR THEIR CRITICISM AND ATTACKS AS A BADGE OF HONOR!!
In the interest of discussion, I will point out
RCW 29A.04.900
Continuation of existing law.
The provisions of this title insofar as they are substantially the same as statutory provisions repealed by this chapter, and relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments.
Do either of you know how this RCW applies to existing (and not updated) WAC,s? Also can you find RCW’s that grant authority for the WAC’s you cite? These are educational questions.
Posted by: RG on April 27, 2005 10:16 PMThe outdated citations to the statutory authority for the WAC regulations is one example of the mess.
I go by a simple rule: The constitution beats the statute which beats the regulation. (Almost as simple as rock, paper and scissors.)
It just doesn't matter whether the regulation issued in October 1997 to overturn that 1996 court decision was authorized at the time. It isn't valid anymore, if it ever was. It is in direct conflict with the statute -- and the statute wins that contest.
Someday, someone with the ability and willingness to straighten out the mess made of our election laws by the legislature and SecState may come along. Until then, we have to put up with conflicting rules -- and people who follow the one they like, if they follow any rule at all.
In your prior post you stated,
‘Check out the different deadlines for receipt of absentee ballots:
The legislature enacted a law which said "each absentee ballot with a postmark on or before the date of the primary or election for which it was issued and received ON or before the date on which the primary or election is certified, must be included in the canvass report." (Emphasis added to that "ON.")
The SecState said "stick it in your ear, legislature, this is the deadline":
the day prior to certification of the primary or election.’
The law (part of Title 29A) enacted that you are referring to was effective July 1st, 2004, That WAC that you follow with references Title 29 (enacted prior to Title 29A) as its statutory authority. If you read through the WACs (specifically Title 434), you will find the statutory authorities updated to Title 29A where they exist. In other words, Sam Reed never rewrote the WACs to reflect the current legislation. Some WACs exist with no statutory authority (i.e. they cite Title 29). My questions asked were meant to be educational (i.e. we can all learn from each other), but they were also partly rhetorical. They are still legitimate questions that I would hope to get an answer to. I agree whole heartedly that our laws are a mess and need updating. That is also part of my point.
So you are saying Rossi was printing ballots in the back room? I assume that is what you are saying given that you have as much proof of that as anything else.
Got to love blog fraud.
Posted by: JDB on April 28, 2005 09:37 AMPart of the mess in the laws is the absence of an easy way to trace the prior versions of the laws. This is the language of the session law (2003 c111 section 1519) that contained the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots, and note that it claims to be a "new section" with no predecessor --
{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1519. CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS--
UNOFFICIAL RETURNS. (1) On the tenth day after a special election or primary
and on the fifteenth day after a general election, the county canvassing board
shall complete the canvass and certify the results. Each absentee ballot that
was returned before the closing of the polls on the date of the primary or
election for which it was issued, and each absentee ballot with a postmark on
or before the date of the primary or election for which it was issued and
received on or before the date on which the primary or election is certified,
must be included in the canvass report.
(2) At the request of a caucus of the state legislature, the county auditor
shall transmit copies of all unofficial returns of state and legislative
primaries or elections prepared by or for the county canvassing board to either
the secretary of the senate or the chief clerk of the house or representatives.
It is, of course, almost impossible to believe that the legislature had forgotten to enact any law setting deadlines for certifying elections and for receiving absentee ballots to be included in the count. (They've done some amazingly dumb things, but how could the elections have been done for more than a hundred years without a deadline for certifying the returns?)
Yet, there is no easily marked trail back to the law that preceded that "new section."
It's a mess.
Posted by: Micajah on April 28, 2005 09:48 AMYou might look at their mess and guess either pure sloppiness or worse, fraud. You'd never err the other way and claim they were doing good work....
Posted by: righton on April 28, 2005 09:49 AM24 Q What steps if any did you or your office take to investigate
25 whether any portion of the 307 ballots listed as signature
[380]
1 mismatch or the 208 not registered needed further research
2 ballots suffered from the same mistake?
3 A I queried staff on that after the situation with the absentee
4 ballots on the no signature on file, and what I was told is
5 that in the provisional ballot research, if there was not an
6 image on file or incorrect image on file, that they were able
7 to verify the registration of the person through the date of
8 birth, the address, that type of information, that those
9 ballots were coded to be counted.
10 Q To be counted?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Regardless of the fact that they couldn't match the
13 signature?
14 A That's what I was told by my staff.
15 Q How many times did that occur?
16 A I don't know.
17 Q Who would know?
18 A I don't know that there is a record of that, because they
19 were not categorized separately. Carlos Webb would probably
20 have a better idea. He is the person who provided me with
21 the information that I just gave you.
Your investigative and debate skills are apalling. Tell your teacher you get an F in government, debate, english, and psychology.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on April 28, 2005 07:33 PM