Bill Huennekens deposition is posted here. (456 pages) So fresh I haven't had a chance to look at it much, but do check out p. 88
When did you, Mr. Huennekens, learn for the first time that unverified provisional ballots were being counted at polling sites on election day in King County?Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 29, 2005 05:23 PM | Email This
Why was everything verbal? Do these freaks ever write anything down? I know, nobody has to answer that one. Here's the kicker:
"...you have to do the work to try and figure out as much as you can before the election is certified."
You must be kidding me. So the election certification is an (arbitrary) deadline, and not dependent on being sure of the results. The certification is not based on the work - the work is based on the certification. Freakin' travesty.
Posted by: Larry on April 29, 2005 06:13 PMHow could that be possible if the RCW 29A.60.200 requires Huennekens to verify the accuracy of the results from the precincts and requires an oath that the these results were an accurate representation of the election.
The only way this could be possible is if as in most elections, the result is not close enough for the level of detail learned in January to have mattered in November. However, the law is clear enough that the results must be verified.
So really a large part of Logan and Huennekens job is to realize before they certify the results, that a given election is close enough that it requires them to dig deeper into the precinct and absentee records until they can vouch for the results presented within the margin of victory.
This was not done out of either simple negligence, or someone's willful determination that the results were close and possibly the knowledge that they possesed a universe of ballots that would give them the result they desired. Thus they certified eliminating the possibility of future consideration of any other votes legal or not.
Surely the election will be thrown out simply because they failed to follow the law. The election was not conducted as the law required. It is simply invalid.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2005 06:14 PM"Well, you don't look at -- the grand total isn't necessarily what's important. It's what happened in each individual polling place, and what you can do to explain and account for each individual polling place. So I wasn't focused on looking at some grand number.
Q You knew that the returns that had been reported state-wide were close in the election, right, between the two candidates?
A Yeah.
Q And that a small number of votes would likely decide who would be certified as the winner state-wide; is that correct?
A Well, I'm not aware exactly where it would end up. I didn't know. I just knew it was going to be close. I couldn't assume -- and I don't -- and whether it's -- our effort is to do as good a job we can given what's in front of us, regardless of whether the election is close or not. So the fact that the election had been close didn't spur me on to do anything different. We were trying to do the best job we could."
So Huennekens didn't consider this election to be any different than any other election, even though he knew it would be close. All that mattered to him was that he "did the best he coul." Id did not matter to him that he needed to actually create a "Grand" tally of the total number of ballots printed, vs. received as poll ballots, provisonals, absentees, spoiled, returned, lost, etc.
So in essence, in close elecitons, the results hinge not on the number of votes cast for each candidate, but on the election workers ability to account for them as best they can. And, if you were faced with such a problem, wouldn't you raise your hand and ask for help? If they were swamped, the time to bring that up was before certification, not during a deposition six months later.
Why bother to have elections if this is the best we can do when the results are close? This is absolutely unreal. I demand a new election.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2005 06:32 PMHow wonderful. Now, Stefan, the citizenry will have to continually scrub the lists and make sure that people already caught don't show back up again.
And remember, folks, our government officials say that you must do this before each election.
How utterly deeeeeeeeeeeeeeelightful!
Bring on the Feds!
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 29, 2005 06:35 PMI'm struck by the utter lack of seasoning these two individuals have, working in the largest county in the state. This is the best KC can do???...professional bureaucrats?
Form over substance.
Posted by: Danny on April 29, 2005 07:03 PMA. What does the validity of each vote mean? What do you mean by that? I don’t – the canvassing is part of the process of administering an election. I don’t know what you mean by, the validity of each vote.
Strange: It looks like the question was asked in plain English. The words apparently expressed a concept which was foreign to Heunnekens, since he otherwise appears to speak English pretty well.
The line of thinking as accepted as common wisdom is that RCW 68.110 states that illegal votes must be deducted from candidate totals. That it's not enough for the illegal votes to exceed the margin of victory to overturn the election.
The jackass party maintains that the Republicans must show who the illegal voters voted for, and only after the totals are subtracted, would they concede to overturning the election as it stands.
The only problem is, the Washington Constitution mandates that votes are secret. Therefore, we cannot determine who voted for whom, and cannot deduct the illegal votes specifically from each candidate.
On the face of it, there is no constitutional provision for overturning any election in this state. The only provision in the law cannot be exercised, due to the constitution.
The jackass party hopes it stays that way.
The "true American" party is trying an angle to use precinct trends to statistically reduce each candidate's total by the percentage of the illegal vote as a means to access the provisions of 68.110.
I maintain that the judge should be encouraged to declare 68.110 as unconstitutional on it's face, and toss it up the appeal line. We KNOW that if Judge Bridges goes the imputed percentage route, THAT will be appealed. This is all going to the Supremes before it's done.
We'll see what the playground is perhaps as early as Monday.
Posted by: Patches Pal on April 29, 2005 08:27 PMIs this standard operating procedure?
And, Robert Mak has to give a teaser for his show to keep viewers interested. You can read up on that story now via the web. The Democrats think that they've figured out the most felons voted for Rossi because they have disdain for the former Attorney General, Gregoire. That's obviously just as speculative as any other scenario regarding the felons, which is why the whole concept of trying to guess how felons voted is ridiculous.
There's some reasoning to a proportional counting argument, but what's far more obvious is that the whole accounting of the election was flawed beyond result.
The election will be thrown out on its face. It is simply invalid.
I feel completely comfortable with the release of the transcripts of the depositions. I just wish there were more already released, and that they had been done earlier.
This isn't a jury trial. The decision will be made by a judge. There is no reason to be concerned about pretrial publicity.
The King County personnel who may be called as witnesses have had more than enough time to discuss among themselves what they recall or believe occurred. After all, for most of what is being asked, it's their job to work together and discuss among themselves what they are doing and have done. So, there is no reason to be concerned about influencing any witness's testimony.
If the transcripts weren't made public, we would know only what is leaked to the press by one person or another. Meanwhile, the parties and witnesses and potential witnesses would know everything that had been said in every deposition.
Why should we be left in the dark when others know what has developed in the case already?
Reading about it in a newspaper article is better than nothing, but I want to know what the reporter knows -- or even more, if I can.
Posted by: Micajah on April 29, 2005 10:18 PMI love this answer. Did not KC go to court to get a recanvass? Here it stated that no recanvass is allowed so I didnt worry that numbers were not adding up. You got to love this one. So if why did the Supreme court allow a recanvass of the votes after everyone else had certified their results? Why did the Secretary of State agree that this was the right thing to do if he was taught by this same office that it was a retabulation of the cast votes?
Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 29, 2005 10:50 PMMust say, I was hearing a Perry Mason episode in my head this time. Here is my favorite line...
From page PG 353 (ish)
Answer
The duplication of records in the file we released
falsely reduced that variance number discussed in that sentence I just read to 1,217.
Question
Why do you say, falsely?
NEXT!
Just a matter of grammar, but there are a couple/few places H says "had went", etc.----this was very discouraging for me since he supposedly completed bachelors and masters at my alma mater, WWU.
Posted by: Teresa on April 30, 2005 09:17 AMNot a teaser....But very serious! It will come out..But I'm not going to give anyone a 'heads up' so they can try to spin any of this....Though - I can't imagine how King County can pull off damage control on this one......
By the way....there are numerous people working on the transcription project...Working very methodically on these tapes...They should be commended for the painstaking work they've been doing! I know we've all become experts on sound quality and graphic equalizers over the past week! Heh...
This is Stefans baby! He is arranging for transcription of these tapes for a purpose other than just our curiosity .... The contents of the tapes should be verified and reviewed by the proper authorities and those involved in the contest - prior to release to the public.....This is just my opinion however....He can do with them as he pleases!
All I can say is - Stefan deserves enormous credit for obtaining these tapes!
I can think of no other person who truly deserves great things for his efforts to bring sanity to an insane political culture. There are doers and there are talkers. Thanks, Mr. S. You have my respect.
...now raise your glasses..."Hip hip, horray!"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on April 30, 2005 02:42 PMReminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit where they are mocking President Bush by having the actor repeat over an over in a whiny tone that being President "...is hard, I mean it's really hard". Well no kidding elections are hard, that's why we hire people to run them. Sounds to me like he is basically admitting that he isn't up to the task.
Posted by: Jason on April 30, 2005 07:20 PM