May 01, 2005
Verbal Vote Fraud

A friend in Olympia tipped me off to this hilarious and fortunately unsuccessful amendment to one of the "election reform" bills. The amendment proposed the following as one of many acceptable forms of polling place ID:

(b) A verbal or written statement by the voter of the voter's name, year of birth, and unique identifier as determined by the secretary of state. The statement of the voter's name does not need to contain the voter's middle initial or suffix.
Clearly, this is a bait-and-switch, something that the Democrats would claim as "ID at the polls", even though it's nothing more than a legal loophole for enabling vote fraud. The amendment was introduced by Rep. Sam Hunt (D-Evergreen State College), but this specific provision was added at the request of Former Attorney General Gregoire herself.

It's tempting to start calling her "Fraudoire" again.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 01, 2005 11:25 AM | Email This
Comments
1. "It's tempting to start calling her "Fraudoire" again."

I wasn't aware anyone had ever stopped. The "shoe" fits ever-so-well.

Posted by: DanC on May 1, 2005 11:42 AM
2. Wow. I actually credit Sam Reed for taking down this unsuccessful amendment. He's turned into a tiger these days, and is hammering people hard on credibility.

See this link for more evidence of the tough stance he takes. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/voterguide/protect.aspx

Posted by: Patches Pal on May 1, 2005 12:12 PM
3. Stephen:

It was very good to meet you the other night and I look forward to many other such occaisions.

In regard to this post though... Your comment that the amendment was added the request of the Former Att. Gen needs a reliable reference. Right now, it's just a claim and nothing more than unsubstantiated heresay. I DO hope you have such reference matieral though. But journalistic integrity demands additional information on where this claim originates...

Posted by: Jamie Walker on May 1, 2005 01:05 PM
4. Why would a "unique identifier" created by the SOS's office be an unacceptable form of identification?

Because no one would give their banking PIN to another human being. You keep it secret. The proposal only makes sense if we use ATM machines for voting booths. (Which is not a rediculous idea, only impractical with current hardware).

Somehow, asking for someone to present photo id is deemed to be disenfranchizing. But requiring someone to remember a 7+ digit unique id is not. I guess we should not worry. If you cannot remember your id, rest easy, someone else will vote for you that knows your number.

Posted by: StephenR from Houston on May 1, 2005 01:22 PM
5. Amazing

Posted by: Michele on May 1, 2005 02:10 PM
6. The most amazing part is that the amendment explicitly says the statement doesn't have to have a middle initial or suffix. As if those two things would repress the disadvantaged from voting. Oops, that means less democratic votes from the mental health facilities.

I'm sorry sir, you can't vote because you can't remember your middle initial.

Posted by: VaCSProf on May 1, 2005 03:13 PM
7. And, on the other side of the tally sheet are the ballots received through the mails.

The Telegraph (UK) has an interesting article about the continued weaknesses in the absentee voting system in the UK. A reporter tested the system and obtained 11 ballots from various jurisdictions by simply sending in a request for a ballot in the name of someone on the rolls -- and asking that it be sent to an address other than the registered voter's address.

Posted by: Micajah on May 1, 2005 03:51 PM
8. We'll need an amendment for the memory impaired. Otherwise those folks will be disenfranchised.

Your word that you're you will be good enough. Once you've voted just drop this provisional ballot in the Accuvote and your vote will count.

Everyone back in the van, we'll stop at Starbucks before we hit the next precinct. We've got 12 precincts on our schedule today. Did everyone remember to vote absentee for all your dead relatives?

Yeesh!

Posted by: JCM on May 1, 2005 03:58 PM
9. Micajah: Did you notice that British election officials actually highlight problems in advance in an effort to prevent them, instead of shrugging their shoulders and trying to sweep everything under the rug? It's like a whole different country!

My new slogan is "Washington needs a Dumper!"

Posted by: ScottM on May 1, 2005 04:14 PM
10. You people are STILL whining? What a bunch of absolutely pathetic LOSERS. You going to go watch some Star Trek reruns next, and talk about how cute Captain Janeway is?

YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

Posted by: name on May 1, 2005 04:49 PM
11. ScottM,

Yes, it does appear that there are elections officials in the UK who have spoken up about the problems. But, of course, as the article points out, the Labour Party is "the Government," and the Government has ignored the elections officials.

The Atlantic separates us, but the Left and the Right seem to behave pretty much the same. The Telegraph's article finishes with this:

Yesterday Dr Liam Fox, the co-chairman of the Conservative party, accused the Government - which introduced on-demand postal votes four years ago - of "trading away the integrity of the system and our national reputation for fairness in pursuit of their own narrow interests".

He said that Labour had "casually accepted the corruption of Britain's electoral practices" and pledged that the Conservatives would "restore integrity to British democracy" by creating an accurate national register, ensuring that every individual could be identified and requiring proof of identity.

Posted by: Micajah on May 1, 2005 05:03 PM
12. As far as I can tell, the amendment by Hunt was actually adopted by the House:

5499-S.E AMH HUNS AMH486
ESSB 5499 - H AMD
By Representative Hunt

ADOPTED AS AMENDED 04/14/2005

The really silly part about ID at the polling places seems to have been removed in the conference committee, as the House and Senate resolved the differences between their different versions of the bill.

If so, the Democrats in the House voted to adopt Hunt's amendment with that silly part in it. It wasn't just Hunt -- all the House Democrats wanted an ID provision that was nothing more than what we now have, i.e., say the name of the voter you claim to be.

Posted by: Micajah on May 1, 2005 05:30 PM
13. As changed in conference and adopted by both houses, ESSB 5499 says:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7 A new section is added to chapter 29A.44 RCW to read as follows:
Any person desiring to vote at any primary or election is required to provide identification to the election officer before signing the poll book. The identification required in this section can be satisfied by providing a valid photo identification, such as a driver's license or state identification card, student identification card, or tribal identification card, a voter's voter identification issued by a county elections officer, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or government check or other government document. Any individual who desires to vote in person but cannot provide identification as required by this section shall be issued a provisional ballot.
The secretary of state may adopt rules to carry out this section.

What are the odds on the ease with which one could get a voter identification card from King County by simply claiming to be the person you claim to be? Whatever rules the SecState issues, I would bet that Logan would deny having any ability to refuse to issue a second voter identification card to a person who had just received one from Logan only 5 minutes before asking for the second one. And, naturally, Logan would never consider reporting what obviously ought to be suspected fraud -- just as it never occurs to him that reasonable suspicions of fraudulent voter registration at a mail box rather than a residence ought to be reported.

"The form was complete, so I had to issue the ID," says Logan. "You have to understand -- the guy has done this dozens of times, so he knows how to fill out a complete application for a voter ID. He's really good at it, so I have to keep giving him IDs under the different names he claims to have."

Posted by: Micajah on May 1, 2005 05:46 PM
14. I wonder if Sammy Hunt would find my verbal statement of who I am, given to a police officer during a traffic stop, sufficient ID ?

If so, I'm going to go out and get rip-roaring drunk, get pulled over, and when asked for ID, proudly state that I'm "Chris Gregoire"

YourGovernorCostsMillion$

Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on May 1, 2005 06:33 PM
15. The fact that GreGore requested it tells us a lot about how she goes about winning elections, huh?

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 1, 2005 06:40 PM
16. Saying you are who you say you are, hmmm? Why then do they not believe you when you say where you say you live when it comes to registering your automobile?

Anybody else notice that the streets of Seattle seem to have fewer and fewer cars on them?

Closing 10 elementary schools

No children on Captial Hill

Can anyone say dying city???

Posted by: Jericho on May 1, 2005 06:59 PM
17. Fraudoire? Er, what grade are you in? And do your parents know you are doing this website?

Man, this is just sad.

Posted by: boac on May 1, 2005 07:04 PM
18. you're right boac...you've properly shamed us all. i hereby repent.

(what a moron)

Posted by: Danny on May 1, 2005 07:06 PM
19. name and boac, justice is coming to Washington state soon. Too bad you don't see the train coming. We'll let you know when it happens.

Posted by: Michele on May 1, 2005 08:42 PM
20. We gotta get a better class of trolls ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 1, 2005 09:04 PM
21. Here are my 2 cents: It's like dating--"verbal" is great--"oral" is great--however, in any dealings in life, (just like your senior prom promises) "count your change"...SUBSTANCE is what keeps us together...I.D. + legal citizen + COMPETENT, ACCOUNTABLE voting workers = (for most part) credibility; simple equation--yet baffling to those elected...for shame...

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 1, 2005 09:40 PM
22. Not to worry Alphabet Soup.
The new breed of trolls just found out that this isn't Sound Politics.org. They been looking there ever since Mack and the others tried to fool everybody with the misleading URL. It takes them time to figure these things out ya know?

Janeway? Oh yeah,that's not star trek for real,just from the knock offs.

Live long and prosper! Nanu Nanu

Posted by: Jim L on May 1, 2005 09:48 PM
23. boac,
Does it make you feel good to try and minimize the vast labor being undertaken here? Does the constant stream of revelations of fraud and neglect trouble you so that you have to focus on anything BUT the substance? Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Posted by: RookieRick on May 1, 2005 09:53 PM
24. Off topic...but....
I believe the media is conducting Verbal fraud this evening with regard to tomorrows court case!

For King 5 News to give any credibility to the Democrats "11th hour" Felon voter find is very telling! It screams desperation on the part of the liberal machine!
What disturbs me the most is the media's attitude that: _"Yes - We know that the Democrats fraudulently stole the election. We know the evidence against a Gregoire win is overwhelming...But just look at how clever the Democrats are with this late court strategy!"....

The media knows and has known that the election was FUBAR....They probably know more about the fraud than what we've uncovered! Yet - they take this gaming attitude that it doesn't matter if the Dems committed fraud and other crimes to manipulate the election outcome...What matters most is who play's the best legal strategy in court! This mentality is getting so very old.....

Well - thank God we don't elect our local news media.....We can just turn the channel or turn them off.

Posted by: Deborah on May 1, 2005 10:44 PM
25. Ballot box stuffed in King County. Pretty obvious when you've tried every which way and still can't find voters for all those extra ballots. why the trolls won't see it for what it is is beyond me.

Posted by: Michele on May 1, 2005 10:53 PM
26. She is toast. Fraudoire is about to be turned over for the other side of grilling.

Posted by: Big M on May 2, 2005 01:04 AM
27. So Name, which new personality are you and from whom?
Nelson, or Headless Lucy? Lucy already ahs enough for such a young girl. You must be the other side of Nelson's brain.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 2, 2005 02:46 AM
28. See. I told you I was bigger than the Beatles. In fact, my horn section is so good they sound like Keith Richards!

Posted by: headless lucy on May 2, 2005 07:37 AM
29. headlice lucy,
Thanks for another gem, you can bet when CG is moving out in July 05 you will see a trip down memory lane with all your lovely posts. Oh yes, you're more of a Yoko Ono of bloggers, not a Beatle by anybodies fantasy.

Posted by: Red State on May 2, 2005 08:13 AM
30. /starts to retort Lucy's most confusing comment yet, and decides the better of it.

But still - Richards plays guitar for the Rolling Stones, yet she compares herself to the Beatles - and a horn section they never had - to Keith Richards.

Somebody help me on this one. Thanks.

Posted by: jimg on May 2, 2005 08:15 AM
31. jimg - I think Red State has the perspective, but allow me to paraphrase a little something that fits headlice:

Never attempt to teach rationality to a pig - it'll drive you crazy (and it irritates the pig ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 2, 2005 08:33 AM
32. Name-
I know who you are. Why don't you post the web address to your blong on here. If you don't, I'm going to do it for you the next time you post. That way we can all go read the "trash" that spews from your keyboard.

YGCM$

Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on May 2, 2005 10:31 AM
33. I didn't say I sounded like the Beatles.I said I was bigger than the Beatles. In order to be bigger than the Beatles you'd have to be as good or better than the Beatles. Which is where Keith Richards, the rhythm guitarist with the Stones comes in. He has said on many occasions that his concept of playing rhythm guitar is to replace the horn section of a band like,say, BB King's band with his rhythm guitar. I'd say that the evidence of the years has proven him to be the best at doing this. The joke here (ha, ha) is that Headless Lucy is so good and so unique that she has a HORN section that sounds like KEITH RICHARDS! Sheesh! And you're calling me stupid?

Posted by: headless lucy on May 2, 2005 11:25 AM
34. And I repeat: We gotta get a better class of trolls ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 2, 2005 11:37 AM
35. Alphabet Soup: People with class don't need to talk about it. You couldn't see it if it crapped on your windshield.

Posted by: headless lucy on May 2, 2005 11:54 AM
36. In terms of non sequitur's, that's about as irrelevant (and incoherent) as we've come to expect from the likes of Headlice.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 2, 2005 12:08 PM
37. Alfa-S:I see you mistakenly wrote "non-sequiters" in the possessive form or MAYBE it's a Freudian slip! You crack me up when you try to act smart,or, worse and more embarrassing for youself: funny.

Posted by: headless lucy on May 2, 2005 12:32 PM
38. Yep.

Cut me to the quick. Caught me in my spelling. Reduced me to a quivering mass of defeat.

Guess you showed me, eh?

Guess you showed your self as well....

(must have been the irritation ;'}

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 2, 2005 01:39 PM
39. "I didn't say I sounded like the Beatles."
And neither did I.

And after reading your 'explanation' I'm still confused as to just what in THEE hell your post is supposed to mean with regards to anything put in the orginal post, or in the comments.

But please stop right there. Honest. My mistake for even wondering what was rattling around in your head this time. Trust me. I've learned my lesson.

"The joke here (ha, ha) is that Headless Lucy is so good and so unique that she has a HORN section that sounds like KEITH RICHARDS! Sheesh! And you're calling me stupid?"

Or really, really confused. Your choice.

Posted by: jimg on May 2, 2005 01:52 PM
40. Jimg
Don't worry. Lucy has again proven her ability to successfully debate Nelson. I just wish she could debate above that level so the rest of us could follow her reasoning. Unfortunately, she was so successful with Nelson because half way through a comment he fell asleep again.
You know, those two provide endless hours of amusement here. I can sit here and watch them wrestle a thought to the surface all day. Sometimes they are even successful.

Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 2, 2005 07:21 PM
41. Argh! Stop me before I misspell again!!!

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 2, 2005 07:57 PM
42. "Argh! Stop me before I misspell again!!!"

Heh...I misspell on purpose! It drives the little trolls nuts! They wish to be the grammar police in their pseudo-elitist world....
If you really want to send them spinning...try posting a double negative! ....snicker....

Hey Headlice! You don't want no truth in this election don't you??
Hey! I did a triple negative!! I believe it's worth a perfect 10 in the Olympics!!.....Though I think France will rob me of a point...Oh well....It's just wrong to be French...

Posted by: Deborah on May 2, 2005 09:33 PM
43. "Argh! Stop me before I misspell again!!!"

lol

/shakes head

Posted by: jimg on May 2, 2005 09:34 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?