May 03, 2005
Former Attorney General Signs Bait-and-switch "election reform" package

Former Attorney General Christine Gregoire signed the Democrats' package of lame-ass "election reform" bills with the comment:

The November election was a total meltdown and nobody in his right mind believes that I actually won. So in order to placate a few gullible moderates, we're pretending to engage in serious "election reform", when in fact all we're doing is rearranging a few deck chairs and opening up some huge new holes to enable a lot more vote fraud. The more anonymous mail balloting we can get away with, the better. Wahoo! And I can't believe how easy it was to get the newspapers to fall for that "move the primary" diversion.
Okay, what she actually said was:
"Last year we had a very difficult and very close election for governor," she said before signing the bills. "There were problems in some areas and with these new laws we're taking necessary steps to see if we can't address those problem areas and restore public confidence in our state's election system."
But you understand the subtext.

On a serious note -- One of the few improvements in the "election reform" package is SB 5743 Sec. 17, which puts date of birth back in the public version of the voter database. We lost the battle but won the war!

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 03, 2005 10:01 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Stefan,
I actually prefer your translation.
With her talking out of both sides of her mouth, it is hard to understand the deeper meaning.
Almost like the Mp3's of Harpo,Zeppo and Chico during the canvass. Just gotta love the nuance.

Posted by: Jim L on May 3, 2005 10:25 PM
2. "There were problems in some areas and with these new laws we're taking necessary steps to see if we can't address those problem areas and restore public confidence in our state's election system."

The bold print pretty much sums up what she said...
To address those problem areas and restore public confidence would require honesty and she knows she *honestly* did not win the election - and her party would never win again!

Posted by: Deborah on May 3, 2005 10:30 PM
3. I wonder if we can do some citizens initiatives to "fix" these issues if she is deposed?

Posted by: William on May 3, 2005 10:34 PM
4. William, we can do that even if she stays in!

Posted by: Deadwood on May 3, 2005 10:38 PM
5. My sister informs me (lives in So. Cal) that the L.A. Times had a big 2-page story on this whole thing last week.

It's still national news (or at least west-coast news). And it's not over. Hoping for the best!

Posted by: Michele on May 3, 2005 10:48 PM
6. We certainly lost another battle. Unfortunately it remains to be seen whether we will win the war against the tyranny of the left.

Posted by: Colin on May 3, 2005 11:08 PM
7. Here's that LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gregoire1may01,1,5266235.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

My favorite part:

"Democrats have a different view, saying that problem ballots occur in nearly every statewide election, and that the real news is how well the bulk of the ballots were counted. State Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt called the 2004 vote "the most accurate election in state history."

BWHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: Greg on May 3, 2005 11:25 PM
8. WRT comment by William:
'I wonder if we can do some citizens initiatives to "fix" these issues ....'

Like I expect many SP readers, I'm in favor. But if seriously considering the initiative route, remember that there is a LOT to fix; i.e.:
The following election-related bills range from relatively short to very short:

1749 (SOS review county election procedures)
1754 (option for all-mail election)
5395 (paper trail)
5564 (SOS do plain-English manual)
5565 (out-of-State voters)

But 5499 and 5743 are BIG:
They each amend MANY RCWs in TITLE 29A; along with touching a number of RCWs outside of 29A.

One fundamental issue with any initiative is that you can only put so much legalese on the back and still have it be judged readable by the SOS and the courts. I've never seen a minimum font size specified, and some initiatives in the last few years have crammed an amazing number of words on the back. But without even beginning to have time right now to lay it out in one of my initiative master forms, it seems pretty clear that it is not possible to fix the entire mess the Legislature left us with through one initiative. It would take several; or VERY careful triage to get it down to the most important RCWs.

SIDEBAR: Also remember that HB 1222 added a new requirement for even MORE boilerplate on the back of an initiative sheet, further reducing the number of square inches available for RCW text.

Methow Ken

Posted by: Methow Ken on May 4, 2005 12:02 AM
9. Actually, I think she gave herself away with what most of you are probably considering just poor English, when she said:

"we're taking necessary steps to see if we CAN'T address those problem areas"

In other words, she is saying she "can't" address those problem areas and wants to see if this bill will succeed in not addressing them ... otherwise, Democrats will not be elected again in a statewide election.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 4, 2005 02:48 AM
10. The initiative process is the only way we will see any real change in this state. If it requires doing it one step at a time, then that is what we need to do, making sure that we don't try and address every problem at one time. That only gives the biased court a reason to call the initiative unconstitutional. My suggestion is that voter ID be number one on the list of things to do. I believe that the provisional ballot was the main culprit here, and if ID were required, it would make it much harder to vote fraudulently on a provisional ballot. I know for a fact that at least one vote using my wifes name at an old address was fraudulent. If checked against a statewide database it would show there were at least two people in different areas of the state with exactly the same name. Hers is not a very common name either. Guess what, our old address was in King County.

Posted by: REBEL on May 4, 2005 05:58 AM
11. Rebel,

I hope you've provided details about the vote cast in your wife's name to the WA State Republicans or the Rossi organization...those are the kinds of specifics they need for the contest.

Posted by: Patrick on May 4, 2005 06:24 AM
12. I E-mailed them with the details a few months ago.

Posted by: REBEL on May 4, 2005 07:06 AM
13. I think she made a Freudian slip:

There were problems in some areas and with these new laws we're taking necessary steps to see if we can't address those problem areas...

Taken literally, she certainly succeeded when she signed the election "reform" bill.

Posted by: Ken Coffman on May 4, 2005 07:09 AM
14. Now something like this would have been real reform:

http://www.votehere.net/news/archive05/011105.htm

Posted by: VaCSProf on May 4, 2005 07:41 AM
15. Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, I thought highly of Gregoire. I liked her ability to come in, concisely state the problem and say let's work it out.

Now, it seems she does this once a week on the same issue. It is a sign to me of one very, very confused lady.

Posted by: swatter on May 4, 2005 07:44 AM
16. I'm just surprised it does not include a $10.00 surcharge fee to vote! Free of course in King Non Rural King County and Seattle!

Posted by: GS on May 4, 2005 07:48 AM
17. The LA Times has been following electoral fraud issues for some time, including the 1996 election in Washington State. See: http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws211.htm

The article reminds me that the problems are not new, those who defend the system are the same characters. It is, as Yogi Berra once said, deja vu all over again.

Posted by: Newman on May 4, 2005 08:12 AM
18. Here's another link to an excellent LA Times article entitled: A Democracy that cannot count votes. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/latimes.votecount/

Posted by: Newman on May 4, 2005 08:15 AM
19. One more, from 2000 PI: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/coun13.shtml

Posted by: Newman on May 4, 2005 08:25 AM
20. What is the surcharge for- Sound Transit?

Posted by: swatter on May 4, 2005 09:08 AM
21. If Gregoire thinks we're buying this, she's out of her mind. Her election task force was a joke and an attempt to placate the masses.

The spire that they are proposing in Tacoma should be built in Olympia as a symbol of our "elected" representatives sendiments towards the voters .... the one-finger salute! I just hope we have massive turnout in '06 and vote them all out!

Posted by: Vicki on May 4, 2005 10:19 AM
22. Swatter - as with the new marriage tax, the $10 voter fee will go towards domestic violence "advocates" who run around trying to break up as many marriages as possible.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 4, 2005 01:00 PM
23. Former Attorney General? You are a most insulting, insolent rabble rouser. Your name calling only reduces whatever credibility you have among the radical right, I hope. Guess maybe not...maybe Bush is "Former Baseball Team Owner"????? or better "Former Baseball Team Owner Who Used Eminent Domain To Take Land And Create Huge Profits For Self and Others In The Name Of Baseball But Really In The Name Of Lining The Pockets Of His Family Developer Friends"?

True...but insulting. But I guess it's all right since you do it too, huh????

Posted by: Peter Franklin on May 4, 2005 01:38 PM
24. What is incorrect or innacurate in reference to CG as Former Attorney General?

Now, if I were to extend your argument and call you a pathetic slack-jawed mouth-breather, that would be an insult.

But I'd never do that, because that wouldn't be nice.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 4, 2005 02:05 PM
25. Check out Airline passengers to be asked for data found on PI. This interesting comparison to the election system in that you are required to give your full name and birth dates to buy airline tickets, and then later show your picture ID to get on board. Why can't election be treated as national security issue, since the outcome could determine security policy as well?

Posted by: C. Oh on May 4, 2005 06:57 PM
26. Regarding Iguana's additional $10 marriage license fee.

DSHS claims all Domestic Violence is man beating woman. Yet the 2002 crime reports for the state of washington show nearly 50% of the victims of domestic violence homocides to be male. HMMMMM.

Yes that money will be well spent villifying one gender.

HOW DO YOU SPELL SPECIAL INTEREST?

Posted by: Andy on May 5, 2005 11:09 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?