The Washington Democrats excitedly posted this "article" on their website last week: "EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT EVEN UNDER ROSSI’S THEORY, GREGOIRE WINS". The evidence is so good, they're not even telling us what it is!
The Democrats' secret weapon on the P.R. front, blogger David Owngoalstein, posted the Democrats' best evidence of "offsetting errors" -- a breakdown of 1,939(!) "mishandled provisional ballots" in pro-Rossi counties, the largest numbers being 783 in Whitman, 400 in Stevens and 331 in Walla Walla. I contacted the election officials in each of these counties to get the scoop. In fact, either there's no there there, or the there that is there actually helps Rossi --
1) Stevens County: Auditor Tim Gray told me that all of the provisionals were verified by matching voter details against the database, but that the signatures were not checked against the registration cards. (More than 20% of the submitted provisionals were rejected) His staff have since gone back and checked the envelope signatures against the registration cards and didn't find any mismatches.
2) Walla Walla County: The official I spoke with denied that there were invalid provisionals counted, but referred me to the Auditor to get a specific quote. (pending)
3) Whitman County: I spoke with Auditor Eunice Coker yesterday. Similar story with Stevens County, ballots verified but signatures not checked. But more than that, it turns out that the vast majority of Whitman County provisionals were cast in Pullman and most of those (anecdotally) by WSU students. She'll be sending me precinct level vote totals, in the meantime, here's a quote somebody sent me from the Whitman County Gazette (not online)
Although the county favored Rossi, questionable provisionals are unlikely to help the Democrats' counter-arguments because most of the county's provisionals were cast at Pullman precincts that favored Gregoire.Yes, the signatures should have been checked. But throwing out this class of ballots statewide would only help Rossi, especially since Bill Huennekens also admitted in his deposition (p. 314) that King County also tabulated a bunch of provisionals with no signature check. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 05, 2005 12:43 PM | Email ThisIn the county, 1,522 provisionals were cast. Elections Supervisor Debbie Hooper estimated about 1,300 provisionals came from Pullman. Out of 27 precincts in Pullman, all but three favored Gregoire, so scratching the county's provisionals from Pullman would likely reduce Gregoire's numbers.
I think you'll find more misinformation popping up from various sources. The goal is to make all blog information seem confusing (and unreliable).
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 5, 2005 01:12 PMAccording to a report from the AP, the Democrats now claim to have found 544 felons who illegally voted in predominantly pro-Rossi precincts. The Republicans claim to have identified 946 felon votes, mostly from pro-Gregoire precincts.
Quoted on HA on 5/5/05
I think that's the basis for stating that Rossi can't win with his current legal theory. Plus, the judge in the case is going to let both parties present the felon votes that each found if they can be proven.
Thus, with a 400 vote difference and even with a 20 percent split in KC, Rossi still comes out short even if the proportional analysis is used.
Posted by: Erik on May 5, 2005 01:18 PMYep, that's pretty much what I think we'll find in most of these cases. I'm not surprised, either (but glad to have this counfirmed!). Go, Dino~!
Posted by: Michele on May 5, 2005 01:45 PMBut I think you misrepresent my thesis, and since you are such a stickler about accuracy and fairness, I'm sure you'll want to correct your post. I never implied that the mishandled provisionals are the Dems best evidence of offsetting errors. Indeed, in the very piece you cite, a clearly state:
Yes, most of the mishandled provisional ballots were legally cast, but then so were most of the mishandled provisionals in King County. If you are interested in more than just inflammatory rhetoric, the important number to look at is the votes cast by felons, as this is the heart of the Republican’s lawsuit.
The mishandled provisionals, statewide, speak more towards your thesis that KC was particularly corrupt and/or incompetent. But I freely acknowledged that few of these would included in the count of illegal votes.
Posted by: David Goldstein on May 5, 2005 02:15 PM"own goal" They kill people in South America for putting the ball into your own net.
Posted by: Danny on May 5, 2005 02:16 PMOn what basis is a provisional ballot stuffed into the box of normal ballots with no audit trail, no record of who might have cast it, no way to back track an impropriety as was done in King County 'legal' ?
The more votes than voters carcass sitting at the KC elections office is getting pretty stinky in the May heat.
Posted by: Andy on May 5, 2005 02:47 PMIn their search
* They found only one more in Seattle and that felon in lives in one of two Seattle Precincts that Rossi won.
* They found 65 felons in Spokane County -- yet none of them reside in the Democratic 3rd Legislative District (which makes up about 30% of Spokane County).
* They found 27 felons In Snohomish County, but none in the Democratic controlled 21st and 38th Districts (which make up over 25% of Snohomish County)
* They found 50 felons in Pierce County, yet only two were from the Democratic controlled 27th and 29th Legislative Districts -- yet both of them come from precincts where Rossi won in November.
*
The Democrats made a big deal about their list, trying to get people to believe that the republicnas purposely did not include these names because they come from "Rossi Precincts." Well, 31 of the names on their list were on the republicans list that was submitted earlier to the court.
Yes, that's a possibility. The republicans could verify many more of their felon votes found than the democrats.
However, I suspect that both parties' list is going to be wittled down quite a bit with the judge's high standard for proving that each felon voted and voted in the governor's race.
The best I can determine, the republicans would need to find 764 more valid felon votes than the democrats.
Right now, I doubt that they will be able to even prove that many themselves. Of course, even that possibility rides on the judge suddenly accepting the proportional analysis based on precinct voting and not any other factor.
Possible yes. Probable no.
Posted by: Erik on May 5, 2005 03:13 PMIf a felon is known to have cast a ballot in a precinct in the last election, and if there are no undervotes for governor in that precinct, then the felon must have cast a vote for governor.
Posted by: MIMike on May 5, 2005 04:33 PMIf the Repubs had a statistical chance to win this battle, the courts would not have taken the case.
Posted by: Hindu on May 5, 2005 06:48 PMI'd like to know if the proportional analysis may be by precinct or does it have to be by the county as a whole ? Seems like precinct is the likely answer (which the Dems would steadfastly deny it for obvious reasons). That's true, it would make a significant difference in the outcome of this election. The Dems seem to believe they uncovered a gold mine of illegal votes - fool's gold - I say ! The truth will set us (the voters) free, but it will take diligence, perserverance and focus...
I would also say that more than one proportional analysis is in order, using published data that shows that 70% felons vote Democrat from credible data - I'm sure that the Rossi campaign has considered this. There may be more credibility to this analysis than by prorating illegal votes based on precinct results. Remember - clear and convincing evidence is what Judge Bridges will be looking for along with the already existing mountain of supplementary evidence that point up F-R-A-U-D ! (for you scum-sucking leftists, it can and will be proven - already has in the depositions)
Posted by: KS on May 5, 2005 07:33 PMBB (before blogs) the Dems could spin their thoughts and let the msm run with them unchecked.
AB (after...) the msm aren't so anxious (sans the PI) to do the dem's dirty work, for fear of being uncovered by blogs as a coconspirator. Another positive element of blogs.
One of many examples of the dem spin is tough talking ron sims screaming "their case is falling apart!!!" sorry ron, not buying it.
Posted by: MB on May 5, 2005 07:45 PMUmm. That's the republican's theory, not the democrats.
Excuse me if this is a dumb question. If the ballot is secret as it should be, how could anyone offer proof that a felon voted in the governor's race?
That will be difficult, I agree. Maybe lawyer X has answer.
My thinking is that if the precinct analysis is applied to these votes it could end up helping Dino.
Yes, I agree. It is his only chance. Yet the democrats believe they will prevail even if this method is used as they have discovered felons voting in counties favoring Rossi.
I would also say that more than one proportional analysis is in order,
Yes. The felons who voted were almost all male and males favored Rossi in the election. So how did KC felons vote? Who knows. I sure there will be expert statistical testimony at trial from both sides on this.
Posted by: Erik on May 5, 2005 08:19 PM"Sims, in a statement, called Dunn's motion "a blatant political maneuver because the Republicans' Chelan case is falling apart, and they know it."
He said evidence presented in that case has shown that other counties had problems similar to those in King County.
Ron Sims must be terrified to make such an absurd claim! What a fool! He's trying to sway the public into believing that the Republicans are in some kind of *unspecified* trouble with the contest - when in fact - their evidence in this case has far surpassed what they will need to win! And - (fortunately for the voters)...more evidence against King County is being exposed daily!
Ron Sims is showing his desperation....And his claim that the Rossi contest is somehow falling apart is only wishful thinking....
Posted by: Deborah on May 5, 2005 08:39 PMErik...you should have been going thru lists and identifying felons and documenting they were actual felons without rights restored rather than blabbing on and on on these Blogs.
You blew it dude.
Having a non-secret ballot just for felons kinda defeats the purpose, as they aren't supposed to be casting it in the first place.
Posted by: Mike H on May 5, 2005 09:36 PMCan anyone tell me the list of Democrat felon voters that are not on the original Republican list and HAVE been verified?
Looked over the HA site. I'm still trying to see the validity of most of their arguments on proportional assignment of applying the votes the Democrats and Republicans found. They are talking the probability of the felon and illegal votes not the proportionate results of the county votes. Neither are they acknowledging the difference between the county and precinct ratios. Finally, they are not showing that 100% of the felon votes apply (per RCW) against the difference between candidate totals. The same holds true with all other illegal votes.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 5, 2005 09:44 PMThat's because the democratic's position is that proportional analysis should not be used at all.
However, if it is, they believe they will prevail anyway.
..... but people don't always vote solely on gender, they also vote based on topics.
That's very true. And not all felons are men. However, in the last election statistically more men voted for Rossi and most felons are men.
Of course, most KC voters went for Gregoire. These are primarily the felons that the republicans identified.
The democrats identified felon voters in pro-Rossi counties.
How the two different groups are figured into the final equation, if at all, will be determined at the trial.
Posted by: Erik on May 5, 2005 10:08 PMFurthermore that article is in the words of a troll is "tilting at windmills". Never once is it demonstrated how Rossi loses at his own theory.
I have seen a few numbers, which are sketchy at best thrown around, then I have seen more plausible theories, like a good portion of illegal votes in the Pullman area come from WSU students voted more for CG. I see a conflicting claim (as to be expected by the Dems) saying that it was Rossi precinct. The question is; who do you believe - what will stand up in a court of law ? My money is against the Democrats. Nah, they are going to spring a big surprise at the last minute and blow this case out of the water - NOT !
1st statistically- you don't know, nor could you ever prove how the gender break down went in this election. Attempting to do so would yield a statistical error that would make Dean Logan a mathematical wizard. At best you have 'guesses' These guesses are far worse guesses than guesses based on age, race, and religion. In fact the gender guess is probably the worst guess you could possibly use. It's understandable why the democrats would want to choose it.
You can however prove how people voted by geography. You have this data and you can deconstruct this data down to the precinct level so that the error at worst is the same margin of error as the actual number of illegal votes cast. No more and no less.
Posted by: Andy on May 5, 2005 10:53 PM"...the Republicans' Chelan case is falling apart, and they know it."
a- Isuzu Joe
b- The Iraqi information minister
c- Ron Sims
d- J Luvitz' Pathological liar character on SNL
I meant to show that with precinct ratios, Rossi gains the advantage.
That's interesting. I have not seen anything that shows that would be an advantage for Rossi as I don't know where the felons that voted are in KC that they will be able to prove. It is certainly possible.
However, the precincts voting patterns have been used in other states I hear.
The argument of more men voting for Rossi (is)nonsense.
Yep. That's what all of the pollsters say.
Since felons cannot legally vote I would think it would be hard to find substantiative evidence of their support for the different parties.
Very true. That's one of the democrat's arguments. Can one generalize how an illigal group voted and remove their votes with the assumption that they voted like their neighbors? Maybe. We will see.
Almost certainly, the state supreme court is going to have to weigh in on the matter and set some of the standards.
Maybe if the felons were registered with one particular party prior to the elections (card carrying Democrats?)...one could check that as well...
I know it was moveon.org who was giving felons false information about their voting rights and encouraging them to register and to vote.....Now which party does that organization associate with?
Posted by: Deborah on May 5, 2005 11:57 PMKeep in mind there were over 700 provisional ballots directly fed into the machines on election day, and maybe 150 or more have been identified as being cast by ineligible persons. On the other hand, this does account for over 700 of the voterless ballots, leaving a smaller subset of that original number to worry about.
Judge Bridges says that voter crediting records are not sufficient, and poll book signatures or ballot envelope signatures must be used -- at least to prove that an ineligible felon voted. The same ruling should also apply to voterless ballot claims.
So to prove voterless ballots, the GOP would have to count all the actual poll book signatures and all the accepted absentee and provisional ballot envelope signatures and all the directly inserted provisional ballots that have been identified, and preferably count these by precinct as well. And then subtract the number of envelopes that didn't have valid ballots in them (or didn't have the ballots removed for counting).
This actually can be done, and would take a massive effort and money. Probably $100,000 to $200,000 to have everything in King County (nearly 900,000 signatures or envelopes) photocopied or scanned, and then sorted out by precinct.
This is small change compared to the $4 million already spent by the GOP. And if there is any confidence in any significant number of additional voterless ballots being proven, they should consider spending this money.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 6, 2005 12:04 AMI don't think you got my point. It was that if you don't have the right to vote you don't have the right to a secret ballot.
Tracing the ballot is not impossible either. The number on the ballot you recieve is placed in the poll book next to your name. My suggestion was you go to the poll book and find the ballot number of the felon. You then take that ballot check to see who they voted for and remove one vote from that candidate.
You would not be allowed to do this with most voters, because we have a right to a secret ballot and since we both agree that felons don't have a right to vote then they can't have the right to a secret ballot.
I know this method would not work for fear of everybody elses ballots being checked, but it was just an idea to throw out there. I just wanted to make the argument that if your voting rights have been revoked, your ballot should not be protected by the right to a secret ballot.
Posted by: Scott on May 6, 2005 12:31 AMFelons hate the Repubs because we are the party for personal responsibility. That's why we dislike the Dean Logan and Bill Huenneken unprecedented activities.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 6, 2005 07:31 AM
The numbers on a ballot are removed after voting. There is nothing to trace a ballot after it has been separated from the number stub.If it were trackable, there would be no guarantee of secrecy
Those numbers are used to account for ballots issued. WAC 434-253-070 is one place this function is mentioned.
Any ballot that is marked in such a way that it can be traced to an individual voter after it is cast is invalid. Leaving a serial number on the ballot, so that it could be traced to an individual via the ballot serial number written in the poll book would render the ballot invalid. So I believe a ballot stub inadvertently left on a cast ballot would probably be removed when it is first noticed after opening the ballot box.
I'm not positive, but I believe the primary in which voters had to mark their party preference was constructed in such a way that only the ballot recorded that preference. So there wouldn't be any record of the party preference that could be connected to the individual voters.
Posted by: Micajah on May 6, 2005 10:01 AMThe petitioners don't appear to be doing anything that looks like assembling evidence to prove the existence of "voterless ballots," nor do they appear to be preparing to demonstrate that election officials erred in the way they responded to the 785+ provisional ballots that were inserted into Accuvote machines at polling places.
Note that Linda Sanchez is the person who supervised the polling place reconciliation efforts which demonstrated the existence of hundreds of provisional ballots in the ballot boxes rather than in sealed envelopes. She isn't on the petitioners' list of witnesses.
While they occasionally mention that the existence of those provisional ballots in the polling place ballots boxes (via the Accuvote machines) was error, they don't seem to recognize how the response by Logan's gang made things worse rather than better.
As for the other "voterless ballots," the petitioners don't seem to understand how voters are credited with voting and how that crediting process is an integral part of canvassing the returns prior to certification. For example, voters at polling places are credited by a notation made in the poll books by the poll book judge when the ballot is issued. Period. Or, as the Brits would say, "full stop." The fact that a voter was credited in the poll book was then transferred to the digital database for other uses, e.g., making it feasible to process more than 30,000 provisional ballots without needing to go back and check the poll book for the precinct in which each voter casting a provisional ballot is registered to find out if the voter had also cast a regular ballot at his proper polling place.
What you suggest would be the equivalent of another canvass of the returns. If the petitioners educated the judge (and the people from the SecState on down in the group of those who misunderstand the process and the law), they shouldn't need to do their own canvass to show that more ballots were apparently included in the vote tabulation than were accepted as valid -- in every category of ballot, whether absentee, regular polling place ballot, or provisional ballot.
Missing from the case so far is any indication that the petitioners are prepared to show that knowing how many ballots in each category are valid is essential to producing a "full, true, and correct representation of the votes cast." If one doesn't know how many ballots should be in the vote tabulation, one cannot know whether all legitimate ballots were counted, and counted only once. King County's initial vote count included approximately 2200 ballots that didn't apparently belong in the count, and their ballot totals went up in each recount. Had they canvassed their returns in a credible way, such things wouldn't have occurred. Their official returns aren't worthy of belief.
Posted by: Micajah on May 6, 2005 11:31 AMVery disturbing, if true.
Fortunately From the List of witnesses there is hope that petitioners are going to compare ballot count problems between King and Pierce counties.
p.10: Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Auditor... may testify regarding Pierce County's discrepancy between the number of votes counted and the number of registered voters who voted and the unsuccessful effort to resolve that discrepancy..."
Searching the database: Dec. 17 "Pierce County" Rossi got 52% of the county. In the Manual recount Gregoire gained 232 and Rossi gained 201. "A 0.14% tabulation error, the highest reported" [higher than KC]. Stephan reports that there is a 1% chance Rossi would get as few as 201 votes out of 433 added if the results were random.
April 28: "Endless Effluvium". McCarthy admitted under oath leaving 50 uncounted ballots on the table.
"But unlike King County, Pierce officials gave a detailed report on their 164 mishandled ballots and other vote-counting problems to the county canvassing board before it certified election results in November. " -Quote Seattle Times?
------
You guys have a great blog!
Funny you should mention this!
Our household received 3 separate absentee ballots for the recent special election. We chose not to vote in that election - due to the unresolved issues with King County elections. I just went through each envelope of absentee ballots and noticed that there is a different identifying number on each ballot *mailing* envelope. This number is not on the ballot nor is it on the security envelope - It is on the mailing envelope only. The ballots appear to be identical in all markings - unless an identifying number is written in Chinese....
Which means - once the ballot is removed from the mailing envelope - it get's lost in the sea of identical ballots....
This just adds to the controversy of absentee voting! At least with the polling places - there appears to be a means to match the log book numbers to the ballot numbers...In absentee voting - no such log/ballot numbers exist!