An outline of Chris Vance's news conference today:
* King County’s records are so inaccurate and incomplete that in many cases it is impossible to determine exactly what happened. But three facts are beyond dispute --
* First, there is still a significant discrepancy between ballots cast and voters identified in King County. State law requires counties to reconcile the results of the election before they certify the results. King County did not do that, and they still can’t. In some precincts there are hundreds more ballots cast than voters King County can account for, in other areas there are fewer ballots than voters. In total, King County’s best effort at reconciling polling place ballots shows 216 more ballots counted than voters signing in at the polls. King County’s absentee ballot audit trail, required by law, is so flawed King County officials themselves described it as “virtually meaningless.” Although the audit trail itself is a mess, we know that there were a total of 875 more absentee ballots counted than there were identified absentee voters – and that is AFTER offsetting the nearly 2,000 more ballots than voters in some precincts with the 1,100 more voters than ballots in others. If we look at the actual audit slip data and the absentee ballot audit records, the picture is even worse. Put another way, under the analysis most favorable to King County, there were at least 1,091 more ballots than voters in an election decided by 129 votes.
* Second, the reconciliation process is our primary protection against voter fraud. There have been a lot bank analogies thrown around regarding this election and those analogies fit. The reconciliation process, matching ballots to signatures is how we prevent people from voting twice, or election workers from stuffing ballot boxes or the opposite, stealing ballots. During his deposition, Sam Reed confirmed that reconciliation is critical in preventing fraud. In Milwaukee the exact same thing is happening right now. There are several thousand more votes cast than voters listed in the records of the city of Milwaukee. There, the U.S attorney is investigating and calls the discrepancy clear evidence that fraud occurred, even though Milwaukee’s election records are so sloppy they may never be able to convict anyone. He likened it to trying to prove "a bank embezzlement if the bank cannot tell how much money was there in the first place." Another bank analogy, and exactly the situation we face here.
* Third, King County failed to take the steps required to guard against fraud. The single most shocking fact that has emerged from this election contest is this: King county election officials do not know how many blank ballots they started this election with and they don’t know how many more ballots were created by staff during the 3 counts. Other auditors and the Secretary of State have testified during the gathering of evidence that knowing how many ballots you have is the cornerstone of a clean election. And King County’s system, alone in this state – and perhaps in the nation – is designed and run so that at no point does anyone know how many ballots are in play in the counting process. Remember, Ron Sims said King County elections had an accuracy rate any bank would envy. Well the King County elections department is a bank that does not know how much money it carries at deposits or how much is withdrawn. It is a bank that simply trusts each teller to do the right thing. In addition, King County staff used inconsistent standards in reconciling poll ballots, and they did not start their absentee ballot audit trail with a count of how many ballots were returned to the county. In his deposition, Sam Reed said this was particularly important in order guard against stuffing the ballot box or stealing votes. They didn’t follow the reconciliation procedures required by state law, they didn’t secure blank ballots, and now their books don’t balance. Again, these facts are beyond dispute.
* Finally, one thing has become crystal clear: Dino Rossi was right when he called this election a certified mess. Next week, Christine Gregoire’s lawyers will not stand up in court and defend the accuracy of this election. They now agree with us that thousands of illegal votes were cast. They agree with us that King County made egregious errors.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 17, 2005 03:14 PM | Email ThisIt seems cut and dry. The evidence is clear. As a result, there's no way to forecast which way the courts will rule.
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 17, 2005 03:27 PMSo what they are telling us is that a bunch of school administrators have better control over WASL test boollets than KC elections has over ballots?
Posted by: chris on May 17, 2005 03:40 PMThe County and the media seriously short-changed us, and if it weren't for Stefan Sharkansky's relentless investigations we wouldn't have more than a murky idea that anything went wrong. I'm not going to be easily convinced that this short-changing wasn't intentional.
Bravo Stefan, and an emphatic hand gesture of the nuanced and sophisticated European model to the County and the media.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 17, 2005 03:46 PMAdd to that the felons, the dead, the double voters, the non-citizens, the errant and unverified provisionals, the found ballots,the lost ballots and those flakey canvassing board tapes.....PLUS.....the revealing and incriminating depositions from Logan, Huennekens and Reed......
Does anyone really believe the Judge is going to allow last November's election results to stand?
I mean...come on....
Posted by: Deborah on May 17, 2005 03:58 PM"Next week, Christine Gregoire’s lawyers will not stand up in court and defend the accuracy of this election. They now agree with us that thousands of illegal votes were cast. They agree with us that King County made egregious errors."
The only logical conclusion from such a startling statement would be that the Dems join the Reps in asking the judge for a re-vote. Logic being the precious and rare comodity that it is, I don't really expect the Dems to do the right thing...
So the question remains...what's up with this????
C'mon Deborah... we're talking about the people's republik of WA. ANYTHING can happen!
Posted by: DanC on May 17, 2005 04:05 PMThe proper format is to say, "Y A W N !"
There, that's better ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 17, 2005 04:53 PMThese are not the "blank ballots", provided by the vendor and handed out Friday, before the election. These were created by computer software at KC elections offices and printed on card stock. Nobody can say how many were created.
It's like your bank having a printing press in the back room.
Missing money from your account? Don't worry, we will print more! Of course, only spend it in King county, where no ID is required and votes are cheep, Cheep, CHEEP!
U.S. currency uses optically variable ink, watermarks, magnetic threads and other security features. Seems to me, my currency was effected by the fraudulent election.
All the material needed to create your own ballots can be purchased at Wal-Mart. With a printer, scanner, card stock, and imaging software you too can steal an election!
All Vote-By-Mail will just make it easier.
Posted by: Splatter on May 17, 2005 04:56 PMIt depends on what Judge Bridges allows as evidence in his court. Wasn't there some report that he was going to focus only on ballots "with names"? I.e., the illegal felon votes? I think it's patently ridiculous for him to do that -- hundreds-to-thousands more ballots than votes cast is the most obvious evidence of fraud imaginable -- however, judges have been known to be ridiculous before.
I hope I'm wrong about the ballots 'with names' thing. Can anyone clarify?
Posted by: Shannon K on May 17, 2005 05:26 PMDear Cheryl,
More and more reports are emerging of the extent to which Democrats were willing to go to try to influence the 2004 election.
Well, their tactics worked in Washington State.
Our Republican candidate for Governor, Dino Rossi, actually won the election. Then he won the recount.
Then Democrat-controlled King County "found" 566 new votes just in time for the second recount, enough to overturn the results of Election Day and the first recount.
The new result? Dino Rossi "lost" by 129 votes. But consider the following facts in Washington state:
* 943 felons illegally voted
* 49 dead people voted
* 3 people voted in Washington and another state
* 2 illegal aliens voted
* 12 people voted multiple times
* 174 provisional votes were counted but later found to be cast people who had already voted or were unregistered
Also, at least another 1,600 ballots are still in question:
* 875 more absentee votes were cast in King County than there were absentee voters
* 5 more ballots in King County and 50 ballots in Whitman County were "found" after both recounts, and have never been counted
* At least 660 provisional ballots were improperly counted in King County.
Dino Rossi is fighting, and voters of good conscience from across this country should stand with him. For more info on Dino Rossi and his ongoing fight, please go to www.dinorossi.com.
Sincerely,
Michael DuHaime
RNC Political Director
I'm glad to see the national party is still very much involved here.
Posted by: Cheryl on May 17, 2005 06:37 PMThe irony here is that the Democrats are now scrambling to *find* the most illegal ballots for the contest...using many of the same fraudulent methods they used to *find* the most ballots in the election and recounts! I wouldn't put it past them to *print out* their own felon voter ballots from Rossi precincts! They just don't get it! They are showing their *expertise* in *producing* the exact number of votes needed to win something...
I think it's great! Let them do everything they can....because everything they do - can and will be used against them in a court of law......
It's nice that the talking points were once again brought to light, but it could have waited until Friday at 4PM. By the way - in the final illegal vote analysis, were the 743 (710- 33 duplicates found) illegal votes that the Dems claim to have uncovered included in the analyses that gave Rossi the 100 and 179 vote margins ? I am not saying that if convincing the judge that there would have been another winner is the only hope that team Rossi has - but with the evidence that I see and knowing what Judge Bridges is looking for, I am not sure that it is enough - I hope it is, but also hope that there is some additional ammunition which Mr. Vance did not share with the public. Don't rest on your laurels - Team Rossi, but at least you have not divulged everything - I hope !
Posted by: KS on May 17, 2005 09:35 PMKS,
It sounds as though the mishandled provisionals from Whitman County were somewhat *resolved* - but yet to have signatures verified... I think the Republicans don't want to list these "Pullman votes for Gregoire" unless the Dems try to count them as Rossi votes....
From SP Archives:
) 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.
In 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.
Posted by: Deborah on May 17, 2005 11:46 PMOh where is the smoking gun folks? You all assume that computer voting databases are correct. Have you actually matched to the physical voting records? I think not. Until you do, the percentage of error in voters to electronic voting database is within the margin of statistical error built into the system. It is no proof other than we need a better electronic system for tracking voters.
Cheers,
Posted by: tc on May 18, 2005 05:59 AMIn an Olympics running race they don't go back and retime the race.....
Posted by: righton on May 18, 2005 07:35 AMReally? What places would those be?
The idea has some common-sense appeal, but it has some practical ramifications that I think most places have chosen to avoid. Even in cases of an exact tie (when surely there is at least one bad ballot), most places have the legislature or a coin toss choose the winner, rather than having a revote.
Whine if you wish, change the law if you wish, but recognize the reason for it if you want to get anywhere.
Posted by: Bruce on May 18, 2005 09:59 AMAs far as KC disputed ballots, this has been well documented and decided in the December court case. Not all ballots were accepted, either. The court found that the ballots were not properly canvassed, in that the signatures were not checked against the physical record on file. Republicans can state all they want that this was a recanvass, but it wasn't the court documents are clear. Further, the Rossi campaign's arguments before the court do not include an argument to reopen this issue. Therefore, the issue has been settled by the December court case. This is the most suprising fact in that this has direct bearing on the third count and whether it was accurrate. All the Rossi campaign has brought up for evidence has to do with all counts, not just the third count. Why are they not arguing about its accurracy, when that was their main argument before it took place (i.e., that it wouldn't be as accurrate)? It seems by the lack of arguement on the third count that it was just as accurrate as the third, in fact probably more accurrate because it examined ballots that could not be fed through the automatic counting machines.
As far as error, any electronic system of records has built in error. It is a matter of fact and understood by those who work with electronic systems. Unless there is a 100% verification between physical records and electronic records, there is no way of telling whether the electronic records are accurrate. We know from the December court case that KC did not get all its signatures electronically entered into the system. What other information hadn't been entered in yet?
The one thing I would agree with the Rossi Campaign on is that due to errors in the system, we do not know who won. The problem is any revote would not decide either if the margin of error in the system is greater than the margin of victory. The only way would be do a manual voting process, verified against physical voter registration records, and manually recorded. I work with computers everyday. They are not infallible as some make them to believe.
Posted by: tc on May 18, 2005 12:05 PMArent' you embarassed that he represents you?
Posted by: Jim Rogers on May 18, 2005 01:27 PMtc,
Actually, I never referred to those 735 ballots in my posts above! But now that you've mentioned them.......
Listening to the KC Canvass tape recordings - there were many of these 735 ballots who's signature approval was virtually a toss up! There was much heated discussion about the validity of many of those ballots during the canvass meetings! There were more than the usual attempts made by the canvassing board to contact the voters with the questionable signatures to get them to resubmit signature samples.(this was also a concern for some on the board - as they worried that they would be accused of giving preferential treatment to ballots brought in by the Democrats.. Mailing 2 or more requests for updated signatures when the norm is only 1 request..)
I'm not satisfied at all - after listening to the tapes - that many of those alleged *mis-canvassed* ballots - should have ever been counted!
I hope the Republicans revisit these ballots in the contest!