A deliberately false election report?
King County's absentee-ballot supervisor has testified that she collaborated with her boss when she filled out a report that falsely showed all ballots were accounted for in the November election.
Nicole Way said in a deposition Friday that she and assistant elections superintendent Garth Fell agreed to the misleading report because officials didn't know how many absentee ballots were returned by voters.
. . .
The regulations require counties to reconcile the number of absentee ballots returned by voters with the number of ballots accepted or rejected. Way's report showed perfect reconciliation because it simply added the number accepted and rejected to calculate ballots returned.
I don't know whether this meets the legal definition of election fraud, but it meets the ordinary definition. The report was fraudulent.
None of this will come as any surprise to those who have followed Stefan Sharkansky's fine investigations here. But this admission, which confirms one of his findings, should trigger outrage even in the "mainstream" media. (And it should trigger some activity on the part of the Seattle PI, which was completely beaten by the Times on this story.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Those not in this area may need to know that the deposition was filed in the continuing lawsuit over last November's gubernatorial election.
If anyone has a copy of this deposition they can send me, I would love to study it for a possible follow up post.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 19, 2005 05:42 AM | Email ThisI would argue it is because, by not showing the real numbers (and the potential problems it contained), she essentially covered problems that could have potentially resulted in a Rossi win. The last thing you want in a close election (if you're on the winning side) is to find something that could potentially change the results even a fraction.
By preparing a false report, she deceived in order to preserve the current state of the election, where the correct report may have lead to an investigation that would have resulted, potentially, in a different result.
However, I assume the Dem's will argue that if the correct report wouldn't have led to a different result in the election, then she couldn't have committed fraud, because her actions didn't change anything.
Posted by: VaCSProf on May 19, 2005 06:24 AMPer my last post, what if she intentially wanted to preserve the status quo, which favored a specific candidate?
Posted by: VaCSProf on May 19, 2005 06:26 AMRCW 29A.84.711
Documents regarding nomination, election, candidacy--Frauds and falsehoods.
Every person who:
(1) Knowingly and falsely issues a certificate of nomination or election; or
(2) Knowingly provides false information on a certificate which must be filed with an elections officer under chapter 29A.20 RCW, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
[RCW 9A.20.021 sets the punishment for a Class C felony at "confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine."]
Posted by: ScottM on May 19, 2005 06:33 AMRCW 29A.84.720
Officers -- Violations generally.
Every person charged with the performance of any duty under the provisions of any law of this state relating to elections, including primaries, or the provisions of any charter or ordinance of any city or town of this state relating to elections who willfully neglects or refuses to perform such duty, or who, in the performance of such duty, or in his or her official capacity, knowingly or fraudulently violates any of the provisions of law relating to such duty, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021 and shall forfeit his or her office.
I assume all this is going into the elction lawsuit ... boy are the moonbats going to go nuts when the Washigton election is redone. Not going to be pretty.
Posted by: bill on May 19, 2005 07:04 AMAll the big vote fraud scandals happen in heavily Dem areas. Dem groups in Ohio (NAACP, ACORN, etc.) brought in hundreds if not thousands of phoney registrations in their attempt to defraud the state and win unfairly.
Wisconsin experienced thousands of fake registrations in heavily Dem areas.
King County is heavily dem and looked what happened here. Ballot-box stuffing.
No, it is Democrats who commit the big fraud. That's why they're so opposed to making fraud harder to commit.
Posted by: M on May 19, 2005 07:28 AMBut this admission, which confirms one of his findings, should trigger outrage even in the "mainstream" media.Nah. They'll just say, "close enough for government work." Or, "she did as good a job as was possible under the circumstances." Or, "no election is perfect, but this one is as perfect as they come." Or some other such self-serving platitude that preserves the status quo. See how easy it is?
Why? Time to plead the Fifth Admendment. We already know why: Fraud!
Question: How many Assistant Elections Superintendents does it take to screw up an election in King County?
Answer: All of them!
Posted by: otto on May 19, 2005 07:56 AMThat's falsifying elections certifications as per RCW 29A.84.711(1). And meets the the legal definition of fraud.
Doing it with the complicity and knowledge of your superior. That's conspiracy.
What we have is legal testimony under oath to conspiracy to commit election fraud.
Nelson and the PI might yawn it away. But it looks like some cooking goose to me.
Posted by: JCM on May 19, 2005 07:57 AM1. WAC 434-240-270 requires elections officials to maintain an absentee ballot audit trail including, among other things, "A reconciliation that all absentee ballots counted plus all absentee ballots rejected is equal to the total number of absentee ballots received."
2. King County has admitted deliberately falsifying a report in order to make it look as if they had obeyed that regulation, when in fact they had not.
3. And, as I pointed out above:
RCW 29A.84.720
Officers -- Violations generally.
Every person charged with the performance of any duty under the provisions of any law of this state relating to elections, including primaries, or the provisions of any charter or ordinance of any city or town of this state relating to elections who willfully neglects or refuses to perform such duty, or who, in the performance of such duty, or in his or her official capacity, knowingly or fraudulently violates any of the provisions of law relating to such duty, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021 and shall forfeit his or her office.
[Emphasis added.]
And, on another point: I am going to send some polite emails to journalists today, suggesting that this might be a story that deserves a little more coverage. (And, if you do the same, I suggest you recall the proverb about flies, vinegar, and honey, before you click "Send".)
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 19, 2005 08:12 AM“A violation of county and state POLICIES?” This defies all logic. How can this not be a blatant violation of law, not just policy? The standard for provisionals has always been the presumption of being invalid, in contrast to poll votes that are presumed to valid, has it not? This has always seemed to me to be a form of ballot stuffing. Any pool of questionable votes in a heavily partisan county is bound to skew toward the partisan in question, probably by a higher percentage than would be true for the county as a whole, since provisionals tend to be motivated by last minute pressures in a campaign.
Not too many non-lefties are going to mourn the passing of the Times/PI. The real question will be “will anyone notice?” There’s a Pulitzer going to waste here, and, if by some miracle there is one awarded, it’ll be for the category of ‘bloggers’. Where are the “Truth In Media”, “People for the American Way” types? AWOL. Just like with Clinton’s various escapades/scandals. Integrity is non-partisan, and as a group these organizations are simply partisan hacks.
Jeeze, this election would make a good book/movie. Anyone know if Ann Rule is busy these days? This would be right up her “true crime” alley.
We don't like the outcome of a close election so we scream FRAUD! CHEAT!
Our system, with millions of voters and thousands of workers and volunteers, is just not equipped to handle the closest of elections down to the very last vote.
Now you all want to send those election workers to jail with felonies?
I wonder if any of you would take the job? with that low of pay (if any) and the threat of going to jail if you nmake a mistake?
You complain about the quality of election worker and then set up such a high barrier for anyone willing to consider joining in to help make things better.
And I'm the unreasonable one?
Posted by: who'dathunk! on May 19, 2005 08:19 AMWell 'who,' how is your hibernation going?
Posted by: scott158 on May 19, 2005 08:25 AMThat would be a 'yes.'
alaric
Posted by: alaric on May 19, 2005 08:29 AMLike a Mafia investigation, the "little fish" are smelling job loss or jail time, and rolling over on the bigger fish. The process is working.
It's clear there are no Woodward or Bernsteins in the MSM, they are in the BLOG world. Great job folks!
Posted by: Mark on May 19, 2005 08:29 AMOur system, with millions of voters and thousands of workers and volunteers, is just not equipped to handle the closest of elections down to the very last vote.
Desperation is ugly. Who'daonesinkingnow?
Posted by: Editor on May 19, 2005 08:31 AMYou are a troll.
Posted by: ScottM on May 19, 2005 08:33 AMI think that's what who'd means.
Posted by: Danny on May 19, 2005 08:38 AMMaking sure the number of ballots equals the number of voters = high barrier.
You're pathetic.
Posted by: jimg on May 19, 2005 08:39 AMIt's been a while since we've seen Berendt have a good cry. Something tells me we're in store for a good one.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on May 19, 2005 08:42 AMAnd if you are reading this:
Chris Vance - can you step up to this challenge? I know your working hard on this case.
Dino Rossi - If you make a strong stand, you will never stand along. Thanks.
You are so far off. There is absolutely no requirement to wait until a conservative is accused. All you need is the possibility of them actually do it.
Newsweek the perfect example. The story isn't wrong because it is possible that it happened. OK no evidence no one saying it did happen, Newsweek says that the story is wrong, but it is still Bush's fault because it could have happened.
Posted by: Fred on May 19, 2005 08:49 AMI certainly would not consider Dean Logan and his staff low paid. Nor do I think the concept of the number of ballots cast matching that of the number of people who voted to be an unreasonable one...from what planet did you come?
Posted by: maggie on May 19, 2005 09:06 AMScumbag lawyer: Was it your intent to intentionally throw this election by submitting incorrect reports?
KC elections worker: Oh gosh, no sir, honest, I was tryin real hard to do the best job for the people that I could.
Scumbag lawyer: Clearly your honor, it's obvious that my client did not intend to cause any harm..
Judge: Agreed, case dismissed
One needs to show that an actor acted with Knowledge, negligence or recklessness. While the first two appear to apply here & may be sufficient in a criminal prosecution, will it be enuff in the civil case starting on the 23rd? I would think so since the burden of proof is less in a civil case....but were are talking about our Suprems now aren't we?? And that is where is case will ultimately be decided.
Posted by: Blueknight on May 19, 2005 09:13 AMRossi was on the KVI this morning saying many of the uncounted ballots were in precincts he carried. The fact ballots were from known Republican precincts would indicate some funny business was going on.
Rossi also said there were a number of ballots opened and re-sealed. A clear violation of law. Who did it and why?
Rossi also said a number of democrat party operatives who were appointed as election observers took ballots home with them the eve of the election. Why?
The Seattle Times story also quotes Carlos Web as follows: Assistant elections superintendent Carlos Webb said yesterday that he had instructed the staff to count those unverified ballots, but he declined to explain why.
I believe the "declined to explain" part is where he takes the 5th.
Last but not least, I love this statement by Way blaming that darned computer... From the Seattle Times story;
Way testified elections officials couldn't keep track of ballots returned because the new computer system "didn't seem to track things on the scale that we would need it [to]."
That's the venerable old "the dog ate my homework" defense. Nice try sweetheart, but we're not buying it.
Posted by: Scott C on May 19, 2005 09:14 AMReally, I don't think any of the new legislation passed this session and signed by the fraudulant government should be implemented and enforced. It wasn't signed into law by a legitimate governor.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 19, 2005 09:19 AMI'm still very, very glad the Feds have NOT come in and investigated yet. It truly would have shifted the focus from Fraud and negligence and illegal votes to Bush trying to steal another election. I know a lot of you wished they were in here but trust me on this one....it would have created a red herring and a huge mess. There is plenty of time after the Election Contest...plus the trial, discovery and depositions will provide a strong basis for the Feds to proceed from.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 19, 2005 09:29 AMIf Nicole and Garth are put on the legal rack and reminded of the rather severe penalties for violation of the above RCWs and WAC, I doubt they will volunteer to take the rap for all of KCE by themselves; i.e.: My guess is they will try and cop a plea and tell all; and that what we are seeing with this Times piece by Keith Ervin is the beginning of the final breakdown of the 'model election' fascade claim by the Gov-4-Now.
This is getting interesting. Stay tuned.
SIDEBAR: Remember that Judge Bridges relented and said he would allow TVW to cover the trial.
Methow Ken
Which, of course, defeats the whole purpose of verifying the ballots before opening the envelope.
And although I can't find the reference, I remember reading in one of the depositions that it's standard procedure for the poll site inspector (in King County, they're all Democrats) to pick up the supplies for his poll site (including ballots) one or two days in advance.
Posted by: ScottM on May 19, 2005 09:34 AMI did not mean to imply that ALL lawyers are "scumbags"...my apologies if I offended anyone!
Posted by: Blueknight on May 19, 2005 09:34 AMNo doubt he was utterly convinced by the Democrat mantra, repeated to infinity, of "count ALL the ballots". That's what I heard Gregoire say during the recounts - she said ballots. No mention of validity. Would anyone believe that the Dems were hoping for any sort of advantage they could get?
Every time Rossi came out ahead, King County (which always counted late in the process) scrambled to furnish another pile of ballots from some murky location or other. Who was the guy who knew those locations?
election_fraud
A noun
1 election_fraud: misrepresentation or alteration of the true results of an election
Linking to an intent?
Not a requirement, the false reporting (knowingly) and in conjunction with your supervisor, misrepresenting facts or officially certifying, knowing it couldnt be certified.
In concert with her supervisor?
duplicity
A noun
1 duplicity, double-dealing
acting in bad faith; deception by pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another
You can twist, turn, spin this any way you want, but the results are the same.
I am just curious how many more 'officials' are going to audition for "King County Election Idol" competition and start singing?
I think some skeletons are about to take legs and start walking.
Scott
In my profession, once a gaping hole in a process is identified, the problem is remedied, and preventive corrective actions are applied to preclude further occurrences. We all know the remedies for this indiscretion include reversing the election results and jailing the perpetrators of harm to all of the citizens of Washington. In the corrective action portion of the judge's decision, I hope that an ongoing training in ethics is instituted as well as a we-tip style of ombudsman program for reporting co-worker unlawful acts.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on May 19, 2005 09:59 AMThanks Stephan, all your efforts are so appreciated for keeping us informed.
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 19, 2005 10:17 AMThis is the fraud that has been proven....how about all of the lies and fraud that are more difficult to prove? For every rat and cockroach you see, there are 6 others hiding in the walls.
To all of those like Locke who say this is not good for the state--- you are full of it-- this process is exactly what is needed.
The cost of this whole fiasco has been astronomical. The cost of the original campaign and the following legal battle has been around $4 million. And I am especially offended that the state (all of us) is required to repay the money the democrats fronted for the whole hand recount sham. Remember, if she lost the third count, they had to pick up the tab.
Of course, I think we all knew in our hearts that the outcome was pretty much predetermined as soon as they risked the money for the third count. All of the theatrics with the counting and observers was nothing more than a distraction and PR to make the process look transparent. The real theft took place behind closed doors.
/still waiting for hell to freeze over... but I do hear the sound of screeching nails on blackboard as the queen is dragged kicking and screaming from the mansion...
Posted by: Tucker on May 19, 2005 11:04 AMAnd if frogs had wings they could fly.
You wrote Lawyer Scumbag.
As a scumbag, I am offended.
:)
Posted by: Ken on May 19, 2005 11:33 AMJust like Clinton, I expect Gregoire will turn to the media to portray herself as the victim instead of the perpetrator. I would not be suprised to see more clips of Christine the victim over the coming days. You know the spin, why should SHE leave an office that she deserves for all of the hard work she has done--rags to riches, Cinderella of Olympia. Be on the lookout for the feigned acts of disappointment and distancing from those accused of Fraud.
Bring on the truth! Hail the dismantling of the trainwreck in Olympia.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on May 19, 2005 11:42 AMThis election mess can be blaimed largely on our over reliance on computer technology. It was computer technology that was the mess-up in Gray's County. It appears that alot of the problems in KC can also be attributed to their computer technology. Why wasn't the system checked properly before the election so that the election could be run right? This is both parties fault, not just the Democrats.
Word to the Republican party. Insist on independent testing and validation of all election computer systems and a requirement for open source or independent, certified review of voting software. It is time we get rid of these proprietary systems that are closed door and open the system up so that all can see. Open election electronic systems with independent verification and fail-proof, tamper resistant audit trails are the only way to ensure properly run elections.
Posted by: tc on May 19, 2005 12:14 PMSecond, if they didn't have the authority or cajones to make that call they should have sent the request up the chain to someone who would make the call. Who knows, maybe someone did which we may soon find out.
Third, if the software was the problem, the fail safe option is to hand count the results. They had better have really good and well documented reasons for taking that option though.
Since they took none of those preventive steps it appears they made their decisions under some sort of influence, laziness, or intent. One of those reasons gets them fired, two of the reasons gets them jail time. Unless, they roll over on who told them to do it.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 19, 2005 12:43 PM"classic!
We don't like the outcome of a close election so we scream FRAUD! CHEAT!
Our system, with millions of voters and thousands of workers and volunteers, is just not equipped to handle the closest of elections down to the very last vote.
Now you all want to send those election workers to jail with felonies?
I wonder if any of you would take the job? with that low of pay (if any) and the threat of going to jail if you nmake a mistake?
You complain about the quality of election worker and then set up such a high barrier for anyone willing to consider joining in to help make things better.
And I'm the unreasonable one? "
First of all, it is the Democrat that always scream about fraud and cheating with NO PROOF.
The old tired excuse of how difficult it is to accurately count is nonsense! That is just an excuse for the FRAUD we have seen perpetrated on the people of this state.
Finally, yes, you are the unresonable one.
Posted by: pbj on May 19, 2005 12:46 PMAnybody else?
Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 19, 2005 12:55 PMAppreciate any clarification
Posted by: Northern Coho on May 19, 2005 01:13 PMLet's speculate---
Will any of these folks disclose any undue pressure they received from Sims or any other Democratic Party operative????
Like a plea-bargain arrangement.
I can't imagine any of these people taking a rap for Sims or anyone else, can you???
Time will tell....but eventually we will have a much clearer picture.
Sim's wagon's are un-circling!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 19, 2005 01:30 PMI think that I'm going to set up a BBQ on the Capitol lawn for Independence Day...trainwreck should be cleared by then.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on May 19, 2005 02:17 PMBerents said last November : "This has Karl Roves' fingerprints all over it."
BWWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!!!!!
Posted by: Dogbert on May 19, 2005 02:42 PMIt can't be fraud. According to King 5 News:
On Thursday morning, however, Elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said that ballot reports have always been created that way and that there was no falsification.
Egan said that any discrepancy between the numbers shown on the report and the actual number of absentee ballots was an oversight, not an intentional effort to mislead.
What a relief: They've always done it this way.
Posted by: Micajah on May 19, 2005 06:15 PMThis bizarre action by the Democrats in the legislature - combined with Ms. Way's confession - leaves no doubt in my mind - that the absentee ballot fraud was a party effort! The system was designed to leave no audit trail....and the Democrats in Olympia tried to make use of that system - mandatory - throughout the state!
And - These revelations should bring an abrupt halt to any and all Absentee voting until the systems can be cleaned up and made to collect the proper data! Actually - the entire system should be replaced!
The KC Council used more than 1.2 Million dollars of our taxpayer money for a *quick fix* to this system in 2003! This was after other absentee mishaps and after the Felon was hired to create their software programs!
My God!
(Nice to see you back Micajah!)
Posted by: Deborah on May 19, 2005 09:41 PMThis is a major FUBAR and the actors are laughing & scattering like kids tossing a stink bomb in school. This is for keeps. This isn't mock court on TV. I'm sick of the kid gloves.
I hope we see some serious hammers fall & jail time. What will it take? Time for courtesy is long past. Crack some heads with legal batons. Let's see some elected officials wet their orange jumpsuits at sentencing time. The nation is watching us closely. We blow it here, and the other voting systems will surely rot from within.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 19, 2005 09:49 PM"that woman"....great post to day dream about. But I am sure sims and logan will land on their feed working for a bank some place. "gentleman please, please gentleman".
On a personal note I hope all went well with your father. God Bless
Fraud is defined to be "an intentional perversion of truth" or a "false misrepresentation of a matter of fact" which induces another person to "part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right".
Of course this is not necessarily the standard that the judge will apply here, and it still leaves several questions open: Were the acts at issue merely attempts to provide a required report from inadequate data (which I don't think is fraud according to the above), or were they attempts to steal the election? If they were fraud, does it matter whether the fraud was a broad conspiracy on the part of the candidate/party or a fraudulent act by one person? Does the judge have to guess whether the fraudulent act likely changed the result?