To summarize Huennekens' 1:30 - 2:55 testimony, he said (and I paraphrase)
* "I have no idea what any of the documentation prepared by my staff means"
* "I knew that there were all kinds of discrepancies with the polling place and provisional ballots. The evidence that we were off by hundreds was in the binder I looked at every day. But hey, what do you want from me? It was a difficult canvass"
* "I told the canvassing board it was a difficult canvass, but I forget to tell them that meant we had no idea how many of the ballots we counted were valid and how many were garbage."
Now we're about to return from the mid-afternoon break.
Kevin Hamilton is lobbing softball questions in order to turn a sow's ear of a totally munted mess of an election where the Superintendent has no idea how many ballots were returned into a silk purse of a model election to the rest of the nation and the world at large!
Hamilton: (I paraphrase) the election wasn't perfect and democracy is sometimes messy so we should all be glad that there were hundreds more ballots crammed into the AccuVote than there were voters who signed the pollbook!
Hamilton scores own goal!
Asks Huennekens to confirm that provisional ballots are supposed to be creased before handed to voter to identify them as distinct kind of ballot. This leads to the question he won't ask but the Republicans should: "If you knew, Mr. Huennekens, that provisional ballots were creased and that some provisionals were shoved into the Accuvote, why didn't you go back and try to remove creased ballots from the ballot pool???""
Hamilton scores another own goal!
Hamilton: there are large number of ways you can have a positive or negative variation in the polling place?
Huennekens: yes, a large number.
Hamilton: a voter can fail to sign the poll book.
[Note that there are two marks that are supposed to be made in the poll book when a ballot is issued. The voter signs and the pollworker is supposed to record the ballot number. A voter who forgets to sign the pollbook will usuallly be identified like in this photograph. The poll worker records the ballot number and the canvasser writes "forgot to sign". A voter who voted a ballot with no notation in the pollbook would represent a violation of both RCW 29A.44.210 and RCW 29A.44.231. It's kind of funny that the Democrats defense against illegal voting by unknown parties rests on allegation of a different kind of illegal voting by unknown parties]
Jeff Even asked Huennekens about the Mail Ballot Report: was it sent to the Secretary of State's office? Was it required to be sent?
Huennekens: no and no.
Sounds like the SoS wants to downplay the significance of the Mail Ballot Report, which is required by law.
Maguire re-direct: Asks Huennekens to confirm that pollbook has oath. Voter is supposed to sign. Provisionals are supposed to be signed and signature verified.
Maguire admits this document as Exhibit 35 over Hamilton's habitual whiny objection. Asks Huennekens how it could be that p.1 line 4 shows 3 PBAV voters credited with voting in a precinct where there were supposedly 0 provisionals that went through the Accuvote. Huennekens explanation doesn't make any sense.
Maguire keeps working way down the spreadsheet. Now we're up to 6 7 10 14 15 18 more provisionals not in the 348.
Hamilton (I paraphrase): A person who casts an illegal provisional ballot could be from anywhere and because we're not 100% certain who they voted for we are certain that Gregoire won the most votes.
Huennekens: yes
Huennekens is done testifying. If he wasn't perjuring himself by pretending not to know anything, then he's got to be the most incompetent loser who's ever tried to run an elections office. Either way, I hope he'll be out of the King County Elections department before the fall election.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 24, 2005 02:50 PM | Email ThisPosted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 24, 2005 02:59 PM
Logan makes $123,000.
Posted by: Cryptometaphor on May 24, 2005 03:02 PMThe BIG BINDERS are important, aren't they!
That's a statement by the way.
Q: Democracy is sometimes messy, isn't it?
A: Yes it is.
The opposing counsel should ask in his questions -
Q: Democracy is sometimes deliberately messy in KC, isn't it?
A: uhhh uhhh uhhh .... I have good home training
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 03:11 PMLogan makes $123,000.
[shaking my head] I can see my tax dollars are well spent.
Posted by: Mike H on May 24, 2005 03:21 PMAs a casual observer, I would have to question his ability to perform his function in a fair, honest, and forthright manner, based on his demeanor and answers. This lends a great deal of creedence to the criticism by some that it's no mistake that DEMOCRATics continually win in King County.
"Sometimes the poll workers don't follow the instructions to the exact letter" comments Counsel Smarmy, with an empathetic affirmation by Bill from the stand.
This is truly pathetic, and I only wish that the bulk of the state were watching right now.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 03:24 PMClearly losing sight of the forest for the trees is part of the dem strategy.
I've known libs that are fun at parties. They aren't like these people.
Posted by: scott158 on May 24, 2005 03:24 PMDon't forget the fat lady...
Posted by: Dogbert on May 24, 2005 03:27 PMRight up until the point that Bill issues a "well, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work." (emphasis mine)
I can't wait to see if this 'counsel' has the huevos to ask if this is done in every case.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 03:31 PMI thought both of you did a good job of presenting your take on what happened. I just happen to agree with you....and think Goldy is a LEFTIST PINHEADED PENCIL-NECKED GEEK LEFTIST who is full of crap. But the give & take has some potential.
I actually think Carlson did Goldy a huge favor by not letting him get rolling too much. As you could tell, the more Goldy talks, the more excited he gets and the more he sounds like that hideous blend of
Pee Wee Herman, Gilbert Gottfried and the 3 Chipmunks.
The time Goldy tried to interrupt you but Carlson cut him off and allowed you to finish was the time Goldy's voice was starting to go into the octave we and all the neighborhood dogs love to hate!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 24, 2005 03:36 PMTHIS MAY TURN OUT EXACTLY LIKE GREGOIRE'S FIASCO WHEN SHE BLAMED HER UNDERLING FOR THE $18 MILLION FAILURE TO RESPOND!!! FORTUNATELY THAT UNDERLING SUED AND RIGHTFULLY WON. THIS COULD END UP BEING EXACTLY LIKE THAT!!!
Are you listening KingCo workers Nicole Way et al....you DO NOT have to allow Huennekens, Logan and Sims to treat you like sacrificial lambs to take all the blame. Be VERY CAREFUL about who you hire for your attorneys....that they aren't part of the Sims/Dem crowd. Do you understand???
DO NOT TAKE THE FALL FOR THIS!!!
I think it's an apt analogy, but shouldn't it be "scores ON his own goal"? Scoring your own goal is a good thing; scoring ON your own goal means points for the other side.
Posted by: the radish on May 24, 2005 03:42 PMThanks!
Posted by: Erik on May 24, 2005 03:46 PMThe Dem lawyer just said "Our friends in the press." Boy, was that a Freudian slip or what :-)
This whole thing is boring as hell...
Posted by: Tucker on May 24, 2005 03:46 PMan "own goal" is the proper terminology when referring to a soccer player accidentally putting the ball into his own net...it's an own goal.
Posted by: Danny on May 24, 2005 03:48 PMI have found it odd that the author uses arcane foreign sports terms, but, hey, it's HIS blog. I next expect him to call Dale Foreman a spin bowler with a wicked googly.
Anyway, I poll-watched in November and the poll judges were NOT folding the provisional ballots at that polling place. Had I know that was the policy, I would have mentioned it to the poll inspector.
Posted by: Crocker Jarman on May 24, 2005 03:48 PMAnd now, he feels it appropriate to suggest that the printers managed to mix up the numbering on the ballots? Forgive me for asking, but I didn't hear that come up at all in this case until he asked it.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 24, 2005 03:51 PMBut if you read between the lines, the softballs were laying a foundation that Heinekens was just stupid, but not fraudulent. It will take a stronger statement to prove "fraud". Incompetence, yes, but not fraud.
Posted by: swatter on May 24, 2005 03:51 PMIf nothing else, they're at least illegally bending their elbows.
Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 03:52 PMThats who I am waiting for.. Tomorrow may be a very bad day for the KC machine.
Posted by: Splatter on May 24, 2005 03:53 PMTomorrow is her day to tell the truth, whole-truth and nothing but the truth. Hopefully her memory is clear. Hopefully the R's will ask if she has in any way "coached" on how to answer questions (I doubt it, but....).
This woman and the other underlyings obviously lacked competent, responsive top management. Huennekens must have had some "wardrobe consultant" dress him today. Usually he is in a white short-sleeve dress shirt with his pocket protector and his fly at half-mast!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 24, 2005 04:00 PMthe re-direct should be good.
Posted by: scott158 on May 24, 2005 04:00 PMWill the re-direct be today?
Posted by: Erik on May 24, 2005 04:03 PMIt's the column headed "Mark I when ballot issued," which is just to the right of the bar code that is supposed to be scanned to "capture" the voter's identifying information.
Posted by: Micajah on May 24, 2005 04:15 PMCedar County.
Posted by: Editor on May 24, 2005 04:24 PMBut I can't tell you who or why.
Wow.
He should ask how many have been asked to not return from other elections...
Posted by: Andy on May 24, 2005 04:29 PMI sent him Stefan's definition of fraud from Black's Law Dictionary. We can trust an accurate definition of fraud from Ken like we can expect an accurate election in King County.
Posted by: Mike J on May 24, 2005 04:29 PMIt seemed to me that a lot of the "questioning" by the counsel for the defense was leading, if not outright speechifying. "Isn't it true that..." seemed to be the first words of every second or third sentence. Rather than actually asking questions, they are presenting statements and asking the witnesses to agree with them.
Why isn't the Plaintiff objecting?
Posted by: Patrick on May 24, 2005 04:33 PMMy client can't answer w/out exposing a blatant lie.
Posted by: Andy on May 24, 2005 04:33 PMExhibit 35, 36 and 37-110 are ...are well, uh... well proof of more blatant lies and cover ups.
Bridges:
I'm going to allow them :-D
Posted by: Andy on May 24, 2005 04:39 PMPosted by Mark D at May 24, 2005 04:32 PM
I believe the 'Cedar County' effort failed and it is now a 'Cascade County' effort.
Whatever name is chosen, I WANT OUT OF KING COUNTY!
Posted by: Cheryl on May 24, 2005 04:40 PMI make less and am held strictly accountable for my work. State/County job seems the way to go.
That said. I'd be pleading the fifth all over the place if I were Huennekens and finally being held to account for my "work" and I use that term loosly.
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on May 24, 2005 04:40 PMMark
Posted by: Mark D on May 24, 2005 04:43 PMBill just said something about things may not be as they appear to be. What?
Posted by: otto on May 24, 2005 04:59 PMAnd, THEN Hamilton DID object!!
What a pinhead.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 05:07 PMThat question was a classic! Love it...
I suspect the Dems will do anything to win... ANYTHING. After all, Socialism is the cure for that disease called capitalism. Modern liberals are nothing more than Socialists.
Cheers,
Tom
At the conservative blog Soundpolitics.com, one poster with the screen name "righton" fretted: "Unless he's a right-wing, Harley-riding ex-hippie I remain nervous about his politics."
Posted by: righton on May 24, 2005 06:13 PMI don't how ANY judge could let this election stand after the mess KC made of it.
Let's go even further and call for all laws signed by Gregoire the Fraudoire to be erased. They are no more valid than if I had signed them.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 24, 2005 06:16 PMLet's get one trial complete before muddying the water with corrective action! I'm sure that Rossi government will nudge the majority to tame down its activities in due time or face consequences of voter backlash...that is unless all Democrats are a stupid as the ones displayed today :)
Stef and all--thanks for reporting the highlights for those of us working day jobs.
The machines will count whatever is fed into them. The questions are: Were only valid ballots fed into them? Were the votes on the valid ballots counted only once?
This HAS to count for something with the judge. After all, he's seen it all. He knows when a witness is BSing the room.
Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 07:35 PMFrom the Polling Place Canvass Report:
Duvall Church
Inspector says he ran out of PB envelopes - so ran 26 ballots through accuvote - 4 other ballots have no identifying info other than
precinct names. Breakdown for 30 ballots (26 plus 4) given info from provisional ballot pages: 13 voters registered in KC at other
polling places (went to wrong poll site), 11 voters were at correct site (possible errors: they were in supplemental pages, voting
absentee or clerical error - e. g. wrong book), 5 non- registered, given info available, 1 illegible. Could not determine any clear info
for the 4 ballots w/ o identifying info from provisional pages, due to number of total provisionals (115 total).
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL NEW 41- 1115 1 pb put in AV by inspector
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL NEW 41- 3228 3 pb put in AV by inspector
HAZELWOOD SCHOOL NEW 41- 3261 1 pb put in AV by inspector
Hollyhills Mobile Estates BOT 01- 2676
1 pb put in AV by inspector
Is there another blog from the liberal perspective on the trial that I can follow to ensure I get all sides on this trial?
Posted by: who'dathunk! on May 24, 2005 08:56 PMThanks for the heads-up on soccer lingo; only heard it in context to domestic sports before. Nice analogy, whichever way you say it.
Posted by: the radish on May 24, 2005 09:16 PMLiberal, perspective, opposing view, all sides?
Those words don't go together. Good luck in your search.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 24, 2005 09:26 PMWe also loved to give Clifford a WEDGIE before Home Room!
Don't you feel the same way when you see Huennekens??
yessssssssssss!!! Thank you, Dino.
Posted by: Michele on May 24, 2005 10:12 PMAs for the testimony, it seems like Mr. Bill's selective amnesia when being asked questions by the Rossi attorneys was FAKE - a slick way of pleading the 5th amendment. Amazing how well he remembered the answers to questions lobbed at him by Hamilton - the Democrats attorney.
No surprise there- after all of the coverup by KCE, would you have really expected him to spill the beans readily ? Once the truth is exposed and pieced together, it will point to Ron Sims.
Posted by: KS on May 24, 2005 10:44 PMWell after Sunday- they've probably even stopped pretending to be balanced. It must be easier for them to not have to pretend to report accurately.
Posted by: Andy on May 24, 2005 11:20 PMDid he do this on purpose for *effect*?
(Bill - next time go 2" on top - you can go 1" on the sides...it'll look great! I promise..)
It bothers me that the Seattle Times uses the same law firm (Tremaine) that the Republicans are using for this contest!
There must be some conflict of interest here...