Nicole Way's demeanor has definitely changed for Jenny Durkan's cross-examination.
A moment ago Durkan pointed out mistakes in the batchslip spreadsheet. The apparent subtext: the existence of mistakes in King County's recordkeeping should excuse them from correcting their mistakes in counting ballots.
Way: "It's important to have an open process that people can have faith in" (smiles)
Durkan scores an own goal trying to defend the Mail Ballot Report: You prepared similar reports in earlier elections?
Way: yes
Durkan: And you used the same calculations in earlier general elections?
Way: not exactly [see above for her longer answer in later testimony]
--
Durkan keeps harping on the fact that ballots from Address Confidentiality Program voters and federal write-in voters (who aren't credited) would create a discrepancy between ballots and credited voters. What's the point? The discrepancy of 875 alleged by the Republicans is calculated net of these categories of voters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 25, 2005 11:50 AM | Email ThisShe actually chuckled a little after she said as well.
I'm not sure if that was becuase the very thought of having faith in the system is so ironic, or because the joke really is on us.
Posted by: Jason on May 25, 2005 11:54 AMNot five minutes later, an answer of "I guess so..."
Yeah, I have faith.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 25, 2005 11:55 AMWay: [laughs even more than the 'open, fair' statement]...obviously not [laughs again]
That's a nice little exchange there...
Posted by: Scott on May 25, 2005 11:57 AMA: Yes
(ROTFLMAO)
Posted by: MIMike on May 25, 2005 11:59 AMA: Yes
SECURITY?!?!
Posted by: VaCSProf on May 25, 2005 12:02 PMDurkan has a sense of humor. Who knew?
Anyone know if Durkan is progeny of Martin Durkan, or otherwise connected?
Sounds like Way's coffee kicked in about the time Durkan started up. Interesting timing.
Posted by: scott158 on May 25, 2005 12:06 PM"Wanda, Wanda is my..."
Sorry, but this gives me visual that is a hoot.
I can just imagine Sims, Dean, and Bill done up in glitter with magic wands.
Ok. I'll be good now.
Posted by: scott158 on May 25, 2005 12:12 PMLordy, you are old. Back from the days of Brakeman Bill, Captain Puget, (and of course JP).....
Posted by: Dogbert on May 25, 2005 12:19 PMShe began her cross-examination of Way in a very harsh and grating tone..but began to soften it when she saw it wasn't having the intimidating effect she was trying for....
Durkan is almost sounding desperate now....not knowing how Nicole Way will answer her *spin* questions....
Posted by: Deborah on May 25, 2005 12:22 PM
There is no faith. There is no legitimacy. How imperiously self-centered for them to think we don't see the cynicism. The very core of our Democracy is dying in this State and they act as if this is a mere inconvenience.
Perhaps 10,000 voters in down town Seattle carrying brooms to sweep these snobs out of office will wipe the smirks off their faces?
a- trying to save face for KC elections by saying accuracy is too high of a bar for civil servants.
OR
b- prove that the discrepencies aren't as large as elephant says.
They seem to be all over the board in their defense. "It's impossible to be accurate" and "It really is accurate because the battered wives identities are secret"
Posted by: Andy on May 25, 2005 12:42 PMI suppose we would all love to see Nicole or Garth or Huennekens hurl themselves on the floor screaming "I DID IT"..."I STUFFED THOSE GREGOIRE PRECINDT BALLOTBOXES AND UNSTUFFED THE ROSSI ONES"
"I'M GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Of course that's not going to happen because I doubt if any of those witnesses did that themselves.
The point however is that SOMEBODY DID!
When you cut thru to the chase...these reconciliation documents are quite damning.
Much of the credit needs to go to Stefan. Frankly, I believe his persistent questioning early on caused KingCo Officials to try to explain things away. In doing so, they created or altered documents that created even more questions.
Kind of like KingCo Officials saw a loose thread or 2 on their sweater and began pulling on it to try to make it go away. After a few months of pulling, these officials find themselves standing NAKED in front of the whole world trying to explain the unexplainable.
THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 25, 2005 12:49 PM"You used the same formula in previous general elections, isn't that right?" Durkan asked.
Way: "Not exactly."
Durkan said they'd talk later about those differences. But her point was to try and show that the report is not an essential part of the post-election reconciliation of ballots, and that's where her questions focused.
If the GOP lawyers understand the significance of the canvassing board's role in certifying results that others rely on to issue certificates of election, surely Durkan would be making a mistake by arguing that the board need not be told the information needed to determine whether only valid ballots have been tabulated and tabulated only once. There's no other way to know if the reported vote total is apparently a "full, true, and correct representation of the votes cast."
If Postman got it right, then the GOP lawyers ought to be able to land a hard right cross over the top of that weak left jab.
Posted by: Micajah on May 25, 2005 12:58 PMThis combined with the relentless effort by the Democratic Party to inculcate a sense of entitlement among their followers guaranteed that there would be a cushion for their candidates and causes in every election.
What they didn’t count on is that for once the State Republican Party is not acting like a bunch of cowards.
]
As far as Ms Way and her ilk are concerned, I could care less what happens to her.
What will make every dollar I have sent to the Republican Party for this effort worth while is if the Republican Lawyers are able to make the connections to the upper echelons of the KC Democrat Machine.
Posted by: JDH on May 25, 2005 01:04 PMCase in point: How else can you explain adding up the "ballots accepted" and "ballots rejected" and putting the total under "ballots received" when they knew full well that they had NO IDEA how many ballots they had actually received and whether they were all accounted for? (And no, there is no question that the "ballots received" number is supposed to be the result of a separate tally and is to serve as a "check and balance" - a favorite phrase of Democrats lately - to catch any discrepencies in the other two numbers.)
Posted by: Patrick on May 25, 2005 01:10 PMThe "they" goes far beyond KC elections, or even KC government. This is policy of the national DNC. "Count every vote" is so disingenious and cynical and transparent.
And why are the prosecutors not going after those who did vote illegally? Too busy going after people without their seatbelts....
Posted by: Dogbert on May 25, 2005 01:21 PMOf course when I think of the trolls like Headless Lucy I wonder if they're capable of even such simple fraud. Maybe that's why sandals are so popular... it allows them to count higher!
An aside to Headless Lucy... this isn't an initative... you can have more than one item being alleged in court. Just like at election time you can have more than one issue/canidate on the ballot.
BTW... who cast a ballot in your name????
Posted by: Victor on May 25, 2005 02:24 PMAccording to the definition of fraud the falsified ballot reports are fraudulent. See, HL can't stand it when people are right. Must really s*ck in classes where they grade on a curve HL. If your wrogn then your at the wrong end of the curve. Take away the curve and you "feel" better. Typical democrat solution.
Posted by: Mark Beyer on May 25, 2005 03:01 PMYou guys game to stuff away next election? We go register w/ the bums and vote a few extra times. Take pictures w/ our faces blurred out, and send them to the authorities to prove how easy it is to cheat.
The key here is to vote extra for candidates that shouldn't get more than 10 votes on a normal day. This way you don't ruin the election results by voting for 'the real candidates'. This should keep your integrity in place and your reputation unsullied. Plus you can show the results (which will stick out as a true unexplainable abberation) as proof of the effect.
Posted by: Troll on May 25, 2005 04:45 PM