Back from lunch.
In order to show that Handy didn't know what he was talking about when he said that crediting doesn't need to be done prior to certifcation. Foreman reads to Handy from WAC 434-240-250
The special ballot shall be securely retained until all absentee ballots have been received and credited. If the voter did not return his absentee ballot, the special ballot shall be processed as a valid ballot. If the voter has returned an absentee ballot, the ballot shall not be counted and should then be referred to the canvassing board for their disposition.Handy talks out of his hat to somehow say that this WAC does not require crediting prior to certification.
Foreman has now approached the witness.
Handy now (sort of) admits (reluctantly) that absentee voters have to be credited prior to certification it was only poll voters that don't have to be credited prior to certification that he was referring to.
Handy now clarifies that crediting of absentee and provisionals is done prior to certification. Now agrees that absentee ballots do need to be credited prior to certification by law and they are.
Durkan objects to a document that came from King County on the grounds that she's never seen it even though it was referenced as an exhibit in Fell's deposition.
[TVW feed is flakey. Try the NWCN feed ]
Foreman shows Handy slides used by SoS for training county election officials. One slide brings up WAC 434-240-270 - requirement for Absentee Ballot Audit Trail. Other slides emphasize requirements to reconcile and investigate discrepancies before certification.
Foreman: If Nicole Way and Garth Fell had not falsified that report, should the KC canvassing board have certified the KC election results?
Foreman: Do you as the Director of Elections for expect the canvassing boards
Handy: If you knew that the KC canvassing board had used an accurate number, would you have expected that to be a valid certification?
[hedges --] If anybody in the election community knew that an incorrect number had been reported there would have been a desire to either correct the number or explain
Handy: now trying to explain his January 28 memo when he wanted to discredit Republican claims. "They were claims and allegations that didn't have a base" Felt that the allegations about crediting were not based in fact, were spin control to undermine confidence in the election. "There were inadvertent mistakes, but not intentional misconduct with exception of one example of Garth Fell and Nicole Way" "Our office had a responsibility to get out information to the public that I felt was more accurate. "
Handy: "wanted to get accurate information out about voter crediting process. Was concerned about the fact that voters credited didn't match number of votes was 'getting traction'..." formulated talking points with Dean Logan, Bob Terwilliger, Karen Flynn other election officials. Came to consensus what major points were. Sent it to that group of auditors. Sent points to all 39 auditors as suggested talking points. Handy admits was "catalyst". Wanted to turn around "PR campaign [about crediting]". Felt it was "undermining public confidence in elections"
[ it wasn't a "PR campaign" telling the public the truth about crediting. It was this blog!]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 31, 2005 01:21 PM | Email ThisWell, that's encouraging! I'd hate to see the guy get into an argument with himself. Between that and his voluntarily objecting for Durkan, we wouldn't need lawyers in the trial with witnesses like this.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 01:24 PMAnd the Dems say Reps are just spinning the law. Can anyone say hypocrite?
Posted by: Shannon C on May 31, 2005 01:29 PMAll these Dems are trying to say that due to the volume King County deals with, the mistakes and errors, etc. are understandable/acceptable.
I think it would be interesting to compare the budget for the elections department between King County and Chelan County.
Also Handy saying the 129 poll votes could be attributed to people putting a legal ballot in the ballot box without having signed the poll book. How would that be possible when the poll worker is to tear the stub off the ballot and hand it to the voter AFTER the voter signs the poll book? Only way I can see that happening is if they arrived at the poll with ballot in hand.
Posted by: Hanna on May 31, 2005 01:31 PMThere is a feed on NWCN that has just been posted by Stefan on the Sound Politics Home page just above the comments link for this thread.
Posted by: Mark D on May 31, 2005 01:41 PM"Would you certify an election if you got a falsified number?"
You're right. He keeps on saying, "I feel that..." "I felt that..." "My feeling was..."
Posted by: Editor on May 31, 2005 01:52 PMMaybe is right. And I thought he was supposed to be non-partisan.
And an emty suit at that.
Posted by: rolling eyes on May 31, 2005 01:54 PMNevermind that can't be... he said he was neutral.
Posted by: Joe on May 31, 2005 01:55 PMMay not be as stupid as you think. As long as he qualifies everything like that, nothing he says can be purjury.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 01:55 PMHe was worried that voters credited did not match the number of votes was getting "traction" as an issue with the public.
Got all his buddies on the line in a conference call, and they all agreed their approach to trying to convince people that voters credited was not an issue. This call created the "talking points."
Then sent it out to all 39 auditors.
He was worried that public confidence in the election was being "eroded."
Wel YEeeeesssss, YOU KNUCKLEHEAD!! It was being eroded because nobody could trust the numbers from KC; even Handy himself admits that he can't tell you what the numbers are from KC.
Why? Because of the voter crediting issue! Votes don't equal voters credited with voting.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 01:57 PMIf you feel the election was accurate, it must be.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 01:59 PMIt's actually about both. There is a trial in a court of law, and then there is the PR battle. It's important to win the first, but essential to win the second. Heads up.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 02:03 PMDidn't Handy just read the WAC word for word that requires reconciliation of all ballots, including absentee?
Posted by: who'dathunk? on May 31, 2005 02:05 PMHummm Hummm. I'm getting something... It's getting clearer now... Yes, I see it! He feels that he must save his job at all costs! And regardless of the truth!
Like I said before. He's an emty suit. A very highly paid one.
Posted by: rolling eyes on May 31, 2005 02:05 PMYOU should be the director of elections -- or Micajah!
Posted by: sgmmac on May 31, 2005 02:05 PMIf it turned out most of them were Rossi votes that would be compelling evidence that someone hid them so they wouldnt be tallied in the election.
Posted by: Frank on May 31, 2005 02:06 PMI sure you will "feel" the same way after Judge Bridges sets aside the election--"sore losers who have no case."
Posted by: Shannon C on May 31, 2005 02:09 PMThe nation is barely watching....... It's been on Fox News...... The mainstream media in Washington State are NOT even adequately covering it. It will be much harder for this to ever happen again in this state!
The bloggers will ensure it!
Posted by: sgmmac on May 31, 2005 02:09 PMIs this real?
Posted by: who'dathunk? on May 31, 2005 02:10 PMHe must be starving for attention otherwise he wouldn't be here!
Posted by: sgmmac on May 31, 2005 02:11 PMIf they are votes in proportion to the way KC voted, fine, that is good evidence against fraud.
If they are more for Rossi - that is a smoking gun!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 02:12 PMWhy weren't they opened? And, are they going to be?
Posted by: cw on May 31, 2005 02:18 PMSo, these neutral parties called the SoS were in cohoots with the Ds in King County. And it was the SoS that said for the Rossi counties that they couldn't count the votes the same way King County did because they had certified already. They couldn't uncertify per memos sent to these counties.
Wow!! Just Wow!!!
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2005 02:18 PMI don't have a clue Michele, but it sure would be interesting to try!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 02:21 PMSeems we (tax payers) pay him good money to do his job, don't we?
HANDY SHOULD BE RUN OUT OF THE STATE ON A RAIL. STAY IN BOSTON A$$H***!
Posted by: Splatter on May 31, 2005 02:21 PMHe knows he has given up the game ...
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 02:24 PMI am appalled that he is constantly more concerned about public perception, and making sure no one thinks there are any problems with our elections, than about seeing if there are any problems with our elections!
Perhaps he thinks the responsibility to supervise an election means managing the PR of the election process, selling everyone on the idea that the whole thing was done legally and properly, regardless of whether it was or not?
He certainly doesn's seem to give any thought to actually supervising the election to make sure procedures are followed, votes are legal, counts are accurate, or the candidate who received the most legal votes wins.
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 31, 2005 02:25 PMIf that is how they see themselves - a community - They are hopeless. They are employees of the public with duties to perform - not a "community".
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 02:28 PMWay to go, Stefan!
Posted by: JRR on May 31, 2005 02:30 PM"You can ask a felon, but there is no telling what answer she will give."
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 02:38 PMand now on to allowing "circumstantial evidence" on the felons!
Posted by: Victor on May 31, 2005 02:38 PMHowever now that he is being questioned by Jenny Durkan for the D's, she is asking him very specific questions about specific numbers of ballots and he is rattling off "yes" answers without any long winded and meandering answers that he was giving the R's lawyer.
And we pay this guy's salary!
Posted by: Jason on May 31, 2005 02:39 PMIsn't it interesting that all these breaks happen just as we're getting to the meat of the questioning?
Posted by: Victor on May 31, 2005 02:40 PMWhat's that all about?
Posted by: Victor on May 31, 2005 02:42 PMMaybe it's all of the above....... but I'd rather focus on the election facts that someone's sexual preference.
Posted by: sgmmac on May 31, 2005 02:46 PMIsn't that disgusting? Its kind of like paying to be robbed!
Posted by: Splatter on May 31, 2005 02:48 PMMore like paying for the bullet that they shoot you with.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 02:49 PMI remember in the 70s when I was an expert witness and compare it to just last year. It was a metamorphosis. Durkan's cross is similar to my recent experience.
Posted by: swatter on May 31, 2005 02:50 PMIt's easy when Handy is a dummy.
Posted by: Dogbert on May 31, 2005 02:51 PMMark
Posted by: Mark D on May 31, 2005 02:52 PMAbso-freaking-lutely. That's the way Dems like it. That's what they have turned marriage into, in fact.
As for Handy's sexuality, I didn't see anyone comment on that, but I will say that it would be entirely consistent with the Dem crew from KC for him to be all of those things at the same time and celebrated for that to boot!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 02:53 PMBecause it's more fun to watch the Dems commit slow suicide.
Posted by: Editor on May 31, 2005 02:55 PMElection = Bridge
Blindly protecting his baby.
Posted by: MB on May 31, 2005 02:59 PMFraud.
BTW, I live in Clark county, and my County Auditor, Greg Kimsey testified on Friday. I suppose he was very concerned about his future in politics, because he seemed to have difficulty answering basic questions, at least if Republicans asked them. If memory serves me, he seemed to have trouble explaining why his office keeps track of how many ballots they receive. And those notes he brought with him, that perfectly matched the questions the Dems asked, but contained no numbers the Republicans asked about: sure no one helped him put that together.
Posted by: California Dreamer on May 31, 2005 03:03 PMWhat I keep wondering is: who represents the citizens in these proceedings?
I'm neither a Dem or a Rep (although I have not voted for a Dem for 15 years), but I would like to have clean elections run by people that are competent.
All the freaking election officials care about is protecting their bridge, not the quality and reliability of the vote.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on May 31, 2005 03:10 PMSadly KingCo and other incompetents set the bar incredibly low...then try to circle the wagons using Logan, Handy, Sims, Huennekens, Terwilliger, Mattingly and others to develop taling points and suck other Auditors into STICKING TOGETHER to protest the image of the "ELECTION COMMUNITY".
Sadly, a number of other Auditors checked their integrity and courage at the door...as did Handy.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 31, 2005 03:11 PMI was thinking the same thing during his testimony.
Handy stressed that the Secretary of State's office had virtually NO power to enforce or investigate election certifications from the various county auditors...He was emphatic - that the SoS's job was merely to receive the certifications and send them on to the Legislature - giving the impression that his department was nothing more than a benign and neutral clearinghouse for county certifications!
And he sounded pretty convincing up 'til Foreman pulled the memo out..... That memo completely shattered Handy's benign and neutral depiction of the SoS office's elections position!
He obviously had strong opposition to the Republicans case - and he obviously was worried that the *court* would side with the Republicans.
In his back-peddle, Handy tried to convince the court that it was the *Public's* perception that he was concerned about when he wrote that memo - but I don't recall seeing where he addressed *public* perception in that memo.....only the *confidence of the Court*!
"If we can successfully demonstrate that this is an unfounded claim, I would hope that this would severely undermine the confidence of the court in the other R claims."
Director of Elections? Secretary of State's office? Collusion? Conspiracy? Malfeasance?
Definitely a “home run” by Mr. Foreman in his cross examination of Mr. Handy. I’m certain Judge Bridges was VERY impressed with Mr. Handy’s words in the email memo.
Looking foreword to the cross examination of Mr. Logan and what additional surprises that may bring.
Posted by: GMT on June 1, 2005 06:19 AM