Trial starts at 9am. Dean Logan will be the star witness today.
Saved by the bell at 10:50!
I'll have to miss the first few minutes. Keep us posted in the comments!
--
I'm back - 9:34. To answer a question in the comments, Dean Logan is from Kitsap.
Logan: "We made more specific the procedures that were used for provisional ballots!"
* "We issued more than 640,000 absentee ballots... the number that came back was in the range of 570,000..." [ of course he doesn't know the exact number!]
Hamilton: there are partisan observers in every stage of the process?
Logan: yes
[go back and see this post, where various people who worked at MBOS absentee ballot facility told me the observers were not allowed to observe to the same extent they had in previous elections]
Hamilton: what would have happened if you had to hold off processing the provisional ballots until all the absentee ballots were returned? [subtext: the law for processing provisional ballots wasn't convenient for you to follow, so it was okay to break the law, right?]
Logan: yes
Hamilton: so how did you prevent double voting?
Logan: [I paraphrase] voters are credited
Logan: we believe there were additional provisionals ballots fed through the Accuvote beyond the 348. But we don't have a specific number. [and they never will. and that's the whole point!]
Hamilton: of the 348 provisional ballots how many were cast by eligible voters?
Logan: 252...
Hamilton: do you have reason to believe Gregoire and her campaign or Rossi and his campaign had anything to do with any of these irregularities?
Logan: no.
[but so what?]
--
Maguire's cross-examination. Logan looks worried.
Maguire (quoting Logan's earlier statements): "Part of the culture of problems is a general lack of taking responsibility for problems"
Part of the culture of problems lower level of accountability than you would expect?
You were aware of this before you took the job?
...
Maguire: The information that was given to the canvassing board is not what it should have been?
Logan: Correct
Maguire: and you had staff correct it after the fact because you didn't know about it at time of certification?
Logan: Correct
Logan: The system should have enabled staff to get all the necessary information for Mail Ballot Report [then why is he still unable to come up with the correct number of ballots returned?] Was not told about how Mail Ballot Report was created prior to certification
Logan: canvassing board decided not to count 20 absentee ballots found in base units at end of manual recount, but decided to count 2 provisionals because they determined they had been properly cast.
Logan: has concerns about absentee ballot procedures, quality assurance, accuracy.
Maguire: it's important to be accurate in managing an election?
Logan: yes.
Maguire: you also had concerns about completeness of reports and statistics in absentee process?
Logan: yes
--
Maguire: you weren't aware of the number of provisonal ballots that had been counted without first being verified until after certification. Isn't that right?
Logan: the specific number, no.
Maguire: was King County aware or anybody on your staff aware, prior to certification of the initial count that provisional ballots had been counted without first being verified?
Logan: of the specific number?
Maguire: yes
Logan: not that I'm aware of
Maguire: you were aware that it had happened though?
Logan: correct
Maguire: people on the canvassing crew knew that, right
Logan: correct
Maguire: Did Mr. Huennekens report to you that there had been a significant number of provisional ballots cast directly into the Accuvote machines?
Logan: I was certainly aware, I was aware that that was an issue that had been identified during the canvassing period, yes.
Maguire: you were aware prior to certification of that issue?
Logan: yes
Maguire: Mr. Huennekens told you?
Logan: yes
Maguire: but you didn't know the number?
Logan: no
[And he certified the election without trying to determine and disclose to the public the magnitude of issue]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 01, 2005 08:54 AM | Email This"When is a smoking gun not a smoking gun?"
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 09:00 AM(felix, its kitsap county for deano. Don't waste time looking up his college records; never went)
Posted by: righton on June 1, 2005 09:09 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 1, 2005 09:10 AMLogan: (pauses to chuckle)...
I wonder what he was thinking? "Because I got a huge raise?" "Because Ron Sims needed a goon."
Oh, he just admitted Ron Sims "wanted" him.
Posted by: Editor on June 1, 2005 09:12 AM"Who's idea was it to bring in the new system?"
Logan: 3 different "bodies"... citizen group, etc., etc.
Basically the same answer as Way: "NOT MINE."
Logan babbles about WHY they did it, not WHO's idea it was...
Posted by: Editor on June 1, 2005 09:23 AMIs this all the defense the Dems can put up. A totally discredited political hack Director of Elections who just oversaw at best the most poorly run election that I can recall in my 61 years. At less than best, he facilitated election fraud.
I don't know if it is pertainent to the trial but I sure would love to have Deano explain why since he became KC Director of Elections all of the KC elections have counted HUGE numbers of voterless ballots.
Posted by: JC Bob on June 1, 2005 09:26 AMLogan is probably using the confidentiality program that was created for so-called domestic violence programs. That would be fitting, because he presents himself as a victim.
Either that, or he is truly progressive and he uses his wife's name for those sorts of things, and only uses his name for the public.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 1, 2005 09:37 AMWe can't address the inaccuracy and fraud- so we'll change the subject.
Posted by: Andy on June 1, 2005 09:37 AMYou see Foreman is never under oath. He can blabber his falseshoods until the cows come home. Under oath, the truth comes out -- the slimy republican PR campaign is laid bare for all to see.
The fear tactics the republicans have used are not only despicable but dangerous. It's once again "we're right...get out of our way at all costs."
We all know where that leads...
Posted by: tom friedlander on June 1, 2005 09:42 AMthe word for the day..."complexity"...
how simply marvelous...burger flipper election workers, aided by a more powerful computer, loose track of history-making numbers of details...
they're going into all manner of detail...taking the court through the underbrush, intending to lose sight of the fact that the managers of KCEs did not provide mechanisms for properly tracking election details as required by law.
garbage in, garbage out. their design model was flawed, and no matter how much training, they'd never produce the requisite reports.
this is like hosting a sailing regatta, but failing to provide a destination...the boats circle around the harbor, and later the observers only want to talk about the confusion and collisions, not the lack of leadership.
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 09:42 AMBill, sorry, that was a feeble attempt at sarcasm.
jeeze...how tough can it be...process them as they come in...
hope the reps jump on this with both feet.
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 09:57 AMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on June 1, 2005 10:02 AMCan't wait for the fun to begin!
Posted by: Randy on June 1, 2005 10:03 AM"aaahhhh .... "
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 1, 2005 10:04 AMAttorney to Dean: "So, overall, do you think you earned your salary and did your very best as a competent fiduciary working for the voting citizens?"
Logan: (hands on ears shouting)"La la la...I can't hear you! Your'e hurting my feelings!"
Narrator: This like the cross-exam (in the movie) 'My Cousin Vinny.'..."I'm done with THIS one!"
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 1, 2005 10:04 AM
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on June 1, 2005 10:12 AMMy inner court observor keeps waiting for the zinger to which he says yes when he would have much rather said no.
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 10:14 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 1, 2005 10:20 AMWhy do these unbiased election officials look to one side or the other for support? Aren't they all supposed to be neutral? Let the chips fall where they may, so to speak?
Why did King County election officials get put in the position of defending the Democrats rather than the process?
As a hick, I smell FRAUD with capital letters (unlike Kirby who spells fraud with small letters).
Posted by: swatter on June 1, 2005 10:20 AMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on June 1, 2005 10:26 AMThe KCEs people generally are dem operatives who have access at ground zero. A form of shock troops, if you will. The grunts that do the nasty business of stealing elections piece by piece.
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 10:26 AMPudster
Posted by: Puddybud on June 1, 2005 10:29 AMIt's like the elephant in the room, but no reporters either print or TV can see it.
Posted by: I believe in Fraud on June 1, 2005 10:36 AMCall me old fashion, I like going to the polls to vote. I would say Oregon has it together for their all mail in voting. Right now, I don't trust Washington--they haven't proved it to me that the election officials could even handle an all mail in vote accurately. According to Logan, he doesn't even trust it to be accurate!
Posted by: Shannon C on June 1, 2005 10:38 AMThis seems pretty fundamental- the language of this country is English and only English- if you can't speak it, you are in the same boat as someone who can't read the ballot.
Pudster
The system works smoothly for the majority.
Posted by: who'dathunk on June 1, 2005 10:50 AMI agree. But what happens when you lose your mail in ballot? Do you not get to vote? Is there a provisional ballot? How does Oregon handle it? I understand having different ways to allow all those who want to vote are able to vote. I agree, there needs to be tighter controls. That is what we were hoping the legisture would do, but they failed us miserably.
In Washington's and KC's case it would be moving the disenfranchising of one set of voters to another. Case in point, KC got the new computer system otherwise, according to Logan's testimony, absentee voters would be disenfranchised by not receiving absentee ballots in the mail. On the other hand, they have disenfranchised voters because they don't know how many absentee ballots were sent out and returned, military voters received their ballots late and couldn't vote, and unverified provisional ballots went through the accuvote, illegal votes were cast and not corrected. It would be trading one sin for another.
Posted by: Shannon C on June 1, 2005 10:51 AMWhy doesn't the GOP lawyer ask Logan whether any attempt was made to identify improperly cast provisional ballots by the creases resulting from folding them?
Why doesn't the GOP lawyer ask Logan why it would be necessary to create duplicates of color-coded provisional ballots in order to count the votes on them?
When Logan gives an illogical answer, there ought to be a follow-up to either highlight or clarify the illogical answer. While a cross-examiner wouldn't desire to let a witness clarify if it hurts his case, there is no apparent clarification that would hurt.
All improperly cast provisional ballots ought to be removed from the vote count. It doesn't matter whether ballots A, B and C can be matched to voters D, E and F. All must be removed.
Why was no effort made to remove them?
Note that the Provisional Ballot Summary Report contained false numbers -- hiding the fact that 900+ provisional ballots which had been issued had not been returned in signed, sealed envelopes. Had the canvassing board been presented with a correct report, they probably would have noticed and asked whether those 900+ went into the Accuvote machines. The answer from Linda Sanchez's canvassing crew's work would have been "yes."
Have the GOP lawyers not realized this?
Posted by: Micajah on June 1, 2005 10:52 AMHe's doing that really, really well, isn't he?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 10:56 AMMy thought exactly. I keep wondering if, in the relaxed standards of Oly, Logan can claim a loss time injury through L&I for sweatin' in the witness box.
I have come to believe that one of the practical definitions of "bureaucrat" is "one who manages people/programs without being held personally accountable."
Posted by: scott158 on June 1, 2005 11:03 AMAs I am normally a fan of your posts, sorry to disagree with you (and even sorrier to agree with Dean Logan), but one issue that keeps coming up is "Why not colored ballots for provisionals?", or the question's step-sister: "Why not a different size provisional ballot?"
Logan's answer is accurate: All ballots printed on colored paper (or in a different size format) from the official ballot would necessarily have to be duplicated onto regular white official ballots to be tabulated through the Accu-Vote devices. The devices cannot read colored ballots, and the problem with wrong size ballots is obvious.
There is also a massive expense issue, as colored ballots would have to be printed for every one of King County's 2600+ precincts, and in both English and Chinese. The additional cost would literally be in the hundred thousand dollar range.
The provisional ballots-through-the-AccuVote problem is one area that is substantially more complicated than it has been made out to be by pretty much everyone.
My opinion is that Logan's fatal, unforgivable errors with the provisionals were:
1. Failing to have enough supplies at the polling places (The supply level was actually substantially reduced from 2000 levels).
2. Failing to substantially emphasize the importance of marking a corner of the ballot with highlighter and creasing it lengthwise by the pollworkers before issuance (addresses the same problem as color-coded ballots without the processing issues.) and,
3. FAILING TO DISCLOSE the extent of the problems and the number that were shoved through the machines.
The bottom line is that almost all of the critical flaws with the King County operations were failures to disclose problems and attempts to cover them up after the fact.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 1, 2005 11:06 AMI think that you mean "The system works smoothly in the minds of the majority of KC residents."
King counties problem. Not a valid excuse for allowing fraud.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 11:17 AMFederal law requires ballots in other languages when there are "more than 10,000 or over 5 percent of the total voting age citizens in a single political subdivision..." (in this case, King County) ..."who are members of a single minority language group, have depressed literacy rates, and do not speak English very well" (Section 203 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act).
Posted by: the radish on June 1, 2005 11:18 AMWould an alternative be to print ballots with either a bright colored top or side strip that can be easily spotted but would not interfere with the section of the ballot used to record votes?
and...There is also a massive expense issue, as colored ballots would have to be printed for every one of King County's 2600+ precincts, and in both English and Chinese. The additional cost would literally be in the hundred thousand dollar range.
I would think that a print order to include a certain number of ballots to be printed on one type of paper and a smaller set on a differnt kind of paper should not be that much more expensive. It would be cheaper than the cost of this year's battle in court. I would think ;)
So Marc, I'll have to think about that.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 11:36 AMI live in Oregon also, and one flaw you failed to point out is that vote-by-mail, although a state-wide mandate, is implemented by each county. The counties do not share data on who votes, so there is no way to know if one person votes twice in 2 different counties. There have been reports of people getting 2 ballots mailed to them. For example a student gets a ballot mailed to his parent's house in Portland, where he is registered in Multnomah county and also one at his apartment in Corvalis where he is registed in Benton county. So with 2 ballots sent to 2 counties that don't compare notes ... pretty easy to vote twice without getting caught.
I just called Clackamas county to find out if I move to a new county and register, how they know that I am no longer registered to vote in Clackamas county. She said they will know because the ballot mailed to my previous address will be returned as undeliverable. That sounds really bullet-proof against fraud.
Posted by: BW on June 1, 2005 11:37 AMSince when does this describe the Chinese in KC??
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 11:39 AMIs Linda Sanchez set to testify? What about Carlos Webb?
I think every KC worker on "paid administrative leave" should be put on the stand. They have less to loose from telling the truth.
Posted by: Splatter on June 1, 2005 11:43 AMYou know more than I, so I accept that a ballot printed on colored paper cannot be read by the Accuvote machine. (The amended statute will require it in the future anyway, or in the alternative it will require that the ballots cannot be counted by the Accuvote machine at polling places.)
How many of the 28,010 provisional ballots King County supposedly sent through vote tabulation had to be duplicated onto ballots for the precincts in which the provisional ballot voters were actually registered?
Is it really a huge task to duplicate the few others that were cast on ballots from the correct precinct? Isn't that the only extra work that would be required by ballots printed on colored paper -- to duplicate the few that had been cast using the correct precinct ballot?
As for the creasing, you seem to assume that few were folded as instructed. My point is that King County didn't even go look for the ones that were creased so they could be removed.
It seems to me either way is good as long as there are good controls in place (which aren't in KC). My preference just happens to be poll voting.
It is like having a car stolen. If someone really wants to steal the car, they will. However, you can make it harder for them.
A thief will more likely steal a car with the door unlocked and the keys in the car than one with an active alarm system. That thief is an opportunist. KC let the opportunist commit fraud during the election.
An ambitious (sp?) thief will steal the car with the alarm system to get the car he wants with a higher risk of getting caught. If KC were diligent in their controls R's would be able to prove fraud with a perponderence (sp?) of evidence because only the ambitious wanting a certain candidate in office would commit the fraud with the higher risk of getting caught.
Posted by: Shannon C on June 1, 2005 11:46 AM
And the cost to the taxpayers of WA having her Highness erroneously installed as Governor has been HOW much?
Also I would prefer to have a law to check for photo IDs at the time of the vote itself; this is just not possible with mail ballots.
A mail ballot could be sold to another person who could then vote instead of you. (I have a libertarian streak, but that seems a bit much to me.)
I'm amazed that this is happening in our country.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 11:53 AMWell said. Agreed. If only there was a law requiring photo id. Do you think Dems purposely left this out during the election reform legislation so they have a greater chance of getting the all mail in ballot they want?
Posted by: Shannon C on June 1, 2005 11:57 AMAre other election workers on "administrative leave" (like Way) set to testify? I want to hear from Webb, Sanchez and the Moore girls.
Dogbert: If a state will not protect voters' rights, the Feds could do so. There's precedence for this (think Georgia, 1960s).
Posted by: Bostonian on June 1, 2005 12:09 PMThe amended statute will require it in the future anyway, or in the alternative it will require that the ballots cannot be counted by the Accuvote machine at polling places.
True. That's why I specifically addressed the oft-raised "different color" or "different size" questions. Not to sound like a panelist on the McLaughlin Group, but the answer is that different cards (ballot styles) need to be built for provisionnals, absentees, and polls. If none other than the poll card are programmed onto the pollsite memory card, then the provisional would be uncountable at the polls. This is easily done in the GEMS database, and indeed, must be done for primary elections in which the candidates must be rotated on the ballot on the poll ballots, but in which absentee ballots are printed in base rotation.
How many of the 28,010 provisional ballots King County supposedly sent through vote tabulation had to be duplicated onto ballots for the precincts in which the provisional ballot voters were actually registered?
I would have to look at the provisional ballot report (assuming, *cough*, that the last one issued was actually accurate), but for most elections the majority of provisionals issued are replacements for lost, damaged, mis-voted, or missing absentee ballots, and are cast in the voter's home precinct. In this case, the provisional ballot does not need to be duplicated as the precinct is correct.
Certainly, some provisionals must be duplicated to correct precincts, and that is inescapeable. However, the fewer ballots duplicated reduces the amount of accidental or purposeful manipulation of the ballot that can occur in the duplication process. I am a fan of using the voter's original ballot whenever feasible, because of the security and election integrity benefits.
Is it really a huge task to duplicate the few others that were cast on ballots from the correct precinct? Isn't that the only extra work that would be required by ballots printed on colored paper -- to duplicate the few that had been cast using the correct precinct ballot?
It's actually not a few, it's tens of thousands to be done in about a three-day window, as that is the time frame within canvass that it must occur. And my concerns about the potential for manipulation in the duplication process are also relevant here.
As for the creasing, you seem to assume that few were folded as instructed. My point is that King County didn't even go look for the ones that were creased so they could be removed.
I only meant to address the oft-raised "color" and "size" issues. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the ballots in problematic precincts found during canvass should have been pulled, and had the creased provisionals removed. No argument at all there.
The whole poll canvass was an unmitigated mess, as Bill Huennekens came in and changed a number of procedures, based upon his extensive practical hands-on experience (11 months in Mason County, population: eight), and repeatedly overrode the advice of seasoned staff such as Linda Sanchez.
I may have just not been paying enough attention, but has anyone investigated the registration addresses of the voters casting the 252 provisionals through the accuvotes. Specifically, are the addresses of any of them questionable, that is, storage lockers, mail box drops, etc?
Posted by: MIMike on June 1, 2005 12:16 PMIf you haven't been following this, the US attorney, John Makay, has been using every excuse in the book for not pursuing this (while going after the mayor of Spokane, in what clearly is a local matter). Either he's waiting for the trial to finish, or he's going to need a swift kick in the @$$ from Gonzales.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 12:22 PMI'm holding out some hope that pressure will come to bear on Gonzales, and that he will make Makay do his job, or find someone who will. Clearly, there isn't a whole lot of pressure from the administration at this point, unless they are waiting to see what comes up in this trial.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 1, 2005 12:32 PMThe votes themselves are untraceable, but Logan stated that 252 of the 348 known provisionals put through the accuvote were from registered voters. I just wondered where those voters were registered.
Posted by: MIMike on June 1, 2005 12:37 PMIs it just me?......Or have the Republicans dropped the ball with regard to the numerous questions they could have asked Logan in cross-examination? I love Maguire - but he seems to be shying away from some very important issues in his cross-examination of Logan!
Perhaps the Republicans are waiting for the rebuttle phase?
Your belief was fueled by the grandiose proclomations of your bloggers here, talk radio, the republican leadership, et. al. Accusations aplenty with nary evidence of proof. You were led to believe such a cross would be valuable because you drank the spewing stefan koolaid -- instead of using your own mind to look at the facts and think about stefan, et.al.'s true motive.
Hooray for the ones who can think for themselves!
Posted by: Jim Mantelly on June 1, 2005 12:57 PMWhen I post a question - in this blog - to a specific poster - I would really appreciate it if there were no attempts by trolls to interject their absurd opinion.
Do not reply to another of my posts.
No go away....quickly!
Posted by: Deborah on June 1, 2005 12:59 PMI see you are open to the truth and the facts. Blessed is today!
Posted by: Jim Mantelly on June 1, 2005 01:01 PMIt should be possible, and not difficult, to have provisional ballots which are conspiciously marked in such a way that the Accuvote could be programmed to reject, require, or ignore. This would avoid the problems of such ballots being fed into machines erroneously without requiring them to be 'duplicated' later.
If the accuvote could accommodate different-length ballots, another approach would be to produce ballots with a detachable stub which must be left on poling place ballots, but must be removed from provisional ballots before they are given to voters (and kept for auditing purposes by election personnel).
Finally, I would suggest that election laws should be changed so that out-of-precinct provisional ballots would be accepted only if the voter produced documentation showing they had received incorrect official instructions showing where to vote. Allowing people to vote wherever they feel like it allows people to register many times at one address and then have their different personalities vote at different polling sites to avoid detection (a person who shows up to vote ten times at the same site might get noticed--one who shows up once each at ten different sites won't).
Posted by: supercat on June 1, 2005 08:01 PM‘There is also a massive expense issue, as colored ballots would have to be printed for every one of King County's 2600+ precincts, and in both English and Chinese. The additional cost would literally be in the hundred thousand dollar range.’
While many have already responded to your entire post, there is something I will add to this part. Our Republic was founded on the principle of the right to self governance. We the people have the right to choose who we are governed by. Our governance is supposed to be that of the people, for the people, and by the people. Our voice in this Republic is our vote. Can you justify any other governmental expense (other than defense of this and other rights) that should supercede this voice?