From the Secretary of State's training manual, titled "The Canvassing Process", a kind of county auditor's version of All I Really Need to Know About Elections I Learned In Kindergarten. This is the document that Nixon Handy was forced to eat on the witness stand Tuesday.
p. 12: "The Importance of Reconciling Your Ballots"
This is your documentation that everything was done correctly and according to statuteRead the whole thing. Seeing that King County failed to put their toys away and perform any kind of meaningful reconciliation before certification, you have to wonder why Sam Reed is not arguing to set the election aside. After all, why would the Secretary of State's Office bother to issue WACs and train county auditors to follow them if they're not going to hold anybody accountable for failure to do so? Not that the election was close enough so that failure to reconcile could have permitted outcome-changing mistakes or anything. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 01, 2005 10:48 PM | Email This
If it presented like any gov't presentation I've seen it will be acompanied with handouts that explain in greater detail all of the information and laws cited on the slides.
What it does do however is make it VERY CLEAR that reconcilliation is not rocket science and is included in the the basic teaching materials the SOS uses for training elections staff.
If the judge see this or it is presented with Pearson on rebuttal it could help undo some of the damage done by Handy's clearly biased "cheerleading" this spring.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 1, 2005 11:36 PMCan it get any clearer?
Even the dumbocrats should be able to understand this, wait..that requires a brain! Posted by: steve on June 1, 2005 11:40 PM
So THAT's why Handy was backpeddling on the need to credit the absentee ballots before certification! He was adamant about this being a housekeeping procedure....
And then - all of the sudden - he began blathering on about how he thought the petitioners were talking about *poll* ballot crediting.....blah blah blah....He looked as if he was just caught stealing!
These fools are the worst liars! Do they really believe they can try to confuse issues and throw the Judge off? Don't they realize what he's doing when he constantly makes notes during their testimony? The Judge has been eating and sleeping depositions for a month now! He knows exactly what's been stated by the Dems and their witnesses and he knows immediately when they are changing their stories!
Ms. Sanchez would be wise to just spill it about her nightmare experiences during the November 2004 elections......but if she doesn't - the Judge will know..
Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 12:08 AM
Can you imagine what Ralp Munro would have done with this mess. It certainly wouldn't have mirrored what Reed has done.
Posted by: scott158 on June 2, 2005 12:26 AMIt is like watching the world champion domino toppler's competition!
Posted by: arky on June 2, 2005 04:26 AMa. Reed is a former officer of the state county auditors association and does not want to embarass it or its members who really run the show.
b. Reed was AWOL when it came to implementing WACs necessary as a result of federal election law changes resulting from the 2000 Presidential Election.
c. Reed hired Handy who is in bed with the D's, working behind the scene under cover as one of Reed's counsels of record in the case. Even the Olympian questioned Reed's hiring of Handy and to have this blow up on his watch ... well, Sam will need to dust off his teaching certificate.
d. Reed's PR team thought he would be better off going with the MSM - PC status quo than doing a Katherine Harris.
e. All of the above ... and more. Posted by: Newman on June 2, 2005 06:01 AM
Which first-grader did they get to do the graphics for their "Ballot Reconciliation for Dummies" manual?? My GF does graphic design for the WUTC, and can do something IN HER SLEEP that actually holds your attention for longer than 2 nanoseconds. Could be indicative of the whole juvenile approach to how our elections are and have been handled over past years. Uneducated, inexperienced, incompetent dolts are defining the process by which our voices are "heard". Sure instills alot of confidence in "the system". I'm so mad about the flippant attitude that these elections "officials" have about something so important as democracy in action, I think we should drop them all on the island, and just let them TRY to vote each other off. They'd have the tabulations so screwed up, nobody'd ever hear from any of them again, 'cause nobody'd ever manage to get voted off the island!!
You know, it just kills me to think that I, as just a lowly, over-taxed blue collar worker, could do a far better job of reconciling the ballots than these appointed pinheads we've got!! If the numbers don't freakin' match, then KEEP WORKING AT IT!! Bunch of jackasses...
Posted by: Brian C on June 2, 2005 06:02 AM
Wonder how this got so far this time.
Oh well, a favorable ruling from the Judge and we can put this nonsense behind us.
Ha, ha, even with all this fuss, Dean still has his job and Ron isn’t even questioned by the TV or newspaper people. I guess we are still firmly in control. I have to admit though; this one made me sweat. Thanks again to all our friends in the media for all you do.
Posted by: let's move on! on June 2, 2005 06:24 AM
From a previous thread: "The judge believes he cannot set aside the election unless the evidence shows that irregularities, errors, etc., changed the election's outcome." -- Micajah
One question that still remains in my mind is whether the R's should/could make the case that the elections' outcome should have been too close to call: uncertifiable.
If the outcome of the election would have been to not certify the election, then the evidence shows that irregularities, errors, etc., changed the election's outcome: from uncertifiable to a CG win. The judge in this case could just require that King County and Dean Logan resubmit their certifications (uncertified) to the legislature, saying "too close to call."
For the R's, this reduces the need to show that Dino won, because even before certification, it is doubtful that either candidate could be shown to have won.
This would also allow the Judge to throw a little bit both way. He wouldn't have to actually install Dino or remove CG. It would be up to the legislature to do that. Both the D's and R's could claim victory.
It would also give the Supreme Court very little reason to throw out the decision, because the responsibility for the whole mess had been shifted to the legislature.
It would allow the Judge to use the statistical analysis to bear weight in his opinions without actually using it to overturn the election.
It would minimize future contests because the legistature would surely re-write the contest laws after such a hot potato was put on their lap.
Posted by: VaCSProf on June 2, 2005 06:36 AMSeems like the "election community" is comprised of a bunch of incompetent, lazy, partisan hacks... a bunch of back-slappin' good ol' boys (and girls), if you will.
Get rid of them all.
Posted by: Tucker on June 2, 2005 06:42 AMExpert diputes GOP's method
The Republican proposal for subtracting illegal votes in the 2004 governor's race simply doesn't work, an expert witness for the Democrats testified yesterday in the GOP's legal challenge to the election.
Are they lisping intentionally?
Posted by: righton on June 2, 2005 06:52 AMProblem with this idea is that this is the legislature that decided 98 times that their decisions were too important to allow voters to have an alternate voice... So what do you think they'll decide if this is put on their plate?
Posted by: John on June 2, 2005 06:52 AMHow many more of these democrats in republican clothes are currently in government?
What's worse is we would never have figured this out if it wasn't for this court challenge.
Posted by: jaybo on June 2, 2005 06:56 AMThe only people who respect the likes of he are those who prefer to have someone blow smoke up their dress and then call them a man rather than to give it to them straight.
My aversion to actually joining the Republican Party instead of simply considering them in the light of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ is that they will not only tolerate the likes of Reed they will embrace and defend him.
I am old enough to recognize that people like Reed will dry shave you every time they get a chance, the State Republican Party still has not figured that out.
Posted by: JDH on June 2, 2005 07:45 AMBut think of the political fallout if they do the wrong thing? If they certify either candidate they'll have the state up in arms. If they call for a new election, hey, it seems Dino got what he wanted after all.
Posted by: VaCSProf on June 2, 2005 07:56 AMIf memeory serves me correctly, I remember Vance touting Reed as a good republican candidate. Now, if you are republican in the traditional sense, you either have to lie or be ignorant of the truth to recommend that person.
Let's look at the facts. Dean Logan and Handy were hired by Reed. Both of them have worked to promote the democrats in Washington state. Reed pays lip service to the republican party but that is it.
Why would things be worse if their was a democrat in the SOS' office right now?
This is the biggest reason why the republicans have done poorly in politics here.
Posted by: jaybo on June 2, 2005 08:00 AMI'm down with that assessment. They have not shown me that they stand on principal very often, rather they have impressed me as wanting power for power's sake more often than I care to remember. I am very careful around them, they impress me as having an inclination towards being self serving themselves. Posted by: JDH on June 2, 2005 08:18 AM
Did the Republican Attorney's nail Logan on this Reconciliation issue??? If not, they sure should have. It's his dang manual!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 2, 2005 08:22 AMhttp://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/4915119p-4502836c.html Posted by: JDH on June 2, 2005 08:30 AM
SOS Sam Reed is going to appear in Stevenson Washington for a "town hall meeting" on Tues. June 7th (Columbian article June 1st 2005) he was invited by Skamania County Auditor Mike Garvison.
Stevenson is located Appx. 20 miles east of Vancouver in the Columbia Gorge.
The meeting will be heald at:
7:00 pm Tues. June 7th at
the Rock Creek Center,
710 S.W. Rock Creek Drive
Public is invited...
Mabe it's time to pay SOS a personal visit and ask a few poignant questions.
My impression (not based on anything really) was that they have to certify something -- essentially, certification means stating what the result is. So even if they don't have perfect data, they certify their best guess.
But SP has been implicitly suggesting that King County and the state should have said "our data is so flawed that we can't certify anything". I'm not sure I'm convinced, but there is certainly a case for that. Does the law provide for them to say that? Has it ever happened, here or elsewhere? What happened next?
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2005 08:52 AMI wonder if they are as sloppy about reconciling who paid their property taxes in King County... or do you think they know that number down to the last dollar?
It's not a matter of it being possible or not- it's a matter of how motivated they are to accomplish it. Evidently they aren't motivated to do anything but make excuses.
"You want to yell at [poll workers], fine. You can do that, but that's not a reason to overturn an election," Hamilton told reporters. "You want to find, after a 14-hour day, a 78-year-old retired Boeing mechanic making a math error? That's not why we overturn elections."
RCW 29A.60.130 (emphasis added):
Certificate not withheld for informality in returns.
No certificate shall be withheld on account of any defect or informality in the returns of any election, if it can with reasonable certainty be ascertained from such return what office is intended, and who is entitled to such certificate, nor shall any commission be withheld by the governor on account of any defect or informality of any return made to the office of the secretary of state.
Why else would he be their puppet?
Posted by: Brent in Bellingham on June 2, 2005 09:09 AMThis is the major problem with the Washington state Republican Party. I do not believe they (Chris Vance for one) are there to promote republican candidates at any expense. My belief is that they are elected to promote the "ideals" of the republican party and find and mentor candidates that fit that ideal.
Posted by: jaybo on June 2, 2005 09:15 AMBy statute, the canvassing board is required to certify the county's election returns by the deadline "if they can be ascertained with reasonable certainty."
Here's the irony: "Reasonable certainty" is pretty much the same as the "clear and convincing" standard of proof.
If the deadline for certifying the county's returns arrives, but they cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty, then there isn't supposed to be a certification of the returns.
To "certify" means to say that something is true and accurate. "Certifying" what you don't know to be true is wrong.
The whole idea of the certification process is to avoid putting someone in office who hasn't been duly elected.
The county canvassing boards certified their returns. The legislature relied on those returns to issue a certificate of election. And, as it turns out, King County's returns were at least as bogus as was suspected before the legislature issued a certificate of election on January 11.
Now, it appears that the court must be persuaded by "clear and convincing evidence" (that is, "with reasonable certainty") that the wrong person was put in office -- but before the legislature acted, the burden went the other way. That is, it had to be shown "with reasonable certainty" that the returns were true and that the person who appeared to get the most votes actually got the most legal votes.
Unfortunately, Logan's gang kept the canvassing board and the public in the dark prior to the certification of the returns.
They foiled the very process that was supposed to ensure that no one was put in office who had not been duly elected. (If no one was duly elected, the constitution provides for the office of governor to "devolve" to the lieutenant governor until a new governor is duly elected in the next general election.)
The problem is to persuade the courts that what Logan's gang did matters.
Posted by: Micajah on June 2, 2005 09:34 AM"Just asking: What are the odds that Reed is being blackmailed by the dem's?"
Very small, I should think.
"Why else would he be their puppet?"
He's not. He's just an old-fashioned go-along-to-get-along, non-boat-rocking, "moderate" Republican pol who combines a lack of any real convictions with a deep desire to have the major editorial pages say nice things about him.
Posted by: ScottM on June 2, 2005 09:36 AMI agree with what Newman posted at June 2, 2005 06:01 AM.
Perhaps we should email/phone Mr. Reed and ask him to answer why he is not holding anyone accountable for his or her "mistake." (I think the main reason is he is spineless.)
My question is whether this has ever happened, here or elsewhere?
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2005 09:48 AMIn order to imperil certification, an election must be very close and be characterized by serious problems in the way it's conducted.
The problem with Rossi-Gregoire '04 is not just that it was "within the margin of error." If that were the issue, I'd say let it go; normally, random errors tend to balance out, and when an election is that close, "winning" is really just a matter of luck. Accepting close results even when we have no way of knowing for certain who "should have won" is essential to the functioning of a constitutional democracy.
The problem is that King County's conduct of this election was characterized by incompetence and malfeasance, including willful failure to obey rules intended to prevent fraud and the intentional reporting of false numbers to the canvassing board prior to certification. For all we know, Rossi's victory would have been well outside the margin of error if King County had conducted is election reasonably well.
In this kind of very rare case in which official incompetence and malfeasance throws the result into doubt, it's a lot easier for officials just to certify whatever number they can fake up than to explain that their own actions have deprived the people of their electoral choice.
I'm sure it's happened before. Before the widespread use of the Internet (and especially the advent of blogs), most people would never have found out about it and it would all have blown over.
That, I think, is why Sam Reed was caught by surprise. The idea of ordinary people actually questioning the certification of an election probably never occurred to him. It's just not supposed to happen this way.
Posted by: ScottM on June 2, 2005 10:31 AM