King County elections supervisor Linda Sanchez is in the hot seat again. (initially the comfy chair of Hamilton's questioning).
Linda Sanchez is in charge of the canvassing crew. Croker Sack says that Sanchez doesn't seem to understand the purpose of canvassing.
Hamilton is scoring an own goal -- brings up the documented situations of absentee ballots going into an Accuvote. But that's an illegal vote! A wide open opportunity for fraud!
Maguire: you investigated every discrepancy?
Sanchez: only where it was off by more than one.
Maguire: at the end of the canvassing process there were discrepancies that weren't investigated?
Sanchez: yes
Maguire: there were discrepancies outside of your range of tolerance?
Sanchez: yes
Maguire: did you tell Mr. Huennekens?
Sanchez: yes
Maguire: it's important for the superintendent of elections to be aware of these kinds of discrepancies prior to certification of the election?
Sanchez: yes
--
Sanchez' description of the canvassing process makes the whole thing sound so sloppy and haphazard as to be pointless. Makes you wonder why they even bother to canvass before certification in the first place. Just count every vote!
--
Maguire demolishes Hamilton's red herring arguments about "crossover votes" and printing errors in ballot sequence numbers.
Maguire walks Sanchez through Polling Place Reconciliation Summary Report
--
Maguire: At the end of the reconciliation process ... there were still positive discrepancies in polling places of 216. [last page of Reconciliation Summary Report linked above]. There are polling places with a +216 discrepancies. 216 more ballots counted, after adjusting for provisionals in accuvote and crossovers and absentees going into accuvote and after adjusting for every situation than King County could identify.
Sanchez: that's what this would indicate
Maguire: that's a cause for concern, isn't it?
Sanchez: any variance is a cause for concern.
Morning recess.
UPDATE: This comment from Joe O'Donnell, the canvassing worker who broke the story about the 348 provisional ballots back in January, is worth reading:
This whole poll worker getting tired and thus more prone to errors is a ridiculous argument. We know from reports to the trouble desk (A place where poll workers can call and ask questions or report problems during the election) that errors, problems, mistakes, and other questionable activity happened throughout the day. The innocent mistakes tend to be attributed to volume of voters rather then the fatigue of poll workers. It is also clear that volume also led to some of the more questionable errors (easier to slip a provisional ballot or duplicate absentee thru an accu-vote without notice by a poll worker when the polling place was busy. A great example of this was the King County Admin. polling site). Dem attorneys try to argue that fatigue is the reason why ballot accountability sheets filled out at the end of the night were so off. This again is not true. Ballot accountability sheets were off because the damage was done throughout the day. When the polls closed and the sheets were filled out there was not much left the poll workers could do to try to reconcile their problems. This produced extremely sloppy accountability sheets.Also worth noting is this comment, which I'm inclined to give credence to:
Sanchez did not investigate ± 1 vote discrepancies for the 2004 General election upon direct instructions from her supervisors, Julie Moore and Bill Huennekens.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 02, 2005 09:10 AM | Email ThisIt has not been standing policy to ignore discrepancies in the past, even one vote discrepancies.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/06/esl-makes-voter-fraud-business.html
Posted by: Timothy in Little Rock on June 2, 2005 09:17 AM570 AM had it yesterday morning, but I suspsect it was because Dean Logan was testifying. Try 'em.
Posted by: Editor on June 2, 2005 09:23 AMNo one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Fetch the comfy chair!
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 2, 2005 09:23 AMThis activity is also called "canvass", but is a different thing entirely from the entirety of the canvass and certification period, which is also called "canvass", as is the documentation and reconciling of ALL aspects of the election accounting, which is also called "canvass"
Sanchez is testifying from her perspective and direct knowledge of the purpose of "canvass", which is a word with multiple election meanings, and is a task from her perspective of supervising canvass, limited to the activities she described. She's a supervisor, but a supervisor fairly far down the chain of command and with limited authority.
The correction of anomalies and any orders to undertake additional research are not her call or part of her operation -- those tasks are supposed to be managed by Julie Moore, Assistant Superintendent of Election Administration.
It is a curious thing that Julie Moore has not been called, and appears to not be on the witness list. She is actually the individual who makes the go/no go decision as to further research on irreconcilable discrepancies during the canvass period. She would also make a fascinating witness on cross, particularly regarding her background.
Additionally, the final responsibility for signing off on poll reconciliation lies with the Superintendent, Bill Huennekens.
Linda Sanchez is one of the few honest supervisors currently employed by King County Elections. I would hate to see her, as a rank and file line supervisor, blamed for shortcomings that are the vested responsibility of her boss, Julie Moore, and Ms. Moore's boss, Bill Huennekens.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 09:34 AMI'm sure the Seattle LEFTIST PINHEADS will spend the next 3 years "investigating" this lead.
I really believe this is a classic case of lawyers liking to see themselves on TV and hearing themselves talk to the detriment of their client. The Dem Attorneys are truly the key to the R's winning this election contest. WTF!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 2, 2005 09:36 AMWho feels confident that the final hand count totals are REALLY correct???? They could have easily counted one precinct twice? Why not? If they can falsify a report they can easily say this is the final total!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 2, 2005 09:54 AMCount every vote... Yeah, right.
I don't too bad for Sanchez. She should have screamed to high heaven when she realized what the boss was doing. She could have done more.
Posted by: Splatter on June 2, 2005 10:04 AMBut, no one can know without looking at the poll book cover sheets and ballot accountability sheets for each precinct using that polling place.
Why aren't those poll book cover sheets and accountability sheets being used to determine what the canvassing crew found?
Posted by: Micajah on June 2, 2005 10:11 AMBut, if that's your policy, then you can't expect the books to balance, at least not in a county as large as King.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 2, 2005 10:18 AMIt has not been standing policy to ignore discrepancies in the past, even one vote discrepancies.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 10:21 AMThe quantum defense.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 2, 2005 10:22 AMDid you hear the weary tone of resignation in Sanchez' voice when she realized Hamilton gets another shot...and probably the R's also?
Posted by: scott158 on June 2, 2005 10:33 AMAt this point it seems pretty cut and dry to me!!
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 2, 2005 10:35 AMThat is why Sanchez was given the list of precincts to "investigate". Huennekens and Moore cherry picked precincts.
Posted by: Splatter on June 2, 2005 10:43 AMDOCUMENT
If you cannot resolve difference, even if it is only one vote, document the steps you took trying.
Document everything you do anyway.
FINISH YOUR RECONCILIATION BEFORE YOU CERTIFY THE ELECTION.
Didn't we just learn that Sanchez was told not to try and resolve one-vote discrepancies?
"I don't [feel] too bad for Sanchez. She should have screamed to high heaven when she realized what the boss was doing. She could have done more."
Really, Splatter? Linda Sanchez should have divined that the Superintendent of Elections was up to his eyeballs in nefarious activity based upon a list of precincts he gave her, requesting additional research upon? In the middle of canvass?
How, exactly, would she realize what he was doing?
The election staff have very little access to documents within the office, unless those docuements happen to be under their purview. Sensitive documents are kept under lock and key, inaccessible to all but the very top staff. Communication from current management is nearly non-existent, and when it does come, it is vacuous cheerleading for supporting the county management and Ron Sims.
It is a poorly-kept secret that most election staff get their news about their own office from the media, and even from blogs such as this, because they certainly don't get any information from the people in charge.
And as far as "doing more" - what, exactly, would you have her do? Asking questions and raising issues in King County government, particularly if those questions might reflect badly upon Ron Sims, are the fastest way to administrative leave, demotion, termination, ostracism, and loss of earned pension.
And if she was the very rare person who was to quit, sacrifice everything she has worked for over the years, and come forward, the County would mount a massive PR campaign against her, painting her as an unreliable liar, a poor performer, dishonest, vengeful, etc., so to discredit anything she says. She would not reach any goal of disclosure, and would have sacrificed everything for nothing. The county is always in the market for scapegoats, and she would be the next one.
So, again, what would you have her do?
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 10:49 AMThe "pollworker fatigue" meme is ridiculous. As is the "so you want to blame the poor little pollworkers?" sound bite.
Nobody among the general public is blaming the pollworkers. People are blaming the Election management for poor planning, communication, election day field triage, bad follow-up and a sloppy to non-existent reconciliation.
First, the poll site mistakes, as Joe pointed out, occur throughout the day when there is high volume, not just at close.
Second, yes, 14 hours is a long day. However, secure chain-of-custody of the ballots requires that the same crew be at the pollsite throughout the day.
It isn't as if the octagenerian pollworkers are breaking rocks in the hot sun for 14 hours. Pollworkers are sitting comfortably in chairs, with knitting, books, snacks, and coffee at the ready throughout the day. The most tiring thing about the day is the 4:30am rise and shine to get to the polling place by 6am, a task that is often more reliably accomplished by seniors who have been rising at dawn as a habit their whole lives, than us baby boomers and gen-Xer's who tend to rise a bit later.
This emphasis on the pollworkers by both sides is a bit of a red herring.
Another myth buster: the worst pollbook messes come generally not from the seniors, who are scrupulous about balancing their books, nor from the very young, high school and college students who tend to be high-achievers and passionate about the election process, but from 30- and 40-something pollworkers who are not as conscientious about the process as one might hope.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 11:07 AMThere were many people hurt by the corruption in KC, Sanchez included. Emotions are running high.
Posted by: Splatter on June 2, 2005 11:12 AMBTW, I find your comments interesting enough so that I wish you did not choose to be anonymous. (But perhaps you have a good reason for that.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 2, 2005 11:18 AMI know that some of the honest (primarily front-line) staff at KC Elections read this blog, and I'd hate to see them further demoralized.
And you are so right, the honest staff at KC Elections are just as victimized by the corruption of Ron Sims, the dishonesty of Dean Logan, and the incompetence of Bill Huennekens as all of the rest of us are.
Perhaps even more so, as their personal votes were not only impacted, as were ours, but their place of work has become a cesspool through no fault of theirs.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 11:23 AM"I have a friend who was an observer - she saw a poll worker who was charged with sorting during the recount, prior to counting, putting Rossi ballots into the Gregoire box, and when she complained to the officials (they were instructed not to confront workers directly), she was told (I paraphase) "yes, we know about her."
Were you referring to the manual recount? If so, my son-in-law was observing this person, and he DID complain to the Republicans. He got no satisfaction on the floor, so he went to Dan Brady directly and was told not to worry about it . . . it would be caught later. All along, we suspected that this person was posing to be the Republican worker, but was actually a Democrat. Hmmm. Who dropped the ball here?
Posted by: lksimstrailgrammy on June 2, 2005 11:29 AMBefore lunch..
"Gee, here a one vote discrepancy in precinct 1. Since it is only one vote, I won't do anything"
After lunch..
"Gee, here another one vote discrepancy in precinct 1. Since it is only one vote, I won't do anything"
It's an ugly, spam-filled world we live in.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 2, 2005 11:36 AMYes, it was the recount, and it is remarkable how similar your son-in-law's experience was to my friend's. She (my friend) also complained to the republicans on the floor, but I don't know if she went any farther (I don't know who Dan Brady is, I apologize if I should).
As I understand it, the ballots in the box of "Gregoire" votes was then counted by another election worker after the sorting, and that person or a different observer would have had to notice that there were Rossi ballots included in what was supposed to be a box of all Gregoire ballots in order for the situation to have been "caught later." How does anyone know that happened?
Posted by: srogers on June 2, 2005 12:31 PM