Our stealth legal expert answers my question on the significance of Bridges' questioning of Dean Logan yesterday:
I think that there is an awful lot of spin going on from the political parties - especially the D's. I thought Bridges' questioning was remarkable - and an indicator of what the judge is thinking about the case. I think Judge Bridges will be willing to make a finding that King County negligently administered the election, and that negligence resulted in errors that were greater than the margin of victory. King County's apparent unwillingness to take strong action in light of that negligence ("taking names and kicking tush") reinforces this finding.
If the GOP experts had made a solid case that King County's negligence actually appears to have changed the result of the election, I think Bridges would have little difficulty voiding the election. Unfortunately, I don't think the experts (both GOP and D) were very persuasive (I think that it was a strategic mistake to try to characterize gross negligence as fraud in this case - it would have been better to to have characterized this as severe mistakes that compromised the election and changed the result). Moroever, I think Dale really lost an opportunity to get good and useful information out of Nick Handy (by useful I mean information that actually augments their case - such as the impact these mistakes may have had on the margin of victory), instead of trying to impeach the only party the judge appears to have confidence in (and one that has been largely supportive of the GOP position - believe me, if the SoS actually opposed this election contest it probably would have died in the first month).Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 02, 2005 03:03 PM | Email ThisAs a result, Bridges has got a very difficult position - either (1) find (or create) a clear path to conclude that the illegal votes and administerial negligence appears to have changed the results of the election and void the election, or (2) damn King County for completely screwing up the election but reluctantly uphold the election result. I think (2) might be easier for a judge at this point, but it is ultimately a gut check by Bridges. Since this case is not clearcut, the decision will ultimately depend on Bridges' subjective impressions - however, either decision would have a good chance of affirmation by the state supreme court (although decision (2) would likely have a better chance of affirmation).
In making these observations I am not trying to be advocate for any of the parties (although as you know I know [some of the players]) but am instead trying to pass on my thoughts and opinion on how the trial is going. I've been proved wrong before in the past and might be this time as well.
However, if F-raud with a capital was not proven, and I question that, why won't the judge conclude "fraud" = "gross negligence" for purposes of the contest?
And excellent point that they could have gotten Handy to speculate the gross negligence caused an invalidation, but to do so, they would not have been able to bring up the bias of the SOS. Or am I wrong?
Posted by: swatter on June 2, 2005 03:15 PMHope your legal person is right...I've covered
enough trials...and bench trials. Haven't been
convinced the Rep's have made a strong enough case, but I sure hope so. Only time will tell!
Isn't this readily apparent from the proportional analysis? Regardless of which negligent KC votes yoy throw out (i.e. the 870 ballots from non-existent absentee voters, or the 900+ from felons) the election likely would have gone the other way. No way to tell for sure though because of the secret ballot thing...
Posted by: Just a Guy on June 2, 2005 03:19 PMThe "mistakes, errors" etc., including Miss Ways' little number crunch demonstrate to me that election officials and workers state-wide do not take the value of our individual vote seriously and they handle the whole process like an exercise that is solely to justify their jobs.
I would love to see the depositions from those two in Benton County. That Suzie woman was at the Election Reform Meeting in Pasco. Now that one is a piece of work. She and her coherts sat up there acting like a bunch of juveniles at a slumber party, and they took great personal insult at any suggestion that things were not done correctly.
Again, no legal expert by any means, but to me what seems like the RIGHT thing to do is to void the election and start over with the hope they can do it right this time and with the knowledge we will all be wathcing.
Posted by: Hanna on June 2, 2005 03:30 PMEither we win now or later. Either Bridges has the courage to set precedent, or there's built in pressure for the next election cycle.
We can't thank Goldstein and the other verbal Democrats enough, in the end it's their attitude of myopic hauteur that helps put nails in the coffin of the Democrats.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 2, 2005 03:35 PMMotive: desperate to get flawed and weak candidates elected
Means: double-voting via absentee/provisional ballots, removing a few ballots here, adding a few ballots there, etc.
Opportunity: KC and SOS bungling
Sure hope Bridges takes this into account.
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 2, 2005 03:42 PMGoldstein, being the village idiot from the Fremont District (you don't get any lower than being the Fremont District's Village Idiot!)....
Goldstein says the reason Sanchez did all this reconciliation work was SO THEY COULD DO BETTER NEXT ELECTION.
Goldstein's eyes rolled back in his head when his haymaker landed flush on his own jaw. Sharkansky managed to hit me a couple more shots as Goldstein was falling to the canvas and then Sharkansky humiliated Goldstein by standing over him and laughing!!!
Carlson picked up Goldstein, dusted him off, patted him on the fanny (which Goldstein seems to really like coming from other men) and sent Goldstein home.
Stefan...it's like you are a cougar batting around Goldstein (a baby shrew!). Please let him live Stefan.....so Goldstein can embarrass himself and the LEFTIST PINHEADS yet another day!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 2, 2005 03:44 PMSays a lot, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 2, 2005 03:45 PMPriority One for Leftists is intention. If your intentions are good, you're one of the good guys and it doesn't matter how extremely badly you screw up and it doesn't matter if your policies have the opposite effect of what you want.
Likewise, if your intentions are not good, it doesn't matter a bit if you do the right thing, because you did it "for the wrong reasons."
Posted by: Bostonian on June 2, 2005 04:01 PMMr. Cynical, what--are you from the East of the Cascades? It's really like he's a Huskie tearing into a cat!
Regards,
I still don't have much confidence that a revote will be any less filled with fraud and negligence than the first vote. It would be a nice suprise to see a clean revote. What we need is a re-registration and then a revote. The voter rolls have to be cleaned up from non-citizens, felons, dead people, non-residents. We must also prevent double voters, ballot stuffing, "overlooked" ballots, late mailed absentee ballots, questionable ballot duplication, and poll workers taking ballots home. Provisional ballots must be physically different from regular ballots so that they are not fed into the accu-vote. Absentee ballots received must be accurately counted.
By the way, it would seem to me that everything on the original ballots would have to be on the revote, or perhaps just the close races and measures.
Posted by: PW on June 2, 2005 04:03 PMI still don't have much confidence that a revote will be any less filled with fraud and negligence than the first vote. It would be a nice suprise to see a clean revote. What we need is a re-registration and then a revote. The voter rolls have to be cleaned up from non-citizens, felons, dead people, non-residents. We must also prevent double voters, ballot stuffing, "overlooked" ballots, late mailed absentee ballots, questionable ballot duplication, and poll workers taking ballots home. Provisional ballots must be physically different from regular ballots so that they are not fed into the accu-vote. Absentee ballots received must be accurately counted.
By the way, it would seem to me that everything on the original ballots would have to be on the revote, or perhaps just the close races and measures.
Posted by: PW on June 2, 2005 04:05 PMI agree with that.
This was an intentional act.
How is this NOT Fraud?
Posted by: smoke on June 2, 2005 04:17 PMWhat matters now is who says and does something. US soldiers desecrate Koran = BAD
Islamist blow up a mosque = Provoked by US
Republicans argue against sloppy elections = Bad
Democrats argue against sloppy elections = Good
That is not fraud in King County. That's when.
Posted by: azt on June 2, 2005 04:27 PMThe Left has its own definition of good & bad intentions. If you identify yourself as a progressive, you have GOOD intentions. Otherwise, you have BAD intentions.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 2, 2005 04:28 PMThat is the most cogent, and encouraging analysis I've seen all day. Great job!
M
Posted by: Mike on June 2, 2005 04:28 PMOverrulled!
Objection!
He's an expert. I am going to allow it.
Objection. He's an idiot!
Overrulled.
Objection.
OVERRULED!!!!
I've been saying through this trial that the crux of the 'Rat defense seems to be this: "We're totally incompetent, blithering idiots who have no idea how to run a fair and honest election, but you should trust us anyway and let the results stand." It's almost the exact same gambit Clinton played during the impeachment proceedings. Then, the refrain was "it's just about sex, not lying under oath", or, IOW, "I'm a lecherous, lying, degenerate b*stard who anyone would rightly throw out of their house, but I should still be allowed to occupy the White House and hold the most powerful office in the land".
You're right. Anyone who isn't totally brain dead and who has the least shred of honor and dignity and self-respect would be ashamed to mount such a "defense", but this has never stopped the 'Rats before. If heads start to roll as a result of this debacle, I expect every last one of these stinking scumbags to fall on their swords and lie down to protect The Big Cheese (Fraudoire), just like they did Clinton.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 2, 2005 05:18 PMIs there any indication in the briefs and requests for judgements that actually apply the proportional voting forumlae with the results?
Or are we seeking a declarative judgement with the propotional deductions being possibly applied as a post trial function? Would we then see court cases filed on that process, further delaying a result? (Assuming that the election is invalidated)
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 2, 2005 05:25 PMIs it just me or does the conspiracy to commit fraud seem to be contained within the Logan, Hennikens, Handy circle?
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 2, 2005 05:46 PMWhen people screw up in a project they work on together, they tend to cover each other's butts without having an explicit conversation about it.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 2, 2005 05:56 PMsure sounds to me like your "stealth legal expert" is indulging in the same fantasy of wishful thinking you are peddling on this blog.
I'm sure the good judge is shocked and amazed at the utter lack of competence of the "gang that couldn't shoot straight". But it's a stretch to say we have to hold a revote just to give this ship of fools another whack at it. Who's to say they would do any better on the second go-round?
All your fans here seem to forget the standard of proof that must be met is that Dino would have won, not just that there is some doubt about it.
Sorry guys, it's been a lot of fun, and way better than the news from Iraq. But the party is almost over.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2005 05:57 PMLemme see if I can remember the line....
I didn't do it
You can't prove a thing
I promise I won't do it again
Yep, just like a democraTIC
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 2, 2005 06:10 PMIs that the new line of defense for the Democrats Unkl Witz? That those running the elections are so incompetent that we should let the flawed results of this election stand because they are incapable of doing any better. Unbelievable!
What is it that your afraid of? Justice? Fair elections? That you won't be able to cheat a second time with the magnifying glass focused on you?
Posted by: Daryl on June 2, 2005 06:21 PMI agree - we ABSOLUTELY MUST fire everyone of those incompetents prior to holding the new election!
I didn't do it
You can't prove a thing
I promise I won't do it again
I think Bart Simpson said it best...
I didn't do it...
Nobody saw me...
You can't prove anything!
You both want to pigeonhole me as a demo apologist; I'm not. I'm one of those wonks who is truly amused by the antics of both sides of the aisle. And believe me, this one is for the books, on both sides.
What does yank my crank is the pointless waste of tax dollars, and this one falls well into that category too. Check out some of my earlier posts. I said on more than one occasion having a two bit real estate salesman wouldn't be my idea of the end of the world, or even life as we now know it. In fact, I'd wager not a whole lot would change other than a bunch of dem's would be looking for another job and a bunch of R's would be moving to Olympia. But I seriously doubt any of my tax burden would be reduced.
We put George the lesser into office and he turns out to be the biggest spender of all time. He throws a mere $300 billion at Iraq just to preserve his family honor (course a substantial chunk of that goes to companies like Halliburton, so it's not really money down the drain.... hey, my dad use to work for Halliburton).
So the hell with both of you. Tell me how much you think Iraq is a good investment and so is this election contest. And I will tell you both right back why I think they are both a waste of your bucks and mine.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2005 07:09 PMWrong!
The law clearly authorizes a judge to annul and set aside an election even when it does not "appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes."
The standard you state only applies if the judge declares the plaintiff duly elected.
"After hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, the court shall pronounce judgment in the premises, either confirming or annulling and setting aside such election, according to the law and right of the case.
"If in any such case it shall appear that another person than the one returned has the highest number of legal votes, said court shall declare such person duly elected."
The problem with being so sure of yourself, Unk, is that when you're wrong, you look really, really stupid.
Posted by: ScottM on June 2, 2005 07:16 PMSo much worse since Hamilton blustered some belated support for the Constitutional Convention after his ineffective efforts as a result of the Shay's rebellion and the Ethan Allen Green Mountain Boys in Vermont attacking the government agents of New York! Puts George Bush to shame! Why waste your breath on Bush when Hamilton was the CLEAR problem of this country!
And just as relevant
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 2, 2005 07:18 PMThe problem with amateurs reading and pontificating on the RCW's is they think they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, 99 times out of 99.5, they don't. I'm afraid you fall deeply into that category.
Nice try though, let's let the good judge rule and then we can debate your authorities.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2005 07:23 PMOr, perhaps it doesn't apply to the arena of Presidential politics, whereby amateurs comment on Presidents. Not having been a President themselves, nor been trained to be a President, they wouldn't be qualified to comment on the efficacy and conduct of Presidents.
Scott, it would appear, is as qualified to interpret an RCW as you are to speak with certainty on just about anything else.
:)
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 2, 2005 07:28 PMYou disappoint me. I used to think that you had halfway-cogent analyses, but your panties are in far too big a bunch over Iraq. It's your hammer, and everything you see is a nail.
The problem for Democrats is that history writes of how many people that the USA liberates, not how much it costs. How much did World War II and the Marshall Plan cost? I don't know - why don't you ask the French? How much did the Cold War and Reagan's arms build-up cost? I don't know - why don't you ask Poland and the Czech Republic.
History will not write about the 300 billion dollars, it will speak of the 50 million people liberated and the greatest liberation of women and proliferation of democracy in the history of the Middle East. And I might add, while Deep Throat is in the news, that what will be most remembered about Clinton is that he was impeached (this is David McCullough's opinion, and mine as well). There you have it.
Posted by: Larry on June 2, 2005 07:30 PMI'm sure there must be some relevance to your post here, but I must confess, it eludes me. Whatever damage you ascribe to Hamilton wrought on our republic seems wholly unrelated to the crime Bush the dumber is perpetrating on our nation.
Perhaps you can enlighten us .......?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2005 07:31 PMSure, it's the expense of the whole thing that gets to you. Rigghhht. Darn democracy, sometimes it can just be so costly to protect.
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 2, 2005 07:31 PMThank you...
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 2, 2005 07:32 PMI agree though that until the Judge rules we are all just speculating.
Posted by: Jason on June 2, 2005 07:33 PMSorry.
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 2, 2005 07:34 PMWouldn't *Democratic* Poll Inspectors - bringing unaccounted Blank Ballots home with them over the weekend prior to the election - then bringing the Poll Books home with them after the election - be equivalent to leaving the key in the lock with respect to Foulkes?
Especially in light of the fact that the Poll Books are not reconcilable?
Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 07:38 PMYou flatter me... "halfway cogent" is way more credit than I get from most of your peers on this blog.
Clinton will get exactly what he deserves from history; a black eye and a fat lip. He was a shameless opportunist who could communicate well with the polity, just like Ronnie. Both were happy to see the world in their own image and roll the dice with our lives and treasure. Fate smiled warmly on both with historical events that had little to do with their policies and everything to do with sheer inertia.
History may not be so kind to george ii. He will likely be remembered for wrecking both our economy and our standing in the geopolitical realm. And we will have only ourselves to blame.
A very sad prospect.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on June 2, 2005 08:02 PMInteresting observation. I would think that your analogy is accurate.
I've been watching hours upon hours of this trial and I haven't heard the blank ballot issue come up. Did I miss it? I had heard about it before the trial, but not during.
I did hear about the poll books being taken home, though.
I sure hope that in closing arguments tomorrow, counsel stresses these same issues. I do believe it will be Korrell that present closing arguments for petitioner and Durkan for intervenors.
By the way, did you catch Braden's cross examination of Handcock? And, Bridge's question to Prof. Gill after the rebuttal?
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 2, 2005 08:04 PMThe old "they took ballots home and filled them out for Gregoire" canard again.
Funny, I didn't hear anything about that in court. Did you? Seems to be another instance of blog-induced paranoia signifying nothing.
If that really happened, I would hope as a Democrat and a citizen that the R's would bring it out in court. But they didn't, despite the fact proof of that would've surely been enough to win the case (or at least help it massively).
But there wasn't any such evidence in court, and there's been no explanation as to why.
Let me posit two possibilities and you tell me which is more likely. 1. There really was solid evidence -- not snippets of deposition taken out of context -- of people (Dem poll workers in fact!) having the opportunity to take ballots home, and bring them back without accounting for them properly, thus providing an incredible opportunity to stuff the ballot box unnoticed, but the R lawyers forgot about that and/or didn't think it was worth bothering to present the evidence in court. 2. It didn't really happen that way, and that's why the R's avoided bringing it up -- would've only embarassed them.
Hmmmmm.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 2, 2005 08:05 PMMoron.
Posted by: ScottM on June 2, 2005 08:07 PMAgain your legal expert is not seeing the forest from the trees.
The King County votes could not be reconciled and cannot be reconciled now.
This means simply that the entire governor's vote tally in King County is invalid and must be thrown out.
This means Rossi is the winner by default.
Let King County voters such as myself call for the heads of Sims, Logan and others that brought about this travesty of democracy.
We can see clearly why Way and Fell falsified the accounting. Because otherwise it would have meant disenfranchising every King County voter.
But that disenfranchisement is the just result of the incredible bungling of our election.
Rossi is the winner and he will step down to call for a new election post haste.
Posted by: Michael on June 2, 2005 08:10 PMI did catch most of Bradens Cross-examination of Hancock - especially the end!
Judge Bridges question to Prof. Gil was very revealing of the Judges interest in a *just the facts ma'am* decription of statistical analysis!
Judge Bridges was looking at the large descrepancy between Gil's figures and what Handcok worked with and wanted to know why they weren't even close! The Judges comment to Gil - that he would "whiz through his class if he were a student" or something like that...was a veiled insult to Handcocks boring and confusing statistics presentation ...
It's a bit of a stretch to say he wrecked the economy. Bush took office in 2001... his first budget wasn't passed until much later that year, and it takes awhile for it to work it's way through the economy. The 1990's economy, which was built on the much over inflated dot com bubble, was stagnant by late 1999/early 2000, and was pretty much in the tank by June 2000. How can Bush cause a recession in 2000 when he wasn't in office, and his economic policies didn't affect it until early 2002?
Posted by: Mike H on June 2, 2005 08:16 PMI would think so, but then the RAT MOB in King County is not part of the corporate industrial complex, and therefore they would never cook the books.
What gets me are "printed" ballots. Hell, I have a printer, can buy card stock and have programs capable of pixel perfect copies. Modern technology has changed the way we print currency (printers even recognize currency now) but people like our SoS want us to vote by mail, 30 days before an election and transport our votes through the mail system.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
PHOTO ID IS THE ONLY WAY!
Posted by: Splatter on June 2, 2005 08:21 PMI believe Dean Logan agreed, in his deposition that uncounted blank ballots went home with Democratic Poll Inspectors on the Friday before the election and were not counted upon their return, destruction or distribution to the poll sites..- He also testified to this while on the witness stand.
It was a huge bombshell in the news last month....
You really haven't kept up with this contest ...have you?
Try using Google!
Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 08:23 PMThis is what Bridges said in regards to Gil's class, "I would run from your class like the wind,"
He also said,
"I thought Dr. Handcock attempted to do what you did and his results are totally different."
Gill said that could be because the total number of alleged illegal votes is different and that they may have come from different parts of the state that would be apportioned differently.
"Ahh, OK," Bridges said.
Bridges did seem completely confused over how these two "experts" came up with totally different results, and was looking to Gill to clear up the confusion.
I think Braden did a good job of showing that Handcock knows very little about elections, and in fact has read next to zero journals about such. And, this is his first time being called as an expert witness for this purpose.
I can't wait to watch the closing arguments. I sure hope Korrell comes to court prepared.
Posted by: Orange Robyn on June 2, 2005 08:26 PMSaw the little dig at President Reagan. Well, please go to your local library and read some of the recent scholarship on Mr. Reagan's presidency. As open minded as you are, I think you will come to a much different conclusion than the one you hold now.
I have to agree with so many others, you have a 120 vote difference after three recounts, with an intentional/unintentionally fouled-up count from a
Democrat-controlled county. Unlike Fla. 2000, you can never even count the votes, since you have no idea what are legal or illegal votes. I think Rossi is being charitable in asking for a re-vote, and it is hard to see how it can be ajudicated in aby other way.
Posted by: Viewing From a Distiance on June 2, 2005 08:30 PM
Orange Robyn!
I'm rolling!!
How in the heck did I hear that so wrong??
I MUST see the transcripts! Sheesh! (I must have still been in the statistically induced coma from Hancock !)
I get the impression that Judge Bridges is a lot sharper than he presents himself to be.....
He reminds me of Columbo!
Thank you.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 2, 2005 08:42 PMAlso, proportional analysis is the only way that the illegal votes (including provisional ballots) can be thrown out with any sort of respectible probability. The Judge has already signed onto this analysis & let the chips fall where they may !
Posted by: KS on June 2, 2005 09:18 PMWhat could they have done with them? How could they have tampered with the election by having both of these items in their sole custody? Could they have added ballots during the election and marked the polling books later with unsigned PB's?
What are the possibilities?
Posted by: Deborah on June 2, 2005 11:39 PMShe said the Democrat got all upset when the poll watcher reminded her that she wasn't supposed to ever leave those ballots alone, by law. A response from someone likely who knows she's being 'found out' and doesn't like that she's been 'found out'. That's one way fraud happened with extra ballots. I wish they'd kick out the dishonest poll workers who knowingly and intentionally break the rules.
Posted by: Michele on June 3, 2005 12:07 AMI have been, and am, as critical of King County Elections' operations during the 2004 General election as anyone on this board, but you are pursuing a red herring.
It is standard procedure for the Pollsite Inspectors (lead pollworkers) everywhere across the country to bring the sealed packets of blank ballots for their pollsite home with them when they pick up their supplies on the weekend prior to the election. This is a universal best practice used nationwide and is the most accurate way to distribute the correct ballots for each polling place and precincts.
In King County, the Inspectors are "Democrats" on paper for the purpose of complying with the state statute, but in reality, the Inspectors are about 60% Democrats and 40% Republicans in King County, a general reflection of the population distribution. Republicans are appointed to any positions that the Democrats cannot fill.
Elsewhere in the state, many counties have all Republican Inspectors, as the party designation is that of the party that carried the presidential vote in that county.
The ballots in King are wrapped in shrinkwrap, and the Inspectors are instructed not to open them until they arrive at the pollsite on Election Day morning. Then, they are opened in the presence of pollworkers from both major political parties.
At the end of the day, the pollworkers are to balance their books, reconciling number of ballots used to number of signatures in each book, note any problems, and return any unused ballots to the election office.
The pollworkers returned the pollbooks, used and unused ballots to the election office with the other supplies this year, just as they have always done. The pollworkers most assuredly did not take the pollbooks home with them, otherwise, canvass of the pollbooks could not have occurred.
What the inspectors took home with them is the Inspector's List of Precinct Voters, the handwritten list of voters created at each precinct (the second thing you write your name on, other than the pollbook). This is in accordance with state law, and is indeed what that second list is for - for the Inspectors to have a second record of the voters who participated in the election, in a location OTHER than the election office. THIS list is what the Inspectors took home, not the pollbooks.
Where the rumor started that pollbooks were taken home by pollworkers on election night is just beyond me. It is a complete myth, and never happened.
The step that was overlooked during canvass in November 2004, in accordance with changes in procedures implemented by Bill Huennekens, and resisted by the experienced staff, is that of counting the unused ballots and adding the used and unused ballots for each precinct and comparing that number to the log of ballots sent out to the precinct in the first place, as a part of reconciliation and chain of custody ofthe ballots. Not following this long established procedure is an example of very poor judgement on Bill Huennekens' part, and for which he should be held accountable.
But the rumors about pollworkers being able to mark ballots, stuff the ballot box with precinct ballots without being caught, and then taking home the pollbooks to cover it all up is the rumor mill running amok.
There are too many legitimate screw-ups by King County to waste your energy on fictional problems that never happened.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 3, 2005 12:17 AMSusan B Anthony,
Thank you for your clarification of proper and usual poll inspector procedure - with regard to the blank ballots. I understand, that the law instructs the ruling party to pick their poll inspectors, etc... I understand that the Poll Inspectors had to have the blank ballots for distribution to the polling places on the Tuesday morning of the General election...
I'm just wondering why they had to take the ballots home on that Friday? Why not Monday evening? What was the advantage of taking the blank ballots home on Friday? Also - it was stated that there is no accounting of how many ballots were given to or taken by each poll inspector. Now, this may be new. Perhaps in the past there was a solid accounting of those blank ballots - but testimony now shows there wasn't in the 2004 General election.
And as for the Poll Books coming home with the Poll Inspectors - That was a claim that Linda Sanchez made on the stand today during cross-examination! Perhaps she misspoke? I just don't know...
One thing we simply cannot rely on here is that ANYTHING went as it was supposed to in King County during the General election!
That fact alone makes everything suspect.
Linda Sanchez stated that the Inspectors returned the pollbooks with their other supplies to the election depots at the end of the election evening. (From those depots the supplies are all returned to the election facilities on election night.) She further testified that the Inspector's List(s) of Precinct Voters was taken home with the Inspectors, per the state law. She was using quite a bit of "inside baseball" election terminology, so it may have sounded as if she said something else, but I observed every minute of her testimony, and she stated the proper procedure.
The ballots are not and were not distributed on Friday, except in a few very rare cses. All supplies, including ballots, are distributed to the Inspectors outside of Seattle on Saturday, and to the Seattle inspectors on Sunday. Due to the huge number of polling places in King County, this is a two-day operation. The inspectors sign for their supplies, and a precise count of how many ballots were issued to them for each precinct is maintained.
They aren't distributed on Monday as many people work or have committments during the day, and Monday evening is out, as many pollworkers are in bed by 7 or 8pm, due to the very early and long day they have ahead of them.
The rare cases of Friday distribution are religious accommodations for those inspectors who observe the Sabbath all day on the day of their normal distribution (Saturday or Sunday), and thus cannot pick-up at the same time as the main group of Inspectors.
What didn't happen this year was the accounting of the ballots returned during the canvass, and this step was eliminated on Bill Huennekens' instructions.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 3, 2005 01:00 AMMy computer broke when it say King County elections and "best practice" in the same sentence.
You referred to taking ballots home as a best practice. You mean approved by your Dem party
Don't insult our intelligence; KC elections failed miserably, and the judge outed them for not caring
Posted by: righton on June 3, 2005 06:21 AMThat said, I heartily agree with point #2 - KC elections failed miserably, and the judge outed them for not caring
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 3, 2005 06:33 AMHaving said that, the various stories about acts of ommission can't be proven true or false. The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that distributed fraud took place, and on a considerable scale. And if this did occur, the problem wasn't with procedures, but with good faith on the part of election workers. And, after the fact, this is just about impossible to determine by any direct evidence.
So, while the business about taking the ballots home may be somewhat of a red herring, the stories of distributed fraud are not. There is simply no other way to explain huge numbers of excess ballots in the area within 5 miles of Lenins' statue. This should have been caught afterward, but wasn't. There was where the system failed.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 3, 2005 06:52 AMWorst practice is a better term.
Posted by: Righton on June 3, 2005 09:09 AMKing County systematically created the atmosphere for fraud, error,etc. Now, they have brought up various county auditors to show that one may share in a misinterpretation of an election law - and another may share in an error in processing - but King County is the ONLY county in the state that ALL of these problems have occured!
Posted by: Deborah on June 3, 2005 10:06 AMA process such as this could possibly remove questions of the logistics to prepare poll sites for a 7am opening.
Every county should know when they start how many ballots they printed. They should then know where the ballots were sent.
From the election, they should know how many ballots were voted, spoiled, unused and not returned (absentee). These numbers should add up to match the original number printed.
If an "emergency" ballot creation process is used, those copies should be strictly accounted for as well. Regardless of voter crediting, after an election, they should know the status of all ballots, shouldn't they?
Posted by: Jack on June 3, 2005 10:09 AMAnd let the Heads Roll In King County!
Posted by: Terry Clark C on June 3, 2005 10:30 AM