I had been so focused on the phony reconciliation of absentee ballots that I had forgotten about the specific WAC for poll site reconciliation until Harry Korrell cited it in his closing argument. Reconciling and reporting the results to the canvassing board is not just common sense. It's the law -- WAC 434-262-204 "Poll-site ballot reconciliation"
Poll-site ballots shall be reconciled in the following manner:As Linda Sanchez testified, not only were a lot of discrepancies not investigated, but none of this reconciliation was ever presented to the canvassing board. It was bad enough for King County to illegally certify the election the first time. But the recounts were a totally fraudulent exercise. Not only did they not use the opportunity to correct any errors that the various reconciliations would have discovered (e.g. looking for the 96 or more missing absentee ballots). They also didn't have a set of baseline numbers for ensuring that no ballots were removed from or added to the original pool of ballots. Somehow, 395 additional ballots were tabulated in the recounts for which no explanation has ever been given.(1) Compare the total number of votes cast from each counter at the poll-site and the number of signatures in the poll book(s).
(2) The number of ballots issued should equal the number of ballots counted plus any ballots not counted...
(3) Any discrepancies must be investigated ...
(4) All steps to reconcile each precinct shall be documented, including any discrepancies that cannot be resolved. Reconciliation of all precincts shall be completed and presented to the county canvassing board before the election may be certified.
UPDATE: Although Korrell specifically cited WAC 434-262-204 in his closing, the actual WAC that was in effect at the time of the November 2004 was 434-253-204, which is essentially the same. (I first posted it back on January 18)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 04, 2005 05:04 PM | Email ThisEven more important, it does nothing to help Dino Rossi win the (hopefully coming REAL soon now) 'Round 4' of counting ballots in the race 4 Gov. All it does is give the left-wing (D)s an opportunity to download something they can potentially put into another whining complaint ad campaign against Dino. May I respectfully propose we not do anything to help them in that regard.
Methow Ken
Let's suppose we have a bank branch that doesn't reconcile after the first count.
Concerned, about the issue, everybody goes to lunch and leaves the front door unlocked.
When they return from lunch, a hard working, caring staff counts the money again. It still doesn't balance and in fact the $5 bills are missing and there are more $10 bills than when they left for lunch. They come up with a different total than when they left for lunch.
Now there is great concern and they break for the day. Again they leave the front door unlocked.
The staff returns in the morning frustrated, stressed and determined to save their reputation as caring and hardworking professionals. When they count the money a third time, they note that some $5 bills have returned but some $20's are missing and they arrive at yet a 3rd total.
They do the best they can, fill out the reconciliation forms, are told not to worry, and are given a pep talk. The supevisor in charge takes the reconciliation form to her supervisor and voices her concern. She is praised for her caring hard work and is told not to worry. Her supervisor, makes the simple mistake of forgetting to turn in the reconciliation report to the audit board for which he is required under law to do. (admit it, you've done it, it happens all the time!)
The audit board, based upon the information it has, certifies the count, even though 3 different results took place and they are missing a key reconcilliation report they are required to have in order to certify the results.
A press conference is called by the CEO of the bank and he praises the bank staff for caring and being statisitcally, almost perfect.
>>>>>>> now people, am I way off base here?
please feel free to correct me where my analogy is amiss.
Don't worry, I've already signed up for the State of Washington remedial "home training" study course.
Posted by: who'dathunk on June 4, 2005 06:15 PMGoldstein and his LEFTIST PINHEADED Comrades have been laughing about the BIG BINDER..........
but it does matter. Certainly these poll book reconciliation problems will be addressed in Bridges decision on Monday.
Will it tip the scales???
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 4, 2005 06:16 PMForgive Stefan, he is under the illusion that the RCW and WAC apply to King county elections.
My prediction, Judge Bridges seems very intelligent and wise. He realizes there is a very good case to throw it out but, unfortunately, he will let the election stand but he will have strong wording in his opinion. He will let it be known how questionable her election is. Every will understand that it is impossible for the Democrats to gloat. He, like most people, actually believe liberals are honest and just have differing opinions. He does not realize they are shameless and reprobate. Few people do. Never compromise with them or trust them.
They will gloat anyway and so irritate people that the next election will be a landslide against them. The first hint will be the gas tax shoved up Gregoire's nose. I predict 300,000 signatures and 75% vote for I-912 even though millions will be spent trying to get the initiative killed.
They will pay worse by her staying. There is no motivating force like that of an able victim. An old Klingon proverb says it best, "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
Ms. Durkin tried to make the case that Mr. Pearson didn't know for sure whether election workers had ever seen the training slides, hinting that they couldn't be bound to the information because they may not have been trained with this presentation.
It seems that the presentation was covering practical application of the WACs, so whether they had specific training from this document doesn't matter - they should know the laws pertaining to ballot handling, accounting and reconciliation.
Posted by: Jack on June 4, 2005 06:21 PM* Will Gregoire get the boot?
* Will Michael be convicted?
We need a weekend poll on these issues !
Can this weblog conduct a poll?
FYI: The sec of state's website has nearly all the court documents online, including some cool transcripts, such as the judge's rulings.
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/recount.aspx#ec
PS- I've allowed my website's live realtime chat topic to be on the governor's race.
+ http://www.webcityusa.com/chat.html
Gary
If they had any training to keep track of all ballots in their charge. It seems to me that since a law was broke that some charges should be brought. Can that be done??
Of course, the election then goes to Rossi, but most importantly it puts pressure on counties to do it right next time.
How could they blame the judge for their own incompentence? Then could only blame themselves.
Why to go Ray. You showed allot of class with your response to Methow Ken's counter post. This is what divides us from the left-wing posts on HA (and on this site from time to time). I am proud to be a SP junkie.
The citizens demand better!
Posted by: Michele on June 4, 2005 07:42 PMA strict reading of the law might suggest (a), but I've never heard of this happening. I think many people (myself included) have always assumed (b), but without really thinking about it. Does anyone know any precedents?
Posted by: Bruce on June 4, 2005 07:56 PMThen we woke up
Posted by: rolling eyes on June 4, 2005 08:41 PMWorse, if counties are permitted to illegally certify, then elections will be meaningless. If a county is unable to report the required numbers, but is still permitted to certify, then county officials (who, let's remember, are mostly political partisans) can steal any close election and plead that they were unable to get the numbers right, so they made their "best estimate." Preventing that is precisely why they are required to report these numbers.
What would happen if a county failed to certify an election is that no one would be declared elected and the office would be vacant until filled according to law (just as if the winner dropped dead on election night). Of course, this might result in a great many offices being vacant, since a malfeasant county would likely have to refrain from certifying any race, but there you go. Better that than giving carte blanche to elections officials to certify any numbers they pull out of their butts.
A law (perhaps an amendment to the state constitution) should probably be passed to state that in multi-county races, if a non-certifying county's vote would make no difference in the result (e.g., if the margin of victory is greater than the total vote of non-certifying counties), that the Secretary of State could still certify the election.
Also, perhaps a law should be passed that if the declared margin of victory is more than, say, ten percentage points (maybe even five), that a county may provisionally certify a winner pending a state investigation.
Oh, and each county auditor should be made subject to recall if his county fails to certify a race. Perhaps a recall vote should automatically be placed on the next general election ballot.
The reason we've never thought about this stuff before is because we've never had the combination of an incredibly close election and massive dereliction of duty that we had in 2004.
I rather suspect that legislators and Secretaries of State never gave it much thought, either.
Posted by: ScottM on June 4, 2005 08:42 PMYour answers make sense, although as you note, that's not the way it's been done, and if it were done that way, it would result in a great many offices being vacant. So the judge now has to figure out if that is the true intent of the constitution.
If it is, the next question is what is the appropriate remedy. Sometimes when someone fails to comply with the law, rather than trying to re-do history, the remedy is merely to do your best to make things fair. So even if the election was incorrectly certified, arguably the judge would try to decide whether that ultimately made any difference. Here it comes down to the question of how confidently he can answer that question given the obviously imperfect information available to him.
These are fascinating legal issues. And I'm not even a lawyer.
Posted by: Bruce on June 4, 2005 09:14 PMI can't figure out why Goldstein and the other posters at HA don't see this as significant. Verification of the tabulations at each precint and the total for each county is a very obvious process for all poll site and absentee ballots, and very clearly outlined within WA law.
Goldstein et. al. think that certification is a magic shield which exmepts the election from any futher scrutiny. As well as what Stefan reports here, Micajah and others have posted regarding 29A.60.100 and thus the law is clear, reconciliation and verification do matter.
I don't believe that Judge Bridges will completey ignore our laws.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 4, 2005 09:22 PMWow, good stuff. Note the "shalls." This election was illegally certified no doubt. Question that remains is what is the remedy?
I wish you guys in WA the best of luck. Rossi deserves much credit for fighting this. He is exactly what our party needs.
This is the way that liberals operate when hiding thier ilk from public scrutiny. We did not pick the judge...we picked the venue. This judge is a Dem compromise which ultimately means that he is a liberal himself (my prediction from before about the earring etc.) Liberals NEVER compromise. Ever. (look at the congress filibuster)
The Liberal scum that are running this election system are simply better connected than we are (even in the east) and they have managed to plant another judge in the middle of this debacle. He has camouflaged himself to the point that no Republican can "make" him...not Carlson, not the shark.
If you cant "make" (figure out how he leans) a judge, undoubtably, that makes him a liberal. It is only a liberal who can cloak him/herself so effortlessly.
We will see on monday but if I am wrong, I will apologize to all of you for my incorrect prediction.
I can only pray that I am incorrect in my prediction that it is WE who will be appealing to the Supreme Court. An effort that has only one outcome. Failure.
Again, sorry for being a pessimist but this judge has been identified by "yours truly" as a lib concealing himself...and I just have to trust my intuition.
I hope I am wrong. *making a horribly sad face now*
http://peterclute.com/comments.php?id=56_0_1_0_C
Posted by: pete on June 4, 2005 09:26 PMIn a frinzy, the legislature will have it recertified, mistakes and all, within 24 hours.
Then, we are back to where we started. EXCEPT, the legislature will yet again show that it has no regard for the citizens of the state.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 4, 2005 09:29 PMKeep up the good work Stefan!
John M
Posted by: John Mckay on June 4, 2005 09:33 PMSorry ray.
Posted by: Mark D on June 4, 2005 09:46 PMIf you ignore proceedures due to imcompetance, laziness, and/or deliberate fraud, that is different, don't you think?
Posted by: who'dathunk? on June 4, 2005 09:58 PMIf it's due to incompetence or laziness, that's a different story. People should be retrained, disciplined, and/or fired, but the election should stand unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the errors changed the result.
That seems like sensible public policy to me. I'm not sure it's what the law calls for (though I suspect it's close).
Posted by: Bruce on June 4, 2005 10:21 PMExpect them to post in many forms. Some new names will post - appearing to be Rossi symphathizers who are terribly worried about the Judges ruling on Monday! They will say the Repbulicans *should* win - but they just don't think they made their case...etc... Don't be fooled! Others will just post nonsense denial of the strength in our case... They are trying to mess with your minds.
The trolls are out in force and they are desperate!
Come on people - think! The Democrats did a horrible job with their case and actually helped Rossi more than anything! You saw it - they saw it - everyone saw it - the Dems position simply cannot be strengthened in hindsight!
The Republicans have the law on their side - the Democrats have denial...period.
Posted by: Deborah on June 4, 2005 11:24 PM
"Your answers make sense, although as you note, that's not the way it's been done, and if it were done that way, it would result in a great many offices being vacant."
Would it?
Is it routine for counties not to keep track of the number of ballots they receive? Is it routine for countie elections offices to falsify their records rather than report discrepancies to the canvassing board? If it is, then we have bigger problems than vacant offices.
I seriously doubt that these problems occur with any regularity, and if they do, then the system needs to be fixed, not fudged.
Posted by: ScottM on June 5, 2005 07:36 AMI understand that the KC absentee ballots are somehow handled by a "vendor."
I have some simple questions.
Does the vendor, it's owners, and or employees support any candidates?
Do any elected officials have any interest in that company?
What sort of security do we have to assure they do not slip in or remove ballots?
Are the ballots really out of the hands of a government agency?
Where do I bid for that contract?
Don't I trust officials? NO! Not from either party. I trust party-line workers even less.
He who counts the votes wins more often - it is like the "home field advantage." Stalin is quoted elsewhere on this blog about that. On our side are a uncounted quotes from the founders about trusting those with power.
Posted by: Ron A. on June 5, 2005 08:52 AMAfter listening to the Republican closing arguments, I find it hard to believe that the judge would not void this election.
Posted by: zapporo on June 5, 2005 10:59 AM"The new vision is political power; the new purpose is to control society by limiting individual liberty and denying it to our posterity."
What will happen if the election is not overturned. CG is controlling WA society.
"They are taught, instead, that consensus is more efficient and that political power determines who controls the consensus process, the agenda and the outcome."
Gee, who would of thunk, that the Liberal Media & the democratic control of King County elections, would determine , the process, the agenda, and the outcome of the WA STATE election for Governor.
Yes, a FREE society, with the RULE of LAW, where we can go to a COURT of LAW and settle disputes and exercise our FREE SPEECH to disagree with the handling and OUTCOME of the election of the Governor. This is why United States of America is the best place to live in the whole world. Corrupt officals cannot coverup and get away with stealing an election through FRAUD. I hope Judge Bridges throws out the Nov. 5, 2004 Governors Elections Results.
"Progress toward a more perfect union should not depend upon which political party is in power; it should depend upon the power of the arguments offered in support a particular idea. Persuasion should not be imposed by political bosses; it should be informed by reasoned debate."
Glad to see in text format, the Republican Lawyer closing remarks. The power of persuasive arguments is wonderful to see and hear!!. Hope Judge Bridges is sway by the orartory and the facts presented to him in this case.
Great Article by Henry Lamb, really makes you think about how nice our freedom is to disagree and debate. Just hope that this election FRAUD is overturned by Judge Bridges.
I also liked the "post" created by
"Posted by who'dathunk at June 4, 2005 06:15 PM"
What a great analogy, using the story of a bank counting money, and finding changing numbers of $5, $10, $20 bills that they can not reconcile, but still getting praised for doing the best job statistically possible. No!, we at KC elections don't have a clue has to how much money is in the Bank vault, but thats okay. We just certify that we do know, and everything will turn out A-OK, with Christine as our new short term governor.
Remember Dean Logan?, See MPEG1 video of him answering a question of why the newly found ballots where not reported!
http://www.snocogop.com/guest
Also Chris Vance when he spoke at Snohomish County GOP meeting March 29th 2005 in Lake Stevens.
Fred Finster
Posted by: FastVoteFred on June 5, 2005 02:57 PM