In ruling against Dino Rossi today, Chelan Superior Court Judge John E. Bridges acknowledged serious problems with the elections process in Washington state, and especially King County. The Seattle Times reports Bridges remarked:
"This court is not in a position to fix deficiencies in the election process that this court heard about over the past nine days." But Bridges said that can be done by voters. And he criticized the culture within King County's elections office, which he said led to the problems with the election. "It's inertia, it's selfishness, it's taking our paycheck but not doing the work."
So, should a statewide election reform ballot initiative be on the horizon? If so, when should it appear on the ballot? Who will fund the campaign, and signature-gathering? (It can't be all volunteer). What items should be in the text, and (legal eagles) how can language be carefully crafted to avoid "multiple-topic" pitfalls? I know we've talked about such an initiative here before (see this post, including comment string), but now's a good time to look forward.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 06, 2005 11:13 AM | Email ThisHow you do that, I don't know.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 11:16 AMHowever, you don't need judges to ensure you fair elections. You need citizens. That Consitiution you guys have (I am Canadian) should help you out in this regard.
Good Luck.
Posted by: David M. McClory on June 6, 2005 11:16 AM
You have seen how something as simple as no new gas tax can get reamed? This is much more complicated.
It has to be a legislative fix, and it ain't going to happen with the makeup we have now. Heavens, according to the Ds, they won fair and square despite the contradictions noted by the judge.
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2005 11:21 AMHowever, I find it ironic that Bridges would say that it is up to the voters to fix this mess. The entire point of the court case was to show that the will of the voters was not reflected in the election results. When the voters are challenging the very machine that causes corrupt elections, why would anyone expect the same machinery to not counter the voter's will when voters attempt to overthrow it.
We can see that in the legislature, which routinely overrules the desires of voters, who through innitiatives, have said clearly no new taxes unless a super-majority of the legislature passes them.
Meanwhile, in King County, where the problems need to be fixed, we have Ron Sims and his band of far left socialists running things. Some voters might turn against Sims, but a majority wont, because King County is just that liberal and idealistic with Seattle included.
And, that is the very source of the problem. King County rules over the rest of the state. So, without a fix in King County the state can't expect a fix. And there aint gonna be no fix in King County.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 6, 2005 11:25 AMIf an election can be demonstrated to have more invalid votes than the margin of victory, regardless of which candidate won and without needing to demonstrate fraud, it must be re-run.
Election law to that effect would have let Judge Bridges call for a new election. Current law did not let him do that based on the evidence presented to him, and people need to understand that rather than villfy him for making up law. Judicial activism is wrong when it's in your favor and when it's not in your favor; it's wrong for conservatives to engage in as well as liberals. Get off his back.
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 11:27 AMDo you agree with the judge's ruling that upheld Christine Gregoire's election?
Vote here.
Posted by: Snake on June 6, 2005 11:27 AMDo you agree with Judge Bridges' decision upholding the 2004 election of Christine Gregoire as governor?
Vote here.
Posted by: S on June 6, 2005 11:30 AMIn the event that the number of invalid votes exceeds the margin of victory, an election must be re-run.
That's all you need. If that law had been in place, you'd have a new gubernatorial election. It wasn't in November 2004, and the state laws concerning election contests don't have that as a standard by which an election can be overturned.
Don't villify Judge Bridges for not making up the law on the fly like Republicans wanted him to do. I always thought the Republican Party stood AGAINST judicial activism. Or is there an unwritten coda of "...unless the judicial activism you're going to engage in is in our favor, in which case, make shit up"?
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 11:31 AMThe Judge specifically mentioned that the voters have the power to make this happen. That's the initiative, and we need to use it more than ever to reign in the obviously biased legislature in Olympia.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2005 11:37 AMThen the governor's office would have been vacant, and a new election would take place in November as the state constitution mandates. No judicial order for a new election would be required.
Instead, the judge simply ignored the WAC which requires--or was supposed to require--reconciliation and reporting of discrepancies before certification. The effect is that those "requirements" are in fact optional.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 11:39 AMI am disappointed in the ruling because I believe that it does make an election contest not just difficult, but impossible. If anyone other than election officials or the candidates stuff the ballot box, then the standard appears to be that you must have the name of the stuffer(s) and have depositions on how they voted. They can lie about how they voted and there is absolutely no way to prove otherwise (the actual ballot). If you cannot discover the stuffer(s), then the stuffing is valid and “legal”. I find it incredible that state law actually allows this scenario to be permissible.
I am also disappointed in his dismissal of the proportional deduction. The disappointing aspect was his comment that it is not widely used or accepted. How is that so many states have used it and even Congress uses it and this constitutes “not widely used or accepted”? He may be correct about the bias of the data subsets, etc., but I saw zero evidence that the interveners method was used anywhere in the U.S. to resolve election issues.
What the people need from government are laws that close the loopholes that allow people to obviously vote in a manner contrary to our state constitution.
Proof of citizenship. - Valid ID for registration, not the “honor” system. Purge the voter database and reregister (Amend Have Anyone Vote Act, if necessary)
Proof of restoration of civil rights (felons) - Court decrees with regards to felons should be part of the election system.
Proof of life - The election system should be constantly updated with information of deceased voters.
Create penalties for elections officials (at all levels) who fail to follow the law and the WACs.
Clear up ambiguities shown by this court case – voter crediting!
Judge Bridges ruling did not do much to discourage the cheaters; I fear they are emboldened by his decision. His comment about voters handling the situation doesn’t help. I live in Snohomish County and KC has had a disproportionate impact on us and there is nothing I can do to help solve things in KC. Besides, KC voters can only vote for or against Ron Simms, (and perhaps some county council members), but they don’t have a direct say over the elections division in the form of an elected County Auditor.
Initiatives or Referendums may be a way to address some of these problems, but the cheaters still have clear access to the system. We need to put pressure on the legislature to resolve this. As long as meaningful election reform is ignored and only a new coat of paint is added, very few in the state will feel comfort and confidence in the accuracy of our elections systems.
Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 11:43 AMNice to see the governor reads your site.
Posted by: Slublog on June 6, 2005 11:43 AMI hope they are just gloating for Gregoire.....
Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 11:48 AMRepublicans could have taken that tact for all the felons, and placed the election into the hands of felon voters who already had violated the law and would also have felt protected in the knowledge that their ballots were secret and lying about how they voted could never be discovered. Like the 51,000 ballots altered by poll workers determining intent, Republican lawyers pointed out that they could have litigated this case for months parading thousands of voters and/or affidavits by the judge to suggest how voters voted. But time and cost was prohibitive.
By allowing 1,678 illegal votes to be counted as legitimate, he selected the lesser of the two options from an equality standpoint. Citing state law that gives validity to illegal votes that cannot be proven to have been cast for one candidate or the other is laughable, though, in that we have a secret ballot that once comingled, cannot be removed and examined.
Ultimately, what was at stake for this "elected" judge was likely too great for one person to take on. If, for example, he had nullified the election, does anyone doubt that he would have faced a stiff challenge at reelection as a reward for his work? By applying the law as literally as possible, he has immunized himself from any unreasonable backlash, and more importantly, given cover to a totally corrupt government bureacracy that he even commented before his ruling refuses to hold itself accountable for anything it does.
By dismissing proportional distribution and ignoring both the logical and factual evidence of overwhelming felon votes for Democrats, he portrayed this contest as irreconcilable when logic and common sense clearly argued for the opposite.
While he presented his conclusions as a court refusing to decide an election, in fact, the court chose to support Gregoire in a margin of victory overwhelmed by illegal votes. Nullification of the election would have treated it as a tie, awarding the Democrats this Legislative session and all the damage they did, but allow for a new vote and a clear settling of the issue. Instead, he has crowned an illegitimate governer who represents a party that does not care about legitimacy, but only having the power.
If Washington wasn't a laughing stock before today, now the whole country knows that at least in Washington, you can stuff the ballot box and get away with it.
Posted by: Mike on June 6, 2005 11:51 AMGrow up and do something useful. Start an initiative that'll clean up the election system; support candidates who'll work for better elections; work to get Ron Sims out of office -- I'd support all those things, even though I think the judge was exactly right.
Posted by: the radish on June 6, 2005 11:51 AMGreat, we got beat by people who apparently didn't pass seventh grade English.
As to Judge Bridges, I got the sense he would have loved to have thrown out the election, but the law as it was written, and as he eluded to in his remarks, had his hands tied. I hate this decision, but getting angry at him for following the law as it was written and not being an activist judge only makes us look childish and reminds me of the spoiled brats who p*ssed and moaned about Bush being "selected" after 2000.
After readin all the post from the last couple of threads, all I can say is sitting around, bitching and moaning, feeling sorry for ourselves and crying about how "we're never going to have a fair election" accomplishes squat. You want to get p*ssed? Fine. Get p*ssed... and use that anger to fight within the system. Quit crying about this. Pass an initiative on REAL election reform. Bust your rumps off to pass I-912 (that would be a real slap in the face). Work to vote out the legislatures who passed the crap legislation from this last session. Come on people, there are enough folks out there from both sides who are sufficiantly torqued off with the status quo from the last 6 months that this ruling can be as much a blessing as a burden if used to light a fire under people's arses.
But that's just my $.02. You all are more than welcome to cry over your spilled milk. Personally, though, I would love to come back and shove their comments about "losing losers" right back in their faces.
Posted by: Mike H on June 6, 2005 11:53 AMDo any of you believe Judge Bridges would have ruled the same here if the R's presented 134 affadavits from ILLEGAL VOTERS who said they voted for Gregoire????
Does anyone really believe he would have overturned this election had the R's produced those 134 affadavits???
How many ILLEGAL VOTERS did the Dems "interview" to come up with the 4 Rossi and 1 Bennett votes???
How many of you actually think this was the first 5 they contacted??
How many of you think these 5 felons were truthful about voting for Rossi???
Frankly, I think the focus now should be on repealing the 9-1/2 cents/gallon gas tax and let the Legislature flounder around fixing the obvious shortcomings of our election system.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 6, 2005 11:56 AMApparently government officials may treat requirements as purely optional.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 11:58 AMWASHINGTON — Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
Posted by: Oops on June 6, 2005 12:00 PM
PLEASE READ.
I commend Stefan for being the main catalyst that brought the extent of this scandal to light. (the mainstream media WILL NOT DO IT for us)
I Beg and plead to him and to the rest of us here to keep this issue alive!
The judge has given this issue up to us the voters to 'fix this mess'.
Unfortunately, most washingtonians don't follow these issues the way we have, if at all....
So we must make sure they know and that we use this to help restore fairness to WA., and to serve "crow" back to those trolls here so happy to post about our defeat at the hands of the corrupt.
I ask Stefan and all of us to stay here and brainstorm as to what to do. (maybe we must rule ourselves by initiative)
Shall we start with a recall of fraudoire/and or sims, or some type of initiative establishing new law for elections.
or some other vague IDEAS.
1)Photo ID to vote?
2)New standards of verifying registrations?
3)A Requirement that election director MUST be elected, or that must be a bi-partisan election board for each county. With rep approved by corresponding party.
4)Establishing a MUCH different standard that courts can/must follow in this type of situation.
5) YOUR IDEAS HERE!!
Let's put our heads together and take action...and by this action call attention to the fraud and the fraudulent, and that Seattle, King County and the Democratic House/Senate can't be trusted to correct it, nor do they WANT to correct it.
I Ask Stefan, can we establish a thread (stickey'ed at the top perhaps) to discuss these issues and decide ways to take action. I ask everyone else, lets not forget and stay tuned.....and active.
Let's teach the corrupt and the trolls a lesson. I don't think we can rely on others to do this, as they are paying less attention than us (thx to m.media).
What do you all think?
Scott
But, I would add, DO NOT allow the election to be delayed until the next general election -- make the counties do it immediately, with the bill for the election being paid by the counties. The potential hit to their budget would be a great incentive for county election officials to get it right the first time, and after a costly special election or two, the other county auditors would quit making excuses for the King County Records and Elections mess.
To make such a law especially self-enforcing, write it so the costs to the counties of any such special election would be paid out of a fund into which all the counties would contribute in proportion to their share of the total illegal ballots. So if there were an election in which King County had, say, seventy percent of the illegal ballots in the state, King County would pay seventy percent of the cost of any special election required under this law.
Posted by: Legast on June 6, 2005 12:03 PMHE HE!
Posted by: Rossi Sucks on June 6, 2005 12:07 PMWe only learned of these errors through Stefan's work and the trial. How do we codify getting them as a routine output of elections?
Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 12:09 PMWhat goes on in Elections goes on in DOT, DDES, on the County Council. It permeates through management throughout the Executive's staff. The only way to fix this mess is for good people to run and run and run until they win. No more Sims, no more Irons Jr., no more Vance's, no more Cynthia Sullivans.
The corrupt win because good people don't run, and this isn't a Republicans "good", Democrats "bad" thing. This corruption in non-partisan. They win because without opposition, they write the laws that allow all of these outrages to occur. They write laws at dozens a week. The people will not take back their government solely through initiatives. The crop of corrupt and characterless people in government today needs to be removed before anything else will work.
If you care about Washington and/or King County, run for office and give the corrupt and lazy a run.
Oh, but thank the Grange while your at it, because with the top 2 rule voted in last year, the chances of unseating this corrupt cabal just got a whole lot more difficult.
Posted by: Mike on June 6, 2005 12:11 PMIf King County alone can't cause it to fail with their now legitimized tabulation methods then they'll just get some (non-female) earing wearing judge to invalidate it.
You just don't get it do you?
Posted by: Finney on June 6, 2005 12:12 PMLucy, in this case, I think we would agree -- every vote needs a verifiable audit trail.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on June 6, 2005 12:13 PMI also rather like the idea of an electronic system done statewide with a paper receipt. Perhaps some kind of duplicate where one goes to the voter and one to the county. The paper could be counted independantly and results compared. If they don't match within less than a fraction of a percent, then you could see there is a problem. By getting every county on the *same* system, we could help to iron out potential problems before they start.
Posted by: Eirik on June 6, 2005 12:14 PMOptical scan ballots. Marker pens provided at the polling place to fill in the ballot. If you mess up a ballot, you tell the election workers, who watch you feed it into a shredder and then hand you a clean ballot. When you're done, you walk it over to the counting box, which has a scanner builtin.
The counting box has a slot where you can feed in your ballot, and it scans the ballot as it comes in. Then the ballot sits there, under glass where you can see it, while you check a read-out screen that tells you how the machine thinks you just voted. If it's wrong -- "What do you mean it registerd a vote for Smith, I meant to vote for Jones!" -- you push the red "Cancel" button and the ballot comes back out. If the box says "I can't tell who you voted for", you push the red "Cancel" button and the ballot comes back out. If the box read your vote correctly, you push the green "Accept" button and the ballot gets dropped into the box.
For those people who can't see or can't read, there is a set of headphones plugged into the ballot box, and it can give you an audio readout of how you just voted.
The box adds up its vote totals as they come in, and at the end of the day, you can push a button and it will tell you "1,236 votes for Jones, 871 votes for Smith".
The obvious way to cheat in this system is for the box to lie to voters: it tells the voter it's recorded a vote for Smith, but it really just counted a vote for Jones. But if the voter sees a vote for Smith and presses the "Accept" button, it's because they marked their ballot for Smith -- so that miscounted vote *will* come out in case of a hand-count. Have random spot-checks (1 out of every 25 polling places, if the manpower allows) where the ballots in the machine are counted by hand and compared to the machine's totals. If the spot-checks are truly random, that will make it difficult for anyone to program the machines to cheat.
Absentee ballots are a problem, as the voter can't be there in person to confirm that the box recorded a correct vote. And absentee ballots could be "lost" or otherwise mishandled. I don't know a way to guard against that potentiality, unfortunately.
That system would allow instant electronic counting of votes, yet provide a paper trail with ABUNDANT evidence of the voter's intent. Other than the possibility of tampering with absentee ballots I mentioned above, can anyone think of a major flaw in the system I just described?
Posted by: Robin Munn on June 6, 2005 12:15 PMIf you are tired of the same old crap from Olympia and local governments (e.g., KC), then force a regular turnover. Legislators are supposed to be part-time (on the state level). Let's also make the job only temporary. It is time to get new blood on both sides (Democratic and Republican) that will actually listen to the people. The way to force this is to expire their terms.
Therefore, the new initiative should set the following term limits:
Governor and other State Officers - 2 terms
State Senators - 2 terms
State Legislators - 4 terms
All could only serve 8 years maximum. Additionally, no one could run for another statewide office without a break of at one election cycle (e.g., 2 years). Let the legislators work in the real world and come from the real world. Maybe they would start listening to the ordinary folk.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: tc on June 6, 2005 12:21 PMAll votes must be recieved by the elections offices by the end of election day.
Allowing absentee votes to be postmarked, and recieved up to 10 day or more days after the initial vote is a recipe for "finding" ballots later on in counts. An absentee voter needs to have their ballot in at the same time a polling place voter does.
Posted by: Marc on June 6, 2005 12:25 PM". . . Apparently the main thrust of the judges's ruling was that, while there was evidence of 1,678 illegal votes cast--which I think is around ten times Gregoire's margin of victory--there was no evidence as to who got the illegal votes, so the Republicans failed in their burden of proof.
Of course, if that's the standard, election challenges are futile, since I can't see how there would ever be a record of which candidate a particular voter (real or nonexistent) voted for."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010658.php
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 6, 2005 12:27 PMSomething to the effect of: "If the number of illegal votes is greater than the margin of victory, there must be a revote"
Posted by: Rob on June 6, 2005 12:27 PMA separate initiative would also help - replace the honor system for voter registration.
Posted by: Matzo Ball on June 6, 2005 12:31 PMJust look at Britain's postal voting (AVBM) system. From Reuters:
"Concern over ballot-rigging became an issue ahead of the election when a judge called postal voting "an open invitation to fraud" after an inquiry into a local election in Britain's second city of Birmingham.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour party, returned to government with a reduced majority in the election, this week said people fraudulently applying for a postal vote would face tougher sanctions under proposed legislation."
And here is a AVBM fan: County Elections Director Dean Logan said he was "delighted" with the proposals."
Need I say more?
WE MUST STOP ALL-VOTE-BY-MAIL AND LIMIT ABSENTEE VOTING TO NECESSITY!
Posted by: Splatter on June 6, 2005 12:35 PM(1) People petitioning for the right to vote must PROVE they have a right to vote in the precinct they are registering for. They must be cross-referenced against existing voter lists and against felon lists, illegal alien lists, legal alien lists, etc... Any county official who grants the right to vote to someone who does not have it will be held accountable with a fine. Trying to register to vote when one is not eligible is a crime and will be punished accordingly.
(2) People must re-register every 4 years, presenting evidence that they still have a right to vote in the precinct they are registering for.
(3) When voting, voters must identify that they are indeed the voter who they claim to be. If they are submitting an absentee ballot, that must be signed in the presence of two qualified witnesses and the documentation that identifies the voter must be listed. The two witnesses are taking an oath that if the person is not who they claimed they are they will be held accountable.
(4) Counties must reconcile the number of ballots accepted with the number of voters who voted. Failure to do so results in a heavy fine. If the error exceeds the margin of victory, the election is thrown out. Officials who cannot reconcile the numbers within the margin of victory are required to NOT certify. Certifying when the margin exceeds the margin of victory is FRAUD which is a felony and punishable by the revokation of the right to vote or to work for the government in anything related to voting. Certifications that are found to have been completed fraudently are thrown out and the election is thrown out.
Ballots that are more than the number of voters shows that ballots were inserted into the process. Ballots found less than the number of voters are ballots that were illegally removed.
(5) Enhancement of ballots. Counties shall do everything within their power to make sure that ballots cannot be marked after receipt. A digital image of each ballot must be made upon receipt and stored. These must be publically available, along with information on how each ballot was counted. This way, the public will be able to see how ballots are interpreted and whether the county is doing it fairly.
(6) Recounts. Recounts can not ever take in additional ballots not present in the first count.
(7) Election challenges. Challenges are successful when they show that significant malpractice that COULD HAVE resulted in the changing of the results has taken place; when more illegal voters than the margin of victory have taken place; when the results are cast into doubt by evidence showing that the election wasn't handled properly; or a combination of the above three.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 6, 2005 12:35 PMIt's also very funny that in light of a problematic election, the first solution would be to have a referendum. How do you know that election will not have problems? And have you or anyone else come up with a bullet proof procedure for handling elections? The judge was at least honest in his criticism of the process: until you have close elections and some people feel disenfranchised, nobody wants to put the care, time and resources into the election process itself. I blame citizens and politicians alike, because the issue is always about winning and not the integrity of the process.
One final question, are you upset that this judge did not follow the law or simply decided against you. I do not see any principled response based upon what was presented in court in front of this judge to suggest a miscarriage of justice.
Merely claiming that there was a "problem" without providing specific proof of how the problem actually gave the election to the wrong person debases both the laws which were passed to regulate the process and the justices who are bound to follow such laws.
Posted by: eddie on June 6, 2005 12:42 PMBy definition and law, there were no recounts in the last election. There were three counts as during each count the voting pool magically expanded.
Snuffy
Posted by: snuffy on June 6, 2005 12:44 PMShe then called her family at the governor’s mansion and hugged her staff, she said at a quickly called news conference outside her office following Monday’s ruling.
“It’s an emotional day, it’s an emotional moment,” she said. “I’m ready to move on. I want the state of Washington to be served by a full-time governor who is not being distracted by anything other than serving the citizens.”
Later joined by her two daughters and husband, Mike, along with their Pomeranian, Franz, a teary-eyed Gregoire hugged her family.
“You’re still the first dog,” Gregoire told Franz.
Gregoire said no immediate celebration was planned, because the entire family was taking a redeye flight to Boston for the graduation of her daughter, Courtney, from Harvard Law School.
Rossi spokeswoman Mary Lane said Rossi had not yet decided whether to appeal Bridges’ decision to the state Supreme Court. Rossi scheduled a news conference for late Monday afternoon.
“Mr. Rossi will have to make the decision,” Gregoire said. “I am ready to move on. I believe the citizens of Washington are ready to move on.”
Bridges said he believed that 1,678 illegal votes were cast in the election, but Republicans didn’t prove those votes changed the outcome. He said the only votes that were proven to be illegally cast for the governor’s race were one cast for Libertarian Ruth Bennett and four cast for Rossi, ultimately giving Gregoire a 133-vote margin.
“Some might suggest that’s a landslide,” Gregoire said to laughter.
Posted by: Gary on June 6, 2005 12:53 PMTo chat live:
http://www.webcityusa.com/chat.html
The mere fact that there is a problem of the magnitude of the one in this election precludes the possibility of any valid election result. That you then have to prove that invalid ballots that you cannot identify would by their very nature not allow you to get any accurate count. That you also have provisional ballots that you cannot identify as being provisional ballots means that you then have no idea of whether provisional ballots were counted in the general election illegally. You therefore cannot short of proving that all your numbers add up possibly have valid election results. If you cannot validate the election which the King county could not in this case then you should throw the election out and vote again. If you cannot prove a fair and accurate election, then you have totally debased your government. By putting Gregoire in office that is what you have done.
Posted by: dick on June 6, 2005 12:55 PM1- don't use the term fraud. No-one's presented evidence of fraud, and that was extensively laid out by Judge Bridges,
2- he explained why he wasn't going to disqualify votes that apparently were held valid in error. From state law, he can't set aside election results that apparently contain errors UNLESS he can authoritatively determine fraud and a change in the winner. Having the canvassing board screw up = not enough.
3- Again, he doesn't have the power to overturn precedent or law, and he bent over backwards to let the Republicans get their arguments on the record so the Supremes (who CAN do this, BTW) have a wealth of evidence in the record to go on- even though it was clear from his ruling their evidence doesn't meet well-accepted standards. So quit bitching- he did his job.
So, I submit, the way to do this is explicitly lay out in state law: if you can show # of votes counted erroneously > election margin = new election. It's unfortunate the law doesn't work this way, and it likely should, so King County and other counties can get it right. (Also note that a number of counties that went for Rossi had screwups as well- King County's were bigger, but some of that is due to scale, though their elections department's been a mess for a while.)
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 12:56 PMWhy not a double-blind system, so we can track down and remove illegally-cast ballots?
Allow me to offer a warm and hearty "HAHA!"
Posted by: The_Gent on June 6, 2005 01:01 PMDINO: don't even try again. election fraud is alive and well in Washington State. you were never the loser, DINO. we the public are the losers. and Judge Bridges just confirmed this predicament. look for Judge Bridges and Sam Reed to be guests of honor at Gregoir's big coming out party in Olympia.
Posted by: peewee on June 6, 2005 01:02 PMThis incredible election has really got me interested in local politics.
nancy
Posted by: nancy on June 6, 2005 01:04 PMThe judge is also somewhat incorrect in his statement in that he is NOT in the position to “fix the deficiencies” because in reality, that is the responsibility of the citizens.
In the final analysis, the judge failed to make the proper judgment of a revote.
In reality, there are two issues that must be repaired. First is the constitution process for recourse and the second is the constitutional power provided to the Secretary of State.
The constitution should change from a judicial review to a simple vote by the legislature for close elections such as this. With a close vote, there should be an up or down vote by the legislature. In this case, the vote would have gone to Gregoire. This long court case would have been avoided. And at least the vote would have been within the citizen arena with the legislature, not the courts.
I would think that all would accept a simple change in the constitution to remove the court from the process and insert the legislature vote. After all, that is what is done with the US Constitution.
The second area is the Secretary of State power in elections. The Secretary of State has no power to accept or reject the county votes on state-wide elections. Most assume that power is there, but it is not provided by the constitution. In the current process, the Secretary of State simply accepts the county voting results. That should change to provide the Secretary of State power to ACCEPT or REJECT all or part of the county votes for any state-wide election. It is each county’s responsibility to provide an honest election. If the Secretary of State rejects any county election, the county will need to provide results that would be acceptable to the Secretary of State. Recourse would be the county to provide results directly to the legislature for an acceptance. Recourse for the Secretary of State would be to present the rejection reasons to the legislature. Again, let the legislature make the final decision.
With this process, all issues are in the open and our representative government will be forced to do their job that we elected them to do.
I would think that all would accept this simple change.
I would support both of those initiatives.
Those of us in King County should re-energize ourselves to force change in the voting process. To me it is not an issue of fraud by senior officials as much as there is a “climate” within King County that seems to allow individuals to commit fraud. An honest system would have caught these individual frauds before they occurred or removed them at the canvas board. There should NEVER be an occasion to add votes AFTER the first count. A recount is a recount of the existing votes, no additions.
Alf
And we thought the trainwreck was in Olympia? Ha. The real trainwreck is in Wenatchee. And train engineer Bridges just ran the DINO express into the river. Too bad more than half of the voters of WA were on that train.
Posted by: Al Strombley on June 6, 2005 01:06 PMI see at least one possible avenue for winning on appeal.
Towards the end of his remarks, the judge stated that it could not be ascertained who had voted, from the crediting record.
This indicates that he stuck with the misleading and incorrect definition put forward by various elections officials and seconded by the Dems, that crediting is an essentially meaningless post-canvassing exercise.
While not completely unexpected (due to one of his pre-trial rulings), this was a big disappointment, as testimony during the trial had clearly established that crediting is an integral part of the process required by statute to ensure that people don't vote twice.
The effect of this was to remove a means by which illegal votes might have been proven. In light of the judge's refusal to accept proportional deduction (I find his insistance on an answer to the "scientific question" off the mark, as the question facing him was a legal/political one) with respect to the felon voters, this became a critical issue.
The judge dismissed the misconduct by the KC Elections officials, saying that even though it had occurred, Petitioners had failed to prove there were illegal votes, so no harm was done.
It is unfortunate that the Reps didn't ask the judge to reconsider his earlier ruling on crediting, in light of the trial testimony. However, if it can be shown that the judge erred in relying on the incorrect definition of crediting, and should instead have used the one that came out during the trial, then it may be possible to prove illegal votes based on the pre-canvass crediting.
These illegal votes would be the voterless ballots in both the absentee and provisional counts. For these votes, proportional deduction might be acceptable, as these votes constitute the universe of such illegal votes (as determined by the official KCE records), and also because these votes cannot be tied to specific voters, thus there is no argument that these votes differ in distribution from the rest of the votes, due to being cast by males, or felons, etc.
Having thus proven illegal votes, the misconduct by KCE would have to be reconsidered, in furtherance of the argument that misconduct by elections officials had rendered the actual result of the election unknowable.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 6, 2005 01:06 PMI was looking at the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission's site, and under Initiatives and Ammendments not scheduled for the ballot, was a Proportional Representation Ammendment.
What would do it for reform to avoid the single-subject rule, is a series of Initiatives.
One thing we have over British Columbia, which on May 17th had a ballot measure that would have used Proportional Representation fail at the polls, is we cannot change the requirements for passage at the last minute. The BC Legislature(with the opposition-less BC Liberal Party in charge) invoked a Supermajority Rule that required it to pass with 60% Province-Wide, and win simple majorities in 60% of the ridings(districts). It got 57% of the vote, and won in all but 2 Districts. At least in this state, an Initiative cannot have it's requirements for passage changed a month away from election.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on June 6, 2005 01:08 PMWhat is needed?
Quality candidates in as many races as can possibly be viable. Beat Sims, McCarthy, Terwilliger (sp?) et al. All the statewide and local races. Seats on the bench. Wherever possible. Rossi for gov, Forman for Sen. Dump Baird, Smith, etc.
Election reform…the whole list…proof of citizenship, picture ID, guards over the voting machines….heck, even cameras on the machines, if possible.
A clear statement of election procedures that have the force of law behind them, which cannot be treated merely as ‘suggestions’ from the SOS’s office. Clarify and enforce the crediting function.
Audit trails. Eliminate the permanent enhancement of ballots. Create a record that has the ability to hold “enhancers” accountable. Rule out divination of voter intent; if there is no mark within the confines of the lines or oval, there is no vote. Anyone that did not or cannot pass first grade arts and crafts shouldn’t be voting anyway. Personal responsibility means that they disenfranchised themselves, not the work of mean republicans. And, for the trolls, there is no proof that the enfeebled voters all voted for CG. Even if the illegally enhanced ballots now show that they did.
Make all provisionals and absentees different from poll ballots, and make it so that they can’t physically run through the machines on purpose or by accident, either one. “Folding” ballots? Pleeeeease. How about different colors and sizes? Nail illegal voters. Accounting trails for all ballots. Make the official who has the ballots personally sign for them and account for them, and to sign for variances. Eliminate the possibility of the duplication of ballots by election workers…without some official seal, the ballot can’t be tabulated. Use a workable scanning function to track ballots.
One that must be included for election reform to be possible…personal accountability on the part of election personnel. Including jail time and financial penalties (I know that this would have to be made consistent with constitutional rules). Also, the state needs to impose penalties on counties that fail to run a clean election, including the cost of a re-vote.
Personally, I’d love to include changing Logan’s job to an elective one. And breaking up King County, so they count much less than a third of the state’s total vote. While we’re at it, as king for a day, I’d make Seattle council offices tied to a district, not at large (which guarantees dem sovereignty in Seattle.) I would also make absentee voting safe and rare. Make applicants show “need” for an AB. You have to do that to get out of jury duty, why not voting? Eliminate the Byzantine lack of effective controls in counties. Change the culture where mistakes are tolerated without penalty. Make employees pass competency tests. Eliminate union patronage…it could happen.
Heads should roll. Make it happen.
I have a sense of vision…a vision in which there are political heads on pikes to warn others of what happens to people in authority and with accountability that have failed to fulfill their charge.
The trolls keep bringing up Florida. I’d like to point out to them that because of “Florida” as a “gorism,” Florida is moving solidly to the republicans. Chortle all you want. Pearl Harbor was one battle, not the war. Pearl Harbor was a crime by a party that ‘cheated.’ It helped to galvanize the nation on the path toward ultimate victory. May the same thing happen for the people of the Soviet of Washington, who deserve freedom in ways that they do not have now.
Someone else said it…this has “become the OJ of elections.” We all know that they did it, and just as justice had to go a different path against OJ, so must we. In that case, they used civil mechanisms instead of the criminal. We must use the elections and laws. The path is more difficult now, and there is a bitter sense of “justice delayed is justice denied.” But still, eventual justice, while it may never carry full restitution, is still possible by an alternate path.
Tokyo Rose, for all her comments, ultimately paid a price, and has been isolated and rendered a pitiful reminder of the uncertainty of the WWII struggle. So I say, look at the trolls as the modern reincarnation of Tokyo Rose, and realize that they are a reminder of our goal, and that their taunts stand in stark contrast in their lack of truth…if they could argue on the merits of justice and truth they would. They cannot, and are left with the playground taunts of bullies that have not been caught yet. I enjoy their taunts as proof that their quivers contain no arrows of truth.
I cannot vote for Mr. Irons. But I can both sign and collect signatures on the new initiative. As soon as the next step is calculated, I’m right there. I’ll even buy the t-shirt.
While the election contest exposed some of what has happened, it will be up to the republican party and concerned citizens of Washington state to change things before it's too late.
If you want to know where we are headed, look at California. Anybody want to take a guess at the number of illegal votes cast to elect the Los Angeles Mayor?
This is the democrats goal and dream here in Washington. They want, more than anything else, to replicate the California model.
Posted by: jaybo on June 6, 2005 01:09 PMEcological fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy
Note the update for Judge Bridges' decision. ;)
Note that felons aren't a representative subsample of voters, anyway. They are overwhelmingly male, for one thing, which changes vote distribution.
On top of that, there's his finding that if you add in the felons the Democrats ID'ed in OTHER counties that leaned Rossi, and proportionally deduct votes, Gregoire wins anyway. So it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition for the Republicans anyway- allowing proportional deduction doesn't get the Republicans to the goal line of reversing the result, based on the evidence in court.
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 01:09 PMI highly doubt the Suypreme court will overturn Judge Bridges since he gave them such nice cover politically. Dare we hope that the Moonbat Party hangs itself anytime soon?
The only glimmer of hope I see is what was reported in some places in 2004... The Dems were watching so well to prevent disenfranchisement that they scared away their own goons and ballot stuffers. Of course here in WA we're so progressive that the "election community" can vote for us!
Audit trails should become a specific part of the RCW and not ambiguous, easily ignored WACs.
Only counties would be allowed to contact voters to fix their registration (signatures, etc.). NO non county entities to be allowed to obtain affidavits.
I think the idea of voter registration renewal is a good one. It will mitigate the "my signature changed over time" excuse.
Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 01:13 PMwww.geocities.net
In my opinion, the judge failed to enforce the election contest statute. To suggest that the voters have the power to do anything to change the legislature or laws through our failed election process is ridiculous. Any statewide election can be altered by King County, as was the Nov. 2004 election for Governor. And now we have a judge who has declared the remedy of the election contest to be impossible to use in the real world. King County basically got a pass to continue to ignore state statutes, knowing they will never face any penalty, even if they are caught.
Vital information such as Soundpolitics provides is helpful, especially in a state where elections are conducted properly with integrity. However, if the election system is hopelessly broken, do the people really have any power to change it via something as manipulated as a vote?
Republicans, and especially conservatives, have no business being in politics, or the judiciary, in Western Washington. And we good LIBS will eventually start taking territory east of the Cascades, thanks to good judges like Bridges, who have seen the light. Welcome to the Democratic Party, Judge Bridges. You belong with US. (AND to us).
Posted by: liberal sucker on June 6, 2005 01:16 PMBzzzzt. No cookie for you.
Under current state law, Judge Bridges DID NOT have the power to call for a revote. He can set aside the election and declare a vacancy, or put Rossi in office. At which point the next gubernatiorial election happens in 2006 (which, BTW is an election for a vacancy, so Rossi and Gregoire don't automagically become the nominees, there's a primary, and so on) and Lt. Gov Brad Owen's the acting governor until then.
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 01:17 PM"It is unfortunate that the Reps didn't ask the judge to reconsider his earlier ruling on crediting, in light of the trial testimony. However, if it can be shown that the judge erred in relying on the incorrect definition of crediting, and should instead have used the one that came out during the trial, then it may be possible to prove illegal votes based on the pre-canvass crediting.
These illegal votes would be the voterless ballots in both the absentee and provisional counts. For these votes, proportional deduction might be acceptable, as these votes constitute the universe of such illegal votes (as determined by the official KCE records), and also because these votes cannot be tied to specific voters, thus there is no argument that these votes differ in distribution from the rest of the votes, due to being cast by males, or felons, etc.
Having thus proven illegal votes, the misconduct by KCE would have to be reconsidered, in furtherance of the argument that misconduct by elections officials had rendered the actual result of the election unknowable."
ewaggin, this is very interesting and is easy for me to assimilate.
Do you think this would be grounds for an appeal? And do you think the WSSC would be an impartial body in this case?
Republicans are the ones with mental disorders. And stop trying to control the judiciary. That's the domain of Democrats. If you want to ever succeed in politics in WA, then learn to cheat like we do. Or, just buy-off all of the corrupt judges. Until you learn to cheat, lie, steal, and cover-up like we do ------ you dumb Republicans will get nowhere.
Posted by: GAYINYOURFACE on June 6, 2005 01:21 PMI quote from the state constitution, Article 2, Section 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT.
"No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
The Supreme Court has clearly defined "one subject" as we saw in I-695. However, this section is written to apply to both Initiative and Legislative Bills.
It's time to go after all those "Engrossed Substitute" bills that former AG Gregoire signed as violating the One Subject section of the Washington Constitution.
Alternatively, it's time to fight for equal treatment by allowing greater latitude in Initiative so that our One Subject has the same flexibility that the Legislature has.
Posted by: D-A-G on June 6, 2005 01:23 PMThrow ALL off them out... and I do mean ALL of them at the next election!
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on June 6, 2005 01:24 PMDINO: You are the political Christ of WA State. You have been tried before the corrupt on false charges. And you have been convicted. Now, get out of town quickly............before the UGLY Democrats put you up on the cross too.
ps. we love you, DINO.
So, are voters in King County not to be allowed to vote in your world, or what?
Look, King County screwed up. No getting around that. So did Pierce County (went for Rossi). So did some other Rossi counties.
The correct response IS to hold King County officials responsible- as opposed to having judge make up law on the fly. The law does not say you get to have a new election if a county screws up vote totals but you can't prove fraud, and Judge Bridges wasn't going to write law.
My response is probably going to be to vote for David Irons- on the assumption that head will roll soon after. I suspect that's going to be true for a lot of people. This isn't the first thing Ron Sims has been involved in that has gone askew (we spent millions on a computer system that went tits-up, for one thing), and I think a clean sweep's the only way to fix it.
Posted by: eponymous coward on June 6, 2005 01:24 PMPerhaps this is the new meaning of representative democracy.
Posted by: disenfranchised on June 6, 2005 01:26 PMToday, the democratic voice of the real majority has been thwarted by a judge who is too timid to stand for the TRUTH.
Posted by: marylee on June 6, 2005 01:26 PMWith the elections of Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire,etc., does this mean he thinks there aren't enough men in this state?
How ecological fallacy square with that particula assumption?
Posted by: Jack on June 6, 2005 01:29 PMJOHN, KIRBY, MIKE, and the rest of the gang. Get ready for the storm. Your stations are about to go NUTS.
Posted by: bestisyet2come on June 6, 2005 01:29 PMThe Judge set an impossible hurdle based on existing Washngton State Laws.
The requirement to provide evidence of the voter who cast the illegal ballot and the person who the illegal votor voted for is an impossible hurdle to overcome based on the fact that we have a secret, anonymous ballot system in our state and country.
I do believe that this will be the main thrust of the appeal to the Supreme Court. The judges hands were tied, he cannot rewrite the laws to suit and he does not have the right to overturn existing legislated laws as un constitutional, that is the Supreme Courts decision.
Do not be surprised that this decision in at least parts is overturned at the Supreme Court level, the result being that they will throw out the existing election contest laws and force the legislature to rewrite them with a burden that is not impossible to attain.
The real important thing to remember that if this does happen we need to have a legislature that understands the will of the people and the intent of our constitution. This will not happen as long as we have pinko-commie bedwetting liberals in the house and senate.
Your job, should you decide to accept it is run the liberals out of office everywhere you can. A strong republican party is the only way to combat this. (I am not a party politico but now see the need for strong organized politics and a strong republican party).
Donate, join the bell ringers during election time, write letters to the editor, do everything you can to remind people that changes need to be made.
And for goodness sake........RE-ELECT ROSSI!
A second desirable change would be for much tighter limits on the the use of provisional ballots. They are simply too open to fraud -- as our last election just showed, I believe.
ec - I have written a number of posts on my own site about the ecological fallacy. (Partly because I see it so often, especially in NYT columnist Paul Krugman' columns.) Here's a key point: Finding the ecological fallacy in an analysis does not invalidate the result. Whether the result is correct depends on whether there are "confounding" variables. Sometimes there are, sometimes there are not.
(And for those who really want to dig into the question, I'll add that I have read that there are statistical methods that allow you to use aggregate results to reach conclusions about individuals.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 6, 2005 01:49 PMThat's the difference. True conservatives will buck up and continue on--legally. King County voters: Fix this. Stop re-electing those incompetent chimps. If you have any mettle, do the right thing and clean house--for ALL parties. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2005 01:51 PMYour guy got rejected, but you are welcome to re-elect her to show your support. She can become every bit of the governor that you want her to be.
Posted by: The_Gent on June 6, 2005 02:09 PMI'm a Republican. I know my fellow Republicans are loathe to anti-law and order action because law and order is the mother's milk of civil society. We disdain unruly mobs of angry citizens. Under our system of checks and balances and separation of powers, the courts are the final venue for redress of grievances. But Judge Bridges has failed in his duty to accept this role by placing the good people of Washington under the paradoxical remedy of using a corrupted ballot box to rid themselves of the corrupted ballot box.
Republicans can sit on their haunches talking about "next time", complacent in the self-righteous indignation they hold as the mark of martyrdom, or they can get off their arses and deal with this the way real men would.
Is there no limit, no point at which we break and resort to other methods of saying "NO!" to this form of governmental abuse? You see, this wasn't just the candidates cheating or John Q. Citizen getting away with a couple extra votes. This was about a corruption machine placed to negate the expressed will of the people in relation to how state power and authority over your family, money and property will be vested should their will run country to the interests of those currently vested with that power.
I remember reading in these blogs that your last election did not have nearly as many errors as this one. Why might that be? The answer is that there will always only be enough "errors" necessary to negate the expressed will of those seeking a changing of the political guard.
Look at your election laws and look at who wrote them. Then ask yourselves, "Why were they written such by those people?" Then look at who is responsible at the state level and at the KC level for your elections. Ask yourselves, "Why are those particular people there?"
With Judge Bridges decision, WA state voters have eclipsed the limitations of ordinary remedies available to the citizenry. You have no way out of this through any of the three branches of state government. So now what?
One choice is to stay in the system and: 1). appeal the decision to the state supreme court. Do you think you'll succeed in getting your electoral process purified through that entity? or; 2). try to force your legislature to repeal and rewrite these laws. Think that will work? or; 3). How about a ballot initiative? Maybe, but you're back to who's counting the votes with that one.
Another choice is to continue to wring your hands in despair and blame the lawyers and the people in control of state government, etc..
Or you can recognize that you're the frog in the pot who too late realized he was being boiled alive because the heat was turned up ever so slowly on him while his attention was willingly diverted with other amusements.
A successful frog would take the leap.
Posted by: Kitty on June 6, 2005 02:10 PMI am a conservative and proud of it. But to be honest, some of these posts are starting to embarrass me.
Leave the state?
Break the law?
There's no hope?
What a bunch of babies!
I am not going to leave or give up. My next mission is to get my petition and fill it with signatures for I-912.
Next I'm going to see if there isn't some way for me to help the republicans depose Ron Sims. Right now there are thousands of independents that also want him to go.
Those of you that are crying have no faith in the cause you support. Trust me, most people do not like the way that this last election was run.
Posted by: jaybo on June 6, 2005 02:11 PMI think that, at the very least, any attempt to reform the election process should include a change in the law to provide the ability to challenge on the basis that errors in the process are sufficient raise credible doubt against the results. A successful challenge would automatically result in a voiding of the results and a new election.
Posted by: David W. Cooney on June 6, 2005 02:18 PMKitty - Also Right on.....How about organizing for the next election by having voters from around the state come together to "blockade" Seattle voting precincts as a form of Civil protest against the corruption taking place there.
If we cannot trust their votes to be counted/or cast fairly, perhaps keep them from being cast.
Yes, I know this could be illegal depending on how it's conducted and could result in arrests....but maybe this is what we need to make the statement of how "bad it is" that we need a "tea-party" of sorts.
And we "must" pass I-612 now to show em who's really boss.
Scott
Posted by: scotto51 on June 6, 2005 02:45 PMIf I remember correctly, the legislature can change an initiative after a few years, however, if we do this now...by the time the legislature could change the law put in place by the initiatives, we'd hopefully have a Republican legislature/Gov.
Mark
Can't blame me. I was educated in Washington's public schools where English was more about building self-esteem then/than?? teaching proper grammer/grammar?
Mark
Posted by: Mark D on June 6, 2005 03:21 PMSomething you wrote earlier just does not ring true to me. You stated that in the case of elections you had to prove not only that fraud happened but that because of the fraud the election results would have changed. This does not even begin to make sense to me. To take an extreme example if I can prove that the results were overstated by 100 thousand and I lost the election by 2, then I would not only have to prove the 100,000 error but I would also have to prove that I got 50,003 of those votes to have it caused fraud. If I got 50,001 of them, then no fraud would have occurred. That just does not make any sense to me at all!!
Posted by: dick on June 6, 2005 03:28 PM"Provisional ballots must be a different physical color and shape than regular or absentee ballots so that they must be counted by tabulating machines that can only process the provisional ballots."
That should solve the "oops" problem in King County. I don't have a clever way to fix the felons/dead/idiots voting problem.
Posted by: Dave on June 6, 2005 03:39 PMAs I listened to Judge Bridge's remarks, this possibility occurred to me.
It may be a long-shot, and I am uncertain if my reasoning is correct. I posted this hypothesis in hopes that some of the reqular posters here with legal expertise (which I lack) would comment on it.
I'm glad that my argument made at least some sense to someone besides me!
Posted by: ewaggin on June 6, 2005 03:59 PM(That is, in a statewide election, the entire county's vote would be taken into account, but in a state legislative election which spans more than one county, only the precincts in that district would be considered.)
We need to spell out in the precisely what a judge must do in every situation imaginable, or we can never count on judges enforcing the law. Judicial discretion apparently won't work when it comes to election law.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 04:28 PMOtherwise, Rossi risks looking like a sore loser to decent people, rather than just leftist freaks and trolls.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be morally justified. But it's quite possible for an act to be morally unassailable and still be political suicide.
Posted by: ScottM on June 6, 2005 04:33 PMThat's the trouble when you elect 'Rats. They get entrenched and the first things they do are fix things up (pass laws, get legal rulings, etc.) that make it all the harder to dig them out though the electoral process.
I hate to say it, but I think things in WA state have moved beyond this point. Time to think outside the box, maybe some "radical" approaches that conservatives have heretofore been reluctant to even consider, much less try.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 6, 2005 04:50 PMGreat plan.
First, the SOS office is going to kill it outright. He has shown his colors, and will kill any attempt to fix a system to which he subscribes.
Secondly, after all the roadblocks are cleaned away, what do we have? Lawsuits over the title, nonsense, and a political campaign impugning us as bigots.
Assuming we could get to an election, and it passes, so what? It would be ruled unconstitutional in Thurston County the next day.
And, assuming that the Superior Court judge in Thurston County, who will OBVIOUSLY feel differently than Bridges on the ability to usurp the law and voters, is overruled, the legislature through a simple majority vote will gut it.
Bridges punted. And left the voters with a pile of crap. Thanks, honorable judge.
We aren't going to be able to require citizenship, ID, or even a means to verify someone is ALIVE. Who are we kidding here? CG and her minions are damned sure not going to let any integrity into the system. Sims? Logan? Reed? Don't make me laugh.
Maybe Goldy was right. Maybe we are just living a pipe dream when in reality people like him will just have a field day in the grey areas of the law and screw us all of the time.
I am tired, frustrated, and exceedingly disappointed in this process. Justice? Ok. Nice word. Count on the courts? A farce. Count on the people who rely on illegal votes to inject integrity into the system? You have to be kidding me!
Posted by: Patches Pal on June 6, 2005 08:25 PMThe QUIETEST parties will be the enemy. Silence at this time of needed reform will truly mark those who do not want honest change for the WHOLE populace. Watch for the crimes of omission and inaction. The true legislators with integrity will make meaningful change. Judge ye accordingly and vote ye accordingly.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2005 08:52 PMthe 'ol shell game on the train...the break dancers downtown as the pickpockets bump you from behind...whew...let my guard down a moment..thanks!
will look for the chimp dressed in the "reform" tux...maybe I'll wear the bananna cologne to flush him out...
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2005 10:15 PMWe could in essense codify 'proportional deduction' to be used in ALL cases where investigation cannot reconcile the canvass or in the event of illegal votes.
I think the fear of 'proportional deduction' changing the outcome of the election may cause election officials to clean up there acts. At the very least it says that if you are going to vote multiple times, it is best to make you duplicate votes for the other party in order to dilute the averages.
Posted by: TG on June 7, 2005 10:55 AM“This Court is not in a position to fix the deficiencies in the election process that we heard about in this courtroom over the past nine days. However, the voters of this state are in a position to demand of their executive and legislative bodies that remedial measures be instituted immediately. And clearly, the evidence here suggests that the problems require more than just constructing new buildings and
hiring more staff.”
The following Referendum to the Washington State Legislature will be filed with the Secretary of State within the next ten days.
A REFERENDUM MEASURE RELATING TO THE WASHINGTON TAXPAYER AND CITIZEN PROTECTION ACT
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Washington:
Section 1. Short title
This act may be cited as the "Washington Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act".
Section 2. Findings and declaration
This state finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship to this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. This state further finds that illegal immigrants have been given a safe haven in this state with the aid of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, and that this conduct contradicts federal immigration policy, undermines the security of our borders and demeans the value of citizenship. Therefore, the people of this state declare that the public interest of this state requires all public agencies within this state to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to discourage illegal immigration.
Section 3. Registration form
A. The form used for the registration of electors shall contain:
1. The date the registrant signed the form.
2. The given name of the registrant, middle name, if any, and surname.
3. Complete address of actual place of residence, including street name and number, apartment or space number, city or town and zip code, or such description of the location of the residence that it can be readily ascertained or identified.
4. Complete mailing address, if different from residence address, including post office address, city or town, zip code or other designation used by the registrant for receiving mail.
5. Party preference, if required by election laws.
6. Telephone number, unless unlisted.
7. State or country of birth.
8. Date of birth.
9. Occupation.
10. Indian census number (optional to registrant).
11. Father's name or mother's maiden name.
12. The last four digits of the registrant's social security number (optional to registrant).
13. A statement as to whether or not the registrant is currently registered in another state, county or precinct, and if so, the name, address, county and state of previous registration.
14. A statement that the registrant is a citizen of the United States.
15. A statement that the registrant will be eighteen years of age on or before the date of the next general election.
16. A statement that the registrant has not been convicted of treason or a felony, or if so, that the registrant's civil rights have been restored.
17. A statement that the registrant is a resident of this state and of the county in which the registrant is registering.
18. A statement that executing a false registration is a class 6 felony.
19. The signature of the registrant.
20. If the registrant is unable to sign the form, a statement that the affidavit was completed according to the registrant's direction.
21. A statement that if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
22. A statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.
23. A statement that the applicant shall submit evidence of United States citizenship with the application and that the registrar shall reject the application if no evidence of citizenship is attached.
B. A duplicate voter receipt shall be provided with the form that provides space for the name, street address and city of residence of the applicant, party preference and the date of signing. The voter receipt is evidence of valid registration for the purpose of casting a ballot to be verified by each County Auditor.
C. The state voter registration form shall be printed in a form prescribed by the secretary of
state.
D. The county auditor may establish procedures to verify whether a registrant has successfully petitioned the court for an injunction against harassment an order of protectio