The one bright spot of yesterday's ruling was Judge Bridge's rebuke of King County Elections, even if it was milder than deserved:
clearly, the evidence here suggests that the problems require more than just constructing new buildings and hiring more staff.andMr. Logan in his testimony in court and, more particularly, in his deposition testimony referred to the culture he found when he assumed the responsibilities of the Director of Elections in King County. Almost anyone who works in state or local government knows exactly what this culture is. It's inertia. It's selfishness. It's taking our paycheck but not doing the work. It's not caring about either our fellow workers or the public we are supposed to serve. It's not taking responsibility. It's refusing to be held accountable.
The King County Elections Department experienced what have been called deep and significant problems during the 2004 general election and the tabulation that followedNaturally, Dean Logan is taking advantage of the lack of any actual consequences for his misfeasance and spinning the judge's derogation as some kind of pat on the back. See Logan's post-ruling press release --
"Efforts are well underway to address the human errors and administrative deficiencies that occurred in November. Rigorous quality control measures, enhanced reconciliation processes, and improved reporting of ballot accountability have already been implemented in the three special elections held in February, April and May this year.I'm inclined to believe that as much as I believe Logan's statement in his "2004 Elections Report Report [sic]" that
I am proud of our 2004 accomplishments. Without question, there were challenges and obstacles to overcome, but we did so without compromising the transparency and integrity of the elections.The latter was written back in February, at a time when Logan was actively engaged in a disinformation campaign to cover up the fact that there were hundreds more unlawfully tabulated provisional ballots than he had earlier disclosed and that nobody in his office ever had any idea how many people actually voted in the election and whether the multiple ballot counts had any legitimacy. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 07, 2005 10:58 AM | Email This
Rather than an initiative calling for a new election or a run-off in cases where errors occur which would cost more money to adminster and result in possible interuptions in the continuity of governance (Lt.Gov. having to serve until run-off election completed etc.), I think we need an initiative that simply codifies a method to reconcile tabulation discrepancies.
We should in essense codify 'proportional deduction' to be used in ALL cases where investigation cannot reconcile the canvass or in the event of illegal votes.
With a method proscribed by law there is no doubt that election official would probably be more apt to investigate ALL discrepancies otherwise the votes are removed from the vote totals of the corresponding candidates prior to certification.
Posted by: TG on June 7, 2005 11:07 AMThat's not speculation, that's an eyewitness fact.
Unbelieveably, as the judge delivered a harsh public rebuke to the King County Election Office, the man who is responsible for leading the Election Section, who spent a day on the stand responding that he "didn't know" and "didn't recall" basic election information, who claimed to have no knowledge of election WAC's he personally authored while working for the Secretary of State previously, and who takes home approximately $85,000 a year of the taxpayers' money (not counting King County's generous benefits), for leading what can only be described as a less than adequate operation, felt the occasion was one to be visibly celebrated.
What a gross display of unprofessionalism.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on June 7, 2005 11:13 AMThe United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington can be contacted via the following:
Email: PublicComment.USA-WAW@usdoj.gov
MAIN
Seattle Office
U.S. Attorney's Office
700 Stewart Street
Suite 5220
Seattle, WA 98101-1271
Tel: (206) 553-7970
Fax: (206) 553-0882
ISDN: (206) 264-2765
Website: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/waw/
Get McKay of his duff!
Posted by: starboardhelm on June 7, 2005 11:14 AMLikewise Nixon Handy, the current champion of desinformatzia campaigns at State taxpayers' expense. Enthusiastically following Judge Bridges' suggestion to fix bad elections by the political process is the best thing that voters can do for the State (and their own pocketbooks). Vote ALL the rascals out, from Gregoire and Sims on down - and then clean house among the unelected sinecurists who polluted the 2004 election.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 7, 2005 11:17 AMFrom the bottom of my heart, and on behalf of my grandbabies who have to face the future in this state, thank you so sincerely for all you have done. I'm not done fighting, and I hope that after a rest, neither are you.
Posted by: lksimstrailgrammy on June 7, 2005 11:19 AMThe more that bureaucrats like Logan try to spin, the more infuriated the citizens of King County will become.
Posted by: jaybo on June 7, 2005 11:36 AMTraitors.
Posted by: Doc on June 7, 2005 11:43 AMAnd the new County Executive could replace Dean Logan with our own Stefan Sharkansky. IMO, that would be a HUGH win!
Posted by: Janet on June 7, 2005 11:49 AMI guess any lawyer who loses a case should face treason charges because his case must of not had merit because he lost.
The judge was not going to throw out the elction based on statisitics. The GOP had bad strategy. The Dems showed them if they got felons to swear how they voted that the judge would have accepted it as truth.
Posted by: Spy on June 7, 2005 12:01 PMAlso there is certain evidence which was not released because it did not necessarily pertain directly to the issues the R's argued in the contest.
The "aftermath" will sway the "court of public opinion". Did any of you really, truly think that in the end Rossi would survive a Washington State Supreme Court challenge when the Court make-up is 6-3 Liberal at best and more likely 6-2-1??
Let's get real about this. Sure we hoped Bridges would force the Supreme's Hand but in the end...Rossi had little chance with a Leftist Supreme Court. Understand???
However, Judge Bridges was absolutely right about several things. Besides a serious lack of consequences statuatorially for poor accounting and an Election Contest Statute that makes it virtually impossible to overturn the election even if you see them stuffing the ballotbox.....Judge Bridges was right that it's up to the VOTERS to change the "culture". Will they do it????
Once they clearly see everything that was presented at trial and a steady dribble of other suspicious actions....we'll see. Voters are basically apathetic but there is a point where they will say "Enough is enough". It's our job to get them there....at the appropriate time, with the facts clearly presented for the VOTERS to decide if KingCo's conduct was fair.
Let's not get too deep into deflecting attention away from KingCo Elections and the Dems by beating up on Bridges. Bottom-line is the Law sucks! Let's hold KingCo's feet to the fire and NOT LET UP!! Focus!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 7, 2005 12:11 PMRossi said yesterday, "I continue to believe that mounting this election challenge and shining the lights on the various problems of our election system was the right thing to do," he said. Any logical person would have to agree with Rossi. I was reading the Columbian this morning (Vancouver’s newspaper) and couldn’t help but notice the stark contrast between Rossi’s statements and that of Democratic Party Chariman Paul Berendt.
“It's a shame Dino Rossi didn't graciously concede the election in December when all the votes were counted," state Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt said. "Instead, he put the people of Washington through this expensive and unnecessary legal battle. They have shown that they will say anything, they will spend anything and they will do anything to tear down Christine, and that needs to stop," he said.
A truly classy and appropriate response from Berendt at the end of the closest election contest in history. Does anyone in the Democratic party remember when Gregoire called Rossi’s 200+ victory a tie?
Terry McAulif, Howard Dean, Paul Berendt… and the Democrats wonder why their power continues to erode.
I just fired off an email to the DOJ asking them to investigate the election process and officials in this state.
I reminded them that the lack of public confidence is the breeding ground for civil unrest and that it is in everybody's interest to hold accountable those who would thwart the election process.
If the DOJ gets thousands of those letters, can they ignore us, regardless of what King County might say?
Posted by: Elmo on June 7, 2005 01:06 PMSo he called out the voters to do something. Ok, like we didn't know that. He could have ordered some action by the Legislature...but he didn't. He could have ordered an investigation into King County's voting practices...but he didn't.
He could have even used some stronger language to decry their obvious shortcomings. HE DIDN'T. He saved his strongest terms for the GOP - dismissing the case with prejudice and all that. As if it were frivolous to want only legal votes to count.
Face it, guys - As individual voters in this state, we're stuck. The legislature won't do anything. The courts are throwing up their hands and asking us to trust the very systems that the democrats have corrupted for years.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 7, 2005 01:09 PMYour comment makes me think all the more that this so-called "Judge" Bridges is some kind of an idiot or something. He says, in effect, that the voters have to do something about corrupt and incompetent elected officials. Well, you stoopid idiot, we did do something. We elected Rossi as Governor. But the corrupt political system stole that away. And the corrupt judicial system (of which Bridges is obviously an active part) enables that. Then he turns around and says, stupid voters, why don't you *do* something about it? Sheesh! What a slap in the face this idiot gives out...
It is of this kind of "justice" that revolutions are born. As Bridges would probably say, let them eat cake.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 7, 2005 01:19 PMStarboardhelm -- McKay hasn't gotten off his duff, because he knows there is nothing there.
lksimstrailgrammy -- Rossi's lawyers didn't use Stefan's "ammo" because Stefan was firing blanks. You can't blame him for that, of course, since blanks are all that any of the GOP had to fire.
Doc -- you're right, in part. The court should have assessed terms for the fraud charge -- completely unsubstantiated and unsupported by any evidence at the time it was made -- and for the proportional deduction claim -- supported only by horrible science, that is, partisan emotion. The GOP had a right to challenge based on the felon voters, however, so, in theory, they shouldn't have to pay for that. They either screwed up by deciding not to bring in direct evidence of how the felons voted or determined early that that direct evidence would leave them with no case.
Insufficiently Sensitive -- by all means, run out of town anyone who doesn't agree with you. Once you're done with the Democrats, I have no doubt you'll start on your fellow Republicans. Intolerance for the opinions of others generally knows no bounds.
Janet -- Sharkansky as head of elections? Only your vote will count, and then, only if you agree with Sharkansky. Do you really find yourself on the same side of every issue with him? Wouldn't you prefer the opportunity to disagree? In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that Judge Bridges is so corrupt that he would not only dismiss Rossi's case, but eviscerate it if there had been even a shred of credible evidence to support the claims? Doesn't that decision make you at least wonder about the truthfulness of the "facts" and the accuracy of the conclusions posted on this site? Talk about Josef Stalin counting the votes . . . .
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 7, 2005 01:21 PMSorry temporary bout of insanity.
See you at the polls in Kirkland, White Center, Des Moines, Kent, Duvall, Bothell, Federal Way and Freemont. Can I get mileage for driving around so much on election day?
Hey what's your name...ya you...uhhh...Sam Reed...ya thanks for nothing buddy...more cop outs that Bridges yesterday
You never answered me on the other thread, so I'll ask here. How do you feel knowing that I will disenfranchise you in November? I'll be casting multiple ballots, because the Democrats and Judge Bridges say that those votes count.
Since I wasn't smart enough to vote multiple times last November, I'll make up for it in six months. Comments? Your party and those you support contend that my multiple votes are legal.
Posted by: Larry on June 7, 2005 01:28 PMLet's face it dropping the 1600+ ballots without regard to whom they were cast is no solution either.
My point was that election officials facing the need to eliminate errors or investigate and account for them would be motivated if the law stated automatic alternative corrective method.
Let's say for example that proportional deduction would be used based upon the county's total percentage (not precinct level). I guaranty you that the King County Democrats would be VERY concerned that the numbers added up and protections against illegal voting were enforced because every error or illegal vote would actually hurt their party in a statewide race.
Posted by: TG on June 7, 2005 02:14 PMThe statutes provide a remedy now, through the contest procedure. It isn't an easy remedy to process and achieve, and it shouldn't be, regardless of which party wins or loses. What society has decided, through the legislature, is that it doesn't want to deal with the merely close election, it will only consider setting aside the result where there is clear and convincing evidence that bad behavior changed the outcome. We will accept a degree of uncertainty in the outcome and the disappointment of a nearly equal segment of the electorate because of the difficulty and cost of determining the true winner in a statistical tie, except where the evidence of bad behavior is crystal clear or where the mistakes clearly changed the result. Otherwise, when it is over, it's over. This is an appropriate decision for a complex society.
Rossi couldn't make it clear -- in fact, the judge found no evidence that the mistakes changed the outcome of the election and suggested that the mistakes around the state set each other off.
That being said, you will get no argument from me if you say "felons shouldn't vote," "no one should vote twice," etc. But that is a different question than whether we should throw out an entire election, and the expressed will of at least an equal segment of the voters, because some felon voted or because Granny stuck her provisional ballot in the Accu-Vote machine and didn't recall that she had previoulsy mailed in her absentee. Cases of illegal voting should be referred to police and prosecutors for investigation and, if the problem is widespread, the voters are entitled to hold someone accountable in the next election. We can all work for and demand better safeguards to illegal voting and to better execution of those safeguards.
But I will argue over lessening the difficult standard for invalidating an election. If you can prove that ballot boxes were stuffed, then toss the election. If you can prove that there were enough illegal votes cast for the winner to change the outcome, toss the election. When all you can do is talk about possibilities, get over it and move on.
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 7, 2005 05:15 PMI'm not suggesting we throw out the current election! I'm talking about a procedure to eliminate the uncertainty in the vote totals due to errors, negligence, illegal voting, etc. My purpose is to suggest a method to resolve the imperfect nature of the reconciliation since as even the Democrats suggested every election does not reconcile.
The statutes provide NO REMEDY for when the vote totals do not reconcile. Current the law just states that a reconciliation will take place and that an investigation should take place, but no procedure in the event the investigation fails to fix the reconciliation problem.
Unlike you I don't believe we should loosen the rules on an election challenge.
Posted by: TG on June 8, 2005 07:50 AM