The legislature's recent "election reform" package, presented under the guise of restoring voter trust and protecting the integrity of elections, supposedly gave us improvements like "identification at the polls". But in reality, the "identification requirement" was nothing other than a cynical ploy to enshrine the most perfect vote fraud scheme ever designed.
I call this the Gregoire-Kastama vote fraud, after Democrat Sen. Jim Kastama, who was the main architect of the election reform package and for Mrs. Gregoire who signed the mess into law. It's the perfect vote fraud because it is trivially easy to pull off, all but impossible to detect and all but impossible to correct. And it wasn't just an oversight. The Democrats deliberately fought to keep it in the "election reform" bill and outvoted the Republicans who argued to take it out. Really.
The bill even provides explicit instructions for committing this fraud. See (SB 5743, Sec. 7):
(1) If a voter who registered by mail indicates on the voter registration form that he or she does not have a Washington state driver's license, Washington state identification card, or Social Security number, he or she must provide one of the following forms of identification the first time he or she votes after registering:Here's all one needs to do to commit this fraud. I publicize this not to encourage people to commit fraud, but to show how thoroughly cynical the Democrats were in hiding this behind the "voter identification" provision, and to encourage people to demand that Christine Gregoire, Jim Kastama and the other Democrats in the Legislature who gave us this abomination go back and fix it.
(a) Valid photo identification;
(b) A valid enrollment card of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington state;
(c) A copy of a current utility bill;
(d) A current bank statement;
(e) A copy of a current government check;
(f) A copy of a current paycheck; or
(g) A government document that shows both the name and address of the voter.
(2) If the voter fails to provide one of the above forms of identification prior to or at the time of voting, the ballot must be treated as a provisional ballot regardless of whether the voter is voting at a poll site or by mail. The ballot may only be counted if the voter's signature on the outside envelope matches the signature in the voter registration records.
Here's how to commit Gregoire-Kastama fraud --
1) Download a voter registration form from the Sec. of State's website.
2) Fill it out, using a made-up name and any plausible address in the county/city/legislative district where you wish to vote. In the box that asks for ID, write "none". In the box that asks for last 4 digits of social security number, write "none". Just remember the signature you used.
3) On election day vote a provisional ballot. Go to a polling place in a community where nobody knows who you are. A busy polling place that attracts a lot of transients, such as near a university or in a large city downtown would be ideal. When you sign your provisional envelope, be sure to use the signature you used for the registration.
4) Repeat steps 1 - 3 for several different names. Use different addresses, in order to avoid suspicion. Naturally, you will want to cast your ballots at different polling places.
As an enhancement to (2) above, pick an address that is designed to avoid suspicions, such as a large apartment building. To really throw off anybody who is bold enough to attempt "proportional deduction" in the future, give yourself a residence in a precinct that votes the opposite way that you do. e.g. if you want to swing the vote to a Democrat, register your phony persona in a Republican precinct.
What makes Gregoire-Kastama fraud so perfect?
1. A Gregoire-Kastama voter is impossible to challenge. Under existing law, in order to challenge an illegal voter
The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.so it's impossible to challenge a voter who doesn't exist and has no address.
2. Even if discovered after the fact, a Gregoire-Kastama vote wil stand. For the purposes of the election contest statute, a Gregoire-Kastama vote will not be considered an illegal vote, because:
Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.Q.E.D.
And yes, the Democrats (including Christine Gregoire, who lobbied for the bill) knew exactly what they were doing. I expressed my concerns about the potential for this fraud to Rep. Toby Nixon. He wrote:
I spoke about this specific problem in my floor speeches on 5743, and in most of my public speeches on election reform since then. However, it's not new -- the "loophole" exists in current law, but it's less obvious because we have much less discussion of ID requirements in general in current law. We could not get the Democrats to go along with closing the gap in 2005; we'll continue working on it ... We proposed that proof of identity and citizenship (similar to what's acceptable for proof of employment eligibility on the federal I-9 form) be provided at the time of registration, with none of the loopholes such as being able to provide a utility bill or government check instead. Registration would have to be done in person before a sworn public officer who would check the ID.Naturally, the Democrats refuse to do anything that doesn't make the system even more open to abuse than it already is.
I hope we don't see widespread use of Gregoire-Kastama fraud, but unless Gregoire and Kastama take this possibility seriously, it's inevitable that we will. And if they do nothing, wouldn't it be poetic justice if hundreds of thousands of mystery voters moved into Kastama's district just in time for the next election and voted him out of office?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 23, 2005 06:03 PM | Email ThisInstitutionalized vote fraud! How absolutely wonderful! I wish I could say I was shocked. But I am not. This just shows that the only way we are going to get voter reform in place is to do it via citizen's initiative. The only question is where to start. I propose that the place to start is to limit absentee ballot requests to 1 year (except military) and require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Oh yeah... and make EVERYONE re-register before the next election.
Posted by: Jeff in KC on June 23, 2005 06:18 PMInstitutionalized vote fraud! How absolutely wonderful! I wish I could say I was shocked. But I am not. This just shows that the only way we are going to get voter reform in place is to do it via citizen's initiative. The only question is where to start. I propose that the place to start is to limit absentee ballot requests to 1 year (except military) and require proof of citizenship to register to vote.
Oh yeah... and make EVERYONE re-register before the next election.
Posted by: Jeff in KC on June 23, 2005 06:19 PMKast A. MaVote
Where Is Waldo, II
Perfect V. Fraud
A. Fraudulent Voter
Fraudore H. Logan
In Your Face, Jr.
I. Voted Twice, III
1) Have a printer print 10,000 "ballots" - which have no seal or other symbols indicating copyright restrictions.
2) Put them in a box labeled appropriately to appear to come from the Fremont precinct(s)
3) Drop on curb outside.
The 'count every vote' hysteria will carry it from there.
Posted by: Al on June 23, 2005 06:55 PMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5743-S.PL.htm
Posted by: mel on June 23, 2005 06:57 PMThose voters who commit fraud by voting multiple times have a disproportionate voice in an election. Therefore, SB5743, by making multiple voting easy and by making it impossible to challenge such votes is illegal and must be struck down.
Posted by: Mike on June 23, 2005 07:16 PMNow we know why Gregoire and the Democrats in Olympia rushed to pass the "All Absentee" voting system in this state!
Just think of how perfectly the fraudulent absentee voting will work with this so-called reform!
All any citizen from another country will have to provide is a signature on a voter registration card - that will not be checked against anything - except the signature you put on your absentee ballot envelope!
A circle of unverifiable data and signatures that will allow your vote to be counted - even from Mexico, Canada and France!
This has to be challenged!
So, are you a pitcher? Or a catcher? Yes, that's it.
Enjoy yourself, and remember - don't let the door hit ya on the way out.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2005 08:15 PMThey both seem to do the same thing: Appear to require ID from people who register by mail, but actually circle back to the provisional ballot which is valid without presenting any ID.
Who was in charge in 2002 in D.C.?
Posted by: Micajah on June 23, 2005 08:19 PM1. Security (at the expense of accessibility)
2. Accessibility (at the expense of security)
While they do not represent absolutes, they absolutely represent a set of compromises. In order to facilitate one, an emphasis on one must, by necessity, come at the diminishment of the other.
That said, liberal King County decidedly chose accessibility. They wanted to "encourage voter participation" and they "felt" that the best (only) way to achieve that end was to make it stupidly easy.
Even in the face of this countries most screwed up ballot count, the left still clings to the paradigm that facilitates more fraud. It's not that they don't care. It isn't even that they can't figure out how to combat it. The dems purposely keep the system loose as a goose because they know that that this enhances their vote count.
Too bad that the left knows no shame....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2005 08:40 PMBy the way do you even reside in Washington? Or is Minnesota where you call home? Please quit being a coward and start posting with a real email address.
Posted by: Joe on June 23, 2005 09:02 PMWhile you're at it, be sure to rally support for primary opponents of Senators Benson, Oke, Schmidt, and Swecker, because they voted for it, too. Can't support Tim Sheldon, either. He voted for it, too.
I'll tell you something more, too. Smearing Kastama will get you nowhere. Kastama is so clean he squeaks. Clearly you know nothing about the guy. More than any Democratic Senator (I don't count Sheldon), he has worked with the GOP to address their concerns. Ask Toby Nixon if you don't believe me.
The people in Kastama's district responded to the last preposterous GOP smear attack by re-electing him with a whopping majority, in a district that both Bush and Rossi carried. I know this because I was there. So just keep it up; it will only have the opposite effect from the one you desire.
Just because you cry fraud does not make it fraud. But you just keep it up, like the boy who cried wolf, and people will tune you out soon enough.
Your problem is presumption of identity. You and your claque want the burden of proof to be on the individual. You are favoring the state over the individual. That is unacceptable in a free society, and a whole lot of libertarian Republicans will agree with that. No citizen in a free society should have that burden of proof. Rather it should be on the state to DISprove that we are who we say we are.
But that's OK. Those of us who are wise to your little rhetorical tricks know that if Rossi had won the election and the Dems had cried fraud, you'd be calling them moonbats and tinfoil hatters.
The Democrats, with a whole lot of Republican votes, have tightened the requirements considerably. Why don't you wait for the next election and see how it goes before crying fraud, based on a hypothetical situation? Can't have the gomers foaming at the mouth if you do that, eh?
Thank goodness the grownups are in charge. Y'all flame away now, y'hear?
Posted by: Ivan on June 23, 2005 09:02 PMLawrence Welk, hit it! "Anna One Anna Two...La Cucaracha, La Cucaracha...!" Now where the heck did I put my U.N. flag?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 23, 2005 09:26 PMWell...Let's review the processes that have worked for the Liberals over the past elections..:
1. Slightly change the spelling of your name and use a rented PO Box address as your residence and mailing address when registering to vote.
2. Use *any* name and use the KC administration building as your residence address and your Rented PO Box as your mailing address when registering to vote.
3. Vote at the polls using your true name then run to another district and ask for a provisional ballot but don't sign your real name - then feed it through the accuvote machine...If you start early - you can vote several times at different precincts!
No! I am not advocating illegal voting! I just want to remind the good citizens of this state - of how many methods were used to swing last November's election outcome.....
Listen genius, the Republican Party is home to liberals also, but a whiz kid like you who would believe in such a simplistic uniform contrarian paradigm wouldn't be concerned about that.
NEWS FLASH: "Election reform" that merely changes the standards for the worse is unacceptable no matter who votes for it. This is a tough idea for you to comprehend, but try to take a shot anyway.
The fact that you buy into the hasty partisan generalization as central to your silly proposition is no surprise especially coming from someone who characterizes the likes of our current administration as "grownups." Please – by all means – don't let any facts influence your opinion in any way – that would negate your liberal bona fides.
Have you ever considered running for office? You would make a great Democrat politician in the character of Patty Murray (although it would be easier for you). The first step to fooling others is hide bound faith in your own bosh— heart and soul – requiring the lack of intelligence required to comprehend simplistic distinctions like this.
However, forget running as one of those phony Republicans, who upon election votes for stupid senseless irrational liberal schemes like this ludicrous so-called election reform. They have to show some semblance of intellect just in order to be elected and you are not qualified.
Either way, wrong is wrong.
1) Purge the rolls, everyone re-registers.
2) Photo ID required at registration.
3) Proof of citizenship required at registration.
4) Proof of residency required at registration.
Voting:
1) Unless unable to vote at your polling place no absentee ballots.
2) Photo ID required to sign poll book.
3) No provisional ballots
The Count.
1) Each polling place must reconcile number in poll book to ballots. If a discrepancy, quarantine that polling places ballots until resolved. With the poll book voters could be contacted to revote that polling place.
2) No certification with reconciliation.
Miscellany.
1) Paper ballots, electronics are too easy to fiddle with.
2) Better security for ballots.
3) Include unused ballots in reconciliation count.
4) Include spoiled ballots in reconciliation count.
5) Number ballots cast, plus unused ballots, plus spoiled ballots must equal number of ballots printed.
6) If the numbers don't add up, void the election.
7) Mandatory jail time for any poll worker, election official, auditor, who falsifies a report.
So far I am hearing nothing even close to anything that would resolve the problems of the past elections. Oh, a new building in SimsLand will solve the problems, that's it.
Until we hear some substantive, fraud is the rule in WA.
----
Don't Tread On Me
_____
Thanks!
Posted by: sgmmac on June 23, 2005 10:37 PMJohn Fund's voting fraud book was suberb. Sadly, it fell on deaf (elections officials') ears. (I remind all to check out Mexico's voting controls as noted by Fund.)
I would add kicking all apathetic voters in the arse hard once and finally making a 90%+ "no excuse" voter turnout a reality. Show up or shut up. These silly "reforms" recently passed still indicate a lack of fear by the "electeds" bordering on contempt for us--any why not. No one is in jail from the last election having a "cavity check."
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 23, 2005 10:58 PMyou had better rally your troops and throw out the entire Republican House delegation, because with the exception of Jim Dunn (R-17), they all voted for it, including Toby Nixon. Obviously they must think it enables fraud a whole hell of a lot less than you do..
No, Ivan, Nixon was not at all happy about it. I gather it was one of those sausage-like legislative trade-offs. The House Republican Caucus must have agreed to go along with the bill in exchange for a somewhat less worse bill than they would have gotten from the D majority anyway if the Rs hadn't voted with the Ds.
The people to blame are the Democrats who were entirely in the drivers seat.
And voting integrity is not about the "state" vs. "individuals" it's about individuals who want to protect the franchise of one vote per legal voter vs. those like you who want to encourage as much fraudulent voting as you can get away with.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 23, 2005 11:17 PMHave you noticed how Gregoire is trying to play the sympathy card in the media referring to the how hard the election contest was on her, her family and the state?
1. How about Rossi and his family? Does she think that it was fun for him to win the election (twice), only to have KC cherry-pick votes in a hand-(addition)recount?
2. How does Gregoire expect to heal and move the state forward when her part wants us to foot the bill for her so-called victory?
3. How are we supposed to trust her with our wallets when she lied about not raising the gas tax?
4. How can I, who was nearly mowed down by her in parking garage feel any sympathy for her?
You asked why so many Republicans voted for SB 5743 if it doesn't really address the problem of illegal voting. I should think the answer to that was obvious: it's a neutral change that is politically expedient to support. Sure it doesn't really fix anything, but it doesn't hurt anything either, and now isn't a good time to look like you're opposing election reform.
Examining the bill history is instructive. Notice how many amendments got shot down on a party line or near party line vote. Notice the roll call on the first vote in the House. It wasn't the clear cut "Obviously they must think it enables fraud a whole hell of a lot less than you do" that you seem to think it was.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 23, 2005 11:47 PMIt would be so awesome if this could work. She should never get too comfy in that office!
Posted by: flexnfx on June 23, 2005 11:53 PMsgmmac, here is a link to the States HAVA page:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/reform_federal.aspx
It lists several links including our plan, funding, and a link to the legislation itself.
Rent a video, show an i.d.; why is voting no less important? Anyone who is afraid to prove his/her identity is afraid for a good reason--something is wrong. Who balks with i.d.'s at a bank? No one I've seen--both parties know the rules.
Smoke and mirrors. Legislators are not yet ready to REALLY reform elections. Their actions speak volumes over their rhetoric.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 24, 2005 12:08 AMWho was in charge in 2002 in D.C.?[when HAVA was passed]
The Republicans were, and I agree with Nathan Azinger above when he says it was "politically expediant" for the R's to pass HAVA and this recent state bill. Most of the changes were benign, and it would have been difficult to come out against election reform at either time. Most people don't pay attention to the details, such as the voting history of the bill. Also it seems that most politicians are incapable of tackling anything to do with illegal voters because then you are picking on illegal immigrants and minorities which means you'd be a racist. How many times have we seen logic such as this from Nelson and his kind in the last 8 months? Countless. And taken on a national scale do you think the media would be inclined to let the R's have a pass on this one? They would jump on Nelson's ship in a heartbeat.
Any meaningfull election reform will have to come from the people through initiative, because I don't think our politicians can handle the job. In Whatcom County our once a decade Charter Review Commission may actually propose an initiative to require proof of citizenship to vote in our county. I wasn't able to attend the meeting Thurs. so I don't know what happened. At least people are discussing it and maybe a grass roots state wide initiative will take hold. Hey it worked with Prop 200 in Arizona, why not here?
Posted by: ChuckyJ on June 24, 2005 12:25 AM1. Since when have Democrats simply given up on poor people without arguing that we ought to spend money (and "give" them free ID's)? If poor, homeless people are as interested in voting as they allegedly were in 2004, they'll show up for their free ID. And, alternatively,
2. Poor, homeless people already have ID. I conducted a non-scientific study in Pioneer Square (not far from where numerous "voters" live at the King. Co. Admin Bldg.). What I found wasn't entirely shocking: Poor, homeless fortified-wine drinkers use ID to buy fortified wine.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on June 24, 2005 01:05 AMYeah, I read the voting history of this bill. So what are you telling me that is new? You right-wingers want only people like yourselves to be able to vote. That has always been the case.
We're not having it anymore, and we have the votes and you don't. So grow up. None of us want people voting improperly. It can be used against us, too. I think we can all agree on that. We all want the votes to add up right and reconcile. So cut the crap and let's work together to make that happen. We'll see you on the canvassing boards.
HAVA is the law. Live with it. Any local initiative whose provisions are contrary to HAVA will be thrown out. Federal law supersedes. That includes provisional ballots, so good luck getting rid of that.
One more thing: We'll be an all-mail state soon, too. Live with it. More and more people don't WANT to go to the polls, and Republicans are leading the trend. The trend is to make things EASIER for people, not harder, and just as many Republicans are doing it as Democrats.
Or maybe some of you were just fine with those voters in Ohio standing in line for six hours waiting to vote because there weren't enough machines. Here's a clue: Most people are NOT happy with that.
You want to win elections? Come up with some policies that HELP people, and be ready to pay for them. Or maybe you think those potholes will fix themselves. But that's for another day.
Posted by: Ivan on June 24, 2005 02:40 AMExplanation for the TROLLS: To ROOT out this evil in WA, the PEOPLE (the REAL government) will have to STAND and VOTE the OFFENDERS OUT!
Posted by: arky on June 24, 2005 05:00 AMBeing a law supporting citizen and all, right?
Posted by: fugue on June 24, 2005 05:27 AMLook--the all-mail vote is a recipe for fraud. At a minimum, it's negligent to assume it's a good, verifiable system. Convenient, yes. That is the tradeoff for security and less manipulation. Anyone who knows or has read a bit about voting fraud will agree.
It's like saying driving, handling a cell phone and drinking coffee simultaneously is "an efficient use of commute time." Most people concede, like your mail vote, it's inherently dangerous. More "crashes" (like the last WA election) are not needed to keep proving the point.
I'll stand in line to vote. Changed from absentee to on-site myself just because of the verifiability issues. Read John Fund's voting book--it's ripe with info and suggested reforms.
I'm not accusing anyone of wanting to disenfranchise voters, or commit fraud. However, continuing to use a system with poor controls is tantamount to acceptance and approval. It's downright negligent. No 'doing an ostrich'--ingoring voting system flaws does not cure them, and symbolic cures are just the placebo in the drug trial. I think everyone sensible wants effective, accurate elections. Trouble is, we disagree on how much bad-tasting cod liver oil is needed to get there.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 24, 2005 06:07 AMDino was robbed. And Ds know it. Because Ivan can't tell us where all those stuffed ballots came from. Yet he comes in here acting as though it was all above-board. Sorry, 59% of Washingtonians aren't buying it.
Posted by: Michele on June 24, 2005 06:24 AMAnything we try, everything we try, we will have to fine-tune. No matter what we try, it will have flaws, and someone with enough motivation will be able to game any system.
We all want a system that works so that everyone's vote is counted fairly. That requires that if we are doing our duty as citizens, no matter what our politics are, we will have to monitor whatever voting mechanisms there are.
Now if Stefan had said: "Look, there's a potential flaw here; what steps to we take to mitigate potential damage?" well, hell, who's going to disagree with that?
But no. Instead we get "Look what the Democrats did? This MIGHT lead to fraud! This PROVES that Democrats are crooked!"
I mean, come on now! You had your day in court. You had your chance to demonstrate fraud and you didn't come close. You can BELIEVE it was fraud all you want. Fortunately, our courts don't practice faith-based law. Not every court in the state is crooked, and not every Democrat in the state is crooked. You're talking about half the state or more here. This bit will get real old real fast, and you won't like the results.
There isn't a county auditor in the state, D or R, who wants a repeat of what we had in 2004. And I sure as hell don't want it either. I want to elect Democrats fair and square, not by hook or by crook.
I support rigorous monitoring of the election system, precinct by precinct, county by county. Vigilant public scrutiny is good for the system and good for all of us. That way if we find fraud -- and prove it in court -- we can deal with it without partisan rancor, and this kind of demagoguery, next time.
Protecting the intergity of the ballot should have equal weight with accessibility. No one legally entitled to vote should be denied that right. Likewise, anyone not legally entitled to vote should be prevented from doing so, even if it takes some effort. Why? Because every illegal vote very likely disenfranchises a legally-cast ballot. Those who cry out for "access" should give equal voice to preventing voter fraud. Weakening the safeguards associated with protecting the integrity of the ballot, as the laws recently passed in WA seem to do, should be shunned and disowned by any and all who understand the value of a legal vote.
As for taking time to stand in line to vote, even if we "don't like doing it", I say, to coin a phrase, live with it. If you're physically capable of appearing at your designated polling place on the designated day of the election, you should do so, and be thankful for the right to do so, which our forebearers fought for. If it takes a little time and convenience to do so, I say bite the bullet and do it, because it is certainly less sacrifice than those who paid the price for our right to do it endured. Stand in line? Just do it. Live with it.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 24, 2005 06:54 AMI raised these same concerns with our county Auditor, and got pretty much the same line.. That they welcome observers. (e.g. "rigorous monitoring.") What you, and she, conveniently ignore is the fact that with no hard front-end controls (those things that make it "difficult" to vote - as difficult as buying cold medicine), THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY to catch it. "Observers" are useless if you distribute the system out into everyone's home. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this, so pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious of the motivations of people who keep claiming this is "progress."
Get over it, indeed.
Posted by: RookieRick on June 24, 2005 07:07 AMHad they (our illustrious auditors) done their job correctly in the first place this wouldn't have happened.
Posted by: cc on June 24, 2005 07:24 AMBy the way, the people who were "just fine with those voters in Ohio standing in line for six hours waiting to vote" were the Ivan's buddies, the Democrats who were in control of those precincts. Double feh.
And should he think that "policies that HELP people" don't include bring our election rules up (yes, up) to Mexican standards, he's obviously in politics just to partake in the loot generated by big-tax "be ready to pay for them" schemes. Some citizen. Triple feh.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 24, 2005 07:24 AMBut dems have demonstrated a willingness to defer to the later, all the while smoke-screening the more gullible about their desire to do the former.
There is a reason why there is so little confidence in the electoral system ("administered" to chiefly by dems). Between wide-open rules that provide multiple opportunities for cheating, and creative ministerings of the so-called "voter intent" rules, you have shown that winning isn't everything - it's the only thing.
"Vigilant public scrutiny is good for the system and good for all of us."
We shall see who it is good for. You can make bank on the fact that there will be a lot more of it!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2005 07:36 AMJust look at what you're saying here.
Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 24, 2005 07:40 AMI like to vote, many, many times. Hell, nothing can be proved, right Ivan?
The 34th District, yeah, I can vote there too, three, four times, Ivan!
Vote till ya drop! Its a free fraud zone, Ivan!
Sleep with fraud, get voted out by fraud, Ivan!
Posted by: Real Voter on June 24, 2005 08:07 AMIt seems to me that you, Ivan Weiss, have lost sight of the true meaning of public servent, to repesent all the people reguardless of political parties. Are you a representation of what the Democrat party in Washington thinks? Has the Democrat party slipped deep into the abyss as pointed out by Son of Lberty? Shame indeed.
Posted by: Prof. Olson on June 24, 2005 08:17 AMThere lost of Chen's in my neighborhood, maybe there more come election time. Count on it, many times, you stupid!
Posted by: Chen on June 24, 2005 08:29 AMI am ashamed to be from Puyallup.
Where do we find them and why do we keep sending them to Olympia?
The same small town that produced 2 NFL QBs, an Olympic Gold Medalist and the dad from "A Christmas Story" also produced these two clowns. (And the clown posting this).
Remind me to write Joyce McDonald a big fat check come 2006.
Posted by: T.J. on June 24, 2005 08:38 AM"We all want a system that works so that everyone's vote is counted fairly."
We know that is the kind of system that you want.
The kind of system that the residents of the state want is one that treats every "legal" vote fairly not "everyone's" vote.
I am sure you know the difference don't you?
Posted by: Cliff on June 24, 2005 08:40 AMPlease launch a post on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. This ruling has direct local implications, and anyone who thinks our Constitution is going to protect us doesn't know what has already been done along the same lines. Hell, they don't know our Supreme Court if they feel safe.
A thread will provide an opportunity for people to share why we are in such trouble this morning.
And we are!
Thanks.
Posted by: Mike on June 24, 2005 08:42 AMFair elections after we win! I love it. This the liberals can only blame on themselves. Eat your cake...
Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 24, 2005 08:50 AMThere is a difference between HAVA section 303(b) and WA law, I think.
Does anyone else see it this way?
HAVA 303(b) refers you back to HAVA 302(a), which doesn't say how the states would determine the validity of the voter's registration when processing a provisional ballot cast by a voter who registered by mail and submitted no ID at the time of registering or at the time of voting.
Here's 303(b)(2)(B):
(B) Fail-safe voting.--
(i) In person.--An individual who desires to
vote in person, but who does not meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a
provisional ballot under section 302(a).
(ii) By mail.--An individual who desires to
vote by mail but who does not meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii) may cast such
a ballot by mail and the ballot shall be counted
as a provisional ballot in accordance with section
302(a).
Here's 302(a)(4):
(4) If the appropriate State or local election official to
whom the ballot or voter information is transmitted under
paragraph (3) determines that the individual is eligible under
State law to vote, the individual's provisional ballot shall be
counted as a vote in that election in accordance with State law.
WA law simply says match the signatures on the ballot envelope and the registration application, which eliminates entirely the requirement for ID when registering by mail.
HAVA left the door open. Ivan's ilk walked right through it.
Posted by: Micajah on June 24, 2005 09:29 AMHe says (in effect) "no problems here, I got mine."
I wonder if it ever occurs to Weiss what would result if his corruption was actually allowed to continue. Probably not because liberals like this never read history or think about the moral consequences of their actions. This situation is going to work out badly for Democrats; it's just a matter of time and the inevitable changes wrought by those who won't tolerate his criminal mentality.
Like the neighbor who steals in the night, it will catch up with him sooner or later.
Everyone knows he is guilty, but that doesn't matter to him. What a degenerate punk.
Can anyone tell me if the state of Washington can compel me to vote by mail?
What if I don't want to vote by mail? What if I like voting at the polls?
Ivan seems to think that Washington will be an all vote-by-mail state soon. What if I think voting by mail is more difficult? Doesn't compelling me to vote in a way that I don't want to disenfranchise me? I want to vote at the polls - how can the state take that away from me?
Posted by: Larry on June 24, 2005 09:56 AMSay it an't so!
Posted by: Sam A on June 24, 2005 09:56 AMIf they can take away your house and property and but up a WalMart, they can take away your vote, isn't that right Ivan?
Posted by: Son of Liberty on June 24, 2005 10:01 AM(a punk that is)....
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 24, 2005 10:04 AMSimple. By liberal fascist fiat, they can and will take away anything they decide to take. That is the diktat of the Bridges decision, and federal executive discretion.
Like it or not, liberals hold decisive control over the whole procedural Democratic mechanism in our state and you can bet that they will use and abuse it all of the way.
To hell with what you want, let alone your constitutional rights, let some friggin liberal judge decide. In the mean time they will figure out any way they can to socialize your state, screw you out of your property, and lock in an indomitable liberal electoral turn stile.
"I want to encourage fraudulent voting? No, sorry... I just don't want people to vote for frauds." Oh, so these election "reforms" are not primarily intended to allow people to vote multiple times; they are meant to address the real crime, the problem of people voting for the wrong candidate. Sir, it is not your business whom I vote for. Your concern should be ensuring that each citizen gets one vote and only one vote. Kindly remember the scope of your duties, and fulfill them, please.
Additionally you said, "You right-wingers want only people like yourselves to be able to vote. That has always been the case." I see, those of us whose politics are more conservative than yours are an evil danger to the rest of the citizenry, and we deserve your contempt. My goodness, how do you expect to represent your fellow citizens when you hold so many of us in open contempt?
"We're not having it anymore, and we have the votes and you don't... We'll see you on the canvassing boards." Uh-huh. I think the point of Stephan's post is that there will be absolutely nothing anyone on the canvassing board will be able to do, other than count every ballot that appears before their noses.
You have been quite clear, Ivan. You and your side are in power in this state. We are evil, and are guilty of the only real voting crime: voting for the wrong person. And congratulations, you've just managed to pass "reform" that will prevent that crime from having any effect on future elections.
Time to stop the hand wringing and prepare to take definitive action !
Posted by: KS on June 24, 2005 11:07 AMOn this board, when we talk about "fraudulent voting", we are refering to voting when you aren't eligible, because you aren't a citizen, you aren't a resident of the precinct you are voting in, you aren't old enough, you were convicted of a felony, or you've already voted in that election. Unfortunately, the sum of Washington's voting laws seem to be that, for all pracical purposes, there is no such thing as fraudulent voting (according the the traditionally accepted definition I described above.)
You say you want elections to be clean, but tell me how we can prevent ballot-box stuffing according to current law? Tell me how we could prevent someone from doing exactly what Stephan outlined? Your posts have vented a lot of anger at us, and expressed sentiments of a hope for fair elections, but you haven't really addressed the issue yet.
Is it as easy to fraudulently vote as Stephan represents?
What checks do you think are reasonable to ensure that all voters are valid voters?
We await your reply.
I disagree with you on not requiring ID; there is simply no way to prevent duplicate or fraudulent registrations without proof of identity. The system has been based too much on trusting the voter and after-the-fact challenges in the past, but recent experience with organized nationwide fraudulent voter registration drives has proven that to be insufficient in the future.
By the way, HAVA does not pre-empt stricter state laws regarding who is eligible to vote or requirements to register.
Toby Nixon
State Representative, 45th District
(sent from Scandinavian flight 937 over Greenland; ain't technology great?)
If you remember, we discussed this down in Spanaway, Pierce County, with Jim Kastama and the two County Auditors.
We will not agree on everything, but I am gratified that you recognize that we have made at least some progress, and that Democrats and Republicans can work together on this vital issue without all this wretched name-calling, and a priori accusations of fraud.
Posted by: Ivan on June 24, 2005 12:29 PMAll of the above plus my daughter who just yesterday turned 18!
Posted by: GS on June 24, 2005 12:46 PMBut Ivan! You didn't get what you wanted that way! Now what? And you still haven't told us what happened to the thrown-away Rossi-area votes in Issaquah (nor where the added-in Gregoire area votes came from). You still haven't told us where the 785 VOTERLESS mail ballots came from! Does this look fair and square to you?? If it does, than this state is not well-served by democrats. At least have the decency to admit this election was tainted in King County.
Posted by: Michele on June 24, 2005 12:52 PMI know, we've completely unmoored language from reality. "Fraudulent voting" apparently means voting for the wrong person, and the crimes that used to be meant by "fraudulent voting" can't be sucessfully prosecuted, and therefore aren't voting fraud. I think "clean election" means when your candidate wins by so much that no one questions its accuracy.
I understand that lawyers have a little saying that a law that isn't enforced isn't really a law. Our voting laws now are almost entirely unenforceable, except in the cases where someone will actually confess.
Thanks, Rep. Nixon, for your explanation and comments, and for posting while traveling. Please don't let this one go, and do keep us informed of what "reforms" are underfoot.
Posted by: California Dreamer on June 24, 2005 12:57 PMH.J.Res. 53 would change the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution so that only citizens of the United States who can actually vote are counted for the purposes of Congressional apportionment.
Ms. Millers amendment would amend the existing Section 2 which reads:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
To:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.
H.J.Res. 53 is titled:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.
Hooo Rah! Give this lady a hand and all the assistance you can muster!
-----------------------------
Text of HJ Res 53:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,... (Introduced in House)
HJ 53 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 53
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 9, 2005
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.'.
Sources
Search for H.J.Res. 53 at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
In re: your paragraphs (6/24, 642am):
1—sensible people in any party would agree;
2—agree in part; “our duties as citizens” (and especially our duties as elected officials) are to ensure only LEGAL CITIZENS vote, not to encourage “ANY vote” nor make that ‘any vote’ easy; therein is the weak link that encourages POTENTIAL fraud or monkey business;
3—agree
4—hyperbole? most conservatives like me attributed many things to gross incompetence or mistakes at first; however, like an auditor/investigator digging deeper at Enron, at some point, the massive amount of ‘irregular’ items lead sensible people to ask if something was planned or just a collection of extreme lottery-like chances all happening at once; put plainly, things smelled to high heaven—thus the suspicion; like a cop smelling weed in a car just pulled over;
5—do you think everyone was broad-brushing half the state like you claim? I think not; just those involved directly in the mess and (at least on paper, in theory and on the payroll) RESPONSIBLE for handling the process; however, any side would have said that silence/inaction at the top of either party is tacit approval, right?
6 / 7—agree in part; as I said, “rigorous monitoring” to me means no games with illegals, shoddy verifications and accounting for ballots, messy/insecure handling, and lack of accountability/punishment for those found to be incompetent or admitting to certifying fabricated numbers.
My point—some reform in theory is better than none, but I am not convinced the latest reforms are tight enough to restore some people’s distrust in the system; agreed—some will never trust it while others will always spout its graces or convenience; we need something more—I return to my Readers Digest Sweeps example—it’s darn important to THEM, it has very tight security, and I can’t recall any scandals or massive “mistakes;”
Bottom line--it has credibility—it EARNED & DEMONSTRATED the same credibility over the years—so why aren’t our VOTES as important?
Thanks Gov. Gregforhire and Sen. Kastagatema
Posted by: My name is....... on June 24, 2005 04:23 PM
I just received a mailer from the SMP spouting BS about the monorail project, but they are promoting 3 public hearings July5-7. I hope Stephan or someone else will be able to attend and post a review, as I'll be out of town. I'd like to know what's going on. If you could also, please pass along my opinion that this project is a horrible idea and should end today! Make the right decision for the city, county and state, but most of all the citizens.
On another note: I wonder how much this piece cost? It's very "fancy" and even has a fold line to make it a table topper. Nice to see my $ is going to such crap. Stephan, do you think you can find out how much this "campaign" cost us?
Posted by: My name is....... on June 24, 2005 04:44 PMI heard from one person that registration cards were sent to his DEAD parents at HIS address today! His parents have been deceased for about 8 years......(I advised him to email Stefan with the scanned copies..)
So how and why would voter registration cards be sent to people who have been dead for 8 years - to an address they never lived at?
Is this how Ron Sims and Dean Logan intend to *fix* our election problems?? Is this another *in your face* action by the liberals?
I'd like to know if anyone else has received anything odd from KC elections recently?
Posted by: Deborah on June 24, 2005 09:06 PMI'm kind of tempted to try to register my dog just as an exercise to see if they'd take it. Kind of in the way that reporters go through airport checks with forbidden stuff, just to check security and report on it. I would not VOTE in my dog's name.
Posted by: Michele on June 24, 2005 09:28 PMYou are not going to believe who this happened to!
That's why I wonder if it is a purposeful slam to this person! Heh....I'm just shaking my head....
Of all the people...how could King County do this to one of SP's posters?
What's going right now that these are being sent out? One registration card was sent to a person who had moved quite a while ago - so the delivery person had to return it to KC....Why would KC be sending that person a new registration now?
The PI ran a story in February 2005 - about his fight with King County over sending out absentee ballots to his deceased parents!They've been doing it for years! He has been sending KC requests to remove his parents names from the voters database but they continue to send absentee ballots to his address for them
You would think, after the election contest, that King County would have at least some of their stuff together...but just today - he received 2 new voter registration cards for his parents! I have pictures of them! I am just amazed!
How and why would this happen? He is a high profile problem for King County - why would they continue to do this to him?
Posted by: Deborah on June 24, 2005 10:20 PMI'm just not sure where they're going to vote yet. Nor how often. Nor am I sure how their signature will look on the books. ;-)
Posted by: Dan on June 24, 2005 10:24 PMhttp://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003399.html
"Reader Martin Ringhofer posted a comment in an earlier entry that is worth repeating:
My mom died on 09/14/1996. My dad on 06/13/1997. They have missed two presidential elecions and all in between. They voted absentee. I was the executor of their estate.
To date, I keep getting their absentee ballots mailed to them at my physical address, which was not theirs. I have contacted the King County Elections and Records Department in the past asking they please take my parents OFF from the voters list -- but gave up as it was obvious they are determined to have dead people vote.
I still get the abstentee ballots.
I have saved them all unopened to prove they have not voted. Kept the ballots out of curiosity how long this would keep on. Now, I understand more.
The fact that they are dead, should have been sufficient reason to stop sending the absentee ballots, 8 and 7 years ago.
The fact I have asked they stop sending the ansentee ballots should have been enough.
The fact they have not voted in not one but two Presidential elections should have stopped the ballots from coming.
It is also unbelievable their ballots are coming to my physical address -- which was never theirs -- eight years after they died.
How many dead voters were sent their absentee ballots at a relative at another address the dead people lived and for how long has this been going on?
How many relatives or strangers have voted for these dead people?
What kind of a society allows this ridiculous mess to happen and then allow such a fraudulent election to stand?
Martin's late parents, Margarete and Ludwig Ringhofer are still on the books as "Active" voters. No ballot has been cast in either name since they passed away.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 07, 2005 12:43 AM | Email This
Posted by: Deborah on June 24, 2005 10:53 PMOn a serious note, The Republican party needs to hire some computer clerks to make and upkeep a database of all deceased. Then everyone of the names needs to be checked before the next election. There is something seriously wrong when dead people can't stay in their grave and rest in peace. I feel truly sorry for Martin to have to deal with this over and over for years. It is like some perverted freak is deliberatly trying to hurt him.
I don't know whether it's computer error or human error, but it does absolutely no good to remove names for valid reasons and then send cards to reregister them.
DID THE FELONS THEY recently REMOVED GET CARDS TOO?????
Posted by: sgmmac on June 24, 2005 11:08 PMIt is really beyond the pale that Dean Logan would send new voter registration cards to anyone who has been DEAD for nearly nine years.
This adds new meaning to there being an afterlife after dying. Quite frankly, it is astonishing that such a thing is even possible.
Aside of the implications for holding honest elections, it is cruel and abusive that I should be receiving yet new voter registration cards for my dead parents. It is not funny; I am not laughing; and Dean Logan has to be brain-dead to go on the airwaves and promise the public that he has fixed the voter registration problems.
I sure would like to hear from anybody who can explain how this is possible. How much of this must we put up with before Dean Logan is FIRED, or prosecuted?
Posted by: martinringhofer on June 24, 2005 11:13 PMConsidering all of the MSM coverage you received at the beginning of 2005 - (regarding King Counties failure to remove your deceased parents from the voter rolls)...I think that sending these new voter registration cards for your parents can only be percieved as a very cruel and purposeful act by Dean Logan, Ron Sims and their elections staff! I'll bet there is an attorney out there who would love to help you resolve this.....(with pain and suffering damages...)
How low can King County go?
The PI should contact you for a follow up to their February story!
I have a sick feeling that we are only seeing the beginning of 2005's election fraud and error's!
Posted by: Deborah on June 24, 2005 11:28 PMRCW 29A.08.030
Notices, various.
(2) "Acknowledgement notice" means a notice sent by nonforwardable mail by the county auditor or secretary of state to a registered voter to acknowledge a voter registration transaction, which can include initial registration, transfer, or reactivation of an inactive registration. An acknowledgement notice may be a voter registration card.
This may be perceived as an attempt to clean the registration database.
RCW 29A.08.110
Auditor's procedure. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
(3) If an acknowledgement notice card is properly mailed as required by this section to the address listed by the voter as being the voter's mailing address and the notice is subsequently returned to the auditor by the postal service as being undeliverable to the voter at that address, the auditor shall promptly send the voter a confirmation notice. The auditor shall place the voter's registration on inactive status pending a response from the voter to the confirmation notice.
Back to;
RCW 29A.08.030
Notices, various.
(3) "Confirmation notice" means a notice sent to a registered voter by first class forwardable mail at the address indicated on the voter's permanent registration record and to any other address at which the county auditor or secretary of state could reasonably expect mail to be received by the voter in order to confirm the voter's residence address. The confirmation notice must be designed so that the voter may update his or her current residence address.
RCW 29A.08.605
Registration list maintenance. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
In addition to the case-by-case maintenance required under RCW 29A.08.620 and 29A.08.630 and the canceling of registrations under RCW 29A.08.510, the county auditor shall establish a general program of voter registration list maintenance. This program must be a thorough review that is applied uniformly throughout the county and must be nondiscriminatory in its application. Any program established must be completed at least once every two years and not later than ninety days before the date of a primary or general election for federal office. The county may fulfill its obligations under this section in one of the following ways:
(1) The county auditor may enter into one or more contracts with the United States postal service, or its licensee, which permit the auditor to use postal service change-of-address information. If the auditor receives change of address information from the United States postal service that indicates that a voter has changed his or her residence address within the county, the auditor shall transfer the registration of that voter and send a confirmation notice informing the voter of the transfer to the new address. If the auditor receives postal change of address information indicating that the voter has moved out of the county, the auditor shall send a confirmation notice to the voter and advise the voter of the need to reregister in the new county. The auditor shall place the voter's registration on inactive status;
(2) A direct, nonforwardable, nonprofit or first-class mailing to every registered voter within the county bearing the postal endorsement "Return Service Requested." If address correction information for a voter is received by the county auditor after this mailing, the auditor shall place that voter on inactive status and shall send to the voter a confirmation notice;
(3) Any other method approved by the secretary of state.
Here’s the kicker;
RCW 29A.08.630
Return of inactive voter to active status -- Cancellation of registration. (Effective until January 1, 2006.)
The county auditor shall return an inactive voter to active voter status if, during the period beginning on the date the voter was assigned to inactive status and ending on the day of the second general election for federal office that occurs after the date that the voter was sent a confirmation notice, the voter: Notifies the auditor of a change of address within the county; responds to a confirmation notice with information that the voter continues to reside at the registration address; votes or attempts to vote in a primary or a special or general election and resides within the county; or signs any petition authorized by statute for which the signatures are required by law to be verified by the county auditor. If the inactive voter fails to provide such a notice or take such an action within that period, the auditor shall cancel the person's voter registration.
How does the county auditor verify your residence or signature? Your voter registration card and/or confirmation notice.
It is a circle of non-existant verification.
As an example: If a credit card company sends you a pre-approval for a visa in the mail and someone steals the pre-approval and signs your name and changes your address - the thief will recieve the new card and all transactions will be accepted because the signature on file matches the thiefs!
The only way the thief would be caught - is if a merchant requires identification during a transaction....
The State has set up a perfect path for identity theft as far as voter registration and absentee voting are concerned! Without requiring identification to register and to vote - we are completely open to fraud!
Posted by: Deborah on June 25, 2005 12:30 AMRCW 29A.08.625
Voting by inactive or canceled voters.
(1) A voter whose registration has been made inactive under this chapter and who offers to vote at an ensuing election before two federal elections have been held must be allowed to vote a regular ballot and the voter's registration restored to active status.
What they are doing and have done to you is beyond an outrage. I lost my mom in 94 and the pain doesn't go away. I cannot imagine being blasted with reminders, and I also cannot imagine why it is still continuing. Either it's deliberate or there is some system process in place that is responsible for this.
I seem to remember reading some of the felon's remarking on the fact that their counties had sent them registration cards.
There should be a difference between "active," "inactive," and "cancelled" voters. It appears that there isn't and furthermore it appears that "inactives" stay that way for many years with the elections office sending out reregistration cards and forms for years.
This is probably one of the reasons that King County elections remain flawed and it looks like they will continue to remain flawed. If they are doing it with the deceased, the chances are very good that they are also doing it with the felons and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry that they have removed for good cause. Voter registration rolls in this state will never be cleaned up with the procedures being used. The legislative fix (HAVA) of having a statewide database will be just as flawed if they are using the same crazed procedures.
Good luck with it and I hope you succeed, even though you should never have to go to such extreme measures for a such a simple procedure.
Posted by: sgmmac on June 25, 2005 02:05 AMSeems to me KC is just building it's voter base to attempt to swing elections in their favor, illegal voters tend to vote Democrat. After all, they need to "find" enough votes to offset all the "dumb sheep" conservatives in other counties. Anyway, Judge Bridges said it was OK, there is are no penalties and no accountability.
It sounds like a bad middle school joke. Unfortunately, for KC voters it is reality. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Posted by: dl on June 25, 2005 08:37 AMA sort of a preemptive "Irresistible impulse" defense ("Stop me before I vote again!")...
Are we to believe that these "top of their field" professionals are this incompetent?!!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 25, 2005 08:53 AMThe whole thing stinks like dead fish and Ivan likes it, so f@#k off Washington State Republicans!
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 25, 2005 09:57 AMBack to Red Square.
Posted by: vote often on June 25, 2005 10:28 AMhttp://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/2005/06/dead-people-can-still-vote-in-king.html
Posted by: martin ringhofer on June 25, 2005 11:01 AMTODAY – KING COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 – LARRY PHILLIPS’ DISTRICT, KING COUNTY: In a stunning reminder of what “a total mess” King County Elections is, Martin Ringhofer again received voter registration cards for his dead parents after he contacted King County Elections about their current status as profiled in the 8 January 2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer HERE. These cards were part of the King County Elections attempt to “keep King County’s voter rolls accurate”.
In fact, King County Elections said in their press release about these voter registration cards:
Countywide mailings are the primary tool election officials use to receive information about voters who have moved. For this process to work, election officials depend on voters’ help.
“This effort really is a partnership with the public.” said Sherril Huff Menees, assistant director of Records, Elections and Licensing Services. “Addresses, names and signatures change over time and a countywide mailing like this is a chance for voters to get their most current information to us before the fall election season begins.”
Last summer following the countywide mailing, election officials received more than 120,000 returned registration cards with information about deceased voters and changes of addresses.
“As a responsible voter, if you receive a postcard for someone else, write ‘addressee moved, return to sender’ and drop it in the mail. Voters need to do their part to keep King County’s voter rolls accurate,” said Huff Menees. “The September primary is too important to miss simply because we can’t find your new address.”
Yet last summer – and several other times before, Martin Ringhofer contacted King County Elections telling them to strike his parents’ names and addresses from the voter rolls.
He said, “It is really beyond the pale that Dean Logan would send new voter registration cards to anyone who has been DEAD for nearly nine years. This adds new meaning to there being an afterlife after dying. Quite frankly, it is astonishing that such a thing is even possible.”
For obvious reasons, Ringhofer thinks that between this incident, the findings of a “culture of fear that dissuades employees from informing their supervisors of problems or offering solutions to them” and “Ineffective implementation of critical operational controls and quality assurance processes that identify and address inevitable human errors before they undermine the elections process” in The Webster Street Memo/The King County Independent Task Force on Elections Draft Initial Findings of the Task Force's Committees, and the many other “troubling” incidents in King County Elections in recent years such as more votes than voters and vote-by-mail materials mailed without a ballot – the King County Council should bring to an immediate vote King County Councilman Reagan Dunn’s Resolution of “No Confidence” in Dean Logan (filed in LegiSearch as 2005-0219).
Ringhofer says, “Aside of the implications for holding honest elections, it is cruel and abusive that I should be receiving yet new voter registration cards for my dead parents. It is not funny; I am not laughing; and Dean Logan has to be brain-dead to go on the airwaves and promise the public that he has fixed the voter registration problems. I sure would like to hear from anybody who can explain how this is possible. How much of this must we put up with before Dean Logan is FIRED, or prosecuted?”
Sheril Huff Menees says "As a responsible voter, if you receive a postcard for someone else, write ‘addressee moved, return to sender’ and drop it in the mail. Voters need to do their part to keep King County’s voter rolls accurate,” said Huff Menees. “The September primary is too important to miss simply because we can’t find your new address.”
Martin, didn't you do that already? Several times. Just how many times does the "responsible voter" need to tell them how to do their job?
I vote "NO CONFIDENCE."
I hope everyone understands the gravity of this coming election.
RON SIMS MUST GO!
They are cheaters at their core. The only rules that apply are those that allow them to be declared winners. True winners they will never be. Let WA become red by fall 2006. Keep informing the public. The rest will take care of itself.
Posted by: Danny on June 25, 2005 10:37 PMThe media won't expose it. The courts won't rule on it. The local Attorney General won't investigate it. The Feds -(my buddies) - are simply watching...What in the Hell is going on??
The people of this state are being lulled into acceptance of the machine again - and it's not their fault! They've been waiting for someone to tell them what to do!
Right now - thanks to the luke-warm slap on the wrist from Judge Bridges, the media was able to help King County sweep most of their dirt back under the carpet! The media, is the vehicle most people depend on in this busy world, to get their information! The blogs (especially SP) have been crucial in getting the word and truth out about the corruption in our state elections! But even the blogs can be as frustrating as talk radio when you are looking for fast updates and information! (am I the only one who pulls their hair out while listening to John Carlson? 8 million damn info-mercials and a 2 million topic teasers with only 1 minute of actual talk? ACK!)
Yes! King County and the rest of the Democrat controlled state is about to screw the people big time and there is very little we can do about it!
The only thing we can do is get the message out. We need to create a list of the history corruption in King County (elections, taxes, transit, CAO, etc...) and a list of the corruption in the state under the Democrats. We need to get this list into the newspaper and on TV. That will cost money and time is running out.
We need to launch an email campaign with the same information urging people to call the news channels, talk radio, newspapers, to complain about what is going on with our elections. Provide phone numbers!
We must use every vehicle available to turn this around. The media can't and won't ignore hundreds or thousands of phone calls.....
Stefan...what do you think we should do?
Posted by: Deborah on June 25, 2005 11:26 PMI wish I had the resources to put something together! Stefan is the guy who can rally the troops.
I'm just kicking around ideas...Actually - Martin Ringhofer had the idea for an email campaign to get the word out - and he's on the right track! But I'm thinking we have to do more...
I think we need to take an inventory of what actions are currently in the works against King County and the state. Who is suing them? Who is pursuing an investigation? Who has solid grievances against King County and the state?
We need a history of litigation outcomes - as far as citizens suing or filing charges against KC and the state..
I guess - before we go forward..we need to go backwards. We need to get a detailed history of what the heck has gone on in King County and the state over the past 10 years. The Dems like to move fast - forward. They like to get everyone emotional - so they miss the obvious! We learned one thing from the contest - and that is that the Dems do not like being called out on the carpet! They did not like having their deeds exposed and rehashed in public. They did not know what to do to cover their corruption - so they tried to have everyone focus on the felons.
The liberal Democrats don't want people to remember their deeds. That's how they are able to pass tax hikes for the same phoney purposes over and over again....no one keeps tabs. They always pick a theme....Environment, education, roads,transit,stadiums, health care, children,...but no one has ever truly audited any of these pet themes..and they just recycle them over and over to take more of our taxes and remove more of our rights....
Heck! Just running a history of King County election problems over the past 10 years would read like War and Peace!
We need to do our homework on the history of King County and the State Legislature and Gregoire over the past 10 years.
Michele,
Funny you brought that up. My mother-in-law and I were just talking about Chappaquiddick last night. Teddy Kennedy literally got away with murder.