(Edmund Burke probably never said that, but it's still a good quote).
My interview with King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng at last night's Downtown Seattle Republican Club will be shown on the Seattle Channel this Thursday at 8:30pm and repeated several more times in the next couple of weeks. I'll also post a link to the Internet streaming video once it's available.
Maleng spoke at length on his initiative to combat automobile theft. I think it's a commendable set of measures, especially in light of the weak consequences for auto theft that are currently available under state law. For me, the most revealing part of the discussion were the ten or so minutes after Maleng brought up the election debacle. See the extended entry for a transcription of the segment. Frankly, I was pretty disappointed by his lack of interest in holding anybody accountable for the elections scandal in which his office is deeply implicated.
Maleng also indicated (but stopped short of an explicit declaration) that he is running in 2006 for his 8th(!) term as County Prosecutor.
Maleng: Now one of the things that we don't sometimes recognize in our community. We are different here than other parts of the country ... We demand a political culture that is honest, that is forthright, that people trust in. And that's why anytime we have evidence in a case like [Strippergate] we're going to go for it. And that's why I think people are so concerned not only for partisan reasons but were so concerned about the last election that we had here in the state of Washington. It's because we believe things need to be done right and that the elections system has to work and that the public disclosure laws mean things and those sorts of things. So these are serious issues.
Sharkansky: And on that topic of the elections which you just brought up. A number of laws were violated in connection with the election. Are you looking at criminal investigations of the elections office?
Maleng: when you look at the last election, there was a whole series of actions that have been taken. [mentions prosecution of 8 double voters and removal of felons from voter rolls, because "you got to send a signal that the elections system means what it is"]
Sharkansky: And in addition to prosecuting the individual voters as you're doing and closing these loopholes, I think there's a lot of concern in the community about violations of law committed by elections officials, people who are staff of the elections office, related to processing of ballots and certification, for example. We know that certain falsified reports were submitted to the canvassing board, which you are represented on, and certain rules regarding these reconcilation reports. State law is very clear the election cannot be certified unless a reconciliation report is presented to the canvassing board and verified. That was never done. It's indisputable that it was never done. A violation of law occurred, so where's the accountability? Will you be investigating that kind of an issue?
Maleng: I think you can have two things. People can do things that are wrong, there can be violations. But it doesn't necessarily make it a crime. You know what I think we saw in the state of Washington is a long trial over in Wenatchee before Judge Bridges in which all the case was laid out. And I think that if you followed that case that when on for some weeks over in Wenatchee, you saw example after example after example of negligence of gross negligence of misconduct of things not being done right and you probably could cite a whole series of things you just heard about at that trial. The thing however, that did come out of it is that there was no proof of actual fraud, of somebody going in and intentionally trying to manipulate something. We can't say that something didn't occur, but there hasn't been any evidence submitted to us. I do believe that what that case demonstrates is the need for a huge change within the elections division itself and major changes by the state legislature. And the state legislature has done a couple of things. But they need to go even farther. One of the things that I think needs to be done is to move our primary earlier, so the elections people will have more time to get ready for the general after the primary election. I think also we have to establish rules that the cut off for ballots is the day of the election and allow them to come in, as long as they're postmarked, days later. I think also is to provide for things where the elections observers not are 20 feet away, but are right there next to the people doing the actual counting. There's a whole series of changes that need to be made. But I think the judge in that Wenatchee case put his finger on it when he said that the real serious issue is a culture issue. A culture issue not only of the people who are working there, but also more particularly in terms of the leadership. Of somebody taking an ownership interest in doing things right. And that is what needs to be changed. There have been reports issued by an independent task force on elections, composed of some very distinguished people who have come up with a whole series of recommendations and they need to be implemented.
Sharkansky: Now you did say, and you're correct, that the judge found no evidence of fraud, but then again, nobody was really looking for fraud [I should have said "no public official was really looking for fraud"] It was a civil suit, the criminal justice system was never involved, there was no investigation. will your office be conducting an investigation to see if there were criminal laws violated?
Maleng: I think in the context of the civil case you will find out much more instances of fraud than you will through the criminal process. Because in the civil process, they can take depositions to ask questions. As soon as you get into the criminal process you have the whole due process rights if you but somebody before an inquiry judge or a grand jury type of a proceeding it gives them immunity those sorts of things. I can tell you, just because I was there, down at the courthouse, both the Democrats and the Republicans were searching for any evidence they possibly could, and particularly Republicans for actual fraud, because that would have made the case in Wenatchee and that didn't come up. So it doesn't mean that if we're presented with evidence of a crime, we are going to go after it and we're going to go after it hard. but the thing in addition to that, is that there have to be some changes made that this type of election doesn't occur again.
Sharkansky: when you say "evidence of a crime". I think the judge acknowledged that not all the rules were followed, but his interest was in deciding whether there was affirmative evidence that that changed the outcome of the election. He wasn't looking to penalize people. And it is very clear that certain laws were not followed. So where is the accountability for not following state election laws?
Maleng: I think that what's going to be is the accountability is going to be is that the leaders within the election department are going to be held accountable I think people are going to be held accountable by the voters. If there are criminal violations and there is proof we're going to go forward with that.
Sharkansky: On the subject you mentioned of violating public disclosure laws. Does that also include violating the public records aspects of public disclosure laws? Would you want to criminalize violations of public records, failure to release public records as required by law?
Maleng: No I think what it is. I think we have some fairly tough laws on public records and the release of the public records and quite frankly I think that our new attorney general Rob McKenna is coming forward Cause I think there are some changes that are needed to be made because of recent Supreme Court decisions But I think that the law is working fairly adequately at the present time because if you do not disclose, if you do not disclose public records there is not only a fine involved, but it is a huge fine. And it's a continuing one for each day that it is withheld or is also multiplied by the number of documents you have. So if you make a mistake in terms of public records and refuse to release 'em is that I think that what you will find is that you can be fined hundreds and thousands of dollars.
Now if you look at our office. Forget about us representing other units of county government. If you look at our office, is that I think when you look statewide or across the country, I believe in an open office. If reporters want to come in, is we make our files available to 'em. And we don't try to hold on to things if you're looking at our criminal records and so on. In some cases, for example, the Ridgeway case, in terms of, we made all those files available to the public and there you're talking about hundreds of thousands maybe millions of different documents. And we will make those available. So I believe in open government. I believe in open records and that is how we govern our office. And of course we give legal advice to the county and they have to decide which way they're going to go on a particular thing.
Sharkansky: You mention you are the law firm for the other county agencies and I've had personal experience with making public records requests to the elections office and I'm in a position where I have to threaten to sue to get the documents. A suit is likely to be filed later this week. I find that a lot of the correspondence has the name of your office on it. Not your name, but the deputy prosecutors working under you are representing King County Elections in these actions. How do you use your office to encourage other agencies to comply with the public records laws?
Maleng: I encourage them to comply, because the penalties can be very severe and we really want to emphasize open government. Our clients have to make the ultimate decision. In our role as the civil lawyer for the county, you know one way to look at it is this. We are the civil lawyers for the county. We're not the client. We're the lawyer for the client. So if the county sues someone, or if the county has to defend a lawsuit, we are the lawyers for the county. But it's not our position. It's the client's position.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 16, 2005 05:28 PM | Email ThisDizzy, dizzy, dizzy.
Posted by: Danny on August 16, 2005 06:37 PMWithin the next couple of days, there will be a story reported in area papers of some incredibly good men who devoted more than a decade to fighting evil, but couldn't do it alone.
They will fall by the wayside like too many other "invisible" champions of the people who fight alone against all odds. What you'll read won't begin to touch on what they fought, and it certainly will not describe what we've all lost with their defeat.
For a very, very few people out there, the consequences of this story have changed their lives forever. It has for me, and certainly not for the better. For most, sadly, the story will never be known.
Norm Maleng had a hand in it too. He could have acted, but he hid while his deputies listened to the charges without the slightest interest in acting. To act would have meant Maleng putting the law above his "clients" in King County, who he chose to defend through total inaction while his office provided the "legal counsel" necessary to justify years of abuse and bias.
I know this is depressing and a downer. Tonight I am nothing but depressed and cynical about the future. Daily stories like these seem to be just about all good and honest people can expect from this cabal of worthless human beings running things.
Posted by: Mike on August 16, 2005 07:03 PMHe's just part of the machine......
Doesn't anyone, in political power in this state, have a sense of ethics and morals and patriotic duty?
This state's corruption runs so contrary to what our nation is about! It's as though we have been overrun by foreign culture and ideals....Like communism.
Posted by: Deborah on August 16, 2005 07:35 PMEnough is Enough.
I don't care which party, how "good," how "right," a elected official is. I say Throw The B*st*rds Out. No incumbent get re-elected in this, the next, or any forthcoming election until we see a change in direction.
Norm is a prime example of a decent, thoughtful guy captured by the system and in becoming entrenched in office has become part of the problem. If King Co. was run with a modicum of sanity Norm would be a fine prosecutor, but he acts if what is happening is just a glitch in the system instead of a total melt down.
TTBO - it's either that or tar, feathers and ride on the rails out of town.
Posted by: JCM on August 16, 2005 09:21 PMA picture of Mr. Maleng would be an appropriate example at this point in any physics text.
This is what primaries are for.
Posted by: TB on August 16, 2005 09:36 PMI don't give a damn if he calls himself a Republican. He ain't a Republican, and I won't vote for him. I will vote for a REPUBLICAN, not a Republican without balls (AKA Democrat.
This whole attitude of "we have to vote Republican at all costs so just vote for anyone whose name has an 'R' after it" sickens me. Hell, using that mentality, I'm shocked that some of you haven't written Geoffrey the Giraffe into a position because he works for Toys 'R' Us.
Doesn't wash with me. Integrity washes with me. And if this state's candyass Republican party can't drum up someone with some intestinal fortitude, then I won't waste my vote on them.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 16, 2005 10:10 PMThe "dissenters" do have something to hide...their identity. They are like the kids who played "ding dong ditch it" growing up. Simply put, they are cowards who can dish it out, but can't take it.
I've received emails from posters on this site who have either challenged me or apologized to me for a misunderstanding, and I've done likewise.
(We now return you to your regular venting about that paragon of virtue...Norm Maleng.)
Posted by: Danny on August 17, 2005 05:20 AMNorm Maleng, I know your reading this. Your a bum, an empty suit, a never was, and yes a corrupt politician! Shame on you...
Shark, you should have slapped him upside his head!
Posted by: RealMen on August 17, 2005 07:20 AM"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
The quote was meant to be funny, but here in the NW, in the hotbed of liberal / left/ progressive thinking in cities like Portland and Seattle, evil has already triumphed.
We live in a place where instead of being concerned with productive work and true equality of opportunity and race, most are far more concerned wtih protecting the staus quo of collectivism (unions), socialism (our tax and redistribute governments), institutionalized racism (affirmative action), defeatism (the left's view of Iraq), etc. Where it use to be that we considered a person by their merits, prodcutive output, etc. we now consider them by their failures, and confer special victim status on everyone but the hard working and the majority based on skin color.
A few good men and women do exist, but we are basically viewed as "dumb" by the left leaning press and the left leaning blogs.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 17, 2005 09:12 AMWith all due respect, what do you propose?
Nurse says: ”I don't give a damn if he calls himself a Republican. He ain't a Republican, and I won't vote for him. I will vote for a REPUBLICAN, not a Republican without balls (AKA Democrat. ” I understand your anger, but please put this into it’s proper perspective. It isn’t that Norm Maleng calls himself a Republican so much as that the Republican Party calls him a Republican. If you are angry at the party, act accordingly. Please quit tilting at a false premise from a losing perspective.
Then you say: ”This whole attitude of "we have to vote Republican at all costs so just vote for anyone whose name has an 'R' after it" sickens me. Hell, using that mentality, I'm shocked that some of you haven't written Geoffrey the Giraffe into a position because he works for Toys 'R' Us.”
This is not an attitude, it is a well reasoned mentaility based on sound judgment. I enjoyed your Toy’s analogy and maybe we should, but then the rational question would be, is Geoffrey a Republican or a Democrat? Or, as you seem to insist, a REAL Republican or a REAL Democrat? Fair enough. However, how does one strengthen the portion of a faction they find desirable by voting against it?
What you express in your comments is a false dilemma. Apparently you believe that as a candidate, Maleng masked his partisan identity, and as a prosecutor fooled us by behaving as a Democrat would behave, instead of behaving as a Republican? In effect you propose that either 1) we vote for the person regardless of his/her party in order to avoid being fooled, or 2) we vote for the party regardless of the candidate in order to avoid being fooled. Neither conclusion warrants the other and both are false because there are many other alternatives.
Your anger at Maleng is misdirected. I am not a Maleng defender, but imagine being a Republican County Prosecutor in Seattle Washington. This excuses nothing, but it adds perspective, because he cannot operate in a vacuum. Pay attention, Maleng’s office has no standing to act in behalf of the public in a civil suit against a department of the local government. In fact it is a direct legal conflict. Further, if he can find no crime to prosecute, it doesn’t mean there is none, it means the solution to the problem is political, not legal. We saw the same thing with Slick and the Thompson Commission. Do you contend that if criminal charges could be filed, Maleng refused to do so for some reason? Like it or not, you will not find a candidate or potential Democrat candidate in King County and probably not in America who would perform the Prosecutor’s job better than Maleng. Again, I don't support him or even like him, but I will not impute ideological blame against Maleng simply to assuage misplaced anger about problems that are not within his power to resolve. To do so does a great disservice to the conservative cause.
While I did not like Maleng’s answers to Shark’s questions, I also acknowledge his observation that our state laws allow his office no leeway to resolve most of the election issues. The fact is that the only useful solutions to problems associated with the 2004 gubernatorial election are political, not legal. If you don’t like the laws don’t blame the prosecutor, blame the legislature. If you don’t like the laws, then it is most likely because you don’t like liberalism, and what it does to governments. If you don’t like liberal candidates then don’t elect Democrats, but just because there are liberals in the Republican Party doesn’t mean that the two parties are the same. They are not.
If you want conservative results, support the conservative agenda of the Republican Party, vote exclusively Republican, and once elected, hold their feet to the fire. If you want to assure liberal results and more of the same corruption, vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, and I guarantee you will get more of the same results.
BY THE WAY, if Maleng was to act like a REAL REPUBLICAN, what would he do?
Amused...come on...
If it were as easy as simply voting *R* in any election here in Washington state..there would be no issue.
The problem we face here, is that NO ONE is sure that their vote will be counted at all unless they are voting Democrat. None of us can feel confident, with the condition of our corrupt county elections department, that our vote - whether it be Republican or Libertarian or Independent - will be counted and counted fairly!
With all of the luke-warm election reform proposed and passed by our liberal left legislature, I still have zero confidence in our state and county elections. How can we effectively vote out the corrupt Democrats when they still control the vote count?
If Maleng feels his department cannot perform an indepth investigation into King County elections...he can certainly request another agency - perhaps federal - to investigate!
His decision to deny and ignore the problem - is where he get's into trouble. I suppose, if he were a *True Republican* - he would use his capacity and authority to call in the Feds.
There certainly was fraud despite what anyone including Judge Bridges said, but it was not actionable by the Prosecutors office, and Maleng stated quite clearly why. No one is required to agree with what he said, but that doesn’t make it untrue. Please don't be foolish. Blaming Maleng for these problems accomplishes two very bad things at the same time. It misdirects attention away from the real cause of the problem, and it neutralizes (divides) our Republican party needlessly thus weakening us against the real criminals –liberal Democrats. If you find a better conservative Republican candidate, I will vote for them, but I will not vote against Maleng out of anger about things he can’t help.
You are quite right when you say that "the whole state is messed up." The problem is political, not legal, and it begs for a political solution. Elect more Republicans. Unless they are completely corrupt and unscrupulous, anyone elected (no matter their party) as the King County Prosecutor would be limited in the same way as Maleng. If you don't like Maleng, vote him out, but that will not solve the elections problems or any others in King County in any way. Further if you (like some others) believe that voting in a Democrat (any Democrat) in his place will solve the problem, you are wrong as well. Maleng is not a legislator so he is not entitled to solve the problems associated with KC Elections fraud.
If you want honesty of any kind in King County government, support the conservative agenda of the Republican Party, vote exclusively Republican, and once elected, hold their feet to the fire. If you want to assure the election of more liberal candidates, blame our problems on our own party people out of anger and frustration, and you will get more of the same liberal bullshit and corruption. Where I come from that’s called aimin’ for vermin and shootin’ yerself in the foot.
I didn't mean to make the impression that any of this was easy. However, the first step toward a comprehensive solution to our state's problems would be "as easy as simply voting [exclusively] *R*." I promise you that if enough of those in the state of Washington who are conservative vote Republican, our problems will be eventually solved. This is true especially if we have a high standard towards those who are elected as Republicans, which I obviously prefer. But even lacking that, any Republican candidate is better than any Democrat simply because it is the party that cements issues and solutions together and makes things (either good or bad) happen. Elected people are powerless to act without their party, or they will be in the next election cycle.
Michael Medved put this issue in focus on his talk show today regarding Slade Gorton when a caller made accusations that Gorton was a liberal because he supported some issue that the caller didn’t agree with. Medved observed that people like this who insist on 100% of nothing rather than 70% of someone they generally agree with are pathetic, and I agree whole heartedly. This is not empty talk either. Because of this very attitude Gorton lost by a mere 2,500 votes to Maria Cantwell. If you would take Maria Cantwell, or for that matter any Democrat over Slade Gorton, you are missing the whole point about party politics, corruption, and it's solutions.
You ask, ”How can we effectively vote out the corrupt Democrats when they still control the vote count?” Great question!! Maybe we cannot, in which case eventually it will raise to a constitutional crisis and/or a Federal legal battle. Other more serious things can happen, but I believe that the reality is, we live in a predominantly conservative population, and if we support the only conservative party that is worth supporting, the Republican Party, we can and will win. If we don’t, we won’t. Remember, Rossi won once, and he can again. Remember also, if it ain’t close they can’t cheat. Most of this niggling away at our own Party’s elected officials is decidedly destructive and wasteful of the energy that should be harnessed supporting Republicans against Democrats.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 17, 2005 04:32 PMOne more thing. You say “I suppose, if he were a *True Republican* - he would use his capacity and authority to call in the Feds.”
Are you saying that Maleng should call in the Feds against his own client? By my understanding of the law, respecting issues of civil fraud, the King County Prosecutors office is standing counsel for King County. That means that Maleng’s office would be required to violate his fiduciary duties and Bar Association Code of Conduct proscription against conflict of interest, and zealous representation (among other things) in favor of his client (the county) in order to be a *True Republican*?
Deborah, with all due respect, come on . . .
Amused,
I completely agree!
I would NEVER consider voting for a Democrat because I didn't like the Republican candidate!
That would be insane...
I agree that there is a conservative majority in this state and even in this county! My concern is that the conservative vote will not be tallied without manipulation by those who are in charge of the count. Nothing has really changed with respect to that function in King County since last November!
As far as Maleng's King County attorney/client protection and privilege.....what does he do in the case of a King County election whistleblower? How does his department investigate claims of fraud and corruption - launched by a King County employee against the King County Executive and Election offices? There must be protocal for this conflict of interest?
Posted by: Deborah on August 17, 2005 07:47 PMFirst, I think that you are quite correct to be concerned. When you say that "Nothing has really changed with respect to that function in King County since last November!" I gather that you are referring to the structure of the voting system and underlying laws in our area, in which case I acknowledege your point, and it may be that "we cannot effectively vote out the corrupt Democrats when they still control the vote count," but I think not.
Consider, the Democrats nearly blew it last time and lost despite their corruption. They are not governing well at all, and they will continue to fail because they are wrong. What has changed is the attitude of a great many of those voters who are very, very, pi$$ed off at being cheated by them, along with a great many not so vocal casual or compulsive Democrats who are shocked and disappointed with their own party. The energy from that can put us (Republicans) over the top if we don't lose our perspective and eat our own. Party unity is the key.
Respecting your whistleblower postulate, great question! Maleng answered this question albeit in a very awkward way when he said, “In our role as the civil lawyer for the county, you know one way to look at it is this. We are the civil lawyers for the county. We're not the client. We're the lawyer for the client. So if the county sues someone, or if the county has to defend a lawsuit, we are the lawyers for the county. But it's not our position. It's the client's position.”
I know this seems unsatisfactory to many and maybe it is, but consider this. If I were your standing counsel, and you were accused of behaving badly, should I do anything more than to “encourage them [you] to comply,” as Maleng said he would advise King County Elections? In fact, as your attorney, it is all that I would be allowed to do.
We (Republicans) through Dino Rossi et al. already tried our case and lost because there was not enough evidence. Hypothetically, if there were a case with enough substantial evidence of fraud to find in court against KC Elections, it is up to a citizen or group of citizens who have legal standing to sue them civilly. Otherwise the only solution I know of is political. Incompetence though it is not fraud, covers a multitude of sins, and after all, incompetence is not illegal or Democrats would never be elected because they could never serve. People are turning their anger in the wrong directions, and some of them are liberals pretending to be conservatives. I do not like Norm Maleng, but I sincerely believe that if he could resolve anything respecting our current electoral dilemma or even assist in the effort without sacrificing his integrity he would do so.
I don’t like the way things are, but I will not become like Democrats who refuse to accept reality. I don’t consider what Stephan is doing in this way because the more evidence he gathers the more it should steel us in our resolve to change things. He has the right spirit. Besides, because he is looking in the right areas, he may yet uncover a decisive smoking gun. If he does, I’ll kick in to help him sue. Stephan is doing what journalists (news reporters) should be doing. Nevertheless, we need to keep this situation in perspective and refuse to play into the Democrats hands by attacking those within our own ranks who are not in a position to resolve problems we are experiencing, but who otherwise solve many others by the mere fact that -for the most part ideologically- they agree with us.
Thank you for your comments and responses.