August 19, 2005
More B.S. from Sam Reed, lazy reporting from M.S.M

Today's Seattle Times reports that "ID to be required at the polls".

"The rubber hits the road," said Reed, in detailing a series of changes that will take place this election year across the state.
Buy Sam Reed a beer! He's taking the public's concerns seriously and bringing integrity and security to the voting process! But sadly, the "voter ID requirement" crafted by Sam Reed, Christine Gregoire and the Democrats in the legislature is not a requirement at all. This "rubber on the road" is as helpful a prophylatic as a used condom on the pavement:
If they don't have ID, the ballot will be considered a provisional one, and elections workers will have to match signatures before it is counted.
And we know how strong of a security measure signature verification is (assuming it's even performed). It inspires so much confidence that they won't even let party observers watch while it takes place. And what happens if the signature on the ballot doesn't match the signature on the registration record? The voter is allowed to send in an affidavit updating the signature on their registration record to match the signature on the ballot. Seriously.

And that's only one loophole. Then there is the "perfect vote fraud" loophole that I discussed earlier. And don't get me started on the gargantuan fraud-enabling loophole offered by Washington state's extra-lax use of "federal write-in" ballots. (Coming soon: a post on that amazing subject).

The punchline: ID is not really required at the polls. The provision is only there to bamboozle decent people into believing that the folks in authority are actually doing anything serious to safeguard our sacred franchise.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 19, 2005 01:33 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Had a brief email conversation with Susan Gilmore (Times reporter). She thinks the statewide voter database will prevent a voter from voting as many times as her/his conscience will allow. Obviously, she does not get it or at least acts like she does not get it.

Posted by: JC Bob on August 19, 2005 01:51 PM
2. I think their marketing consultant came up with this plan. Sell it to masses with "new and improved" on the label, when it's all the same ingredients.

JC Bob - she might get it more than you know. Susan Gilmore is a Women Studies madrassa trained reporter. He interest is in pushing gender feminist extremism on the rest of us. If a little vote fraud helps in that effort, she's more than willing to look the other way.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 19, 2005 02:22 PM
3. I saw Sam Reed talk about this last night on the news, and I just knew a "but" was coming even before he handwaved at it. Sad, and predictable.

But really, I don't know how much Sam can be blamed: he cannot require ID because the legislature didn't give him the authority too, as best I can tell.

Posted by: pudge on August 19, 2005 02:24 PM
4. Sam doesn't seem to have tried very hard to lobby for anything better. He also played along with Mrs. Gregoire's dog-and-pony-show and went around the state holding town-hall meetings soliciting input from citizens, most of which he shoved in the circular file.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 19, 2005 02:27 PM
5. I was dismayed, to say the least, when I read this press release.

On top of the "ad/education" campaign they are beginning Monday to inform voters of the changes. I wonder how much this is going to cost us.

What a waste.

OT: Patty Murray is stopping by our local newspaper at 3:30 this afternoon. Anyone have any questions for her?

Posted by: cc on August 19, 2005 02:29 PM
6. Damnit, what is so hard about requiring everyone to present a picture ID in order to vote? If a person does not have an ID with them, send them home to get it. Stop creating more work by allowing just anyone who walks in off the street to vote - without an ID and potentially not even in their own voting district.

This bending over backwards to "make every vote count" with provisional ballots is causing more problems than it is worth and only encourages and facilitates voter fraud. If a voter really wants to vote, then they should not feel inconvenienced by having to provide an ID card.

Posted by: Gary on August 19, 2005 02:30 PM
7. ID required at the polls??....What polls?? Clark Co. has gone to all mail balloting. That's what Sam wants for the whole state...then we won't have to bother with all that ID will we? Then it's home free for all those illegally registered voters.

Posted by: Susu on August 19, 2005 02:57 PM
8. I am really glad my bank doesn't operate like this.

Bank Teller: You want to make a withdrawal and you don't have any ID? NO PROBLEMO! Just sign here that this is who you say you are and you can have all the cash you want!

I guess that is how the Bank of Sims would be run. How long would this bank survive. Oh I forgot, they use tax payer dollars. Never mind.

Posted by: Tim R on August 19, 2005 03:03 PM
9. If you are currently signed up as a permanent absentee voter, but would prefer to have your vote tallied at your local polling site, here is a form you can print, fill out, and mail in to King County.

The form looks a little like the owner's manual for my vaccuum cleaner, but there are three main portions to fill out. Provide your registration info in the upper left. Be sure to sign just below that. (We know how important those matching signatures are at King County.) And lastly, check the 3rd box in the upper right, the one that beings "I do not wish to continue..."

I don't know if there is a deadline for this form, but I assume as long as it is received and processed before absentee ballots are mailed, you should be "off the list."

See you at the polls!

Posted by: Huckleberry on August 19, 2005 03:31 PM
10. Oh! You can just FAX the completed form to King County on 206-205-5080. Sweet.

Posted by: Huckleberry on August 19, 2005 03:33 PM
11. Check that! No answer at 206-205-5080. Better lick a stamp and mail it in.

Posted by: Huckleberry on August 19, 2005 03:36 PM
12. Try (206) 296-0108. That's the FAX # for KC Elections, and it seems to have worked.

Posted by: Huckleberry on August 19, 2005 03:40 PM
13. No ID, all but guaranteed to go into the hopper completely unchecked. These people ARE transparent---in a REALLLY BAD way.

Posted by: Michele on August 19, 2005 04:30 PM
14. You know....
It appears to me, that the only purpose this nonsense *fake ID* requirement serves - is to make poll voters want to switch to All Mail Voting!

Let's face it - with so many loopholes built into Reeds *ID requirement* - including susbstituting a drivers license for a utility bill - no one is going to consider this anything more than an inconvenience! A pictured government issued ID is now equal to a telephone bill as far as identification is concerned! Try using your Qwest bill to purchase airline tickets! Or better yet - try using a utility bill as ID to get a drivers license! Unless ofcourse you are an illegal immigrant - then there are no such requirements...

This ID proclamation of Sam Reed was meant only to push poll voters to vote absentee.

But I think he and the liberal Dems underestimate how peeved the public is right now about losing their right to vote at the polls! This will backfire on Reed!

Posted by: Deborah on August 19, 2005 05:04 PM
15. SIGNATURE VERIFICATION IS NOT A LOOPHOLE, IT IS A NOOSE!

The way this scam works is to eliminate valid, yet unwanted, votes. It goes hand in hand with vote-by-mail. Ask Ralph Nader how signature verification was used by Oregon's SoS to keep him off the ballot.

It's easy to calculate..
VOTE BY MAIL + SIGNATURE VERIFICATION SCAM
= DEMOCRACY LOST

Posted by: Splatter on August 19, 2005 06:05 PM
16. Sam (R. I Am) Reed is nothing more than a Democrat puppet, kept around because he a useful idiot. What is worse? A Dem SoS with integrity or a spineless puppet with an R behind his name. Dem SoS with integrity, hey, is that an oxymoron?

This is the switch, you are looking for illegal votes, while the rules are changes to eliminate the needed valid votes.

MARK MY WORDS! Next time around it won't be "prove fraud" it will be "prove validity".

BTW, I have been voting for 20 years. I wonder if my signature has changed since 1985? Has yours?

Posted by: Splatter on August 19, 2005 06:33 PM
17. Methinks Deborah way overestimates "how peeved the public is right now about losing their right to vote at the polls". I suspect they're just about as "peeved" as they were after Florida in 2000. In other words, they couldn't care less.

Tomorrow is a new day to all the rest who don't follow politics.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 19, 2005 10:07 PM
18. Unkl witz.....

About that 2000 Florida election?

Let......it.......go.

Posted by: Deborah on August 19, 2005 10:23 PM
19. I hope we get a good replacement for Reed in 2008!

Posted by: Laurie on August 20, 2005 08:45 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?