This is a substantially rewritten and expanded version of Saturday's post on the topic of "Federal Write-In Ballots" for unregistered voters.
Based on newly obtained documents, it now appears that there were enough problems with the federal write-ins that the excess of ballots over voters in King County last November was actually even larger than any of us realized. (Thanks to King County for coming clean with this information now that the contest trial is over). But more importantly, we now know about an as yet unreported opportunity for both risk-free fraudulent voting and incompetent (or worse) ballot counting that could swing future elections. I find this hard to believe, but it looks like anybody can download a federal write-in ballot off the web right up until election day, mail it in to King County and it will be counted as long as minimal information is present. That appears to be what happened in several cases.
Since January, King County has been trying to explain part of the discrepancy between absentee ballots counted and voters credited thusly:
Staff confirmed ... 251 federal write-in absentee ballots were tabulated. These represent validly cast ballots, that are not accounted for in the registration database.This "251" number was repeated in depositions and courtroom testimony for the election contest trial. There was still a mystery as to which precincts those ballots came from. So I made a public records request for the ballot envelopes and a list of the precincts where the ballots were tabulated. As it turns out, the county now admits there were at most 113 such ballots, not 251. Dean Logan and Bobbie Egan have not responded to my inquiry to explain the discrepancy or to my subsequent public records request for more information.
Even worse, I found that 45 of the 113 ballots were in some way incomplete, defective or incorrectly processed.
[Keep reading for more details and examples of some of the weirder ballots and county errors]
The federal rules on federal write-in ballots state that such ballots are supposed to be submitted only as a back-up option and only by voters who request a standard ballot well in advance of an election but didn't receive it.
A January 5 news release reported that a total of 1,081 federal write-ins were validated and counted. Presumably most of these were from registered voters. State law in effect in 2004 allowed non-registered out-of-state, overseas and service voters to request an absentee ballot and to complete registration upon return of the ballot. Such voters would presumably be eligible to submit federal write-ins.
But the markings on the 113 ballot envelopes don't suggest that they were checked off against a list of people who had earlier requested ballots. It's clear from the voter rolls that these were submitted by people who were not registered to vote in King County. They appear to have just sent in federal write-in ballots without having first requested a ballot. It's not clear to me how these could have been legally cast votes.
Perhaps there's some rule or loophole that I can't find which allows people to submit federal write-in ballots without any prior request or registration. But even then, federal rules require that certain information be provided for the ballot to be counted. An enormous percentage of these (40%) were incompletely or defectively filled out, or improperly processed. The following are some examples. All of these ballots were apparently counted.
These two voters with the same last name and addresses, supplied no birth dates, social security numbers, other identification numbers or even their gender. Only one of them gave a last residency date.
This voter did not sign or date his ballot.
This voter did not supply a birth date, passport or driver's license number or a valid King County address.
There was no matching ballot form, only an affidavit for this voter. The note in the upper left corner says "not registered. wrong person credited".
There were three more affidavits with only unreadable signatures that didn't seem to match with any of the other ballot forms. It's impossible to say from the information given who these voters are or what precinct their ballots were in.
This voter wrote that she "can't remember" her Seattle address. Somehow the election workers determined her ballot should be assigned to a precinct in West Seattle.
This voter gave only an address in Vancouver, BC. Her ballot was tabulated in a Fremont (Seattle) precinct.
This voter claims both that she was born in 1971 and last lived in King County in 1967.
This voter appears to have filled out his ballot properly. But the ballot was tabulated in one precinct and when the election workers rechecked the address to fulfill my records request, they realized it was actually in a different precinct. There were several ballots where this happened.
This voter gave her address in Fort Lewis, which is in Pierce County. King County should have forwarded her ballot to Tacoma, but didn't.
The same thing happened with this voter whose address is in the Pierce County portion of Auburn.
This voter , is legitimately registered at her Bothell address. But it's in Bothell, Snohomish County, not King County. Her ballot should have been forwarded to Everett. Instead, the ballot was tabulated in a Bothell, King County precinct.
This voter's local address does not exist. She supplied no last date of residency and neither her birth date or signature date make any sense.
This voter did not provide an overseas address, nor did several other voters.
This voter claimed a Seattle residence as of 1999, but supplied no passport or driver's license number, no gender and no local address. Somehow somebody decided to tabulate the ballot in a Greenwood precinct.
Then there is this ballot. No, it wasn't actually submitted. I mocked it up. But given all of the other incomplete and defective ballots from non-registered voters that were tabulated, if such a ballot (or a less obvious but equally fraudulent ballot) were submitted, what would prevent it from being counted?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 23, 2005 01:00 AM | Email ThisLet's see in November the polls are open for 15 hours, 40 minutes to travel from one poll to the next, fill in the form, vote and off to the next poll 15 votes per person in a day, 10 "voters" working the scheme and we get Gov. Gregoire. Gives new meaning to the phrase "vote early, vote often."
Makes one long for the days of poll taxes, when only landowners could vote. At least the franchise had a few controls, unlike now where anyone can vote as often as they like.
Posted by: JCM on August 20, 2005 10:39 AMHow else would so many people have known to vote these ways?
2004 elections saw an incredible and dramatic increase in bogus Provisional ballots, Felon registration and voting, voter registration - using county administrative buildings as residence addresses, illegal immigrant voter registration and votes, dead person votes and double voters!
How could this have happened randomly? It had to be orchestrated by someone or some group! Because each of these avenues of illegal votes contributed to the benefit one party only - specifically the Democrat party - it is more than obvious that this party had involvement in the orchestration.
This is what needs to be investigated by the Federal Government. They had better begin soon - or we will have it figured out before they do and that will not look good for them.
Posted by: Deborah on August 20, 2005 11:27 AMGranted, she should have ideally put her last place of residency in Seattle on the FWAB form. Perhaps this omission would disqualify an FWAB in many states.
But Washington laws are pretty lenient, and people can even register without putting down an address. That is where we get folks in India voting at the King County Administration Building precinct.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 20, 2005 12:30 PMLitvak, David
126 47th Ave E
Vancouver, BC V5W 2A7
(604) 301-1132
http://findaperson.canada411.ca/10649/log_feature/search_suggestion/search/Reverse_Address?housenumber=126&street=47th&state_id=BC&search_suggestion=1&query_type=3
And maybe ask her why (1) she doesn't remember her social security number after 12 years, (2) why she put the direction (East) before the street number, instead of after the street number, and (3) why she messed up the last digit of her Canadian postal code?
And don't forget to ask who she voted for!
And while you are at it, have her get another FWAB for the September 20, 2005 primary, and write-in Richard Pope for Port of Seattle Commissioner Position 4.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 20, 2005 12:38 PMMarshall, G
1376 Hovey Rd
Saanichton, BC V8M 1S7
(250) 544-4369
http://findaperson.canada411.ca/10649/search/Reverse_Address?housenumber=1376&street=hovey&city_zip=&state_id=BC
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 20, 2005 12:41 PMVoting is a right that belong to citizens who are residence of an area.
That being said the voters have the responsibility to register. You forget to register, to bad, wait till the next election. If you can't get off your backside and register I have zero sympathy come election day. Just like if a voter votes for two candidate in one race that vote for that office is voided, can't follow instruction like "vote for one" too bad. I am unwilling to leave determining voter intent up to partisan processes. Just as I am unwilling to let any Tom, Dick or Jane who walks into a poll vote with out being registered.
I am tried of selling my franchise too people too stupid to register, or dumb to follow instructions, or so corrupt they will "game" the loopholes.
When faith in the election system breaks down, we see politics by "other means." I don't want to go in that direction.
Posted by: JCM on August 20, 2005 01:38 PMPer the link Stefan gave, the FWAB only lists candidates for Federal offices.
If this is the case, it does not appear that a fraudulently cast FWAB could have directly added to CG's vote count.
Is there an indirect way these ballots could have helped?
For instance, each FWAB (legit or otherwise) counted would create an "undervote" for governor, when comparing votes for governor to the total votes cast. Votes (up to the number of FWABs) could then be added to a candidate's count, with no danger of creating more votes for governor than ballots cast.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 20, 2005 02:01 PM"4. I swear or affirm, under the penalty of perjury, that: a. I am a United States citizen, and eligible to vote in the above jurisdiction (Item 2)."
Item 2 is the address of her voting residence, that is, the address where she lives in BC.
She never swore to be eligible to vote in King County, WA.
Odd, isn't it?
Posted by: Micajah on August 20, 2005 02:18 PMYou are making me think that the only disenfranchised voters are the ones who only vote once!
A wonder if anyone will become alarmed when King County counts more votes than the population.
Unfortunately, this new law leaves the gates wide open for fraud from out-of-state and overseas voters.
Note that "The signed declaration on the envelope is the equivalent of voter registration."
It appears that the amended statute has a loophole so wide that any close election can be altered after the fact. Here is how it could be done:
Suppose a college student from Seattle, who is living in a dormitory in California, obtains a Washington ballot and envelope via e-mail from someone in the Washington Secretary of State's office. On election night, the student learns that a particular race is close, say, within 20 votes, and then forwards the ballot and envelope to his or her 25 buddies back home, and asks them to vote for the loser.
These friends, even if they are not registered to vote in Washington, may register on the spot by simply signing the envelope and returning it with the ballot.
The friends may vote in this manner a day or two after the election. All they need to do is claim that they voted before the election by backdating the "date" field on the signature line on the envelope.
(Incidentally, in 2004, King County Elections did NOT look at the date of the postmark on overseas ballots, but rather the date the voter claimed he/she voted.)
Then, if the ballots are brought into Canada and mailed south, as long as the ballots are returned to the elections office prior to certification--15 days after an election--these ballots (and the new registrations) will be counted.
Presto, the election result is overturned.
That is, IF my understanding of this law is correct. Of course, in this scenario, the 25 friends would have committed felonies, but who would ever know? How would they be prosecuted?
Posted by: Tim B. on August 21, 2005 06:03 AMSadly, this says it all doesn't it? But we cannot give up. Everytime you, Stefan and others here bring this type of deception to light, someone like me, who lives on the east side of the state, will be that much more informed. You are doing a great service, carry on!
Posted by: cc on August 21, 2005 09:12 AMIn November 2004, there was no statute or state regulation in Washington authorizing the use of the FWAB to vote for state offices in addition to federal offices. (Some counties apparently still allowed its use for state offices.)
Would this law, which takes effect on January 1, 2006, eliminate any use of the FWAB by people who aren't already registered to vote in Washington?
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5743
Chapter 246, Laws of 2005
Sec. 20 RCW 29A.08.775 and 2004 c 267 s 136 are each amended to read as follows:
Only voters who appear on the official statewide voter registration list are eligible to participate in elections. Each county shall maintain a copy of that county's portion of the state list. The county must ensure that data used for the production of poll lists and other lists and mailings done in the administration of each election are ((drawn from)) the same as the official statewide voter registration list.
All the more time to organize a theft of an election.
Posted by: Tim B. on August 22, 2005 05:43 AMWe should bear in mind that the statewide voter database will not be in effect until after the upcoming Ron Sims/David Irons race, and even then, Sam Reed will not meet the federal deadline of January 1, 2006. To quote from a Seattle Times article of August 19:
"While the Legislature ordered many of the changes, some are required under the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA), passed after the 2000 presidential election. HAVA requires that all states have a statewide voter-registration database by next January.
Reed said Washington will likely miss that deadline but should have the database in place by early next year."
There is a conflict between state law and the actions of state and county election officials, but I don't see a conflict in the law itself.
Note that in the Federal Voting Assistance Guide (to which Stefan provided a link) the state of Washington isn't one of the few states listed as having expanded the authorized use of the FWAB beyond the requirements of federal law.
I don't know of anything enacted in the most recent session of the state legislature that changed this situation. Perhaps it's there somewhere, and I just haven't noticed it.
Stefan said in the main entry that the FWAB can be used by people who aren't registered voters. Note that the federal law requires that voters who want to use the FWAB must first make a timely request for a regular absentee ballot. The FWAB isn't supposed to be used as a substitute for a regular ballot in federal elections unless the regular ballot hasn't arrived in time.
I wonder if the person in Vancouver, BC, even requested a regular absentee ballot.
If she didn't, what signature comparison could King County have conducted before accepting her FWAB as a valid ballot? They would have had only the signature on the FWAB envelope itself, I think.
It sure would be nice if our bureaucrats enforced the laws on the books, rather than making things up as they go along.
Posted by: Micajah on August 22, 2005 10:07 AMIt appears to me (and I'm not a lawyer) that RCW 29A.40.150 has been amended to allow for same-day registrations:
[From SB 5565]
"RCW 29A.40.150 and 2003 c 111 s 1015 are each amended to read as follows:
The secretary of state shall produce and furnish envelopes and instructions for out-of-state voters, overseas voters, and service voters to the county auditors. The information on the envelopes or instructions must explain that:
(1) Return postage is free if the ballot is mailed through the United States postal service, United States armed forces postal service, or the postal service of a United States foreign embassy;
(2) The date of the signature is considered the date of mailing;
(3) The envelope must be signed by election day;
(4) The signed declaration on the envelope is the equivalent of voter registration;
(5) A voter may fax a voted ballot and the accompanying envelope if the voter agrees to waive secrecy. The ballot will be counted if the original documents are received before certification of the election; and
(6) A voter may obtain a ballot via electronic mail, which the voter may print out, vote, and return by mail. In order to facilitate the electronic acquisition of ballots by out-of-state, overseas, and service voters, the ballot instructions shall include the web site of the office of the secretary of state."
I notice that Sam Reed attempted to limit the damage from this new law by proposing a new rule, WAC 434-250-060:
"Service and overseas voters--Materials and postage.
Pursuant to RCW 29A.40.150, the secretary of state must furnish envelopes and instructions for out-of-state, overseas, and service voters. For purposes of RCW 29A.40.150, out-of-state voters are limited to voters who are spouses or dependents of service voters. All absentee ballots to voters in these categories will be sent postage-free, pursuant to the provisions of federal law, and the return envelopes must be marked as to indicate that they may be returned free of charge."
I'm not sure where the SOS came up with the authority to redefine "out-of-state voters" for the purposes of RCW 29A.40.150, but it still leaves open the door to fraud from overseas voters (e.g. people who claim to be temporary visitors in Canada).
Posted by: Tim B. on August 22, 2005 09:22 PMWho knew standards were THIS low??????? This proves that ANYONE can vote, according to Dean Logan.
Posted by: Michele on August 23, 2005 02:08 AMIn all of his experience in elections, he hasn't seen a better elections department than King County Elections.
("ignore the man behind the curtain!")
So all of you are just frustrated republicans!
Thank you for allowing this bit of sarcasm.
Posted by: jaybo on August 23, 2005 08:16 AMBingo, Let the GOP campaign on this in the next election. Let the dems come on and tell us their constituents are too stupid, lazy or stoned on WEEEEEED to complete the process of registering to vote. It will be an insult to the intelligence of the voters of this state and an insult to the core of their party.
The swing voters of this state do not want fraudulent votes counted in our elections. The dems do and that is a fact. Let’s make them stand up and say it loud and clear in the next election.
http://findaperson.canada411.ca/10649/search/Reverse_Address?housenumber=3715&street=pleasantview&city_zip=&state_id=BC
But how did Osama's ballot manage to make it from the hinterlands in Pakistan on October 26, 2004 (11 Ramadan 1425) to K.C. Elections by November 16, 2004 or so in order to be counted?
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 23, 2005 09:00 AMThanks,
Posted by: C. Oh on August 23, 2005 09:13 AMThis is disturbing--it really seems to this reader that the emphasis of KCE is "every vote has to count" rather than "every vote of every legal voter, no matter if they didn't follow instructions or not, counts." This in itself isn't proof of deliberate fraud, but it really seems to be gross incompetence by the KCE board. I can see why they "duck and cover" and stonewall so readily.
I haven't looked up Washington's law yet.
Posted by: ScottM on August 23, 2005 09:42 AMIt looks to me like a bunch of expatriots from Washington, who moved to Canada a long time ago, who probably haven't voted in years (maybe decades), suddenly decided they had "a duty to the world" to vote against that evil Bush. Of course they couldn't be bothered with registering to vote, so they filled out these federal write-in ballots.
I also have an idea about the person who said her former residency dated from before her birth. What if she was born in Canada to an American parent? She would be a US citizen, but if she never moved to the US, she wouldn't have a literal former residence- she would have to vote from her parent's former residence. What do you think of that theory?
Posted by: madmartagan on August 23, 2005 10:06 AMFrom the FVAP FAQ:
"Family members of citizens residing overseas, who are U.S. citizens and who have never resided in the U.S., usually, if the state allows, claim one of their U.S. citizen parent's legal state or territory of residence as their own."
Posted by: ScottM on August 23, 2005 10:15 AMas for fed printable ballots, what next? use my Monopoly money for groceries? sheesh--what a country!
Notice how closely they monitor, secure and tamper-proof a damn urine sample for an employer's ROUTINE drug test?! Guess our elections officials are telling us that voters are less important than their own pizz. We can afford top security for 'samples' and no security for 'peoples.'
I find it disturbing that so many of these error filled federal write-in votes came from B.C. Canada. I find it hard to believe that someone living in Vancouver can't arrange to recieve an absentee ballot from Seattle.
It is pretty clear to me that Washington State got "moved on" last year. I had heard that moveon.org recruited BC union goons to help Washington out with it's election in 2004. This is just an echo of that help.
[...] I suppose we have to guess, or trust in the decisions made by a clearly unreliable organization (that may or may not be truly partisan.) But for some of the sample files--I can't quite see how that vote was allowed. The thing that is missing here is any accountability. As someone else pointed out, in an earlier comment, there is no way to know how these were counted. Who is the person that gave the OK for each ballot, and what did they base that decision on?This is disturbing--it really seems to this reader that the emphasis of KCE is "every vote has to count" rather than "every vote of every legal voter, no matter if they didn't follow instructions or not, counts.[...]"
For the most part, we concerned citizens focus our attention on the votes that were counted that probably should not have been counted. Has anybody looked into those votes that were not counted, that perhaps should have been counted. (Apart from Bryan Suits and the other military ballots, of course.) For example, were any of these federal write-in ballots rejected? If so, why were they rejected, and it make sense they were rejected?
Posted by: huckleberry on August 23, 2005 11:01 AMhttp://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.48.050&fuseaction=section
"RCW 29A.48.050
Return of voted ballot.
The voter shall return the ballot to the county auditor in the return identification envelope. If mailed, a ballot must be postmarked not later than the date of the primary or election. Otherwise, the ballot must be deposited at the office of the county auditor or the designated place of deposit not later than 8:00 p.m. on the date of the primary or election.
[2003 c 111 § 1205. Prior: 2001 c 241 § 19; 1993 c 417 § 4; 1983 1st ex.s. c 71 § 4. Formerly RCW 29.38.050, 29.36.126.]
Is this a new requirement to have the ballots received by 8:00 pm on election day?
Here is the URL for all election RCW's:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=title&title=29A
Election Reforms effective for 2005 Primary & General Election
*Secretary of State Granted Authority to Review County Election Procedures
*The Secretary of State is now required to review each county’s elections procedures at least once
every three years.
*Counties are required to respond to review findings in writing, listing the steps that will be taken to correct any problems.
*The Secretary of State will then return to the reviewed county prior to the next primary or general election to verify that corrective measures have been taken.
*2005 Primary Election Reviews will include Yakima and Spokane counties.
*County Legislative Bodies Permitted to Choose All Mail Voting
*The County Auditor is allowed to conduct all elections entirely by mail with express authorization from the county legislative authority. This allows a single system of elections to be conducted in participating counties, dramatically reducing county election costs and limiting the risk of election worker error.
*In the September Primary, 28 of Washington’s 39 counties will be entirely vote-by-mail.
Adams, Asotin, Benton, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin,
Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend
Oreille, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Stevens, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom,
Yakima
*By the 2005 General Election at least 30 of Washington’s 39 counties will be entirely vote-by-mail.
*New Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)Instructions & Envelopes
All envelopes and ballot instructions that go to overseas and service voters are required to
explain:
* Return postage is free
* The date of the signature is considered the date of mailing
* The envelope must be signed by election day
* The signed declaration may serve as registration
* The ballot and envelope may be faxed if the voter waives secrecy and the
originals arrive prior to certification
* A ballot may be obtained electronically via the internet.
Ballot Processing Procedures Clarified
* Voter identification is required at the polls.
Voters will be asked to provide photo identification. Other accepted forms of voter
identification include, a voter registration card, a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck,
government check, or other government document. A voter who does not have identification
may vote a provisional ballot
* Requires that provisional and absentee ballots be visually distinguishable from poll-site
ballots and either printed on color paper or imprinted with a bar code.
Also, requires provisional and absentee ballots to be incapable of being tabulated by poll-site
ballot counters.
* Ensures that only canvassing boards can reject ballots.
* Requires state-wide signature verification standards, and training for people who verify
signatures
* Standardizes procedures for fixing missing or mismatched signatures, by requiring the
County Auditor to notify the voter by telephone and mail.
In order for the ballot to be counted, the voter must cure the missing or mismatched signature
either in person or by mail by the day before certification.
If the second signature still does not match the signature on file, the voter must appear in
person to sign a new registration form.
* Allows the Secretary of State to require all county recounts to be certified on the same day for races that cross county lines.
* Changes the automatic manual recount threshold for statewide elections from 150 votes to
1,000 votes.
* Requires clear statements on envelopes that it is illegal to vote if you are not a citizen, a felon who has not had the voting right restored, or to vote or sign on behalf of someone else
* Makes knowingly destroying, altering, defacing, concealing or discarding a completed voter
registration form or signature affidavit a gross misdemeanor.
* Makes intentionally voting twice a class C felony.
* Prohibits ballot enhancement and allows duplication only if the voter’s intent is clear and duplication is necessary in order for the machine to count the ballot.
* Requires counties with a population over 75,000 to canvass ballots daily, including
Saturdays.
* Changes the certification period for General Elections from 15 days to 21 days.
* A reconciliation report is required at the time of certification that includes the number of
registered voters, ballots counted, provisional ballots issued, provisional ballots counted,
provisional ballots rejected, absentees issued, absentees counted, absentees rejected,
federal write-ins counted, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
ballots issued, UOCAVA ballots counted, and UOCAVA ballots rejected.
* Requires a second reconciliation report 30 days after certification that includes the number of
registered voters, all voters credited, poll voters credited, provisional voters credited,
absentees credited, federal write-ins credited, UOCAVA voters credited.
Physical receipt of ballots by election offices on election day (as opposed to postmarked by election day as is current law) was proposed this past session, but did not pass.
Mail ballots simply need to be postmarked on or before election day to be valid in the state of Washington.
Quite properly so, I might add as an editorial comment.
If we are going to have the insanity of widespread forced vote-by-mail, then the least that we can do is ensure that those voters forced to vote by mail can actually vote on Election Day, like everyone else, as opposed to having to make their decision with a full week left in the campaign season, simply to mail their ballot early enough to ensure that it arrives by or before election day.
Having ballots returned to election offices by election day does nothing but inconvenience voters and possibly affect close elections, if damaging missteps by candidates are made a day or so before election day.
Such policy does not enhance security, it does not make the ballots get counted faster (election offices have a set level of ballot processing daily that can't physically be exceeded - it is really immaterial from a processing standpoint whether ballots all come in a huge mass on election day, or whether they come in for a day or so after the election.), and it only hurts, not helps the process.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on August 23, 2005 02:55 PMWhat was proposed is even nuttier than that, because out of state voters could postmark until election day, but in-state voters would have to have ballots in by election day.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 23, 2005 03:06 PMLocal first class mail usually moves in one to two days around here (we actually are fortunate ewnough to have one of the better-run regional post offices around the country), but can take up to 10 days and still be considered properly delivered by the post office.
A polling scheme that is out of the voter's control and is simultaneously forced upon them is a poor system, and makes for a poor guarantee of democracy.
But then, so does Ron Sims.
Posted by: Susan B. Anthony on August 23, 2005 04:49 PMfederal write-ins are a temporary registration form and a ballot so they ARE registered voters .
voting is not a right by registered voters in an area -> it is your right as an elector/uscitizen.
when you sign the ballot your sign date takes precedence over postal date.
yes you can vote on state races
yes they are expatriates and yes its legal
voters cant control getting a good date mark on election day without physically making a postal worker sign for it.
voters that don't live in washington have different voting laws than the ones you are quoting above so if you live in uganda or florida its different...
its really nice that you like to talk about all this stuff soo much but all you guys do is talk about it and come up with your funny little ideas when all you had to do was call and actually talk to someone at the scretary of state and ask them and they can point you at the right laws and tell you..duuh.
all i did was call them and boing there are the answers.
Posted by: john on August 23, 2005 07:13 PMWhat part of my post above - from the SoS's webpage - wasn't clear enough for you that you had to waste a dime to call?
In fact - I would trust more - what is printed on Sam Reed's website than what someone in his office tells me! I can print his webpage and use it against him if he goes squirrley on the facts...Someone in his office may simply tell me what I want to hear - though false- and I can't verify that they said it!
Gosh....if it what Sam Reed amd Dean Logan say were accurate and credible - I guess we wouldn't have these problems in the first place!
I hope you taped your conversation! ;)
Posted by: Deborah on August 23, 2005 08:10 PMThanks for confirming that the SecState employees don't comply with the law.
Read the oath signed by voters who use the FWAB. It says they've requested a regular ballot, but it hasn't arrived yet. You are apparently assuming that the nonregistered voters falsely swore that they had already requested a regular ballot.
Voters who aren't registered cannot get an absentee ballot without registering--except when the bureaucrats who are supposed to follow the rules don't know the rules.
The FWAB isn't a voter registration application. There is a different form available to apply for voter registration and request an absentee ballot, the Federal Post Card Application.
Posted by: Micajah on August 23, 2005 09:36 PM