September 29, 2005
Countywide Recount

King County Elections is poised to conduct a county-wide recount in the Sheriff's primary race.

As of yesterday, the vote count was:

Sue Rahr 171,659
Jim Fuda 43,920
Greg Schmidt 43,988
Write-in 572

The recount would be done solely to determine whether Schmidt or Fuda earns the right to advance to the general election so he can have his ass handed to him by Sheriff Rahr. It doesn't strike me that there's enough at stake here to put the system through the stress of a recount. I'd rather see both the elections officials and citizen observers focus on preparations for the general election. On the other hand, a recount would probably expose more of the crap in the elections system that still doesn't work very well.

Dean Logan has asked both major parties to provide recount observers. The county GOP is seeking 5 observers for the weekend and 60 for next week. Call (425) 990-0404 if you're interested in observing the recount. Observers are paid $12 per hour.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 29, 2005 09:28 AM | Email This
Comments
1. What in the world is the reason for an R or a D sheriff? Toss out the partisan and let real people run for sheriff and not a party hack.

Posted by: swatter on September 29, 2005 09:59 AM
2. Swatter, I agree.

Can someone explain this to me? I went to the link provided by stefan, showing the breakdown, and also total votes cast.

Total votes cast = 291,373

Total votes for all Canidates listed = 260,139

Does this mean that 31,234 ballots were rejected, tossed, or no vote for sherrif was indicated? The 31,234 represents 10.7% of votes cast were not included for some reason or another.

Posted by: Chris on September 29, 2005 10:09 AM
3. Sheriff is already non-partisan.....I'd love to see a re-count...any light makes a cockroach (Logan)nervous....

Posted by: Sierradog on September 29, 2005 10:09 AM
4. Swatter, the Sheriff IS elected on a nonpartisan basis. It's the only nonpartisan county elected office.

The major parties get involved in watching recounts (and observing the election process in general) because that's the way the rules are written. Besides, where are Fuda and Schmidt going to each get 60 observers?

Posted by: Legast on September 29, 2005 10:30 AM
5. Chris, if you look at election returns for any election, you will see that the number of total votes decreases as you work your way down the ballot. A lot of folks don't care or don't feel they know enough to vote in the down-ballot races.

Posted by: Legast on September 29, 2005 10:34 AM
6. Like in auditor, for example? This is supposedly the position many believe was the cause of the KC election fiasco. If it were elected position, then no problem.

Posted by: swatter on September 29, 2005 10:55 AM
7. Actually, the recount in this case is ripe with potential for fraud.

Schmidt is highly unpopular with the "establishment" of King County politics. He has exposed the fact that so many issues - family court, domestic violence laws - have been set up and run by radical feminists that attack men, fathers, and families.

He's a smart guy and an honest guy. He is extremely articulate and obviously very caring.

Sue Rahr is anything but those qualities. Did you see her video statement? Hardly inspiring; a little scary actually.

She bought into KC feminist propaganda completely. Her credentials primarily revolve around learning feminist ideology. She has no respect of the rank and file. Thus, she is a favorite of the KC political establishment.

They want to keep Schmidt out of the race, because it scares them that he would get as much of the vote as he did and then move on to the general election. It especially scares them that when you put Schmidt next to Rahr, she looks like a complete moron.

So, they will be trying to find the votes to put Fuda ahead of Schmidt. You want to see another example of KC elections corruption in action? Then, watch this recount.

Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on September 29, 2005 11:00 AM
8. I am not a fan of Sue Rahr and did not vote for her, but why are we wasting $ on a recount and then a general election when someone took over 65% in the primary?

Posted by: mahalo on September 29, 2005 11:15 AM
9. Just called the phone number, and signed up. Should be interesting...

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on September 29, 2005 01:16 PM
10. SP commentor endorsements:

Schmidt 2
Appointed Lacky 0

Greg's work is totally counter to the way the money flows in KC and in Wa. Since VAWA pork gravy $ only flows to your county if you KEEP with the trend that men are either convicted wife beaters or their wives are too afraid to report them, officers actually arresting women on DV calls might mean a shortage of cash in the dept.

Or worse, the next time the state wants the KC Sheriff to be their personal debtors prison bill collector for CSE and Greg decides that busting meth labs is a little more important, there might be (gasp) ... a shut off of funds to the dept.

Posted by: Andy on September 29, 2005 02:51 PM
11. Schmidt sounds more like he is on a personal vendetta to punish those people who arrested him in a nasty divorce dispute. I would rather pick someone that isn't likely to create another Brame type environment! Schmidt's comments that he wants more "truth" to come out about the arrest and stuff LATER. I don't trust the guy.

Schmidt also is coming from the Seattle Police department in a mid-level position rather than a Sheriff's organization. I question his leadership abilities.

It would be nice to have more qualified candidates... each one of them have a black mark on their records.

Posted by: Skeptic on September 29, 2005 04:09 PM
12. Uh. Greg is the only one to graduate from Northwestern University's police management academy. Rahr's record as far as professional continuting education is heavy with DV and Sexual Harassment training. Fuda seems to keep up with the negotiating thing with hostages. I would say that Rahr's continuing ed is the weakest.

As far as black marks, let us not forget Rahr was suspended for a day for repeatedly violating email policies (while she was Chief in Shoreline, yet). Good example there, Chief Sue. And I guess in blue gun thugdom, losing your badge and ID is frowned upon. She left hers in a drug informants car, when she took it out of her purse on a drug buy. No guy would take their purse to a drug buy, and I doubt most wimmin' druggies would either. Said ID and badge went to New Mexico with the informant.

Oh, yeah, she wrecked a cop car too, and failed to report it. In fact, the only one WITHOUT professional disciplinary action against them is Schmidt.

But, he is not establishment, and makes the fans of status quo really nervious, because he is not a pol.

Posted by: The Geezer on September 29, 2005 09:51 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?