October 16, 2005
"Not registered"

Here's more on the story of the "not registered" provisional ballots that I mentioned on Thursday.

So far, after searching only a fraction of the counted provisional ballot envelopes, we've found 9 envelopes whose ballots were counted, even though somebody in the Elections office had already concluded they were not cast by registered voters and should have been rejected (photos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

All of these envelopes have a similar profile:

1) The "not registered" checkbox in the upper right is clearly checked off

2) The voter is assigned to precinct 1823, no matter what polling place they cast their ballot at or which part of the county they claim residence in.

3) The voter does not show up in any version of the voter database that I possess (five versions created on various dates between June 2004 and June 2005). This is different from the "fatal pend" voters that I wrote about earlier, for whom there exists a record in the voter database. While some of these people can be found in, say, property tax rolls, I found no trace of them in any the voter registration records.

4) Most suspicious -- none of these envelopes appear in the list of provisional ballots that King County Elections issued to me a month ago. Nearly all of the other envelopes, both counted and uncounted, show up in the county's list. The fact that all of these were counted, but don't appear in the list, suggests that somebody might have figured out that the ballots were improperly counted and then tried to cover it up by deleting the corresponding data records.

(A 10th ballot that is similar to the others is also curious. There is a voter with the same name registered at a different address. But the Intelius database reports her to have a different birth year than the person who submitted the provisional ballot)

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 16, 2005 04:21 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Thanks for the info, Shark. It will be interesting if KCE offers an explanation as to why these ballots were tabulated, or why they were marked with "Not Registered" in the first place. Can anyone suggest a theory as to how this would help the other side, unless you assume they examined the ballots before processing, or substituted forged ballots in place of the original ballot?

Posted by: huckleberry on October 16, 2005 04:59 PM
2. Great info! I tried to use the "Email This" button, but no link was included in the email. I checked other postings and they seemed to work. BTW, I think your clock may be a few minutes fast!
Steve

Posted by: Steve Hammatt on October 16, 2005 05:21 PM
3. I notice the first one is from Issaquah. Didn't they have some irregularities? (Aside from losing Brian Suits' ballot.)
Here was the link from Stephan's post in January.
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003365.html

Posted by: Caroline on October 16, 2005 05:23 PM
4. I would bet that Mr Logan in addition to counting all of the 'fatal pends' also decided to count all of the not registered.......

These are the smoking guns that audits couldn't find.......

more votes than voters indeed!

Posted by: sgmmac on October 16, 2005 05:29 PM
5. Stefan,

Have you seen any provisional ballot envelopes on which the upper right corner was completed to show whether the ballot was "valid" or "invalid"?

Is it the apparently normal practice of King County elections personnel to leave that area blank -- and to avoid clearly identifying the person who decided that the ballot was valid and thus included it in the vote count?

Posted by: Micajah on October 16, 2005 06:07 PM
6. But of course, there was no fraud down at KCE. Sure, somebody probably tried to cover up the fact that illegal provisionals were counted, but that's not fraud---at least....that's what they keep telling us. Right???
thank you, Stefan, for continuing to expose what went on down at KCE in '04. They can't keep hiding. The truth is coming out. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Michele on October 16, 2005 06:27 PM
7. If counting fatal pends and unregistered voters votes isn't fraud. Then I would like to know the definition of fraud!

Posted by: sgmmac on October 16, 2005 06:30 PM
8. Hmm...
I see that the inspectors' names are on most of those ballots. What does that inspector do? Does he/she check the validity of the voter, or what, exactly? Can they tell why votes like this were allowed, and who exactly is the person who gave the final okay?
Perhaps the fraud is in poor training, or not enforcing the existing laws regarding voting procedures. So, these examples don't seem to fit the definition of *deliberate* fraud. This likely means that certain people's rear ends are safe because they can say that they didn't know they were doing the wrong thing, or that they were instructed to do it this way, or the Kool Aid told them to do it, or....
What a mess.

Posted by: pseudotsuga on October 16, 2005 07:20 PM
9. All we can do as stay focused and help Irons to win by enough that it won't be easy to fudge the votes...so Sims will be out and so will Logan. But it's scary, Kafka-esque even, to think they're in charge of determining who wins.

Posted by: Jenny on October 16, 2005 07:29 PM
10. I just LOVE how these Provisional Ballots were cast by bogus voters in Issaquah, Redmond, Covington and Seattle...and they were ALL assigned to Precinct 1823!! And this is AFTER someone.....NO - SEVERAL INSPECTORS! at King County elections determined that they were not registered voters!! Does anyone else see what this means?
Because - so many different inspectors sent bogus and illegal Provisional Ballots to Precinct 1823 to be counted - AFTER determining that they were ineligible.....can only mean it was planned and discussed - or they were instructed to do so by someone higher up in the elections department.

Precinct 1823 must have been the designated Fraud precinct! That means King County elections coordinated with it's staff - a plan to send illegal and ineligible ballots through Precinct 1823 to be processed and counted...

If it were only one specific inspector sending these ballots to 1823 - that person could claim ignorance and error.. But because there were so many *separate* KC inspectors sending these ballots to 1823 ... means someone coordinated it.

There must have been a memo.....

Posted by: Deborah on October 16, 2005 07:37 PM
11. Continuing on with Deborah's perceptive comment:

.... and if somebody coordinated the illegal counting of provisional ballots by voters who were NOT REGISTERED, then we have a conspiracy. If there was active coordination, seems like whoever was involved in KCE could almost be indicted under the RICO Act.

And ditto the earlier comment: If counting fatal pends and votes by unregistered voters isn't fraud, what in the world is ??

Methow Ken

Posted by: Methow Ken on October 16, 2005 08:07 PM
12. To refresh our memory on Precinct 1823. Here's Stefan's report from December 2004 on that precinct:

December 22, 2004
Precinct 1823
Crunching the data in the King Ukraine County voter registration file, I came across precinct SEA 37-1823, or simply Precinct 1823, located in downtown Seattle between Elliot Bay and I-5 near the James St. exit.


Precinct 1823 has 763 registered "Active" voters. 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave -- the King County Administration Building. 241 of these voters specifically note their apartment number as #553, which is the room number of the ... King Ukraine County Records and Elections office.


Over 300 of these alleged "voters" give 500 4th Ave. (with or without the Elections office room number) as both their residence and mailing addresses. Several of the other Elections Office residents give overseas mailing addresses, such as Anuj Rathi of Mumbai, India, Rayko Suzuki of Tokyo, Japan, and Pascal Engi of Bern, Switzerland.

Another 48 of the Precinct 1823 "voters" give as their residence address 511 3rd Ave, which appears to be some sort of private mailbox service.

And then there are the two Messrs. Harder -- Mike Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on April 28, 2004 and Michael D. Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on July 20, 2004. Both Messrs. Harder are flagged as permanent absentee voters. [while it is possible that this is, say, a father and son, I believe that is unlikely in this case. There is one additional voter registered at this apartment and in the same time frame. The only other apartments in this building have only one or two registered voters each. i.e. it's doubtful that any of the apartments in the building would house 3 or more adults].

465 (61%) of the Precinct 1823 voters registered during 2004 and nearly all of them "live" at 500 4th Ave. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004.

3 members of the List of 573 Magical Mystery Voters are from Precinct 1823, 2 of whom "live" at the Elections Office.

In the machine recount, Precinct 1823 gave 203 votes to Gregoire and 87 votes to Rossi, for a net Gregoire lead of 116 votes.

The only way for Christine Gregoire to win the governor's race is to carry Precinct 1823 in a landslide.
------------------------------------------------
I believe this precinct was created soley for the purpose of fraudulent voting. I'd like to know when this precinct was created......

Posted by: Deborah on October 16, 2005 08:22 PM
13. Stefan is doing a wonderful job. I had urged Chris Vance, the rest of the state GOP leadership, and the lawyers for the state GOP to do exactly this back in late December 2004. To check out every single ballot envelope and every single poll book signature. It would have cost considerably less than $100,000 for a total inspection job.

Instead, they did nothing and relied upon the reports generated by King County Elections. Went into the trial spending $2 million for lawyer fees with a lot less evidence than they could have (and should have) had. C'est la vie ...

Posted by: Richard Pope on October 16, 2005 08:22 PM
14. Yeah, so much for hiring all of the expensive lawyers. All of this should have come out in the discovery process.

If it was a ballot with marks on it, they threw it in the pile to be counted. It's no wonder that KCE "found" several bunches of ballots prior to certification that tipped the scales. Shame on every single one of the employees at KCE too. Aside from Joe, not one person came forward.

Logan did a great job of compartmentalizing everything that happened. Much like a Top Secret military project, everyone at KCE was on a need-to-know basis. So the people who determined that these provisionals were not valid voters in the database, were probably not the same people that went back and tabulated them into the final totals. I believe a lot of what Joe has said over the last year corroborates this theory.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 16, 2005 08:37 PM
15. The "inspector" whose name appears on the provisional ballot envelope is merely the polling place official who issued the ballot.

The decision whether to include the ballot in the vote count isn't made by the polling place inspectors.

The green ink (pencil?) markings on the envelopes were done by personnel at the elections office during what King County probably calls the verification or validation of the ballots. (Since they didn't apparently care whether the ballots were valid or not, they ought to use some other name for that step. Perhaps they do. Any guesses?)

Having clearly marked the envelopes as containing ballots cast by people who weren't eligible to vote, the green ink/pencil wielding personnel then passed them along to somewhere -- and someone went there and got them and included them in the vote tabulation. Who?

The motive is plain enough: Gregoire would be likely to overcome Rossi's lead if enough invalid King County ballots could be included in the vote tabulation. But who did it?

Posted by: Micajah on October 16, 2005 08:51 PM
16. Micajah says:

The motive is plain enough: Gregoire would be likely to overcome Rossi's lead if enough invalid King County ballots could be included in the vote tabulation. But who did it?

Good post, Micajah. Thanks. Regarding your theory of motive, how did Gregoire do in King County outside of the Seattle precincts? Did she enjoy a large enough majority, or even a majority, outside of Seattle? Also, is there any way to tell if these ballots were included in the original count, or later recounts? As has been asked by others, where is the documentation accompanying these ballots? Who did what, and when did they do it?

Posted by: huckleberry on October 16, 2005 09:19 PM
17. "The decision whether to include the ballot in the vote count isn't made by the polling place inspectors."

Micajah,

I was referring to the initials in *green*. The same green that marked the *not registered* and the same green that designated the ballots to precinct 1823.... not the polling precinct inspectors signatures..

I see the initials of DM, CJB, CJB, DJS,CJB,CJB,DM, CJB,bn, and DJS on the 10th ballot.

So we have 4 separate initials marking these ballots as *not registered* yet designating them to precinct 1823 for process and counting..

Posted by: Deborah on October 16, 2005 09:37 PM
18. It was most probably done the same night as the fatal pends. Fatal pends are NOT registered voters, if Logan ordered them to be counted, why would he neglect all of the provisionals from not registered voters?

It is fraud and they certainly took "count every vote to a new level"

Posted by: sgmmac on October 16, 2005 09:43 PM
19. For a good recap on the voting trends from the notorious Precinct 1823, look back on Sharks posting of that precinct's voter and voting statistics.

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003278.html

That plus what is coming out now are real eye openers.

Posted by: gs on October 16, 2005 09:56 PM
20. Voter #10 - Ms Bridges, must live with Paul Johnson of Tukwila, WA 98168, or she used his phone number help document her vote.

Posted by: LowNslow on October 16, 2005 10:01 PM
21. Come, Come people. Someone puts a mark on a ballot. That mark is a vote. We can't let little things like being "registered," a "citizen," a "resident," get in the way of a persons right to vote.

What would we think of someone who arbitrarily, based on some out moded law, most likely put in place by white males, denied these poor folks the right to vote. That would be so Nazi like, enforcing the rules just because they are the "rules."

Enforcing the "law" gets in the way of the greater good of letting anyone who would like partake in our great democracy as many times as the like.

As long as the greater good is served a few voting irregularities are just so many broken eggs in a progressive society, as long as the right people get elected it is all good in the long run.

/sarc off

Posted by: JCM on October 16, 2005 10:08 PM
22. Stephan,

You're missing the crucial database.

You want the state of the database 15 days prior to any given election. Anyone not in it - you challenge. And you refuse to be brushed off by 'oh, they registered in person, we just haven't entered them in time.'

Because they've already been shown to be sleezing around with the registration _dates_. If one of these (uninvolved) 'last second registration' people was asked _WHEN_ did you register, the whole house of cards comes down.

Posted by: Al on October 16, 2005 10:14 PM
23. There may be one more reason all these ballots were assigned to 1823. If they were not in any database maybe the put these invalid votes in that precinct to do one more check of the validity. Then it would not be all judges committing a crime only the upper levels like Dean and Ron. When they came up short they started digging looking for more votes to count. Because KC is the last to report they could spend time delaying certification while they continued looking for more votes to count. IT is possible most of these votes where part of the first count. And once the ballots get added to the stack you do not know which ballot came from which envelop. Thereby following the mantra every vote must count. Legal and illegal. Thats all the Democratic leadership wants is every vote must be counted even if the same person voted 10 times. It is still a vote.
I think most people working in the elections division are honest and want to do a good job. But it only takes a couple of people with Political connections to change the voting around. Watch if any vote gets real close like I-912 will they try to find more votes and do several recounts until they get the desired result. Or do they stack the deck at the very beginning hoping to get the answer they want and not have to resort to 2004 election tricks. I want to have people watching this election very carefully. If a voter is not registered and the vote goes missing from the envelop again we can then point the feds at them and say see they are doing it again. Someone has to pay attention. To the vote counting after this election and look for these same issues. Like view all the 1823 ballots on a freedom of information request. See if it happens again. The only way to have an honest election is to demand to see certain precincts that had a large questionable voting report in 2004 and spot check them again 2005, 2006 and 2007. See if they continue to have issues. Even if Sims and Dean are removed from their posts in this election. This will tell if there is a group of people within the elections department that want to fix elections. Even with the most guilty people gone. It would be good to figure out what precincts to ensure you have several observers always present on every election to see what is going on. If you have eyes watching it is hard to stuff the ballot box. Espicially if people walk in from the street and put ballots into the machines. I have heard too many people at Microsoft being offered ballots and told to vote. Ballots handed to them from a brief case. Sure you can say they will catch it in the verification process. But that process has been proven to be broken. It would also be a good check to see what ballots made it to 1823 what precincts most of these ballots where initially voted in and see if there is a trend. If it is honest mistakes then it should be an even distribution. If it is fraud you may find certain precincts have a higher number of these type of ballots. One other comparision would be Not registered ballots that were never counted where were they cast. Is there a trend to accept certain precincts and not others? Lots of interesting questions can then be asked as the data is sorted.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on October 16, 2005 10:17 PM
24. I have an idea for the general election that could help elevate the provisional breakdown. Instead of letting anyone vote a provisional ballot. The inspectors should have the person vote a Challenged ballot. Pretty much the same but if memory serves me right those ballots are forwarded on to the canvass board for an on-the-record-review.

It would take provisional's completely out of the discretion of KCE staff. If people have to come testify to why the ballot was challenged all they have to say is that they were unsure if the person was registered or if they submitted another ballot based on the information they had in the poll book. This process ensures no one is disenfranchised. And it is public record as to why each individual case was decided valid or invalid.

The only problem would be convincing all the inspectors in the county to do this or convincing King County to do an on the record review of each provisional. But based on the newest evidence that Stefan is uncovering how can we even trust the provisional system here in this county. The provisional system IS BROKEN in King County and until the problem is actually addressed (it hasn't because we are only just being discovering the real problems 1 year later!)fixed every ballot should be a challenged ballot! Otherwise we are looking at another 2004 fiasco.

Posted by: Joe on October 16, 2005 11:04 PM
25. Do you have any idea when these were first counted?
It occurs to me that you may well be holding evidence of election fraud by KCE.

Posted by: Dishman on October 16, 2005 11:10 PM
26. That Precinct 1823 is sure a real dumping ground for and excuse to count bad provisionals. NOT acceptable. Reform NOW!

Posted by: Michele on October 16, 2005 11:11 PM
27. Where the heck is the press?!

If this were a GOP stronghold doing this nonsense, this would be national news! And there would be some serious presssure on these crooks!

(Yeah, I know where the press really is and why. I just can't help myself.)

Posted by: Bostonian on October 17, 2005 08:23 AM
28. Bostonian, Don't expect the MSM to do it's job. It's still asleep at the switch!! Stefan kudos for doing what the MSM won't.

Posted by: Laurie on October 17, 2005 09:33 AM
29. Stefan,

You are more qualified to run KCE than Dean Logan.

Posted by: pbj on October 17, 2005 09:57 AM
30. Precinct 1823 is just one of the many continuing examples of the virtual electoral cesspools created and allowed by the Sims - Logan electoral machine.

The whole bunch stink and need to be swept out of King County. I cannot think of a better time to hold their feet to the fire explaining how they allowed fatal Pends and unregistered voters to be counted.

Where is the Seattle Times and Seattle PI you ask? Right where they have been......Silent!

It's why I won't buy the rags

Posted by: gs on October 17, 2005 10:08 AM
31. Does anyone know what "S/B" stands for?

It appears on the envelope immediately after "Precinct: __ Correct" and immediately before the line on which precinct "1823" or "SEA 37-1823" or "1823.823" was written by the people processing these envelopes.

Posted by: Micajah on October 17, 2005 10:21 AM
32. Micajah

In the real world S/B means Should Be, but in Sim/Logans land, who knows.....

Posted by: Chris on October 17, 2005 10:30 AM
33. Does anyone know what "S/B" stands for?

I infer that it means "should be", as in the precinct that the voter's ballot should be counted in.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on October 17, 2005 10:50 AM
34. I think its just BS spelled backwards.

Posted by: Michael on October 17, 2005 11:00 AM
35. Laurie and Bostonian,

Of course the MSM won't report on this. Why should they? Their candidate "won", and that's all that is important. It doesn't matter how that candidate "won", just that they "won". Once the 'Rat gets in, ask no questions, and do nothing that would endanger or otherwise bring doubt on the rule of the 'Rat.

In light of all of this evidence that Stefan has brought out, which he takes pains to indicate is basically a cursory examination of the records (how much more fraud and incompetence is out there, Lord knows), can any die-hard supporter of Fraudoire even say they have any confidence in the election being legitimate? Can any of them say they are really all that comfortable that the individual roosting there in Olympia at the present time is the true choice of the people for that position?

Posted by: Interested Observer on October 17, 2005 11:18 AM
36. Well, the PI has a link to a secured web site where KC county voters can check and see if they are registered.....

I checked Patricia Levesque with both of her birthdays and she is still registered as an absentee twice.......

Posted by: sgmmac on October 17, 2005 01:05 PM
37. Now this smells like organized fraud and/or conspiracy: 1) to get these ballots counted (and in the same precinct), and 2) to erase the data trail.

WHY can't we get a legal investigation into this?

Posted by: dl on October 17, 2005 01:09 PM
38. David A...The error distribution argument was used in Wenatchee, Judge Bridges said it didn't prove anything. Experts testified that 4 of the 5 precincts most likely to vote Demo, had the most votes without voters; and that 4 of the 5 precincts most likely to vote Rep. had the most voters without votes. Experts also testified that no way could these numbers be random or coincidence.

Joe...can't drop provisional ballots, they are federal law.

Posted by: dl on October 17, 2005 01:22 PM
39. Long story short, you do not have to be a registered voter to have your ballot counted in a King County Election.

Never mind that these votes have an effect on Statewide and National offices. King county elections can produce all the provisional ballots they need or want and there is no requirement for these ballots to belong to registered voters. How many? Thousands.

Law enforcement and the media have no problem with this. Perhaps it is time for the rest of the State to march on Seattle and raise national attention. The Federal Justice Department is the only hope the honest citizens of this State have.

Posted by: Brad on October 17, 2005 01:33 PM
40. Long story short, you do not have to be a registered voter to have your ballot counted in a King County Election.

Never mind that these votes have an effect on Statewide and National offices. King county elections can produce all the provisional ballots they need or want and there is no requirement for these ballots to belong to registered voters. How many? Thousands.

Law enforcement and the media have no problem with this. Perhaps it is time for the rest of the State to march on Seattle and raise national attention. The Federal Justice Department is the only hope the honest citizens of this State have.

Posted by: Brad on October 17, 2005 01:33 PM
41. Thelast I heard the Feds aren't even interested !!

Posted by: Laurie on October 18, 2005 06:54 AM
42. US Attorney, John McKay should have his feet held to the fire. There's something fishy with the fact that he did not investigate Federal election law violations by King County in the 2004 election. He should probably be investigated for dereliction of duty ! I don't care if he is a Republican.

KCRE should have been assessed Federal penalties as Milwaukee, WI was for their known corruption in the 2004 election. There were Federal violations as have been documented on this blog - correct me if I am mistaken, Stefan. It is too bad that McKay probably cannot be recalled, unfortunately because he was appointed.

Posted by: KS on October 18, 2005 01:06 PM
43. Stefan,
Has anyone ever looked at the 2300+ ballots counted in the third canvass, and matched their precinct to those precincts that have more/fewer voters than credited voters?
What if ballots were slipped into the canvass stream of ballots, and then credited later to the Mail Box drop off in precinct 1823?
Those 7 to 10 ballots at the top of the 2300+ in the third canvass, and their audit trail, will always remain a mystery to me. The margin of victory on that Tues before the judge let in the extra 119 on Wed was just 10. The number remembered by press/public was 10 + 119 = 129.

Gregg

Posted by: Gregg on October 19, 2005 06:59 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?