As I mentioned the other day, I found a bunch of voters who cast both absentee and provisional ballots where both were counted. Here are some photos of the ballot envelopes for the matching pairs that have been found to date.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

These are just a few of the examples why King County really did count more votes than there were voters last November.

Some of these voters are in their 80s and plausibly forgot that they had already cast an absentee. Others are from voters who wrote on their provisional ballots that they didn't put a stamp on their absentee ballots and probably assumed that the absentee wouldn't arrive. Weirdly, almost all of the provisionals showed that somebody in the elections office had done enough research to determine that the voter had already returned an absentee (even noting the date the absentee was returned). Yet the provisionals were counted anyway. It also looks like voter database records were fudged to try to conceal this.

I've asked for the voter database transaction log, which would show who changed the voter database records and how. Dean Logan has refused to release the transaction log until after next month's election is certified. (one can only imagine what he's trying to hide from the public that might hurt Ron Sims' re-election chances). I expect to have to take legal action in a few days to force Sims and Logan to release the transaction log.

There were actually two different categories of voters who appear to have cast both an absentee and a provisional ballot where both were counted. There are the 91 I identified on March 23 and up to another 59 more that I discovered last month only after I got additional data files and access to envelopes.

The story of the 91 is weird, suspicious and complicated. More on those in a later post.

The photos above are from the group of 59. Last month I finally got access to (nearly) complete records on all absentee and provisional ballots that were returned last November. I ran a straightforward cross-check between the tables and identified 59 voters who showed up as having returned a valid ballot in each category. With access to nearly all of the provisional envelopes and a large fraction of the absentee envelopes, other volunteers and I have searched for the actual envelopes that match the list. A small number turned out to be not double votes, but two legitimate votes with confused recordkeeping related to cases, for example, where two people have similar names (e.g. a mother-in-law/daughter-in-law pair). We also managed to find and photograph a number of matching pairs of absentee and provisional ballots that were almost certainly both cast by the same person. These are the ones posted above. The absentee ballot accounting records are pretty sloppy and a lot of the envelopes are found in boxes other than where the records show they're supposed to be located, so I wouldn't expect to find all the rest of the doubly counted absentees. But I would expect to find several more as the rest of the absentee envelopes are made available for inspection.