Yesterday I discovered more counted provisional ballots from unregistered voters. All but one were assigned to precinct 1823. Like all of the other counted provisional ballots from unregistered voters, these are uniquely and mysteriously missing from the database table of provisional ballots.
These voters don't show up in any version of the voter database that I've seen (1, 2, 3, 4)
These voters registered, but only after the deadline to be eligible to vote any ballot in November 2004. (1, 2, 3)
This voter wrote on his envelope that he was registered to vote in Connecticut. His ballot was not forwarded to Connecticut as it should have been. It was counted in precinct 1823.
This person's ballot was not counted in precinct 1823, but in a different precinct. Not only was he not a registered voter, he didn't even sign his ballot envelope. He was nearly 86 years old last November, so I'll forgive any errors he might have made, but there is no excuse for the elections office to have counted his ballot.
Intriguingly, out of the 22 counted provisional ballots from unregistered voters that I've found so far, 13 have the initials CJB written on them. Several others have the initials DM, DJS and JW. I am not alleging that these are the folks who caused these ballots to be tabulated, but they might know something that could help explain why they were unlawfully tabulated. If anybody knows who these initials belong to and how I might get in touch with them, please email me their contact info.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 22, 2005 12:22 PM | Email ThisHow many counted invalid ballots have you found from precinct 1823?
Posted by: Mike on October 22, 2005 12:44 PMWe certainly have enough evidence to pursue an investigation by the Feds. In fact - it would have to be by the Feds due to the conflict of interest with the county prosecutors office and even the state attorney generals office...
All that Stefan has discovered in the past few weeks is *new* evidence - not previously available during the election contest. This evidence shows orchestrated fraud with a coordinated effort by those employed with King County Elections with the initials of CJB, DM, DJS and JW.
If the Feds can't perform an investigation with this much information and evidence - then they owe the public and explanation as to why!
Posted by: Deborah on October 22, 2005 07:57 PMRe: the envelope for the 86 year old man - it does have a notation in the right hand corner saying Precinct 1823. Is that just the dumping grounds for all strange votes? Maybe it is the reject pile and they only went in there to get votes after it was obvious that Queen Christine needed a few more! Do you have the specific numbers on how many total votes came from there? And how much did those numbers change from count #1 to count #2 to count #3? And finally, how many pieces of evidence do you think you'll have to discover before ANYONE in the MSM will decide to take a look at this?
Posted by: Suzihomemaker on October 22, 2005 08:41 PMThe ballot of the 86 tyear old does indeed list precinct 1823 in the prec.portion space next to the S/B.....
Posted by: Deborah on October 22, 2005 09:34 PMI am just amazed at the size of precinct 1823: Auburn (Tacoma), Federal Way, Redmond, Renton, Lake Forest Park, Seattle, Bellevue, Madrona, Connecticut, etc.
Obviuosly it is a dumping ground for ballots that require "special handling". Since Stefan has pointed out all the issues surrounding this "special handling", I wonder when KCE will give us a full accounting of how so many "superficially" invalid ballots "just happened" to be counted - and why. If all of these legally should have gone before the canvassing board for disposition, where are the records?
I shan't hold my breath.
I wonder, do any other counties have a "dumping ground" precinct? How do they resolve ballots that are similar to these examples?
Partisan shot: Dems never have a problem divining haw a voter voted - everyone intends to vote for the Democrat - makes it easier to "duplicate".
/sarc
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 22, 2005 10:12 PMWhat concerns is me is that the ballots arn't on the list of provisional ballots that they produced. Where is the "failsafe" to prevent more than one ballot per person from being counted? What would stop a person from going to a dozen polling places and casting provisionals?
It appears they would all be counted, and they would be hard to find if they are "sorted" off of a list of voters who voted provisional.
If you have a batch of votes from one precinct, you should also have a batch of absentee ballots from that precinct, and the numbers of both should match, if they don't there is a problem.
Why are the envelopes from provisionals sorted alphabetically? They should be sorted by precinct and into batches in the precinct boxes. A "real" audit of KC elections, would expose their systemic flaws. It appears these provisionals were cast at different polling places. It also appears that they were separated from their batches for verification.
They were rejects and someone made a conscious decision to get them into the vote count.
Posted by: sgmmac on October 23, 2005 10:21 AM
What county do you live in? Some counties switched to all absentee voting over the past few months without the public's approval.....
I would think that switching to absentee voting 3 years ago would have been absurd....but for our liberal state legislature to suddenly adopt this *All Mail Voting* system just months after the disasterous 2004 election? It's just screams of a blatant fraud set up for future elections!
I know everyone is asking what on earth Olympia was thinking with this All Mail Voting....but I think they know exactly what they are doing....and it's frightening.
Posted by: Deborah on October 23, 2005 07:19 PMThis whole mess makes me think even more that the only way the fraud will stop is if Republicans start "winning" elections in WA state via fraud. Then the 'Rats will get off their dead a$$e$ and do something about fixing it. As long as they are the ones who keep "winning" via fraud, they won't do anything about it.
I'm not advocating fraud, but the stupid jerk Bridges did, in effect, when he said we had to use the corrupt, crooked election system in WA state to fix it. The only way to fix it is to use it, i.e., a fraudlent process, to "win". If you do, then there will be incentive among the majority to change it. Bridges, in his ruling, in any practical interpretation, endorsed fraud as a way to fix it. Irony can be pretty ironic, no?
Posted by: Interested Observer on October 24, 2005 07:13 AMIn one respect, Gregoire was right, your '04 election WAS a model election - a model in how to steal one. And now, Dems in Ohio are pushing that model on us. God willing, they'll fail.
Posted by: Snowy Owl on October 24, 2005 08:29 AM