In a nutshell, I quit as a poll judge because the inspector threatened me for doing my job of dissuading an ineligible individual from voting.
The poll judge's statutory oath says:
we will not give our consent to the receipt of any vote or ballot from any person, other than one whom we firmly believe to be entitled to vote at such electionSilly me, I tried to convince someone who is not eligible to vote in this election to vote in the next election. The poll inspector, a Democrat named Nancy Shelton, threatened to remove me from my post and called the Elections Office and then threatened me with even bigger consequences.
I was working as the provisional ballot judge, helping people who were not eligible to vote a regular ballot to cast a provisional ballot. A man came to my desk at around 11am. In the course of trying to help him figure out which precinct he should vote in, he volunteered to me that he had registered to vote, but moved to Washington State from California only on October 13th. The significance being that he has not lived in this state the 30 days required for being an eligible voter, as spelled out in Article VI Section 1 of the State Constitution.
I showed the gentleman the state voter registration form, which includes a declaration signed under penalty of a Class C felony, reminding the voter of the thirty day rule:
I reminded the voter that the provisional ballot envelope requires him to sign, under penalty of perjury, a declaration that he is eligible to vote. I also explained that if he did insist on voting I would note on the envelope his statement that he moved here less than thirty days ago and that he had seen the eligibility requirements on the registration form. He decided, correctly, to go away without casting a ballot. I expressed to him my hope that he would come back and vote in the next election.
Inspector Nancy Shelton grew livid and insisted that she was trained that we have to allow everybody who wants to vote, regardless of what the oath says. She threatened to remove me from my post and then called the Elections Office.
At around 2pm when Nancy Sheltonwas away from the polling place (on what was much longer than the permitted 1 hour break) a roving "troubleshooter" from the Elections Office came in. I explained to her what happened with the ineligible provisional voter and she told me she thought I handled the situation appropriately. Nancy Shelton returned at around 3pm, all upset.
She said: "This is very serious. You violated that man's federal civil rights. The Elections Office had to call him and offer him the chance to vote at a different precinct" [knowing that he had acknowledged he was not eligible to vote]
Nancy Shelton also told me in a threatening tone that I had two choices: I could step aside from the provisional desk and work as a regular precinct judge; Alternatively, if I wanted to continue to work as the provisional judge I could not ask any prospective voters if they were registered to vote. In other words, I would not be allowed to uphold my oath.
At that point I decided that I wasn't going to play the Sims/Logan game if upholding my sworn oath means getting accused of bogus charges like "violating people's federal civil rights", when all I did was show an ineligible voter the official documents that explain why he is ineligible.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 08, 2005 04:37 PM | Email Thisvoter: hi, I just moved here and am not registered. I would like to vote.
shark: well, you are aware that would be a violation of law
voter: oh, you are right, thanks.
Dean Logan: you are violating this person's civil rights!! count all votes! twice!
Posted by: Eric on November 8, 2005 04:42 PMOf course, those who take that oath probably subscribe to the notion of "let 'em all vote, let Sims sort 'em out," and we know that's gonna happen, right?
Posted by: pseudotsuga on November 8, 2005 04:54 PM
I guess it's lucky I wasn't there. Threats just make me dig in my heels. I probably would have ended up in jail.
Posted by: Cicero on November 8, 2005 04:56 PMBecause he's going to end up being counted.
Posted by: Al on November 8, 2005 04:58 PMThey are not concerned with the illegality of the vote, which is hopefully stopped, or possibly not stopped before it is removed from a secrecy envelope and cast into the pool of votes to be tabulated.
This is in keeping with their philosophy on everything. Better to deprive a qualified student the right to attend a University than to deprive a minority student, who may not be qualified to attend, etc.
The ends always justify the means.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 8, 2005 05:08 PMBut in court you would probably have to get someone on video tape saying not only that they ordered it but also why they did (as in 'to get more fodder for counting errors... in Dems favor'). I'm sure there's a potential whistle blower just waiting to see what happens to the last whistle blower.
Posted by: JB on November 8, 2005 05:09 PMRCW 29A.44.510
Oath of judges, form.
The following shall be the oath or affirmation of each judge:
"We, A B, do swear (or affirm) that we will as judges duly attend the ensuing election, during the continuance thereof, and faithfully assist the inspector in carrying on the same; that we will not give our consent to the receipt of any vote or ballot from any person, other than one whom we firmly believe to be entitled to vote at such election; and that we will make a true and perfect return of the said election and will in all things truly, impartially, and faithfully perform our duty respecting the same to the best of our judgment and abilities; and that we are not directly nor indirectly interested in any bet or wager on the result of this election."
Isn't it a crime to interfere with an election worker? Especially by an election official?
RCW 29A.84.020
Violations by officers.
Every officer who willfully violates RCW 29A.56.110 through 29A.56.270, for the violation of which no penalty is prescribed in this title or who willfully fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
RCW 29A.84.210
Violations by officers.
Every officer who willfully violates any of the provisions of chapter 29A.72 RCW or RCW 29A.32.010 through *29A.32.120, for the violation of which no penalty is herein prescribed, or who willfully fails to comply with the provisions of chapter 29A.72 RCW or RCW 29A.32.010 through *29A.32.120, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
The violation that NANCY SHELTON committed:
RCW 29A.84.110
Officials' violations.
If any county auditor or registration assistant:
(1) Willfully neglects or refuses to perform any duty required by law in connection with the registration of voters; or
(2) Willfully neglects or refuses to perform such duty in the manner required by voter registration law; or
(3) Enters or causes or permits to be entered on the voter registration records the name of any person in any other manner or at any other time than as prescribed by voter registration law or enters or causes or permits to be entered on such records the name of any person not entitled to be thereon; or
(4) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, changes, or alters any registration record in connection therewith except as authorized by voter registration law,
he or she is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Maybe now it is time for the Feds? I would give Rob Mckenna a call first, see what side of the people he is on.
Posted by: Cliff on November 8, 2005 05:10 PM"You are telling me that you want me to knowingly allow inelligable voters to cast a ballot, in direct contrevention to my oath? And your supervisor knowingly condones this?"
I am shaking, I am so mad. Who do these government people think they are?
Posted by: Mark on November 8, 2005 05:10 PM\wishes he had an uzi
Posted by: useless on November 8, 2005 05:11 PMWhy didn't you just tell the shill to cast a provisional ballot?
Posted by: Micajah on November 8, 2005 05:12 PMIf there was ballot that shouldn’t have been accepted, there is a process to handle this, not front line poll workers throwing out ballots that they have concluded shouldn’t be counted.
>Yes - definitely contest his ballot.
Yes, if it is appropriate, contest the ballot!
Many provisional votes are not counted. However, not accepting them in the first place does not let the canvassing board do its job.
Very sad, but true.
Posted by: John on November 8, 2005 05:19 PMI do not believe that Stefan told the man he could not vote, rather, he informed the voter of the rules and the voter chose not to vote.
Unfortunatly, this was probably just one stop to many precinct the gentleman attempted to vote in today.
Good work.
Posted by: Eric on November 8, 2005 05:27 PMEven from your description, it sounded like you tried to dissuade him from voting. In fact, it sounded like you threatened him with purgery.
Perhaps there was a way you could have prevented his ballot fron being counted without confronting him? I mean, if he does commit purgery then that's his problem: no need to threaten the man with jail time.
With all the allegations circulating about Republican vote falsification, you really should be more careful about this kind of thing. You don't want to give the Democrats any more amunition to use against Republicans, right?
Oh what do I know, I'm just a terrible Democrat...
Posted by: The Eye on November 8, 2005 05:28 PMGo soak your head, then read the oath again. That's if you have a reading comprehension level higher than a second grader.
Putz.
Posted by: Brian C. on November 8, 2005 05:32 PMI was given a mail-in registration form.
As far as I can tell, they did the right thing, but after hearing these stories...
I AM A DISENFRANCHISED FORGETFUL WHITE MAN!!!!
Posted by: chris on November 8, 2005 05:35 PMNo. It's not. It's then our problem, you simp.
When will people like you understand this concept: Illegal votes call into question the entire process. Period.
The Democrats continuing excuses, deflections and poo-poohing over serious - and documented - problems in the King County is pure, unadulterated crap.
I don't know who torques me more: The elected officials who've allowed this to happen, or people like The Eye who think it's OK.
I do know I'm fed up with both.
Posted by: 5thColumnCure on November 8, 2005 05:37 PMNOW can we secede from this disgustingly corrupt county?
Posted by: Cheryl on November 8, 2005 05:41 PMThe most discouraging thing of all is that we didn't have a Stefan at every single polling site today... Think about all the Nancy Shelton's out there at polling sites... Then remember the way Logan and Hunnekens count provisionals... Then ask yourself does your vote even matter?
Scary isn't it!
Posted by: Joe on November 8, 2005 05:44 PMBut allowing him to commit a state crime causes the advisor to commit a state crime also. How could this possibly make sense? Posted by: pagar on November 8, 2005 05:49 PM
"In fact, it sounded like you threatened him with purgery {sic}"
That's interesting - I thought that's what we do to people who sign false affadavits.
Stefan did not tell the man that he couldn't vote. Stefan told the man that if the provisional oath were signed, Stefan would do his job and make a notation on the envelope. This, presumably, would go to the canvassing board (unless they decided to count it outright which wouldn't surprise anybody).
If Stefan did anything else, he would violate his oath as Poll Judge. Do you want Stefan to break the law by watching another person break the law and not do anything about it? Or do you want Stefan to follow the law by fully informing this voter of the applicable laws??
What about 'Following the law' don't you two understand??
The Eye is BROWN.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 05:54 PMMaybe you should hire a lawyer and file a frivolous lawsuit! Isn't that what you guys do when things don't go your way?
Hahaha...good news for you today on all fronts, eh?
Posted by: burnplant on November 8, 2005 05:56 PMYou blew your chance to open that package that contains the materials needed to challenge a voter's eligibility to vote.
You were a precinct judge, and, based on his statements to you, you knew he wasn't qualified to cast a ballot in the general election.
What an entertaining hearing that might have been.
I'll bet there's nothing in the voter registration file showing when that person actually moved to this state. The statement on the registration form is merely a promise by the person not to vote before living in the state, county and precinct for at least 30 days preceding the first election in which he tries to cast a ballot. (The promise is just another part of our "honor system," I suppose.) The registration application doesn't ask the applicant to state when he arrived in the state, county or precinct.
Only his statement to you would provide the needed information to determine whether he was eligible to vote in the general election--and that information could only be considered in the process of hearing your challenge of his eligibility to vote.
Oh well, I guess those packages with challenge materials never will be used in King County, now that you blew the chance to use one.
Posted by: Micajah on November 8, 2005 05:56 PMI had the same encounters last year when I traveled to Philadelphia as part of the RNC's 72 Hour Legal Task Force.
Posted by: Jason on November 8, 2005 06:04 PMWHAT allegations of Republican vote falsification? Do you have any idea of which you speak? HArdly
Posted by: Danno on November 8, 2005 06:09 PMSigh. Corruption is indemic in the Democratic party. They are a minority party desperate to hold on to power . . . and will do anything to do so.
Posted by: MrSpkr on November 8, 2005 06:14 PM—Communist Tyrant and mass murderer Josef Stalin.... and Logan and Sims
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on November 8, 2005 06:19 PMChris, I'm SO with you! That was my thought the moment I heard this story, thoughts of going down to KCE en masse for a huge demonstration against the fraud. I've HAD it!
Because the roaming troubleshooter told Stefan he handled it properly, I think that Nancy Shelton should be charged with trying to force a poll judge and a voter to break the law!
Stefan was trying to follow his job as the law requires as a poll judge, and he was trying help the poor guy keep from committing perjury! WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS SHELTON WOMAN??? Where does she get off pulling garbage like this??? Why hasn't KCE fired her for trying to get others to break the law????
I'VE HAD IT!!! TIME TO DEMONSTRATE (unless Irons Jr. gets in; then we have some hope of change)
Shelton should be RELIEVED of her duties and have a formal complaint filed against her. No way does she have the right to boss people around who are trying to uphold the law.
Hey, maybe they are doing that already!
Hilarious. Hahaha. Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 06:31 PM
Karen, A. 'Can't handle the truth', and B. Is stooping to the 'Liar liar pants on fire' defense.
Good luck with that.
Nancy Shelton should be held responsible for encouraging an ineligible voter to vote AND for removing the only barrier (Stefan) put in place by State election law to stop this illegal voter.
Nancy Shelton has set up a *culture* of fraud at the precinct polling place! Nancy Shelton created a *culture* of fear among the poll workers to the extent they could not perform their job...Nancy Shelton retaliated against a poll worker for his adherence to state election law....
Nancy Shelton is in a lot of trouble......
Posted by: Deborah on November 8, 2005 06:35 PMwho in the same breath will insist that this voter commit express undeniable perjury in the name of unrestrained voter inclusion regardless of legality.
Liberals will believe anything so long as there are no facts involved, say anything no matter how untrue to superficially support their emotional prejudices, and commit any breach so long as they can win.
"...So, my question: Are we going to sit back and continue to be "nice" Republicans or are we going to demand justice?..."
I'm not from King County (and so, I could only vote once), but I'm heading out to the back 40 to sharpen the tines on my pitchfork and I'll be tarring up my torch......
We've been disenfranchised quite enough, thank you. Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 06:41 PM
Hilarious. Hahaha."
Fact is this, it was not STEFAN's job to decide if he was eligible. And instead of doing as he was instructed, he ran away like a cry baby because he didn't get to play the 'game' like he wanted to. POOR baby! It's time to grow up and be an adult, maybe Stefan shouldn't be allowed to vote, he doesn't 'sound' very mature to me.
Maybe someday you 'Repug's' will understand the rules and play be them instead of making them up to fit your needs. Life can be tough for people who don't like to play fair.... Sorry, but that is the way it is.
And that's the way it is going to go until enough people are fed up and walk away from the true cancer on society - the democrap party.
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 8, 2005 06:48 PMKaren: Laws really burn you up, don't they?
Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 06:48 PMOr is it possible she's just dumber than a box of rocks? (no offense to rocks intended)
Posted by: Danny on November 8, 2005 06:54 PMIf anyone cares to join us, we'll be at Shoreline Community College tonight. Ward Churchill is slated to speak on "The Justice of Roosting Chickens" also known as "Why 9/11 Victims Deserved It". If you want to come out and demonstrate against Wacko Ward, please get directions from http://www.shoreline.edu/
Hope to see you there (outside of the Gymnasium)
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on November 8, 2005 06:59 PMIf not, the people of the left who desire status quo deserve exactly what they have and it will only get worse. Meanwhile, the rest of us deserve a new county - Cascade County.
Posted by: KS on November 8, 2005 07:16 PMThanks for standing up for principle, Stefan.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 8, 2005 07:21 PMGRRRRRRRRRRRRR ! Posted by: JT on November 8, 2005 07:28 PM
[W]e will not give our consent to the receipt of any vote or ballot from any person, other than one whom we firmly believe to be entitled to vote at such election.
Someone smarter than I can review the case law, but it seems like SS's interpretation of th statute is extremely narrow (and, as per usual, most self-serving). My read is that an election judge should not consent to outright fraud, NOT that the judge should appoint him/herself a finder of fact and arbiter of law.
Pursuant to the oath Stefan has ample opportunity to deny his "consent" (e.g., by lodging a formal objection or note with his supervisors). He does NOT have authority to harrangue voters and give directions.
Posted by: bartelby on November 8, 2005 07:29 PMIf you want to know what they are hiding, just reverse their accusations. Straight out of the Clinton playbook.
Deflection tactic d'jour is becoming transparent.
Posted by: dave on November 8, 2005 07:35 PMBut the Karens of the world just don't have a clue. In order to play by her rules I'd have to vote three times, and encourage any recent non-citizen immigrants to vote also. Despicable.
Stefan did not give his consent to receive a ballot that was admittedly illegal. He also did not prevent the man from voting. He did exactly what he was supposed to do.
And look at the outrage from the illiterate liberals. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Washington State has become a battleground. WATCH OUT EVERYONE!! We Republicans have taken back most of the country, and our ranks continue to swell. But up here in the Pacific Northwest is where we have cornered these animals. And like any animals, especially ones this hateful, vitriolic, evil, and dangerous - they'll fight like hell when they're cornered.
I, for one, have only just begun to fight.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 07:37 PMYou are spot on. I have said the same thing ever since the Clinton administration--they ALWAYS accuse their enemies of what they themselves do. Once you know that, it becomes pretty easy to read, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2005 07:39 PM
You are correct. Nancy Shelton was the woman sitting on my right when you came in.
After you stepped out she said to me: "oh, you're famous." And now, so is she!
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 8, 2005 07:40 PMWhat part of HAS TO LIVE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 30 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION don't you get? Posted by: Joe on November 8, 2005 07:40 PM
Harangue? Do you consider a citizen poll judge who fully informs you of the law to be haranguing you? Don't you think Stefan did the man a favor by pointing out that he was about to commit perjury in front of witnesses?
Stefan did not prevent the man from casting a ballot; he informed the man that he would make a note that he had personal knowledge the man didn't have the right to vote - which is what YOU suggest (formal objection/note to superiors).
Every time you post you end up arguing against your own hypothesis by the time you finish typing. Do you have problems remembering where you started, or do you just not know where you're going?
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 07:42 PMHe merely informed the damn voter, not threatened him. The man already had the ballot filled out, and stefan told him the 30 day rule, after the man offered the information of moving here on Oct 13th.
Apparently the man was contacted by KCE and told to go vote at another polling place. So don’t get your panties in a bind, I am sure his vote was counted by now, and maybe even 2 or 3 times. That all depends how many polling places he stopped off at.
Frankly, I thought there was a LAW that stated you must be REGISTERED 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, Not (registering on) Election DAY
You have to LIVE at your registered address at least 30 days prior to voting in an election. In addition, if you mail in the registration, it has to be sent in at least 30 days prior to the election (presumably based on postmark). But if you register in person at the elections office you can do so within only 15 of the election. Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2005 07:54 PM
Since when is informing a voter that he might commit a FELONY by voting unlawfully harranguing a voter?! If I was that California guy, i'd kiss Stefan’s behind for potentially saving me some time in the hoosegow!
The fact of matter is, the leftist Democrats are lawless people and do not care any more about election integrity or the rule of law. They're rather mock people who still love our country and who understand that corruption in voting is a direct threat to our liberty.
Posted by: Mr Write on November 8, 2005 07:57 PMKING COUNTY
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 100000 / 1015738 9.85%
Precincts Counted/Total Precincts: 0 / 2573 0.00%
County Executive
Ron Sims DEM 100000 100.00%
David Irons REP 0 0.00%
Gentry Lange G 0 0.00%
Write-in 0 0.00%
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/2005Nov/resPage2.htm
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 8, 2005 08:01 PMI'd like to damn well know why the US ATTORNEY in DETROIT is on the ball while the one here in Seattle is in HIDING.
Where the hell are you Mr. McKay?
Sounds like you are typing with a little too much emotion.
Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 08:11 PMSo you are saying the cutoff for In Person Registration (to vote) is 15 days PRIOR to the election date????
If that is true, then what the hell is the problem. The guy wasnt registered within the timeframe acceptable by the law.
Posted by: Chris on November 8, 2005 08:14 PMSo you disagree with the 1-hour lunch comment. We'll all assume that you agree that Nancy Shelton was dead wrong, was part of a conspiracy, and violated all of our constitutional and civil rights.
Thanks.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 08:14 PMI guess we can only hope that the Queen doesn't call up the National Guard when we overthrow the castle!
How dare Stefan actually try and do his JOB.
How dare Stefan try and uphold an OATH that he took.
Shame Stefan, Shame on you.
Count every vote.
Count every illegal vote.
Count every vote again and again for Sims till he wins.
Find votes behind machines.
Find votes in bins.
Find votes under sleeping dogs.
Sims must win at all costs.
Hurray for KCE.
Projectile hurl.............
Posted by: JCm on November 8, 2005 08:21 PMI guess we can only hope that the Queen doesn't call up the National Guard when we overthrow the castle!
Glad you finally came around. It is called Sims/Logan whatever it takes to win conspiracy!!
Posted by: Chris on November 8, 2005 08:24 PMKaren: nice to see you can correctly spell the four-letter words correctly.
Bartleby: Why don't you and Karen go do what Dems do so well...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on November 8, 2005 08:34 PMIt's going to take something much larger than the feds to right something that this wrong. They obvisouly don't believe there is a problem with the foundation of democracy here in Washington State. Otherwise they'd be here doing somthing about this sham!
Posted by: SP Fan on November 8, 2005 08:37 PMTo hell with rules(laws), LIBERALS (communists) MUST WIN.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 8, 2005 08:43 PM
That people in King County would choose Ron Sims to remain as CE just illustrates how whacked this place is. It's San Francisco lite.
Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 08:47 PMGrowing up comes to mind.
Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 08:49 PMDon't let the door hit you on your way out of town.
Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 08:52 PMOh well...Just remember - King County is ONLY counting the early *absentee* ballots right now. They don't start counting *poll* ballots until after 9pm...(according to their posted schedule)
Posted by: Deborah on November 8, 2005 09:00 PMThe guy posted the same comment [b]15[/b] times, and you take umbrage to somebody else's telling that guy to grow up?
Posted by: Ted Schuerzinger on November 8, 2005 09:03 PMSo it's Plan B. Form Cascade County. We have to get away from this poop and not let KC mess with our ballots anymore.
Posted by: Misty on November 8, 2005 09:04 PMI could have been talking about Renee's other post:
"I am so sick of this state, and particularly this county. These returns coming in are unbelievable.
That people in King County would choose Ron Sims to remain as CE just illustrates how whacked this place is. It's San Francisco lite."
- Renee
You're suffering from liberal myopia. After all the inconsistencies and illegalities of the 2004 election; after Judge Bridges found thousands of illegal votes in the election contest trial; after thousands more have been located since then, especially this past week at mailbox stores; after a county employee instructs Stefan to ignore the law and his oath....
...you nitpick on the comment as to whether or not she was out too long for lunch, when you weren't even there in the first place. That's what I call 'liberal myopia' - when presented with 1,001 facts, you complain that one is incorrect.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:07 PMPosted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:09 PM
KCE SUPPORTS ELECTION FRAUD
KING COUNTY ELECTIONS SUPPORTS ELECTION FRAUD
KCE SUPPORTS ELECTION FRAUD
KCE SUPPORTS ELECTION FRAUD
Posted by: Bob on November 8, 2005 09:17 PMIn a fantasy world where all facts are relative maybe your logical proofs would hold true. On Earth, Euclid and I must disagree with you.
A implies A. B implies B. A-not implies B-not? I don't think so.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:20 PMIf all else fails, resort to calling people names while you hate were you live.
Posted by: me on November 8, 2005 09:22 PMI'm going to stay here, fight the good fight, and come up with new tourist slogans for Seattle and King County.
"Seattle - the 21st Century Paris!"
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:24 PM
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:25 PM
I agree 100% - A does imply (or suggest) A and B does imply (or suggest) B but that does not mean A = A and B = B. Truth is that everyone can justify their own beliefs and actions to themselves, even if they aren't correct in reality.
Posted by: me on November 8, 2005 09:27 PMIgnore him - 6th grade is tough, and he's up waaaaaay past his bed time.
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 09:36 PMPosted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 09:38 PM
On the other hand, I haven't called anyone a name or slandered them in any way. Just playing devil advocate and watching everyone take it personal when someone has a thought that differs from theirs.
Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 09:40 PMROTFLMAO - yeah, right. Aren't you all?
If you weren't a leftist, you wouldn't have taken issue with my original comment. You would have understood it.
There's no hope for this place. It's better left for people like you.
Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 09:40 PMOh, never mind...you ain't worth it.
Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 09:40 PMPoor guy. So misunderstood. Sad.
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 09:43 PMYou poor thing. You picked this fight with me, unprovoked, and I called you a "Lefty". That is now what you call "all the name calling and personal bashing coming [your] way".
Yeah, you are definitely a lefty.
I can tell from the whining. Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 09:44 PMPosted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 09:48 PM
Can you SERIOUSLY tell me (with a straight face) that George Bush doesn't lie to us????
Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 09:52 PMOf course you won't. You love the types of people that are in charge, run our elections, and everything else. You won't think it's perfect until we finally just drop the whole "voting" thing - THEN it will be perfect, right "ME"?
"Seattle - Who cares how you vote? We're in charge."
Reading is fundamental.
"At around 2pm when Nancy Sheltonwas away from the polling place (on what was much longer than the permitted 1 hour break) a roving "troubleshooter" from the Elections Office came in. I explained to her what happened with the ineligible provisional voter and she told me she thought I handled the situation appropriately. Nancy Shelton returned at around 3pm, all upset."
That doesn't say that Shelton left for lunch at 2 PM. It says that she was currently at lunch when the troubleshooter showed up at 2 PM.
Sure, I believe that you are an independent. Just like all of the "independents" that are polled in the latest MSM surveys.
Posted by: cabal on November 8, 2005 09:53 PMIt's all about GWB! Pass it on............ Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 09:54 PM
CLOWNstein is a Poll Watcher.
Unfortunately and predictably, CLOWNstein’s idea of PollWatching is to go into the Men’s Room and peak at the guy peeing in the urinal next to him!! David is the "pervert" of PollWatching! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 8, 2005 09:55 PM
P.S. - Thought I "wasn't worth it" MrEdly? Apparently I am!!!
Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 09:58 PMYou're not very good at this, are you, "me"? LOL
Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 10:01 PMWhat WAS I thinking? Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 10:03 PM
YOu still havn't. Instead, you've decided to divert this conversation, because it was, apparently, uncomfortable for you.
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 10:04 PMI'd say you either:
A. Don't believe him, and trust the King County Elections office completely, or...
B. Don't give a shit if elections are corrupted
But, that's just my opinion. I mean, I don't know you from Adam, so...
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 10:08 PMB. Don't give a shit if elections are corrupted
I'll take Door Number Two, Monty.
Posted by: Renee on November 8, 2005 10:12 PM
Yeah, aren't we so stupid to do that? I mean, it's not like the state government isn't taking more and more money from our pockets, lying to us half the time in order to do so, and telling us, basically, to "**** off if we don't like it" in the process.
Yeah, why should we take that personally election after election after election... what fools we are. We should just roll over and pee in total submission to the Almighty State.
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 10:14 PMYou're coming across as passive aggressive. Directly challenging Stefan, not to mention the President....then backing off...and now joking around and saying we're fun to play with.
I was born and raised in Chicago, but the typical lefty liberal pansy dancing faster than the music's playing illogical parries don't even cheese me off any more. I just think - be a grownup, take a position and stick with it for once in your life. Or don't. See if I care.
Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 10:14 PMYeah, aren't we so stupid to do that? I mean, it's not like the state government isn't taking more and more money from our pockets, lying to us half the time in order to do so, and telling us, basically, to "**** off if we don't like it" in the process.
Yeah, why should we take that personally election after election after election... what fools we are. We should just roll over and pee in total submission to the Almighty State.
Posted by: Chad on November 8, 2005 10:14 PM28 or so County's are vote by mail and counted all their votes received thus far.
I-912 will probably fail by 4 points or so.
I think there is a clear message to the WSDOT and the Legislature however that voters are demanding more accountability with I-900 passing handily.
Sadly, I don't think David Irons is going to make it either. That one will probably be about 6 points difference. Again, a clear message to the Sims gang that things gotta change.....not that they will comprehend the message.
Frankly, I believe Bush's horrible performance ratings really hurt Republican candidates and anything perceived to be a Republican ballot measure. Too many middle-of-the-roaders are ticked off about both the war and Bush's runaway spending. A Democratic pal of mine told me 5 years ago that Bush would get elected twice and then set back the Republican Party 20 years. I laughed at him then....I ain't laughing now.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 8, 2005 10:23 PMI'm glad you live in an idealistic America where nobody lies, cheats and steals ecept conservatives.
So, send me a postcard, because that America is like Santa Claus. It only exists in the minds of those that don't know any better.
You think Bush lied about the WMD's?
I stood guard over the stinky bastards 3 times in the Gulf War, got shot at because of em and dang near lost my leg. So don't sit on your liberal *independant* butt and tell me they weren't there.
David Irons was a Bush-sponsored candidate?
Hmmmmmm.
Methinks we got too many recently out-of-state-lefties doing the LeftyLick, and too many SimsLickers counting the ballots.
But that's just me (and 48.5% =/-) of Washington Voters (50.8% with a true KC vote count...)
Posted by: MrEdly on November 8, 2005 10:37 PMThe Dems are incompetent and not doing anything very well....they have just managed to create enough momentum at the right time....off of Bush's problems. The LEFTIST PINHEADS continue to stand for nothing and fall for everything. However, there is a strong middle-of-the-road group that is pretty ticked off at Bush for the war and runaway spending. Sad but true.
And there is fallout on races like Irons and I-912. Sims was extremely vulnerable. The Dems just got out the I HATE BUSH and ALL REPUBLICANS vote.
If the R's regain momentum next time, Irons will beat Sims. Sims is a CLOWN. Timing is everything....especially for an R to actually win a countywide race in KingCo. All the stars must line up just RIGHT. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 8, 2005 10:42 PM
Better yet, why don't we go all french on this place and take over. Posted by: Me on November 8, 2005 10:52 PM
Would you please stop playing "coy" and just get the hell off the site? You have made the usual intelligent discussion here degenerate into baiting and biting. If that's your idea of fun, go giggle somewhere else. Posted by: katomar on November 8, 2005 11:17 PM
You can't reason with them, because they are unreasonable.
Try it on somewhere else. So what if you have a hot mail address, too? Typical, when you're taken to task for bad behavior, resort to lies and subterfuge. I think we can all ignore "me" now. Posted by: katomar on November 8, 2005 11:58 PM
xoxoxo,
ME
Posted by: Me on November 9, 2005 12:02 AMThanks for all of your civic work. It does make a difference when people stand up for what they believe in.
It is disgusting to have Washington State Laws continuously bent, turned, and corrupted by local officials. The state officials are even worse and those that arn't are powerless to do anything about it.
You were totally correct in taking action tonight. Please don't stop investigating or publishing your election work. It is important and your voice will be heard.
I am tired of rhetical spin from officials whose behavior is less than stellar and frequently dips into the criminal arena.
I received a email from the Secretary of State's office tonight assuring me that all is well and that there really isn't election fraud, it's only my perception............
Am I surprised?
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by: sgmmac on November 9, 2005 12:29 AM This election abuse does not stop until the criminals start getting hammered. You upheld your oath. Did Nancy Shelton violate her oath as stated in RCW 29A.44.500, Oath of inspectors? "I will not receive any ballot or vote from any person other than such as I firmly believe to be entitled to vote at such election" If this Shelton person knew that this man was not in-state for 30 days, she knew he was ineligible to vote - therefore she violated the RCW by pushing to get the man a ballot anyway.
I suggest a formal complaint to the State Attorney General's Office and to the Secretary of State's office. Turn her worthless butt in and let her prove her "innocence" to the state folks.
Thanks for all you do.
Goodnight to "me", I hope!
Posted by: katomar on November 9, 2005 01:16 AMI have to agree. Even I'm a little embarrassed for her. Have some self respect Karen.
Posted by: rolling eyes on November 9, 2005 01:32 AMThese things are just so predictable.
I think the right wing cheer squad may need to find a new "Dear Leader." The last one kinda lost his marbles.
Posted by: AmazedByRightWingHate on November 9, 2005 03:07 AMThis is why you were the first person I have made a non-tax deductible contribution to. It is money well spent. Keep up the good fight.
Posted by: Mike Armstrong on November 9, 2005 09:05 AM1) "Bring lawyers, guns, and money"
2) You need to file a formal complaint against Nancy Shelton with King County and Sam Reed, Secretary of State.
3) If you are unsure how to do this, the KCGOP and WSRP should be able to advise.
4) Nancy Shelton should be lifetime disbarred from working w/ in any election
5) I want everyone who's eligible to vote, but if you miss the cutoff, tough shitb
When asked how she would respond to someone who admitted they had lived here less than 30 days but sill wanted to submit a provisional ballot, the identical scenario to Stefan's, the person responsible for the provisionals she responded she would accept the ballot and "let downtown" sort it all out.
It's rampant and it's policy at King County elections to encourage citizens to commit a felony. This has got to stop.
You know, everyone says that Washington State is a bastion of the democrats. But then shouldn't the elections be landslides? I see a State nearly divided in its loyalties.
Don't give up, more and more people are voting Republican each year.
Can't wait to read your book, and see the movie!
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on November 9, 2005 11:08 AM( NO THANK YOU - THAT IS NOT NECESSARY! )
HOW CAN THE FOOLS ELECT RON (WRONG) SIMMS AGAIN?
Posted by: simjim on November 10, 2005 10:13 AM