It's amazing what you can find when you read the statute:
RCW 29A.84.655Nancy
Repeaters -- Unqualified persons -- Officers conniving with.Any precinct election officer who knowingly permits any voter to cast a second vote at any primary or general or special election, or knowingly permits any person not a qualified voter to vote at any primary or general or special election, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.021.
Way to go Ms.Shelton! ...........(fool)
Sheesh! It's one thing to be stupid...it's another thing to be aggressively stupid!
Nancy Shelton tried to force her election law corruption on other poll workers! That's a crime...
Unfortunately, I don't think the training KCE provided for us poll workers had enough depth for the nuance-challenged folks like Nancy. I would go so far as to say it was almost deliberately misleading on this point to encourage ineligible people to vote anyway knowing that the odds of anyone catching illegal voters is so slim.
In my voting place, it wasn't this issue exactly but a similar one--one (Democrat, as I was the only GOP person out of seven workers despite five of them being listed by KCE as Republicans) worker was faced with a voter that said they had received an absentee ballot in the mail and that they had voted it but wanted to vote again "to make sure," and this particular poll worker attempted to have them fill out a regular ballot as their name still appeared in the poll book.
I guess in my case I should have been forced off my job as well, since by informing the voter they would be breaking the law I "denied" a person his right to vote twice.
Posted by: Marc on November 10, 2005 12:34 AMNancy Shelton is a party hack who does not even know the very laws or oaths she swears before every poll opens to defend. AND SHE IS AN INSPECTOR IN KING COUNTY? DAMN!
She should be shown the door out of the polling places in this state.
Stephan, call King County elections and demand that that you be both paid for your day and reinstated as a Poll Judge. You should not have been harassed by Nancy and should be paid for your civic effort that day! You have every right to work in the polling place without being harassed by an uninformed inspector.
Posted by: GS on November 10, 2005 12:42 AM
If this voter voted and it was counted in King County, the King County Election disgrace continues.
It's people walking in off the streets, not registered and morally corrupt individuals like Nancy giving them a ballot.
Posted by: sgmmac on November 10, 2005 03:51 AMI would be honored to support a lawsuit against Ms. Shelton, who broke state election law and violated YOUR civil rights. Let me know where to send the check.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 10, 2005 05:19 AM$10,000
Where in the world is Norm Maleng.
RCW 9A.20.021
Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.
(1) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following:
(a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(c) For a class C felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine.
(2) Gross misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than one year, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
(3) Misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.
(4) This section applies to only those crimes committed on or after July 1, 1984.
[2003 c 288 § 7; 2003 c 53 § 63; 1982 c 192 § 10.]
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2003 c 53 § 63 and by 2003 c 288 § 7, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Penalty assessments in addition to fine or bail forfeiture -- Crime victim and witness programs in county: RCW 7.68.035.
Posted by: JCM on November 10, 2005 05:46 AMTroll discovers mouse button. Mentally exhausted after the experience.
Posted by: JCM on November 10, 2005 06:35 AMI think you may have been set up. Just imagine the uproar if you had let the guy vote. Unlike KARL ROVE, I'm only posting this once.
Posted by: maggie on November 10, 2005 06:55 AMWhat's up with these people that they couldn't care less about election law?? That drives me crazy!!!!!
Posted by: Misty on November 10, 2005 07:41 AMNo, the question is who is leaking CIA secrets. Not even a month ago you Democrats thought that leaks were treasonous, I guess now you are back to the norm.
Posted by: Michael on November 10, 2005 07:59 AMI agree with the previous poster who said you should demand to be reinstated as a pollworker. And Nancy Shelton needs to have charges pressed against.
Posted by: Michele on November 10, 2005 08:03 AMWe live among angry cretins (even though these morons won), and they come here to prove it.
Soon they might be able to ride their bicycles on the Gregoire Emergency Bike Lane in Moses Lake so long as they have training wheels, someone to hold them up, and someone to push them (I volunteer to push).
Next it will be Emergency Duck-Walks in Greenlake.
Good luck ever nailing Nancy Shelton. Norm Maleng wants votes from Democrats too much to prosecute her, and there is no basis for a civil suit. Besides, Democrats don't have to obey laws in Washington State, just make em up. Nancy was just protecting voters’ constitutional rights--you bet!! No law should ever get in the way of being nice, if you're a Democrat.
King County is a toilet with a broken flusher.
Face it nothing will happen to the woman.
Grrrr
Posted by: smoke on November 10, 2005 09:49 AMAlso, if the poll worker guides are that obscure, then maybe they should be reworded in places. If that is too expensive, then maybe this is an alternative: Most of the people who staff the polling places are volunteers, right? Well, then, take a few of these volunteers, give them a crate of hilighter pens and have them mark those sections that might be dangerously ambiguous. At the very least, the people who do this job should be briefed so they can perform properly. It shouldn't be too hard for a supervisor to ask each poll worker a few key questions, upon completion of training, to make sure they don't unwittingly commit a crime.
Posted by: Peggy U on November 10, 2005 09:59 AMCalling our duly elected governor a fraud wasn't good enough. Even after a judge ruled your view had no merit...dismissed with prejudice, may I remind you...you still send these false, libelous comments around.
Shame on you.
Be a good American...play in the process -- do not be a vigilante by writing and running by your own rules.
Texas is nice this time of year...why not get on your high horse (you have plenty of mud to make it a really high horse) and live your desired life.
Posted by: Frustrated Voter on November 10, 2005 10:56 AMI, like thousands of others on the east side of the state, am tired of being told that "they" are carrying us when in fact they TAKE our taxes and give us the crumbs from the table and disenfranchise EVERY voter who is not a Socialist.
So, Righties, start moving to King and Snohomish, tell your right-thinking neighbors to do the same and start having lots of babies--at least you know you can beat the lefties in that way--they can't be bothered with children. The only interest they ever show is in corrupting someone else's kids.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on November 10, 2005 11:01 AMNo, we do not love spreading hate (I believe it was YOU that used the term 'right wing whackos'). We admire spreading truth, from either side of the aisle, by whatever means and even when it embarrasses and hurts. "The truth will set you free"--from hate, from fear, from error--IF you accept it and learn from it. "Be a good American...play in the process" you said. That is exactly what we want to do, but it seems the process is badly in need of repair and the mechanics in charge are on permanent lunch break. So, screw the customer (voter), right? A lot of us on both sides of the aisle are frustrated. Your guys must have won, so why are you being a 'sore loser', as we are accused of being?
Many eastern WA voters feel disenfranchised as a class--year after year, thanks to King County and Snohomish County. Believe me, we would separate in a heartbeat and let bygones be bygones, but your side won't use common sense and do that or move to Cuba.
You refer to our 'duly elected governor' and to judges. This last year has been like a scene directly out of Batman Begins as far as good politics has been concerned. Maybe you wish to bury your head in the sand and not see that, but the truth is that when MY vote isn't safe, neither is yours.
Funny you should mention Texas, because I and several family members are serious considering moving to some state that doesn't WANT to be communist (if you think that is a bit harsh, read the manifesto and then see what you think). So, if we don't like it, move to Texas? So, if you don't like it, DO something about it or stop reading!
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on November 10, 2005 11:16 AMIf you support prosecuting Shelton, do you support prosecuting the KC republicans who swore under penalty of perjury that they had personal knowledge of something they later admitted they did not?
Fairness calls...do you answer?
PS...I support merging Eastern Oregon with Eastern Washington and Western Oregon with Western Washington. We'd have less of these "over the mountain" debates and you wouldn't feel disenfranchised whatsoever. Folks from E. Washington keep proposing this...let's get it done!
Posted by: Frustrated Voter on November 10, 2005 11:37 AMYou are very misguided if you think that Eastern WA is supporting western WA. We may take your taxes in the sense that they go to Olympia, but we give you folks back more than we take. Eastern WA get somthing like $1.20 back for every $1 sent to the state. The fact that we outvote doesn't mean you are "disenfranchised" it just means that there are more of us than there or of you, hence you lose time and time again. Deal.
Oh and have as many kids as you like, it doesn't assure a thing many of us lefties were raised by rightie parents, and I suspect will continue to be.
Posted by: john on November 10, 2005 11:38 AMOK, seriously...let's DO something. If Stormin' Norman Maleng won't, then let's find someone who will.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on November 10, 2005 11:51 AMOK, seriously...let's DO something. If Stormin' Norman Maleng won't, then let's find someone who will.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on November 10, 2005 11:51 AMI guess that just makes it all better then, huh??
Here we go!! Start diverting attention from the real issue!!!
FIX THE SYSTEM.
Posted by: Brian C. on November 10, 2005 11:53 AMAnd I thought I'd grown past your kind of the small-world view when I GOT to the grade school playground! But, I see you still refuse to see the bigger picture here...
The pursuit of charges is the least of what should happen. Imagine what may have happened if Stefan had stood his ground by staying seated, by refusing to follow orders, and by refusing to surrender HIS rights. Imagine the possibilities of his trial, and the flipping of the rock to show the corruption which lies at the foundation of the elections office.
Stefan, next time, please stay put. I am sure there are enough of us out here to pay your bail, and attorney.
Posted by: duhh on November 10, 2005 03:05 PMI do not know what information the Republicans had that led them to the conclusion that those registrations were invalid. If the information they had was such that a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion they did, then their statements--even if incorrect--do not constitute perjury.
Posted by: supercat on November 10, 2005 03:24 PMLook over there!!!!!!!! Not over here!!
Standard evasion of truth by bringing up a diversion. Yes, Shelton should be prosecuted. Yes, Dean Logan should be prosecuted. If those who filed on the illegal registrants violated the law, then sure, it would be reasonable to bring charges against them, too.
Care to contribute to the fund for prosecution of all of them? Show me the money, hairball.
Posted by: duhh on November 10, 2005 03:40 PMAlso you do not fix the problems by accusing 2 thousand citizens of a felonly without taking the due dilligence to verify the information first, which is EXACTLY what KCGOP did.
I also find it quite telling that Ms Shelton's contact info remains up in these comments. I wonder how many harrassing calls she's gotten. Mission Accomplished, eh Sharkansky.
Posted by: John on November 10, 2005 04:03 PMYou're not calling him a liar, I notice, just saying he's "partisan."
So it's partisan to want the law to be followed?!
Posted by: Bostonian on November 10, 2005 04:33 PMAgain, I have no problem with fixing the system, I just feel that Stefan is not the one, who is going to get that done. He has acted in a thoroughly unprofessional manner.
Posted by: John on November 10, 2005 05:19 PMEnd of story!
Posted by: GS on November 10, 2005 05:38 PMJust try it. Name one allegation that Stefan raised and proved unfounded.
Posted by: C. Oh on November 10, 2005 06:13 PMThe message from goldy is that >>we don't mind voting criminals as long as everyone votes. We will sort it out later. then swe will cream bloody murder when the sorting starts to occur.
Posted by: holt on November 10, 2005 06:46 PMIt is possible that you were technically correct that the voter was ineligble and that you violated his statutory rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. We probably will never know now, of course, if he was eligible or not, because the voter left. We do know, from you own words, that you short-circuited the challenge process. I am certainly willing to be educated about election law, but, if you read all of the statutes together, including those that you have selectively cited, it becomes pretty clear that you were supposed to give the guy a ballot, without verbal interference, and then file a challenge if you believed him to be ineligible. Had you done that, you would have followed the spirit and the letter of HAVA and Washington law, without violating either your oath as a judge or the criminal statute you cited. Your discussion of perjury with this voter could easily have been taken as a threat by a reasonable person. The whole point of the provisional ballot provisions of HAVA and Washington election law is to take discouragement, threats, interference, intimidation, and harassment out of the polling place and leave challenge questions for resolution at a hearing. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt that you had a sufficiently long encounter with this voter to truly determine that he was ineligible. Perhaps he was speaking loosely about moving up here on October 13th, Maybe that was the day he started a job, or maybe he rented an apartment weeks earlier and went back to California to pack his belongings. I doubt the voter understood the significance of the issue you raised with him well enough to know and communicate all of the facts that may have borne on and determined the issue of residence. All of the facts could have come out at the hearing that is a part of the challenge process. But we won't know now. I accept at face value your assurance that you did not intend to threaten this voter (although a short perusal of your postings could convince anyone that that is exactly what you intended), but your intent is hardly the point. You weren't supposed to burden the voter with your discussion of perjury and eligibility or to substitute your judgment for that of the hearing tribunal. That is what you did, in effect.
For the last year, you've been telling us all about the importance of complying with legal requirements. When it came your turn to follow the rules, why couldn't you do it?
Posted by: Martin Brody on November 10, 2005 11:39 PMIt is possible that you were technically correct that the voter was ineligble and that you violated his statutory rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. We probably will never know now, of course, if he was eligible or not, because the voter left. We do know, from you own words, that you short-circuited the challenge process. I am certainly willing to be educated about election law, but, if you read all of the statutes together, including those that you have selectively cited, it becomes pretty clear that you were supposed to give the guy a ballot, without verbal interference, and then file a challenge if you believed him to be ineligible. Had you done that, you would have followed the spirit and the letter of HAVA and Washington law, without violating either your oath as a judge or the criminal statute you cited. Your discussion of perjury with this voter could easily have been taken as a threat by a reasonable person. The whole point of the provisional ballot provisions of HAVA and Washington election law is to take discouragement, threats, interference, intimidation, and harassment out of the polling place and leave challenge questions for resolution at a hearing. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt that you had a sufficiently long encounter with this voter to truly determine that he was ineligible. Perhaps he was speaking loosely about moving up here on October 13th, Maybe that was the day he started a job, or maybe he rented an apartment weeks earlier and went back to California to pack his belongings. I doubt the voter understood the significance of the issue you raised with him well enough to know and communicate all of the facts that may have borne on and determined the issue of residence. All of the facts could have come out at the hearing that is a part of the challenge process. But we won't know now. I accept at face value your assurance that you did not intend to threaten this voter (although a short perusal of your postings could convince anyone that that is exactly what you intended), but your intent is hardly the point. You weren't supposed to burden the voter with your discussion of perjury and eligibility or to substitute your judgment for that of the hearing tribunal. That is what you did, in effect.
For the last year, you've been telling us all about the importance of complying with legal requirements. When it came your turn to follow the rules, why couldn't you do it?
Posted by: Martin Brody on November 10, 2005 11:39 PMWhat is the problem some people have with Stefan informing the voter of Washington State Law?
Posted by: dl on November 11, 2005 12:56 AMYour style of cryptic desultory logic is exactly the reason why Nancy Shelton acted as she did. The facts are that the subject voter was ineligible to vote without any question, Stefan acted completely appropriately, and for him to do otherwise as you and Nancy suggests, would have made him complicit in breaking the law.
While your silly "analysis" of the situation is quite humorous, it only proves that you are a liberal idiot who hates and avoids rules and the facts at all cost in favor of idiotic emotional bull$hit. You, John, and Frustrated Voter (very clever) all need prefrontal lobotomies before you hurt someone.
Actually, as a Poll Judge, Stefan's job was certainly to "burden" an illegal voter with a discussion of perjury and eligibility! A Poll Judge must use his *judgment* when determining the eligibility of a voter...That's what *Judges* do. (go figure!)
But you don't really want to know that...do you Mr. Brody? To understand the spirit of a law..you first must understand the intent...(and knowing the terminology helps too)
Now sit down for this one..It's going to come as a shock.......The HAVA was NEVER intended as a tool to allow ineligible and illegal voters to vote....ever...nor was it intended to neuter poll workers abilities to determine voter eligibility... Now go do some homework! There will be a test tomorrow...
Posted by: Deborah on November 12, 2005 01:10 AM