The Washington State Democrats are defending the "rights" of the illegally registered mail box voters to commit election fraud.
David McDonald, attorney for the WSDCC, asserts that a private mailbox is a legitimate "non-traditional" address, like maybe the voter really lives in his mail box.
| I'm not sure why the Democrats are so passionate about defending the illegal mail box voters. Are the Democrats proud to be known as the party of perpetual vote fraud? Or is this the only way that the party of fat-cat lawyers can still plausibly present itself as "the party of the little guy"? |  |
UPDATE: Mrs. Gregoire's supporters brag that "Gregoire’s always fought for the little guy". And without the little guys who claim to live in their mail boxes, Mrs. Gregoire probably would not have won the 3rd recount. A cross-check of the (uncorrected) list of challenged mail box voters shows that 1,100 of them voted last November. Even after adjusting for errors in the list, the voting patterns of the mail box precincts suggest that the illegally registered voters gave Mrs. Gregoire a 300 vote cushion. No wonder the Democrats are stretching so hard to defend their miniature voters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 15, 2005 05:20 PM | Email ThisArticle VI, section 1 doesn't require registration, and it seems to be the basis for the statute authorizing challenges of the voters' qualifications. The rest of the statute may well be talking only about challenging the claimed residence as not being the actual residence.
It's in Article VI, section 7 that such a requirement is stated:
SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote; Provided, that this provision is not compulsory upon the legislature except as to cities and towns having a population of over five hundred inhabitants. In all other cases the legislature may or may not require registration as a pre-requisite to the right to vote, and the same system of registration need not be adopted for both classes.
The statute doesn't appear to enforce Article VI, section 7:
RCW 29A.08.830
Affidavit -- Administration, notice of challenge.
(1) Any registered voter may request that the registration of another voter be canceled if he or she believes that the voter does not meet the requirements of Article VI, section 1 of the state Constitution or that voter no longer maintains a legal voting residence at the address shown on his or her registration record. The challenger shall file with the county auditor a signed affidavit subject to the penalties of perjury, to the effect that to his or her personal knowledge and belief another registered voter does not actually reside at the address as given on his or her registration record or is otherwise not a qualified voter and that the voter in question is not protected by the provisions of Article VI, section 4, of the Constitution of the state of Washington. The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
This may get interesting. Is there a statutory basis for challenging a voter's registration based on improperly registering at something other than a valid residence address?
"WARNING: If you knowingly provide false information on this voter registration form or knowingly make a false declaration about your qualifications for voter registration you will have committed a class C felony that is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, or by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both imprisonment and fine. (RCW 29A.08.210)"
From the English form off the SoS's website: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/register.aspx
Posted by: Al on November 15, 2005 06:08 PMIf we cleared the voter roles of everyone that is not properly registered they will lose well over 5% of the database
Posted by: Steven Pyeatt on November 15, 2005 06:14 PMThat may have been a coincidence, or not. Just factual information. You decide!
Posted by: GS on November 15, 2005 06:42 PMThe number reported that changed their PO Boxes to their correct addresses was very low compared to how many there were.
What happened to the double registered voters?????????????
Posted by: sgmmac on November 15, 2005 06:42 PMThose aren't errors - we should be challenging EVERY SINGLE VOTER. We know (in his own words) that Logan doesn't challenge anyone with his inherent authority - it is up to the individual citizen to perform the challenges. In the 15 day window between 'vote' and 'certification'.
Posted by: Al on November 15, 2005 07:31 PMAny one think the Dems would have the same stance if conservatives were winning by narrow margins? This is typical liberal thinking. So willing to look the other way as long as the offended is a member of their party. Big example: Clinton is convicted of perjury and that is part of the vast right wing conspiracy, so who cares. Libby is in a similar situation and there is a great cry across the land for the entire White House staff to step down. Hypocrites, every one!! No wonder we are considered Cook County of the West.
Posted by: Burdabee on November 15, 2005 09:31 PMQ: Why did you fire Dean?
A: He did bad.
Q: What did he do that was bad?
A: Um, he did what we told him to . . .
The 'rats know we have no where to turn and so it's no wonder they feel free to ignore the laws and do whatever they want. What a shame for a state that has such astounding outward beauty to have such a hideous, rotten core.
Posted by: Vicki on November 15, 2005 10:21 PMA key sentence in the Dems brief, "There is no basis for concluding that any address per se is an invalid registration address."
If no addresses are invalid, why did the legislature go to so much trouble to say anything at all about nontraditional addresses? Why not just say, "Register at any address you like"?
The WAC/RCW says, "Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence."
Are these mailbox places considered "public" buildings? My impression would be that "public" buildings would be government buildings - libraries, fire stations, police stations, etc.
With registration by mail, vote by mail and a vaguely worded "nontraditional address" law - it seems to me to be pretty easy to set up multiple identities for duplicate voting. There are no verification steps taken anywhere along the line - just put a check mark in the right boxes. Even if you are caught, there is always someone out there to condone it and get you off. There is very little prosecution, so it mustn't be so bad - right?
If voting is a precious right, why are we not protecting the sanctity of our right to vote?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 15, 2005 10:30 PMDems in this area believe that they must cheat in order to win - because they have got away with it for a long time.
That is their incentive - because they know they can't win by their merits - their agenda is too dark and so they become like drug smugglers. So what do the Repbulicans do in turn ? They really need to hold their feet to the fire and force them into a checkmate, where they are caught red-handed, but do they ? Not very often - because they not clever enough very often - sorry to say. In order to catch them, the Repubs need to think more like a criminal (like a Dumbocrat - i..e go for the jugular, use street fighting techniques, get signed affadavits from illegal voters, etc.).
The Dems know that they are working with an SoS who is a first class chump - who will never again get my vote. Sam Reed is in cahoots with Dean Logan, so the evidence will need to be airtight to convict. They also need to pick the right judge - just like the Demos try to do - the exciting stench-filled world of politics. The Democrat leadership (Paul Berendt and Howard Dean) SUCK the big one !
Posted by: KS on November 15, 2005 10:55 PMMaybe this time don't do it so dramatically. Assassins are quiet. Do the job and then crow about it, if you have to. But, please, clean up the voters' rolls.
Posted by: baffles on November 16, 2005 07:24 AMHow can you accuse the Democrats of being the party of "fat-cat lawyers?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but you ran out and hired a lawyer and filed a PDA lawsuit against the County over getting access to election documents. How's that coming anyway? Who was it that demanded a trial over last year's election - and retained one of the largest law firms in the state to represent them. Why is it okay for republican / conservative parties to hire lawyers, but not Democratic / liberal?
I don't think "Stefan" has made an error at all. The statute on "non-traditional addresses" clearly refers to the location where an individual lives - i.e., sleeps, spends time, etc. I doubt any of the registrants believe they "live" in their post office box. The registration form also makes a clear distinction between where one "lives" and where one "receives mail."
(So who really posted that comment?)
Posted by: Patrick on November 16, 2005 08:18 AMBut I'm sure she's a very ethical person and really cares about protecting the rights of the voters.
Posted by: Bostonian on November 16, 2005 08:47 AMGet over it.
Posted by: Smoking in the Boys' Room on November 16, 2005 09:06 AMthat's a big YUP!
the democrats in washington state seem to do everything this way. on blog sites [like HA] one guy [guess who??? lol] will post over and over again using different names to make "things" seem bigger than they are. so would you really expect people like that to vote ONLY once like the rest of us? they are "special" they "know" better ad nauseum.........
Posted by: christmasghost on November 16, 2005 09:18 AM
It is quoted on Horses A$$ at the following link:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-comments-popup.php?p=1167&c=1#comment-108127
In any event, a mailbox place doesn't qualify as a "nontraditional address". First of all, unlike the south lawn of the courthouse or a bridge underpass, people don't actually live there. Second, even if someone slept on the sidewalk near the mailbox facility, they would still have to be registered using the address of a nearby public (i.e. government) building.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 16, 2005 09:23 AMTo tell the truth, it was too complicated and long to be an initiative. Lowry and Locke think the legislature needs to pass something reasonable (at least based on their comments election night).
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2005 10:27 AMI guess we know where their priorities are, don't we?
Posted by: Robert on November 16, 2005 10:47 AMDemonstrate the libs point of view.
Scooter Libby didn't actually commit the investigated crime, i.e no covert CIA Officer was outed. But despite no crimes being committed the investigation continued until finally some one got snagged on other issues.
Since that happened to a Repub. they yell "off with his head."
Yet proven, repeated violation of the law by dems, their response is "get over it."
If they would like some respect be consistent.
Till then you foxtrot moonbat libs SHUT THE %$#@ UP
Posted by: JCM on November 16, 2005 12:11 PMSECTION 7 REGISTRATION.
The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote;
RCW 29A.04.151
Residence.
"Residence" for the purpose of registering and voting means a person's permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode. However, no person gains residence by reason of his or her presence or loses his or her residence by reason of his or her absence:
(1) While employed in the civil or military service of the state or of the United States;
(2) While engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or the United States or the high seas;
(3) While a student at any institution of learning;
(4) While confined in any public prison.
Absence from the state on business shall not affect the question of residence of any person unless the right to vote has been claimed or exercised elsewhere.
RCW 29A.08.112
Nontraditional address. (Effective January 1, 2006.)
No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional address being used as a residence address. Voters using such an address will be registered and assigned to a precinct based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall, or other public building near the area that the voter considers his or her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status if the voter designates a valid mailing address.
For the purposes of this section, "nontraditional address" includes shelters, parks, or other identifiable locations that the voter deems to be his or her residence.
Are the Dems arguing that registration really shouldn't have any controls or restrictions? Are they really saying that ANY address given as a residence should be accepted at face value?
How does HAVA affect the responsibility for clean voter rolls? Do the counties still have primary responsibility? What role will the SoS then have in keeping the rolls clean?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 16, 2005 12:22 PMYou lost at the ballot box, you lost in life.
Give it up, loser.
Posted by: Smoking in the Boys' Room on November 16, 2005 10:00 PMAs for the the illegal voter registrations at mailboxes and storage facilities, challenge them all every election. Who cares about the consequences of mistaken challenges. If the liberals don't care enough to make an effort to purge the rolls of obviously flawed voters, and to aid citizens in cleaning up the rolls, then show them the same in return. We'll just challenge every mailbox and storage facility voter in advance of every election.
Liberals play dirty. Let's just make sure we are playing by their rules.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 16, 2005 11:11 PMno reason.
Short people got
no reason.
Short people got
no reason to live.
At least I can agree with the Dems on one thing - I live in Seattle, and the above stated philosophy is the reason why I've never paid a cent for the Monorail. I hope they don't mind when I use their own logic against them, and the revenue is 30% short of projections.
Listen to how mean the trolls are - yet they continue to bemoan the climate of political discourse in this country.
Posted by: Larry on November 17, 2005 11:12 AMSure told old Jeff B a thing or two though.
Good job.
Libs = Adults stuck mentally in their teens.
Wish we could ground them. Better yet, give them their own concrete county.
How's that truss working out?
Posted by: Smokin' in the Boys' Room on November 17, 2005 10:58 PM