Dean Logan is dragging his heels on my public records request for the key data files from the 2005 fall elections. Everything I asked for in this request should be readily available (e.g. the standard voter registration file, which Logan, by law, "shall promptly furnish" to any requestor). Other items in my list are simply the original Excel versions of files that have been distributed in hardcopy to the canvassing board and news media. Most of this stuff has also been requested by the county GOP. Nevertheless, Logan claims his staff can't satisfy this request for at least a month while they work on an earlier request that shouldn't require as much time as he claims it should take anyway.
Either Ron Sims and Dean Logan have something to hide, or they haven't figured out yet that if they have nothing to hide, then full transparency and compliance with state disclosure laws is the most advantageous P.R. policy.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 09, 2005 12:25 PM | Email ThisThey are just trying your patience. At least you get the stuff. In the past when I was chasing my bit of government corruption, I couldn't get anything and I didn't have the money to sue.
Posted by: swatter on December 9, 2005 01:20 PMWord has it that 28,000 challenges are going to be filed by the GOP as a strategy for the 06 senate race. My suggestion is that the legislature updates the law so that challenges must be filed within one week of the last day for mail in registration before an election, give the state 83 days to look at the challenges. If you are interested in correcting registration, start an information campaign to help people fix their registration, not to disqualify and intimidate voters.
When I make an allegation I have evidence to back it up, for example the post I had about Sotelo perjuring herself (http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005373.html#005373). I am shocked to hear anyone use the fraud word, that is a serious allegation that needs real evidence before it is thrown around.
If the GOP strategy is to disqualify homeless voters because they don't have a residential address, they need to review state law and stop attempting to intimidate voters.
Posted by: Patrick on December 9, 2005 01:33 PMGo cougs, now that I've established our only point of agreement, is your point that we should statutorily limit a charge of illegal behavior in order to protect those who may be guilty of a crime?
That sounds like a sweet deal for criminals. How about limiting a state trooper's authority to pull me over for speeding to the first 1/4 mile after he turns on his lights, if I make it past the first 1/4, he can't pull me over because THAT would be intimidating.
Also you state that when you make an allegation you have evidence to back it up. However you start your post with the allagation "word has it". Could you provide your evidence for that allegation?
Posted by: Dan on December 9, 2005 01:42 PMThe reason to wait to be closer to the election is to catch as many as possible, including all the last minute ones trying to get under the wire undetected. Make sense?
I can assure you that I would not be in the slightest bit intimidated if I was asked to prove that I am a citizen, or that I am legitimately registered. Why would anyone feel so, unless of course they are not? You are just making excuses to keep the election system unaccountable.
Posted by: fred on December 9, 2005 01:46 PMI can't figure your position out. Nor the rest of the Democratic bloggers.
And how can you be sure they are not duplicate voters? That is why we need these asinine (your side) rules.
When I moved out of the City, I considered reregistering at my business in the City because I was more interested in my City than in my new location politics. Some of these people Stefan has shown were not as honest as me when I did reregister at my new house.
I really don't see how anyone can really complain about cleaning up the registration rolls. It really, really has me confused as to your position, Patrick.
Posted by: swatter on December 9, 2005 01:47 PMYour no help to anyone. You're just a jerk. I wonder how much money you have cost the taxpayers. I think you should pay for all the time you are wasting on the taxpayers dime. Fortunately , the crooks in your party are starting to fall.
Posted by: Apache Fog on December 9, 2005 01:49 PMPerhaps you should ask CLownstein to get the information for you - I hear he has inside contacts at the King of Corrupt Elections (KCE) offices.
As to the claim of 28,000 voter challenges, I am speaking out against the tactic, I don't have hard evidence to support it that I can give out, and my strategy is to figure out the people that are likely to be challenged and working with them to correct their registration. Doesn't anyone else have that as a goal? Helping those voters so they aren't disenfranchised?
The difference is that I don't see these people as criminals. To me a criminal needs intent. These are people that may or may not have mistakenly filed their registration.
I do have an issue with people doing things illegally. I just don't think that the voters being challenged had intent to cheat, by all means prosecute people trying to vote more than once, prosecute those who commit perjury in challenging valid voters as well, but to be found guilty, they need to have intent shown to the courts.
Go cougs.
Posted by: Patrick on December 9, 2005 02:00 PMGee, so if I 'accidentally' run over Patrick with my car, it won't be a crime, since there was no intent?
Once again, Apatchy Slug slides into dishing rabid abuse when he has nothing constructive to add to the debate. Must be a joy to work with him (assuming anyone would employ such a Neanderthal.)
Dang. I just insulted Neanderthals. Sorry.
Posted by: starboardhelm on December 9, 2005 02:08 PMBefore going there, english is required to become a citizen, so language difficulty is no excuse.
Posted by: fred on December 9, 2005 02:09 PMGo Ducks!
khs
If a voter is mis-registered but otherwise a legal resident of their precinct/citizen/etc then a challenge would not disenfranchise them.
A challenged registration would only disenfrachise someone who could not prove their own case or fix their registration.
I don't see what your problem is with challenges, as was said already, the only people who should be upset about their registration being challenged are those who are not following the law.
Personally I would be happy to prove my residence and citizenship. Nothing there to get uppity about unless of course YOU LIED.
On the other hand, if KCE would simply not accept registrations that are on their face invalid (i.e., when a commercial/business address is provided as the voter's "residence"), it would not be necessary for citizens to file challenges to get the voter rolls cleaned up.
I marvel at those who argue that enforcing the registration rules (which were enacted to ensure that voters only vote once per election, and that they vote where they actually live) is somehow unfair or discriminatory. They apply to everyone, equally. Even the homeless are covered by the statute, which requires that they register the nearest specified government office as their residence (not a convenience store, empty office, or private mail service). Why shouldn't everyone be expected to follow the law?
(I live in the Tri-Cities, and just shake my head in wonder as I watch the Westside circus....)
Posted by: Patrick on December 9, 2005 03:51 PMThat is the voter registration form. Where on the form does it tell the homeless how to complete their address for registration? How many people here did voter registration before the election? were any of you trained on how to help a person without a residence register? I didn't know it had to be the "nearest" (nearest to what?) government office that they marked as their address, did all of you?
It does disenfranchise voters if you wait to challenge voters untill the last minute and they can't come back to defend their registration. Or if they are homeless and aren't notified they need to come to court and defend themselves.
It would be much nobler an effort to attempt to contact those voters and correct their registration rather than to challenge them and never contact them.
Posted by: Patrick on December 9, 2005 04:22 PMVoter disenfranchisement is a myth. It doesn't exist in Washington State in 2005 - unless you're talking about the disenfranchisement of the military vote due to the fact that the military ballots were not all accounted for and mailed out on time.
Furthermore, any person can vote regardless of whether they're registered. They can simply fill out a provisional ballot. And will that ballot be counted? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows whether their vote was counted because of the secret ballot. So technically it is impossible to know for certain whether anyone, or no one at all, was 'disenfranchised'.
In November 2004 there were many ballots that weren't tallied because of incomplete or incorrect registrations. If I remember correctly, a judge allowed the parties to contact these people during the recount so they could correct their registrations and have their votes counted. That's certainly not 'disenfranchisement'.
Maybe your ballot wasn't counted because your registration was challenged. Or maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't counted because the signatures didn't match (even though it was a valid signature), because some flunky working in the elections office determined the two signatures (on the ballot and registration form) didn't match. Or maybe your ballot wasn't counted because it was determined to be an overvote by the Canvassing Board because there was a stray mark on the ballot. Or maybe your vote was tallied for the wrong candidate because the Canvassing Board was incorrect at divining your intent.
My point is - disenfranchisement is a myth, a canard, a red herring, a reason to continue to allow thousands of bogus registrations. But nobody can ever prove that they were truly disenfranchised. In fact, many of us who DID vote legally COULD have been disenfranchised by KCEC or the Canvassing Board and we'd NEVER know it.
You can complain all you want about 'disenfranchisement'. But until KCEC becomes more transparent, cleans up the voter rolls and removes illegal registration, allows the public to observe the signature verification, stops divining voter intent, and generally cleans up their act and starts truly serving the public - your complaints will only fall on deaf ears. This is the way Judge Bridges, Ron Sims, Dean Logan, and Christine Gregoire want the game to be played. Their rules, not ours.
Posted by: Larry on December 9, 2005 05:21 PMMy read is that if sufficient information on voter registration documentation counter to state law exists (yes a Class C felony, is a felony) and there are a sufficient number of challenges that are rejected for reasons that don't make sense; then an argument can me made that Sims, Logan, et. al. are engaged in fraud associated with keeping illegally registered voters on the voting roles.
I would even wager that the entire democratic party of the United States could be identified as trying to keep illegally registered voters on the roles.
Hopefully someone will then charge the Democratic Party, Sims, Logan, et. al. with RICO violations. After all, the Democratic Party sure seems like organized crime to me! (/sarcasm)
Posted by: Bob on December 9, 2005 05:22 PMCheck out this website...Drinking Liberally.org -
"Promoting democracy one pint at a time."
They actually have charters all over the country! Unfortunately, they all must be too drink or hung over to keep up their forums...
http://drinkingliberally.org/locations.html
I love how they conspire to bring febreeze to their pub's so they can smoke without detection! What hypocrites!
Well, this explains headless and apache and the other inebriated trolls who visit us.....
Posted by: Deborah on December 9, 2005 11:37 PMThese people are ill.....and Hell-bent on ruining our country.
Posted by: Deborah on December 9, 2005 11:49 PMPractically every week, Stefan uncovers new evidence of city, county and state corruption. He is very thorough in his findings and has even gone into the trenches with the perpetrators! (work in the elections as a poll judge..etc..)
Stefan has challenged Dean Logan and Ron Sims to produce via Public Disclosure, articles, documents, etc..that will likely expose them and the fraud they commit...
It's overwhelming.
The problem with the way we are handling this - is that we are pulling up too many rocks at one time and watching too many roaches and rodents scurry around without stomping on any of them! We have uncovered so many fires - and haven't put any out. There are so many! Everyone get's the picture here...This state is extremely corrupt under Democrat rule! Now we have to consolidate our resources and methodically battle each rock - each fire! Beginning with one.
We need one victory against this crap. Choose one. Once one is eliminated - we go on to the next and the next...etc...
Continuing to simply expose the corruption and fraud without any attempt to battle it - is actually working in the perpetrators favor. It is working as an "in your face" - "yep! we did it and you can't do anything about it" assault! And we become more and more frustrated and hopeless that there will be an end to this....Then, we allow the trolls to come in and further beat us down with their insane arguments....Not to mention Matt's constant flip-flop of loyalties for and against individual freedoms and conservative values.... It's enough to make anyone lose heart and shake their heads in utter confusion and anger!
We need to choose one battle and fire at it with all we've got! Whether it be Stefan's fight with King County Public disclosure, the illegal mailbox voters, the lack of coordination in King County and state election laws, the election transaction log sheets, Ron Sims campaign fund extortion, etc...You get the idea.
Pick one, then concentrate all of our resources on it until it is completely resovled then move on to the next....Otherwise we will just continue to spin our wheels until we run out of energy and desire to fight.
Posted by: Deborah on December 10, 2005 11:47 AMPlease try to use proper grammar when YOU'RE slinging s*** around here.
Posted by: Danny on December 10, 2005 01:46 PM
Complying with Stefan's document requests is the best use of my tax money I can think of.
Dean
Posted by: DeanlovesPatrick on December 11, 2005 12:57 PM