December 12, 2005
Mystery of the federal write-in ballots solved ... sort of

After five months of public records requests, I finally have some answers on the mysterious claim made nearly a year ago by King County Elections that

Staff confirmed ... 251 federal write-in absentee ballots were tabulated. These represent validly cast ballots, that are not accounted for in the registration database.
King County Elections admitted to me this summer that only 113 federal write-in ballots from unregistered voters could be located. But now Dean Logan finally admits that he has "no documents" to support the earlier claim of 251. He also admits that he has no documentation for the federal write-in ballot procedures that were in place in 2004.

The claim of "251 unregistered federal write-in ballots" was repeated ad nauseum in depositions (e.g. Huennekens p. 186, Way p. 34) and in the trial itself. Who were these 251 people, I wondered, and in which precincts were their ballots tabulated?

As I learned in July and August, only 113 such ballots had been located. Some of these were from voters who provided only a foreign address and no local address, yet were somehow assigned to a local precinct. By state and federal law, federal write-in ballots are to be counted only if the voter requests a ballot in advance of the election. Logan admitted in September that he has no documents confirming any such requests from these voters.

On Friday, I finally received definitive confirmation from Dean Logan that he has no documents to support the earlier claim of 251 and that there are no documented procedures for processing federal write-in ballots. If our local elections officials were more honest and forthcoming and our local media less lazy and credulous, we might have known about this bogosity before the election contest trial. Even if our local county and federal prosecutors are too craven to investigate what may well have been official fraud in a federal election, it's not too late to be more vigilant in time for the 2006 federal election.

Insisting that the processing of ballots is fully transparent and compliant with the law is not a partisan issue. Even if the Democrats prefer to excuse the 2004 performance as "mistakes" that didn't favor any candidate, it's in everybody's interest to ensure that any such "mistakes" are not repeated. Wishful thinking perhaps, but I hope that both major parties and the news media will hold King County Elections to a higher standard this time. We all need to insist before the next election that federal write-in ballots are processed according to laws and written procedures and that the results are fully documented and promptly disclosed to the public.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 12, 2005 01:21 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Bravo, Stefan! This is excellent. Thank you for 'outing' KCE on these bogus federal write-ins.

"Logan admitted in September that he has no documents confirming any such (ballot) requests from (federal write-in) voters". WOW!! Logan keeps blowing smoke and the old media and Dems keep buying it, but Stefan manages to smoke LOGAN out, issue by issue.

Posted by: Michele on December 12, 2005 01:46 PM
2. If Huennekens and Way testified using these numbers, can't they be prosecuted for lying under oath?

And if Logan says there are no documents, what is to stop him from just saying that so he doesn't have to give them up?

I think a charge of perjury against Huennekens would be fun to watch.

Posted by: CSProf on December 12, 2005 01:53 PM
3. 251 - 113 = 138

How many votes did you say Gregoire won by?

Posted by: huckleberry on December 12, 2005 01:59 PM
4. Apparently, huckleberry, she won by however many votes Logan decided there were.

Posted by: Danny on December 12, 2005 02:17 PM
5. Eventually Logan will whittle it down to the 129 votes he claims Gregoire won by and then brag about counting and accounting for every vote- what a joke.

Posted by: John425 on December 12, 2005 02:37 PM
6. Damn lying Democrat scum!11

Posted by: pbj on December 12, 2005 02:58 PM
7. Why are these people still around at KCE?? And why isn't there an ELECTED auditor in King Co.? The largest county in the state with the most votes and it's that antiquated?? There must be a way to change that system.

Posted by: Susu on December 12, 2005 03:54 PM
8. Recall?

Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2005 04:04 PM
9. Lies, damn lies, and KCE.

Posted by: ronin on December 12, 2005 04:08 PM
10. So let's summarize:
1. Way and Huennekins admitted to gundecking official election documents under oath;
2. Today Dean Logan admits to submitting false evidence to the election trial.

And yet, there's no fraud in King County. *Takes another hit of acid*

Yeah, now that makes sense!

Posted by: Steve_dog on December 12, 2005 04:53 PM
11. Where are the trolls to 'splain this? I just can't see how KCE is doing a noble or honorable thing here! This must be a gratuitious politically motivated smear job on those-who-are-beyond-reproach, but golly -- facts, evidence, numbers, documentation (and the lack of it), heaping mounds of steaming donkey . . .

Wait! Could it be? Stephan, are you Karl Rove?

Posted by: starboardhelm on December 12, 2005 07:15 PM
12. Stefan-

I love that term "bogosity," Ithink it is Dean Logan's mother's maiden name.

Posted by: Danno on December 12, 2005 08:50 PM
13. Stefan-

I love that term "bogosity," I think it is Dean Logan's mother's maiden name.

Posted by: Danno on December 12, 2005 08:50 PM
14. Stefan-

I love that term "bogosity," I think it is Dean Logan's mother's maiden name.

Posted by: Danno on December 12, 2005 08:51 PM
15. In light of the fact that there was no law in Washington which authorized the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in the 2004 general election to cast votes in state and local elections, it's hardly surprising that King County would have no internal written procedures. Even the state had none.

So far as I know, the situation hasn't changed. Has anyone found any Washington statute that authorizes use of the FWAB for anything other than casting votes for federal office? (I haven't even noticed one that mentions use of the FWAB to cast votes in federal elections in Washington. There simply is nothing, so far as I have found.)

Posted by: Micajah on December 12, 2005 08:51 PM
16. Are the Federal Write in Ballots are part of the HAVA? If they are, it was Reed's responsibility to implement it, was it not?

Posted by: sgmmac on December 12, 2005 09:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?