State Senators Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Monorail) and Karen Keiser (D-AFL/CIO) are sponsoring a bill to protect fraudulently registered voters.
As one has come to expect from the Democrat election "reformers", the proposed legislation ignores a problem that actually exists (in this case, thousands of fraudulently registered voters and election officials who refuse to do anything about the situation) to solve a problem that doesn't exist (the mythical disenfranchisement of challenged voters), by crafting an effective safe harbor for election fraud and absolving election officials of their responsiblity to do anything other than counting every piece of paper that purports to be a legal vote.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 27, 2005 11:40 AM | Email ThisAs I've stated many times before, if you are interested in cleaning up the voter rolls, you will have no problem with this legislation. It simply asks that challenges be filed in a timely manner, so that staff isn't overloaded heading into an election.
However, if you are out to obstruct the process, manipulate the electorate, or disenfranchise voters, you will be against these senators' efforts.
I also like the fact that it strengthens the penalties for false challenges, which was the case with Sotelo's filing. It should not be enough to just say "I'm sorry, I meant to do better"...it should be a punishable offense when a false challengte is filed.
After all, I don't see you backing off of Sims and Logan when they say "I'm sorry, I'll do better". Why should creeps like Sotelo be any different?
I show up on the voter fraud threads beecause it's really the only thing here that interests me, and getting it right is what it's all about for me.
i think the senators are working to get it right...i think stefan and the r's are getting it wrong.
i have no problem with cleaning up the voter rolls, they should be clean. I think there's a time and place to do it, and the r's think making it difficult on the election workers is the way to go.
As far as the requirement than an actual address be presented, that is already in the law but should not be. As we move towards all-mail balloting, the clause that requires actual residence address is the surest way to ensure that illegal voters are maintained on the voting roles as fake registrations for non-existent voters would remain votable by whatever rascal did the fake registration to begin with.
Both of these are bad policy, and neither have anything to do with addressing mythical "voter intimidation."
Posted by: Marc on December 27, 2005 01:16 PMOkay, let's take you at your word and see *exactly* what they're pitching. I'm curious to see where and why you think they're getting it right:
To prevent voters from feeling intimidated from voting – and to impose fines for inappropriate or frivolous use of challenges – Sens. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, and Karen Keiser, D-Kent, have pre-filed bills that create timelines for filing voter registration challenges and penalties for unwarranted challenges.
Already we have a very tough challenge standard, one that makes it difficult to challenge elections and/or the legaility of individual voters' registrations. Additionally, what's stopping someone from filing a provisional ballot at the polls the day of until the challenge is cleared?
Require that other challenges be filed early. If a voter registers less than 60 days before an election, or has moved less than 60 days before an election, any challenge would have to be filed at least 10 days before the election. This would reduce the number of “last minute” challenges that could go uncontested for reasons as simple as a voter being out of town.
But this only works if King County Elections, say, acts on each challenge in a timely manner. Evidence has shown us they haven't, meaning that contested ballots are counted anyway. Please explain how this bill improves the state of things.
Posted by: Steve_dog on December 27, 2005 01:24 PMTherefore, a "voter" who isn't a real person could not be challenged. Similiarly, a dead voter could not be challenged.
Mayor Daley would be proud.
Posted by: Dishman on December 27, 2005 01:30 PMThere are suitable methods of preventing the logjam from ever happening (a purge of the voter roles would be an excellent pre-emptive move), but liberals, mindful of the morass that currently favors them, are unwilling (or just too cowardly) to consider them.
I'm not surprised that a mouth-breather like R2 would be in favor of do-nothing, counter-intuitive crap like this.
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 27, 2005 01:47 PMMoveon.org funded by billionaires could easily execute a scheme like this with thousands of minions carrying out the dirty work. Just 100 Communists could with about 6 hours each send in about 6,000 to 10,000 ballots. Just enough to pass Initiative 666 to tax only rural property owners for Jeanne Kohl-Welles hair appointments.
Can't wait in about 3 years when someone finds hundreds of ballots all in the same ink with similar signature with the address of MailFraud boxes at 1234 Scam Street box #____.
Once again we have moved from America to Russia. But hey their smiles are great!
A little more braveheart and a little less cheatin' heart!
When I go get a mailbox at some post office box company, I can refuse to fill in the actual address and provide a fraudulent name. There would be no way for anyone to challenge my fraudulent registration! I can vote as many times as I like from the same mailbox and no one can stop me!
I just show up, pick up my hundreds of mail-in ballots, fill in the R's, and drop off the ballots the next day at the post office.
I think the R's should see a real turnaround this year as we begin to vote legally as many times as we are allowed to. And with no one there to challenge us, we could keep adding more registrations until our hands get tired and our mailboxes full.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 27, 2005 02:09 PMOn the surface, this is no more than feel-good legislation that benefits Dean Logan - right ? The proponents want to make sure noone gets disenfranchised, which means they believe a fraudulent voter is better than no voter at all. That in itself ought to make it suspicious as that is a bunch of PC crap ! The Demoncats are promoting this because they know it will help preserve their majority - by enabling illegal voters with the fox guarding the henhouse for a long enough period for this law to kick in. Are any Repubs going to cave and vote for it ?
Chris Vance and the Repubs should consider a course of action in the courts - if it goes to the floor for a vote, as it will probably pass. Are you listening ? Get ready for the coup d'etat by the Democrats in 2006 ! They will go for it, because they believe they can get away with it.
Posted by: KS on December 27, 2005 02:34 PMRossi too says "i think the senators are working to get it right...i think stefan and the r's are getting it wrong," thus bearing out the saying that "opinions are like a$$holes . . . everyone has one."
R too knows that the Republicans think making it difficult on election workers is the solution because election workers are committing and suborning fraud and ignoring the legal requirements of their job. R Too would agree with them if he gave a damn at all about ”getting it right” and ”cleaning up the voter rolls.”
This transparently corrupt legislation will be overturned by the feds.
Rossi too is a hack liberal democrat turd dropper from KC elections.
It has become critical now to turn this election fraud around.....otherwise our state will become an election fraud loophole heaven for the Democrats. If we can't even make a small dent in this corruption..then we're screwed and we need to know it.
If the Republican party of this state and this country doesn't do something by January 2006 to stop this tide...I will consider them "enablers" of this apparent Socialist-Liberal Democrat robbery of our rights and most precious freedoms..such as our "legitimate" vote.
I will not sit here another year - sitting on my hands - while Stefan exposes the most obvious of criminal activity in and of King County and the State of Washington - and allow myself to be subjected to a daily assault by ultra-liberal trolls....and know that absolutely NOTHING being done to stop any of this...
We need to do something tangible....NOW.
Posted by: Deborah on December 27, 2005 07:09 PMHmmm......You might just be on to something snuffy....
If the majority of voters in Washington State finally say "screw it!" and decide to partake in some of the same illegal tactics (until, of course - the liberal legislature deems them "legal")..that the liberal Democrats have been using to win elections....then one of two things may happen!
1. The Republican or Independant candidates will begin to win elections...-or-
2. The State will register "election corruption" on such a grand scale that the Feds will HAVE to come here and clean it up....!
The problem with #1 is....the Liberals still count the ballots and they can achieve ANY outcome they wish.....regardless of how many votes are cast for their opponents...
The problem with #2 is...Stefan and others have produced more than enough substantial evidence of election fraud and corruption..and the Feds are purposely staying away...Why would more corruption bring them here?
Nope! I want a written explanation of the Federal Government's "Legal Reasoning" for avoiding our state's current election corruption crisis! I want them to answer - "categorically" - every piece of election fraud - evidence provided by this blog since November 2004....I want them to explain why they don't feel it's worthy of investigation.
Posted by: Deborah on December 27, 2005 08:41 PMChilling. Up here on CapHill in Seattle, there are apartment units in nearly every building where 'the registered voter' moved away years ago. If one filed a challenge with an affidavit from a building owner/manager/neighbor/(even current occupant) stating that the challenged person had NOT LIVED THERE IN YEARS but one did not know where they currently lived, then the bill from the democrat legislators would make possible fines from the canvassing board who let the error occur in the first place. [See the bullet items copied from the legislation summary.]
· Clarify the challenger’s obligations. Current law requires that the challenger “must” provide the voter’s actual address. None of the King County challenges complied with the requirement. A voter’s actual address would have to be supplied at the time a challenge is filed.
· Make sure the challenger isn’t targeting voters because of the voter’s political activity. The canvassing board would be given the ability to issue an infraction notice against a challenger who does not follow the requirements of the law, who illegally discriminates against certain voters, or who targets voters based on the voters’ political beliefs.
In all fairness, the 1900+ challenges were to KCR&E. The individual voters were challenged for the purpose of challenging KCR&E. If the legislation were to 'Clarify' how to challenge a County or State Database methods and procedures, then the accused (KCR&E) and the accuser (GOP) could duke it out with attorneys and affidavits without friendly fire to voters. With a 'Challenge County Database' section of the law, it would not be necessary to use individual challenges to challenge county malfeasance.
What would Jesus do? Opps. Sorry. What would Judge Bridges do? What if Judge Bridges, with affidavits in hand from a building owner, a building manager, a neighbor and a current occupant, filed a challenge to someone who had not lived in an apartment unit in years? None of the above would know where the former tenant was living. Would the democrat in Legislative District 41, the democrats in Legislative District 26, the democrats who hold 10 of the 14 house seats in Snohomish county vote to allow fines? Are these senators (Kohl-Welles, Keiser) doing what Judge Bridges had in mind?
G.
So what you're saying is bank robbery is ok as long as you get away with it.
Posted by: dan on December 28, 2005 08:47 AMGood luck
Yes, the liberals still count the votes, ala Stalin.
Yes, evidence exist which documents the corruption.
SO what. Evidence exist documenting voting corruption in Chicago for generations.
You have in fact made my point. Thank you.
The Feds are not going to address your individual needs and wants. Get over it. You live in a state that is corrupt from the voting process though the budget process. From the Governor's office to the Canvassing office. And judges in between. Please cite one state government office or bureaucracy which has not been corrupted? Please I beg you to shine the light on just one agency. I will personally write them a thank you note. My point is that no such agency exist in Washington State. So why are we surprise when the legislation votes on bills protecting notorious behavior? They are after all just coming out of the closet and publicly declaring where they stand ethically. They have not integrity. Deals have long been made with the unions and lobbiest that support them with money and time. The public be damn as they continue to vote for tax paying schemes. Witness the latest round. Change will come when enough people in power benefit from the change. In other words when it is in their best interests.
Forget the Feds, Virginia there is not Santa.
Posted by: snuffy on December 28, 2005 08:48 AMIf bank robbers were habitually caught and released despite damning evidence that they were guilty, then, yes, it would be like bank robbery.
There are two sets of laws out there, and everyone knows this. One set is the laws as written. The other set is laws as they are enforced. Which ones should we follow? Which ones will we get punished for breaking? So which ones do we end up following?
As much as I wish the two sets of laws were the same, they are not. That's why when I drive 60 on I-5 (where the speed limit is 60), I get passed by every trucker and their uncle. That's because 70 is the enforced speed limit, not 60.
If KCE doesn't enforce the laws as written, then it's time to obey the laws as they are (not) enforced. That means vote fraud... except it's not fraud because no one will convict you.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 28, 2005 03:16 PMSo why do we even have laws if we are going to rationalize which ones we choose to follow based on our individual criteria. Perhaps the people should simply demand anarchy, then we would certainly all live in harmony.
What happened to personal responsibility, concsience, and the need for a civilized society? Must be passe' traits, no longer needed.
I choose not to buy into your argument.
Posted by: dan on December 28, 2005 03:33 PMJonathan doesn’t need defense, but I think he is speaking paradoxically. I agree with you that personal responsibility, conscience, and the need for a civilized society arises out of the rule of law. I understand Jonathan to mean that enforced anarchy is its own reward. If laws become so abstruse, empty, and unenforceable, they will be ignored by everyone including the most moral and decent of us because they have been stripped of all their utility and are thus a nullity (A continuous red light in a deserted intersection).
We did exactly this in the colonies for the better part of a century before the revolution. We ignored taxes and created ways around duties because they were arbitrary, unfair, and created anarchy. When the British insisted on enforcing these unfair laws, all hell broke loose.
A law that invites voter misconduct presupposes the necessity of multilateral misconduct. I am having difficulty seeing why I should not vote multiple times myself. I just don't want to participate in degeneracy; especially of there is another way to fix the source of the problem. Advocating multiple voting because the rats are making it easy to do so, raises a real ethical question, and a contradiction in terms. What is immoral; breaking a law (any law), or obeying an unjust one (no matter the consequence)?
Thanks.
Unless you join the ranks of the critics of the sims vote fraud machine, you are "buy(ing) into (the) argument" whether you admit it or not.
Whether or not Republicans choose to resort to these sort of tactics (I hope not!), democrats certainly do. Are you as firm in your opposition of all vote fraud or just (the suggestion of) Republican vote fraud?
"What happened to personal responsibility, concsience (sic), and the need for a civilized society? Must be passe' traits, no longer needed."
Liberals have done their best to run away from these quaint notions. Conservatives continually try to steer America back to them. Yes, they are still needed. Too bad leftists don't wish to place value on them.
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 28, 2005 04:35 PMAS - you bet, I am firmly in the camp of the sims'
critics. I also believe that the law should be equal for all. Democrat, Republican, or Fremont dweller.
Under Senators Kohl-Welles and Kieser proposed legislation, we would never have the opportunity to win...even if we DID partake in the Democrats fraud tactics!
Read their proposal..
1. Changing voter registration time restrictions would only apply to new voters...We are already registered! This proposal would only apply to illegal voters from other counties, states and countries....And it basically spells out instructions on how to illegally register and when.
2. Restricting the time that a challenger can challenge a vote! Umm.. Well - since WE are the side that would most likely be "Challenging" illegal voters...this helps only the illegals..once again giving them an itinerary and time line on how to do it successfully!
3. Have major political party designate a "Challenge contact person".... This is just stupid on it's face....
4. Insist that challenger “must” provide the voter’s actual address.....This benefits only the Democrats! The corrupt mob in King County administration have all the resources they need to identify actual addresses and illegal voters...(they always have!)..Just watch how savy they become at it when they are trying to bust Republican illegal voters!
5. Make sure the Challengers are not politically motivated.....Heh...Yep! King County would have their (cough).."non-partisan" (ultra left-liberal)canvass board make this determination...
You see, the way these Senators have written these voter challenge propsals - are to intentionally enable more illegal voting fraud by a group already identified as illegal Democrat voters and to curb any attempt by Republican voters to vote in the same illegal way!
They had to put some serious thought into this! That - alone, should make the average voter go "hmmmm..?"
Posted by: Deborah on December 28, 2005 05:16 PMOverall I think the law would help the elections department to do a better job, but the couple of changes I noted (options for something other than actual residence being provided and instructions to canvasing boards) might make it more fair and better. Does anyone have opinion on my suggestions? anyone tell me why they think I am off base in how I read the bill? post and tell me why
Posted by: Patrick on December 28, 2005 06:34 PMPatrick,
If you have visited this blog for any length of time since the November 2004 election, you would know and understand that my analysis of the Senator's proposal is certainly NOT "spin"....
If you were even slightly interested in "actual" voting integrity - rather than some utopian fantasy of "allowing every vote to count"- even if it is cast by someone who is not "legally" permitted to vote or from someone who casts a vote from an area that he/she is not legally permitted to vote in or from. You would know that cities, counties, states are divided into precincts and regions - boundaries - so that voters can legally affect the political dynamics of their alloted communities. Without strict enforcement of these boundaries by way of voter challenges to mail box, storage room, etc. voters...we could see an illegitimate change in the political dynamics of any neighborhood, community, city, county and even State! This is what we have witnessed in King County - thus the reason for challenges in the first place. This is why these particular Democrat Senators are trying to water-down the strength of the challenger rather than allow the strict enforcement.. The fraud from illegal voters has worked for them! The Democrats are doing all they can on every level to maintain and even create loopholes to make it easier voter illegal voters to vote without fear of challenge and prosecution.
That is the bottom line. There is no spin...Those ARE the facts!
But that just doesn't go with the script you've been fed at WSU...does it?
Posted by: Deborah on December 28, 2005 07:46 PMPlease read dfrom the bottom up - email exchange
Let me understand - your legislation specifies and clarifies that individuals are required to include their actual residential address in addition to a post office box/mailing address. This begs several questions:
1. Currently individual are required to register using their residential address. Any number of individuals have failed in doing so. Few have suffered the penalties. Your legislation limits and penalizes challengers. What exactly does your legislation do to prevent or penalize people who do not abide by the state law?
2. In which precinct must they register. The residential or mail box address? And what does your legislation do to assure that they will only vote in one precinct. How are they penalized for voting in more than one precinct. Our present governor took office under a dark cloud. Many voters were not properly registered. Do you sanction this? If the answer is no, exactly how do you intend to restore integrity to the ballot box?
Awaiting your replies. and thank you for your time. These issues are very important and should demand the attention of the legislation. Confidence must be restore or the system will suffer a breakdown. People ultimately vote with their feet or otherwise. Your reactions to the voter's disenchantment are disconcerting.
Regards,
Dennis Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne
To: dennis r martin
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: SDC web -
That's why my legislation specifies and clarifies that individuals are required to include their actual residential address in addition to a post office box/mailing address if they include that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dennis r martin [mailto:dennisr.martin@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne
Subject: Re: SDC web -
I am talking about people who rent out the little mail boxes much to small to live in, and use the little mail box address as a residence address. The "law" specifies residence.
Dennis Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne
To: dennis r martin
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: SDC web -
Dennis, thanks for your message, but my legislation is not meant to be a protection racket for illegal voters. I believe you may be mixing concepts and be making an erroneous premise. You seem to assume that a mailing address cannot be a residence address. But that is not the law. You also seem to be equating "living at" with physical presence, which is also not the law. You may be mixing concepts in your seeming to assume that a mailing address (whatever that means) cannot be a residence address. But that is not the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dennis r martin [mailto:dennisr.martin@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:00 PM
To: Kohl-Welles, Sen. Jeanne
Subject: SDC web -
Your latest protection racket for illegal voters leave much to be desired by legal voters. The catch 22 in your bill - the challenger must know the voters legal address- provides citizens with both a blueprint and protected means to register more than once. Clearly a voter must register at the address they live not a mailing address and when registering at a known mailing address they are illegally registering. This requirement has been ignored by the very people tasked with assuring the public that voters are properly registered. Your bill knowingly provides safe harbor for both the government officials and citizens who ignore current registration requirements. My question is what does your party gain by this notorious behavior.
Dennis R. Martin
Here is the law
The Washington State Constitution states the following qualifications for voters, “All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote…”(Art. VI sec. 1) . RCW 29.01.140 defines residence for the purpose of registering and voting as a person’s address where he physically resides and maintains his abode.
Clearly the person's address where he resides and maintains his abode is required. This does not include little rental mailboxes or vacant lots or offices. Those "mailing" addresses are not residential abodes and are clearly in violation of the RCW. As it stands at this time unless a challenger has certain knowledge of the persons residence, the challenger can't not challenge the registration of a voter using a "rented mailbox" or a vacant lot address or an office address and the government officials that are tasked with that responsibilities are in fact rejecting the clear violations and the intent of the law. That was the basis for rejecting a number of recent challenges. Kind of catching a thief red handed with a bag of money and unless the victim can identify the serial numbers of bills the thief is free to go. Your bill clearly invites additional registration abuse by penalizing the victim, that is to say the legal voter. With that thought in mind I called it a "protection racket". You are perhaps succeeding where an infamous Chicago Mayor has failed. By the way one of the pieces of ID required is a utility bill. Utility bills may be mailed to "rented mailboxes" at the request of the customer. Point of fact, documents support many registration of little people living in little rental mailboxes successfully voting in a number of elections.
I find it interesting that the Senator now wishes to change the registration process in allowing for the little mail boxes to be used.
Snuffy
Posted by: Snuffy on December 28, 2005 08:00 PMSnuffy, you wrote an actual reply with real information, thanks. the problem that I see is that you quote the RCW, but I don't see the word residence anywhere in it, only the words "lived at" you are correct in the RCW definition of residence, but there isn't one for "lived at".
That should be something that is added to any bill that goes to the senate and it was great to point out, but it isn't the law yet (sadly).
Posted by: Patrick on December 28, 2005 09:50 PMIn other words, where he lives.
Huh?...
Patrick, Calm down.
My reference to WSU was merely from "your" email addy! Your bizarre assumption that I have an idea that eastern Washington is "liberal" is just that...Bizarre!
"Also, you don't seem to care about the fact that Norm Maleng turned his head from thousands of counts of perjury Ms. Sotelo committed by filing false challenges that stated she had personal knowledge that the challenged voters were illegally registered when 97 % of them were legally registered."
Now this is just silly!
Everyone - including the state's most die-hard liberal's - KNOW that ALL but a couple of hundred of Ms. Sotelo's challenges WERE valid. That means well over 1500 voter registrations were illegal. Norm Maleng didn't turn his head on Ms. Sotelo's few errors...he actually turned his attention away from legal voters of Washington state when he refused to investigate MORE illegal voters! Norm Maleng rightfully did not pursue charges against Ms. Sotelo..but he wrongfully ignored the many illegal voters uncovered in the challenges.
Now - as far as prompting anyone in this blog to do your leg-work on archived material, documents, etc..pertaining to all of the evidence, RCW's and WAC's relating to our state and county elections...? get off your ass and do your own searches! It's all here and we are tired of wasting our time for redundant liberal hacks who find their way into our blog!
Posted by: Deborah on December 28, 2005 10:26 PMYou actually say, "Also, you don't seem to care about the fact that Norm Maleng turned his head from thousands of counts of perjury Ms. Sotelo committed by filing false challenges that stated she had personal knowledge that the challenged voters were illegally registered when 97 % of them were legally registered."
Besides this, how fu@king stupid are you really?
Amuse us a little more.
[i]"I (Lori D. Sotelo) declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am a registered voter in the State of Washington and that I hereby challenge the voter registration of (name) with registration # (number) whose register address is (address). I have personal knowledge and belief that this person is not qualified to vote, or does not reside at the address given on his or her voter registration record and is also not protected by the provisions of Article VI, section 4, of the Washington State Constitution."[/i]
I don't know the tags so it doesn't look like they are showing up in italics.
On top of this she changed the forms after they were subpoenaed to add a category to the formto make her challenges look complete (necessary to be filed legally) when they were not. Where it required a residential address she added a column that made it okay to not provide the real address.
I see the need for change to allow challenges in some instances where the real address isn't found, but the law was that you provide the real address and she did not, in fact she changed the form illegally after it had already been filed.
You claim that a couple hundred of the challenges were invalid, is she being charged with a couple hundred counts of perjury?
As to where I got the impression that you (Deborah) believed WSU was liberal was when you called your spin facts and then said "that isn't the script they teach over at WSU." You are right, they don't teach a script of spin and call it facts, we leave that to the brainiacs writing comments on soundpolitics. For your information, presuming intent is never a fact, always a presumption. Is that word too big? It seems you don't like institutions of higher learning, which to you I would guess is right around the 5th grade if you believe the things you wrote are facts.
(lets have some examples of your idea of facts - This is just stupid on it's face; You see, the way these Senators have written these voter challenge propsals - are to intentionally enable more illegal voting fraud by a group already identified as illegal Democrat voters and to curb any attempt by Republican voters to vote in the same illegal way!; The corrupt mob in King County administration; create loopholes to make it easier voter illegal voters to vote without fear of challenge and prosecution)
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 12:15 PMSotelo is not being charged with perjury because the standards for "personal knowledge" and "due diligence," were met you stupid friggin' moron.
Thanks for amusing us all with some more of your insipid inanity.
Besides this, how fu@king stupid are you really?
Amuse us a little more.
Where the f#@$ did you pull 97% out of.
97% is 100% of b.s.
Posted by: dan on December 29, 2005 01:40 PMRespectfully, you do the math!
That leaves 1842 questionable challenges.
Does it not?
"1900 challenges were signed by lori sotelo, 58 were valid"
"why were 97% of the challenges invalid?"
Can't have it both ways.
Posted by: dan on December 29, 2005 02:00 PMLets make it reeeeel simple for you there Mr. WSU liberal. The number of counts, doesn't legitimate the falsity of the charge.
A shameless liberal prosecutor might try for bull$hit indictments on the shallow basis you prefer, just as they have with Tom DeLay and Scooter Libby, but just as these will fail so would the Sotelo matter.
It’s common sense. Unless you can prove that Sotelo intentionally lied, i.e. had personal knowledge that she intentionally misrepresented, there is no case against her for perjury. Dislike of Sotelo is not evidence of intent, and neither is her mistaken belief. Unless otherwise defined within the underlying statute, “personal knowledge” is easy to establish; and the standard is due diligence. However, even failure of due diligence is not necessarily evidence of intent. If John tells Bill something, it becomes personal knowledge to Bill so long as there was no easier way for Bill to determine that the information from John was false. That he "might" have found out differently doesn't mean he lied.
Associates told Lori Sotelo that certain ballots were invalid because the voter does not reside at the address given on their voter registration record. Based on that testament, Sotelo declared that she had “personal knowledge” and belief that these people were not qualified to vote. Sotelo then found out that a mistake had been made, and she corrected the mistake. Because Sotelo had no easier way to determine if the associates’ information was true or false, she met the standard of due diligence, even though her personal knowledge was false. Nevertheless, even a failure of due diligence isn’t necessarily evidence of intent to commit perjury, but the fact that Sotelo admitted her mistake proves she had no intent to perjure herself. Had she found her mistake and failed to come forward, there might be a case for perjury. Otherwise . . bupkiss.
Take a “Critical Thinking” class.
I'm with you Deborah - you are a gem.
Posted by: Gary on December 29, 2005 02:29 PMPatrick,
No one knows where in the heck you are getting this "97% invalid" figure. You give no reference to it's origin. From all that's been reported - the facts lean more toward 97% of the 1900 challenges were voter registrations with "invalid" and "illegal" residential addresses.....Fool.
I think what you are hoping for - is that someone finds Sotelo guilty of perjury because she did not list the "actual" addresses of the 1900 mail box, storage room, etc. voters challenged... Am I close here? Is this - what your stupid liberal ignorant childish mind is alluding to? Is this what you are wasting our fu@king time on?
Some silly liberal wet-dream of mock righteousness?
Good god! I'm arguing with a baby liberal pseudo-elitist!
Patrick...go away....quickly! Find some like-minded idiot to stroke your fantasies!
Hopefully the new legislation will pass, if it does I'm sure the office of the secretary of state will be working overtime to have a public information campaign on voter registration.
With as much as I have looked into elections, registration, and related topics, I still can't find the answer to a simple question that stemmed from the challenges, maybe someone here knows who to ask. When a homeless person registers to vote they are supposed to put the address of the nearest government office as their residence (according to Sam Reed). I didn't even know that when I was helping voter registration, but I was on campus and mostly dealing with students so I was working with people that didn't know if they should put their college address or their parents' address, so the problem never really came up. Now that I know they are supposed to put the nearest govt. office, nearest to what? where they are standing at the moment? where they usually sleep? the place closest to the last residence they had? anyone know?
I think the state really needs to work on its definitions in regards to elections.
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 04:54 PMWhat law did Sotelo break? The ever famous "don't mark on forms" prohibition?
I don't like you any more than you like Sotelo ding-dong; does that mean I should be able to charge you in court with being an arrogant liberal twirp?
You are amazing . . . get a clue.
Are you sure you are not witz or headlice/winston?
Norm wouldn't agree with your analysis because though Norm is a jerk, he is not an idiot and he refuses to be laughed out of court. Sotelo didn't mark the forms as you say she did. Nevertheless, altering forms is not perjury.
Sotelo did nothing to hide the truth; quite to the contrary or we would either know nothing of the issue, or she would have been charged. God knows she would never be caught by Logan or KC Elections if she covered it up. Even if Sotelo did what you say, there is no law against marking forms unless the marks can be proven to attempt to hide the truth which would be obstruction of justice. If she is guilty of OOJ, Norm has nothing to lose by charging her and nothing to gain by not charging her. Given the judges in our area, if there was any way to convict, Sotelo would be charged.
The only issue here is that Sotelo is innocent, and Democrats are making something out of it so they can further distort our voting systems for the benefit of Democrats.
Nice try, won't fly.
Posted by: Amused by Patrick on December 29, 2005 06:19 PMWhat can be done about it ? Get pi$$ed off and vote the hag out of office in 2006 !
Posted by: KS on December 29, 2005 09:06 PM