 | Yesterday we mentioned that Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles introduced legislation that would make it impossible for citizens to challenge fraudulently registered voters. We share a couple of dumb emails that Sen. Kohl-Welles sent in response to concerns about her proposed legislation. |
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.(Emphasis added). [I refer the Senator to RCW 29A.04.151 -- Ed.]
"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 abodeDennis Martin followed up:
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.Kohl-Welles:
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.[ I refer the Senator to RCW 29A.08.010, which already requires the voter to include their actual residential address in addition to any mailing address -- Ed. ] And the whole point of the Sotelo challenges was to go after the people who are violating current law by providing only a mail drop and no actual residence.
The two most disturbing aspects of Sen Kohl-Welles proposed legislation are that (1) there is only a very short window to challenge late filed registrations, and (2) by requiring the challenger to provide the challenged voter's "actual address" at the time of the challenge, it would be impossible to challenge people who might not even exist but are fraudulently registered at addresses where they obviously cannot live.
I don't advocate illegal activity, but it would be satisfying poetic justice if several thousand new voter registrations were filed on the last filing day before the November 2006 election when Sen. Kohl-Welles is up for re-election, all claiming residence at 301 W Kinnear Pl in Seattle, where Sen. Kohl-Welles claims residence. (Whether or not she is physically present at that address, she doesn't appear to be mentally present).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 29, 2005 11:07 AM | Email ThisWhere do these elected officials come from? Is there a new turnip truck in town?
Maybe Joni Balter helps her with her Email responses.
Posted by: Chris on December 29, 2005 12:12 PMCurrent 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.If the voter's actual address is not the address used for registration (thus rendering the registration illegal), why is the challenger required to produce the actual address? This places an undue burden of investigation on the challengers.
The basis of a challenge is improper registration: it should be sufficient for the challenger to provide evidence that the registered address is not the legally mandated "actual" one-- easy enough when the address is a PO Box.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on December 29, 2005 12:23 PMhttp://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/index.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayid=Article-06
this is the state constitution section that the RCW applies to, take a look at it. It talks about residence in the state, not about residence at a building.
To show you that the RCW applies the definition there, take a look at the bottom of the RCW that has the definition. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.04.151
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 12:24 PMI hope this clears up my e-mail.
By the way, I am offended by your bigotry towards dead people - they have as much right to vote as you do you racist, right wing bigots!
Posted by: Sen. Kohl-Welles on December 29, 2005 12:25 PM""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"
That's very specific, and must mean simply that no one is legally able to register without providing a permanent abode address. I don't see why the challenger must provide this address, it should be enough to point out that a rented mailstop does not meet the legal requirement.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on December 29, 2005 12:41 PMThe reason the challenger must provide the address is it is the law, as to whether or not that SHOULD be required, I think in some cases it is necessary, in others there should be something else that can be turned in, I talkied about it on a previous post in this http://www.usefulwork.com/blog/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=5490 thread.
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 12:46 PM4. The actual residence must be provided. I don't see the problem with putting that burden on the challenger, it means actual research must be done about the registered address. In some cases this should be required, however, in some there should be a substitution available if the challenger can't provide the real residence. If the voter is being challenged because the challenger claims they live at a different residence, they should have to prove it. If the voter is being challenged due to living in a mailbox or factory or something, the challenger should have to prove that the address on the registration form is a mailbox. Not just the voter file, they should have to request to see the registration form in case it was incorrectly typed in to the voter file.
I agree with the above...... If a Challenger CAN PROVE that a Voter DOESN'T live WHERE HE (abodes) IS REGISTERED, should suffice as evidence that he is not legally registered.
If the Challenged voter can prove that he/she is a legal voter, then there should be sufficient time to correct the registration, and continue on to vote.
IF THE CHALLENGED Voter doesn't appear/reply to the request of the elections dept to clarify his registration (ie mickey mouse @ MS101) then obviously he doesn't give a hoot whether his vote counts or not.
I just don't think you can provide an address for someone that possibly doesn't exist if you are challenging them, unless of course they are using your current address as Their residence.
However, while we probably agree on how things SHOULD be, the law currently says that the challenger needs to provide the real address.
The thing I disagree with from your post is that the challenged voter doesn't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on the challenger. Also, if the challenged voter doesn't show up, it still needs to be proven that they aren't a legally registered voter. The proposed time restrictions on challenges would make it possible to have a case about the registration before the election, and that is why I am a proponent of them.
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 01:18 PMThanks for the reply....
If Mickey Mouse is a registered voter at a mailbox facility, how can I prove where he lives? I do know that he cannot possibly "live" in the mailbox, and I am quite sure he isnt' a living person, but how can the challenger actually know where he lives, or even if he exists?
That is the part I don't agree with. If "non exisitant" people can register, without fear of being caught" won't this open up voter registration fraud?
Posted by: Chris on December 29, 2005 01:33 PMIn the specific case of Mickey, my suggestion is to prove that he is not a real person, who cares where he claims to live. (I don't know for sure if you can do this, but if you can) Request a copy of his registration form and see if he filed by social security card, driver's license, or by showing utility bills. If by some miracle he did one of those, prove it wasn't him, you might even find a person that actually exists who you can prosecute.
BTW, when has a non-existant person ever been caught? what would you penalize mickey with? sorry, the whole idea of punishing the non-existant seems a little funny to me.
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 01:48 PMHow come for the monorail tax you have to put down your actual physical address or they will fine/prosecute you...and are doing so fervently.
But for voting, they (the legislature) doesn't seem to give a sh*t what you put down or if you actual live in the state, county or city you say you do. It's just disgusting.
Posted by: Dengle on December 29, 2005 01:56 PMAlso, take a peak at the link to the Senate Democratic Caucus website provided above. Apparently it is more important to some Dems to allow voter fraud than to potentially intimidate a fraudulent voter. What a crock.
Posted by: Gary on December 29, 2005 02:02 PMTitle of the piece is "Dumb E-mails from Elected Officials". Please grow a sense of humor. My post as Kohl-Welles was to demonstrate how inane her e-mail was, let alone the legislation. Had I not wanted folks to know that I wasn't really the Senator, I would have attached a fake e-mail.
As for a true solution, I believe that we scrub the state voter rolls and have everybody reregister with a valid ID and legal address.
Posted by: Jeffro on December 29, 2005 02:16 PMThere are two separate issues here: illegal registrations, and improper registrations.
A person who registers using a mailbox or other nonresidential location as their residential address is illegally registered, as the law specifies that they must use the address where they physically reside (it is acceptable to provide a mailbox as the mailing address, as long as the residential address is also provided).
For an illegal registration, it is sufficient for a challenger to show why the registration is illegal (in this case, because a mailbox was used as the residential address). An illegal registration cannot gain legal standing by passage of time, because it was never met the requirements of the law.
A person who provides a residential address that is a residence, but is suspect (but not intrinsically illegal, like a mailbox) may be improperly registered. In this situation, the challenger must provide the actual residential address of the challenged voter, in order to show that the residential address on the challenged registration is wrong.
On another point, your argument that residency only means within the state fails. A person residing in Snohomish County is residing in Washington State, but this does not entitle him to vote for the mayor of Seattle, the King County executive, or other local races.
Posted by: ewaggin on December 29, 2005 02:19 PMDug
Posted by: DugoutNut on December 29, 2005 02:46 PMIt sorta changes the meaning of what you're trying to say... ;-)
Never knew I was a Minion but I'm incredibly impressed at the Shark's work over the past 14 months that I've frequented this blog...
Posted by: Matt on December 29, 2005 03:05 PMDuggie you out did yourself!
Now go back to the bong.
Posted by: Amused by duggie doodle goodrightous on December 29, 2005 03:11 PMIn the imaginary liberal world it means whatever the user likes. Probably scary mary.
That's our duggie for you.
Hitt'n the bong again.
Can I be an assistant minion please . . .
Posted by: Amused by duggie doodle goodrightous on December 29, 2005 03:22 PMSmary Shark comments. You only impress yourself and your mindless minions, Mr. Cynical, chief Minion.
Dung
Posted by DungoutNut at December 29, 2005 02:46 "
Dung--
As Triumph the Insult Comic Dog once said to Bon Jovi:
"You give poop a bad name!"
Do you really truly believe that any of us need Stefan to come to the conclusion that you are out of your mind???
Do you think their is some vast right-wing conspiracy out to get you DUNG and expose you as a fool????
Hey DUNG, you aren't paranoid when they are really out to get ya are you buddy!!
Sheesh.... a minion??? A minion is a subordinate. I'm an Alpha Male. Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 29, 2005 04:08 PM
Our street mail boxes are regularely pilfered especially around the Christmas season. I specifically changed all my important financial mail to a USPS PO Box for this exact reason.
This PO Boxs is also in a different city than I live based on routes I take in my daily activities.
They need to base the ballot they send you on your "Actual Residence Address" not your PO Box.
So having said that I totally disagree with the concept that a PO box is not a valid mailing address, because it absolutely is for financial security reasons. But I do agree that a residence address should be mandatory also on every voting registration record.
Posted by: GS on December 29, 2005 04:43 PMO.K., then . . . I too am an alpha-minion.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 29, 2005 04:55 PMalso, I want to ask you where you find your information about challenging illegal registrations. I have said before that I think there should be an alternative means to prove that a registration is invalid if you can prove that it is not an address that they reside at but you can't prove where they really do reside (or even that they existin the case of mickey mouse), but I haven't found anywhere in the law that says what you claim about illegal registrations.
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 05:01 PMWhy not look at the statutes, read them, while thinking about what they say.
WSU is definitely going down hill.
Posted by: Amused by Patrick on December 29, 2005 05:37 PMNow as to you, amused by *, are we going to get into more trolls insulting wsu? I quote RCW and note in my posts what is fact and what I am assuming. You bore me with post after post where you don't give any information, just constant drolling idiotic commentary. Why don't you shut up untill you have something real to say or to contribute to a conversation? Do you feel so self-important that we should all be forced to listen to you spout nonsence?
Posted by: Patrick on December 29, 2005 05:53 PMAt first, the questions you asked and the comments you made sounded sincere but naive. Now they just sound childish. I think that some of the others are concerned that you're spending an awful lot of money with little to show for it.
But fear not patrick, just remember to smile and recite the magic words: "Do you want fries with that?"
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 29, 2005 06:36 PMI am not insulting WSU; you insult them with every comment you make here. I provide information and arguments that are substantive and factual in direct contradiction to your dumb-a$$ claims, and you prove it by changing the subject instead of contradicting any of them. If you call my comments nonsence,[sic] why not address any of the debate moron?
You are way behind about elections law and you refuse to do your homework, making rediculous claims and expecting everyone to explain every detail to you. Look it up! Come to class prepared ding-dong.
What's next . . . accusing Lori Sotelo of perjury because she double parked?
You are way too stupid for your own good.
Posted by: Amused by Patrick on December 29, 2005 06:37 PMI could be Cream~of~Minion Soup ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 29, 2005 06:43 PMThe RCWs are fairly clear about what is required, so no one can say they didn't know that they could not use a PO Box for an actual residence when registering to vote.
I live in a city that has had mailbox theft, so I now use a PO Box for most mail. There was no difficulty in providing an actual residence address where I live but a PO Box for receiving mail.
Even people who live on boats or other unusual places should be able to provide an address where they physically reside, while using a PO Box to receive mail.
What bothers me the most is that military voters are sent ballots so late that it is difficult for them to return the ballots in time. I think that in the case of military ballots, the time to receive the ballot should be extended. While in most cases it might not make a difference, in the case of the 2004 general election, I believe that many military votes were not counted.
Another problem that I see is with the "intent" of the voter. I think that any ballot that doesn't make it through the vote counting machine should be eliminated. An incorrectly marked ballot should not be resubmitted after election employees mark another ballot to show the "intent" of the voter. If they can't provide a correctly marked ballot, it should not count at all.
I mean, how difficult is it to black out an oval?
There is too much room for skuldrugery by election employees who also make errors.
Either a ballot is right or it doesn't count.
Posted by: Clean House on December 29, 2005 06:47 PMAnyone up for a pitchfork and torch rally on the steps of the Capitol Building. Maybe burn some effigies? Might get some network coverage if we act like the "loyal opposition." It is patriotic to protest.....Where is Cindy Sheehan when we need...Ah forget it. Posted by: Shmoe on December 29, 2005 07:42 PM
Why don't you enlighten us all, tell me what RCW or article of the state constitution or freaking neighborhood charter you find that language in.
For your info, I am over the Sotelo thing, it is going to be prevented in the future if this legislation passes. Hopefully we get a new prosecutor that will enforce the law as well. You feel the need to repeatedly bring up her name though, do you know her personally? (sorry, I really won't make another joke about the personal knowledge thing again, I know they aren't funny to right wingnuts like you)
Please point out some of the ridiculous claims I made, I will try to simplify them so the likes of you and Deborah can understand.
As to changing the subject, my mind has been jumping around a bit, and we have gotten off subject, but no one really addressed this post earlier and I started responding to people rather than staying on subject. I will re-post it here again. Can anyone tell me the tags to use in this forum format? I am used to php and the tags I have tried for links haven't worked right.
OLD POST BEGINS HERE
I wonder if anyone reads these, well anyways a couple of links I have to clear this up.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/index.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayid=Article-06
this is the state constitution section that the RCW applies to, take a look at it. It talks about residence in the state, not about residence at a building.
To show you that the RCW applies the definition there, take a look at the bottom of the RCW that has the definition. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.04.151
Posted by Patrick at December 29, 2005 12:24 PM
seriously though, I hope a new thread gets started where this is more centered on the topic because I want to see if anyone has anything to say in regards to my post before this one.
Posted by: Patrick on December 30, 2005 01:12 AMRCW 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.
We seem to be in agreement. I believe that voter's registration deserves the same protection as a can of beer of a video. You can't legally buy on without State approved documents proving age. Or rent the other without a driver's license and credit card. If you agree that the voting rolls deserve the same protection as a Bud then we are in agreement. The onus is on the person trying to register a non-residential address, Safeco Field, PO Box, office to prove that they actually reside at that address. Just like the onus is on the person to prove that they are of legal age to drink. And the penalty to knowingly accept registrations that violate the law should be the same as the penalty for knowingly selling minors. Do we agree? And that was my point with the Senator who wishes to weaken enforcement of the law by creating a catch 22 timing problem and by penalizing challengers. Would she do the same for people violating the laws regarding selling minors beer or cigars. I think not. Why does she choose to further weaken a failing system? That is and was my question to the Senator and to anyone favoring this legislation.
Onus is very important as it facilitates action at the point of interception. If a person lacks acceptable proof of age, no beer. If a person lacks acceptable proof of residing at the adress written in the registration form, no vote. Onus keeps it simple. Do we agree Patrick?
Posted by: Snuffy on December 30, 2005 08:02 AMThe same people that love the WASL. It's not that 2+2 = 4 is important, but how you feel about 2+2 equaling 4 and does that make 3+1 = 4 feel bad since you clearly discriminated against 3+1 = 4 by not including them in your question.
If I gather what patrick's central point is supposed to be (not easy, as he's all over the map) he is worried about what the meaning of "lives at" means. Although that conundrum could be cleared up rather simply ("lives at" means "where you live"!). I think the rest of us were having problems understanding what patrick was all about because none of the rest of us have any difficulty understanding this, very basic, quite simple concept.
But this leads us back to the beginning - I don't think Jeanne Kohl-Welles grasps it either. Whether by density or design, she appears not to recognize that human beings can't live in a PO box. Nor does she appear to care.
patrick - when you see something that is obviously absurd, do you sit on your hump and say, "Dur ah, dat seems logical?"
If it affected things that you cared about would you say that?
If you saw someone stealing papers would you say anything?
If they were stealing it from your porch would you say anything?
Would you ask them to prove that they were entitled to that paper?
patrick, your eyes are rolling back into your head. Are you still awake?
I am outraged that anyone would dilute my vote into meaninglessness by casting an illegitimate one. You should be too.
I am outraged that the powers that be in King County show zero interest in securing our collective right of choosing representation. You should be too.
I an indignant that a dimwit like Kohl-Welles should intentionally work to entrench the very things that make our elections illegitimate. You should be too!
I am determined to stomp the crap out of those who would, as the liberals love to claim, disenfranchise my vote. As for you, keep up the good work splitting those hairs.....
There you go . . . snuffy did your homework for you.
You say, ”show me a fact you stated in this entire thread.”
Gee whiz how about ”Dislike of Sotelo is not evidence of intent, and neither is her mistaken belief.” or
”altering forms is not perjury,” among many others.
I am not at all surprised when you say, “For your info, I am over the Sotelo thing . . . “ I gathered that as you folded step-by-step.
Unlike you, I simply looked into both sides of the story about the situation with Sotelo, used logic, a little basic knowledge, and common sense,
and got over it that way.
You asserted false claims as though they were apodictic.
What part of common sense is difficult for you:
1) Typical liberal Democrat accusations are almost never proof of anything (standard liberal operating procedure, SLOP);Italics = closed carrots i, and /i respectively
-
2) “Personal knowledge,” is not rocket science;
-
3) Mistakes by Republicans are not automatically dishonest (quite to the contrary);
-
4) Honest mistakes are not lies;
-
5) Challenging obviously illegal registrations is not disenfranchising voters;
-
6) Admitting mistakes establishes intent to be truthful and;
-
7) Marking forms is not necessarily illegal?
Grow up and quit acting like a liberal, or you might be stuck with it (a very unhappy life).
Amused by, the only one I haven't figured out is the tag for making a link, I figured out carrots on my own ( see above where I denoted the old post begins here in a previous post) as the tag symbols rather than brackets.
For your info, I didn't find either of those statements you claim to have made in this thread amused by, but now you have posted a fact (how to use italics)
1) Typical liberal Democrat accusations are almost never proof of anything - I don't know actual percentages or what you consider to be a typical accusation. But an accusation is never itself proof, accusations require proof. I would guess the rate is about the same for republicans and democrats (max cleland a coward, WMD, Iraq ties to 0/11)
-
2) “Personal knowledge,” is not rocket science; would you say you personally know someone that you have only heard about third person?
-
3) Mistakes by Republicans are not automatically dishonest (quite to the contrary); quite to the contrary? as in they are automatically honest? some "mistakes" are intentional, some are honest mistakes.
-
4) Honest mistakes are not lies; I agree with you
-
5) Challenging obviously illegal registrations is not disenfranchising voters; and I have no problem with the 58 challenges that were accurate, I have a problem with voter challenges as an election strategy. If the republicans really do have a list of 28,000 names they want to challenge and they wait untill a month or less before the 2006 election it is partisan and wrong and it is voter intimidation the same way the red scare was political intimidation.
-
6) Admitting mistakes establishes intent to be truthful and; or it establishes that you were caught.
-
7) Marking forms is not necessarily illegal? no, but if you alter forms that have an oath of perjury on them to make them look legitimate you aren't intending to be honest.
Nice job ignoring the facts and changing the subject.
Max Cleland is a coward, WMD's were in Iraq, and Iraq had direct ties to 911. All of this is a matter of proven established fact no matter what you happen to believe. The first is explicitly true, the orthers established in the Congressional 911 Report. No one can make you believe them but anyone who believes otherwise relies solely on liberal Democrat talking points from the likes of Teddy Kennedy. That is why such statements are typically liberal Democrat accusations, because they are totally baseless and provably untrue but sound good to partisans if they repeat them often enough. And such is the case with Sotelo and voting challenges.
You say, "would you say you personally know someone that you have only heard about third person?" This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion for reasons that are obvious to everyone but you.
You say, ”Some "mistakes" are intentional, some are honest mistakes." Some "mistakes" are intentional?? You are seriously asserting that Sotelo rigged up a bunch of embarrassing mistakes that could not possibly change the election outcome for political gain? What possible purpose could she have ever had in mind genius??
You say, ”I have a problem with voter challenges as an election strategy.” You claim to have read the elections laws and still you make such a completely mindless statement as this? If you had read and comprehended any part of the elections laws you would never make such an stupid statement. Voter challenges are an election strategy that attempts to assure that illegal votes are not counted. There is no way to misuse them, unless KC elections fails to do their job. Fu@k your degenerate pretentious idiotic problem with voter challenges as an election strategy. Your only real problem is stupidity.
You say, "Admitting mistakes establishes intent to be truthful or it establishes that you were caught, but only if you were caught" Lori Sotelo was neither caught nor would she likely have been caught if she intended to disenfranchise votes, and that is the essence of the problem. No matter what happened, or how many votes Sotelo (or anyone else) challenged, not one voter's rights would have been affected unless KC Elections did their god damned job and eliminated fraudulent votes. Most importantly, not one voter's rights would have been adversely affected.
Lori Sotelo did not alter the forms, and you are simply lying to change the subject.
You are full of $hit.
Thanks for proving it once again.
You can disagree with his politics, but the guy gave up several limbs while serving this country..he deserves some respect
Hiding behind your keyboard makes you a real tough guy, huh?
Max Cleland a coward? how many limbs do you have to lose in service of your country before you are viewed as patriotic? what has he ever done that was cowardly?
tell me about the iraqi wmd stockpiles we found, it looks like every media outlet in the world missed the story.
Tell me about the ties saddam had to 9-11. here is the congressional report you reference, 10.3 is where they discuss iraq http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch10.htm
my statements are baseless? yeah, the burden of proof must be on the person claiming that something doesnt exist, not the person claiming it does. with that line of thought, intelligent design must be science.
Sotelo did edit the forms, she added a typewritten 6th checkbox to the form I posted earlier (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=434-324-115I) and I finally found a scan of the forms she used here (thanks to sam who emailed me the site) http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1167 I had no idea a copy of the forms were online I had only seen them in person, and they look legitimate untill you see them next to a real challenge form.
voter challenges are meant to be a tool to fix registrations and find illegally registered voters, not as an election strategy for a political party to wait untill there is no time to review them before an election and then challenge voters in districts that the party doesn't do well in.
As to effect on voters, I can't guarantee it did, in fact it may have energized some (ie. an independent who was being challenged might think - the GOP doesn't think I should have the right to vote, well from now on I'll vote with the democrats) but it may have scared some people from the polls. There is no way to really prove its effect. I have a problem with it as a political strategy to suppress votes whether it works or not. If any republicans agree that challenges should be a tool and not a strategy please tell chris vance to release the list of names so everyone can get to work at cleaning up the voter file.
As to your claim that it was most important that voters weren't adversely affected, I agree that is important, but it can't be proven. Also, attempted murder is a crime even if noone gets hurt, the lack of ends (tangible results) don't justify the means(breaking the law).
Posted by: Patrick on December 30, 2005 01:33 PMattempted vote fraud (registering illegally, by not providing where you reside) is a crime even if no-one gets hurt, the lack of ends (tangible results) don't justify the means(breaking the law)
Posted by: dan on December 30, 2005 01:52 PMStop seeing it as some kind of grand scheme.
THE GRAND SCHEME IS GOING ON AT KCE.
Posted by: dan on December 30, 2005 02:11 PMTHERE IS NO CORRUPTION IN KING COUNTY OR WASHINGTON STATE. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG. MOVE ON SORE LOSERS.
KARL ROVE DID IT WITH THE HELP OF HALLIBURTON TO GIVE GW EVEN MORE CHEESE.
you people are hopeless. deflect, minimize, marginalize.
Posted by: dan on December 30, 2005 02:38 PMYou say, "Said it before and I will say it again - I have NO PROBLEM with voter challenges, just with using them last minute as a political strategy."
Many of us have said it before, and I will say it again. Since voter challenges are an indispensable election strategy that attempts to assure that illegal votes are not counted, and there is no way to misuse them (last minute or no), unless KC elections fails to do their job, why do you have a problem with them?
Since no matter how many votes anyone challenges, not one voter's rights will be affected unless KC Elections did their god damned job by eliminating the fraudulent votes, and not one voter's rights will be adversely affected, why do you have a problem with voter challenges as a political strategy?
Besides stupidity, what is your problem?
Posted by: Amused by Patrick on December 30, 2005 02:53 PMPatrick says that "they [the GOP] used the delay in getting the most up to date voter file as an excuse to drag their feet and not submit the challenges until it was only days away from the election as a voter suppression strategy."
Submitting challenges at any time let alone only days away from an election cannot possibly be a voter suppression strategy, except to a moron. The challenged votes count despite any challenge until KC Elections confirms whether the challenge is legitimate or not. No legitimate voters' rights were ever suppressed in any way, but illegitimate votes definitely were counted because KC refused to do their job.
Patrick cannot be reasoned with, but his invincible stupidity does exhibit just what honest and decent people in King County are up against. He also shows how deeply troubled WSU is that they have students of his pitiful liberal mind-numbed caliber. One can only hope that he mouths off (WMD'S,WMD'S,WMD'S) to a Ranger or Marine back from Iraq. I'd love to see that. Even more I'd like to be one of them.
Patrick is too fu@king stupid for real life.
Posted by: Amused by Patrick on December 30, 2005 03:32 PM"....the guy gave up several limbs while serving this country...." Sure enough. A drunken cleland fell out of a helicopter - I know I feel safer in the knowledge.
"Hiding behind your keyboard makes you a real tough guy, huh?"
The keyboard has nothing to do with it, bozo....
Posted by: alphabet soup on December 30, 2005 04:16 PMAnother ad hominem attack..Why am I not suprised..
Take your salute and shove up it your ass
Posted by: Namvet on December 30, 2005 04:29 PMAfter his comments, I don't owe Max Cleland any respect, and I certainly don't you owe anything.
Shove it back up your own phony punk a$$ phony tough guy.
I want you to talk to the troops and tell them that WMD's existed and that their was an iraqi connection to 9-11, see how many of them agree with you. You keep on calling yourself tough, maybe someday you'll even believe it.
Right now our troops are trying to make Iraq safe for democracy, they don't have the best conditions and they have hard work. why are you trying to undermine democracy here? why do you think its okay to sit on vote challenges untill the last minute when they could be addressed well before the election? Is that what we want for a new democracy in the middle east? You are the one encouraging a theocracy over there with your actions, not me. You probably just don't like secular government, tell the troops you want the ayatollah in charge, see how they respond to that.
Posted by: Patrick on December 30, 2005 05:54 PMYou are a liberal . . . we understand.
Amusing pile of simple-minded nonsense NamVet/Patrick.
Try again.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on December 30, 2005 06:14 PMevery relevant challenge of his (presuming a liberal gender), and he refuses to seriously counter any of mine.
Patrick is beaten but not silent.
Typical liberal WSU student.
Quite amusing indeed.
If anyone was scared from the polls it would be the persons that were illegally registered and, thus, committing a crime. To suggest that people that are legally registered to vote would have been scared to go to the polls because someone might challenge them is an absolutely unsupportable assertion. It sounds more like an attempt to create non-existent victims for a non-existent boogey-man.
"Hopefully we get a new prosecutor that will enforce the law as well." Yes! A prosecutor that will even prosecute relatives of the County Executive when they break the law (nephew of RS registered to vote at RS's home when the nephew doesn't live there).
Posted by: Michael on December 30, 2005 11:15 PMOFF TOPIC
Accusations and Liberal Credibility Patrick's examples of credibility.
1) R's say Max Cleland is a coward
Calling Patrick a moron, and Max Cleland a coward is not an accusation, it is an opinion . . . nothing more. The number of limbs he lost is irrelevant. Only a liberal believes that stating an opinion, is the same as making an accusation.
2)D's say there were NO WMD’S in Iraq
Regarding ”iraqi wmd stockpiles we found,” every media outlet in the world got the story, they just didn’t hype it. The fact is, it is no longer important to anyone except liberals who want to sabotage the war effort for political gain. According to all of the major news organizations including CNN we found warheads laced with Sarin Gas, and Mustard Gas, and we found facilities for the production of Sarin and numerous other biological and chemical agents (WMD’S). See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
WMD’s can only be dismissed by someone who insists that facts are not facts. Just as "Intelligent design" is a scientific theory, the thoroughly discredited theory of Darwinism is also a theory, but liberals hate anything that seems like religion. That’s why it is called a theory.
I speak with military personnel who have been to Iraq every chance I get about this issue and they ALL agree with me that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s. “Object permanence” is a capacity most people acquire at about age 2 to 3 where the normal human brain makes a cognitive connection that just because mommy pulls her hand away so they cannot see it, doesn’t mean it never existed. This is something liberals will never acknowledge about WMD’s and Iraq. One U-Haul truck can haul enough Sarin gas to easily wipe out a large city, and as some liberals also know, U-Haul trucks have wheels. Just because they go to Syria full of WMD’s, it doesn’t mean that they never existed.
3) D's say Iraq and 911 were not linked
Regarding the ties Saddam and Iraq had to 9-11, “The 911 commission report concluded that Richard Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled 'Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.' Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that . . . evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.”
The links between Iraq and 911 are too numerous to ignore. Anyone who disagrees, is simply being mulishly defiant. Abu Musab al-Zarquai has been operating in Iraq since well before 911. A number of other high ranking Al Quaida leaders had direct ties with Saddam Hussein prior to and during the 911 attacks, Hussein supported Al Quaida training camps in Iraq, and planes that were used to train the actual hijackers are located in Iraq. Iraq was linked to the 911 attacks, and comments to the contrary are only partisan propaganda.
BACK ON TOPIC
Regarding Sotelo’s forms. The ideas that people like Patrick will buy into in order to manufacture criminal intent is ludicrous. You cite horsesass.com for proof of anything? Documents requested from Lori Sotelo were Lori Sotelo’s work product, not filed challenges. She can write whatever she likes on them. Stupid.
Patrick says, ”voter challenges are meant to be a tool to fix registrations and find illegally registered voters, not as an election strategy for a political party to wait untill there is no time to review them before an election and then challenge voters in districts that the party doesn't do well in.”
There was plenty of time and no harm done to anyone, just lies told by the Democrats and the MSM. As Michael says, ”. . . anyone . . . scared from the polls . . . would be the persons . . . illegally registered and, thus, committing a crime. To suggest that people that are legally registered to vote would have been scared to go to the polls because someone might challenge them is an absolutely unsupportable assertion. It sounds more like an attempt to create non-existent victims for a non-existent boogey-man.” (Posted by Michael, December 30, 2005 11:15 PM) People like Patrick buy into this type of absolutely unsupportable assertion.
Patrick says, ”If any republicans agree that challenges should be a tool and not a strategy please tell chris vance to release the list of names so everyone can get to work at cleaning up the voter file. ” Chris Vance is not the King County Elections director, Dean Logan is.
And finally, the Crčme De La Crčme of liberal stupidity. Patrick says, ”As to your claim that it was most important that voters weren't adversely affected, I agree that is important, but it can't be proven. Also, attempted murder is a crime even if noone gets hurt, the lack of ends (tangible results) don't justify the means(breaking the law).”
It is proven; no one was adversely affected. Only a liberal democrat moron like Patrick would ever insist that accidentally sort–of almost bumping into no one in particular for no deliberate reason and then correcting the mistake by changing direction could ever be considered “attempted murder.”
Every sensible person agrees that voting challenges should be used as a strategy to stop illegal voting--mostly because that is currently the only way it can be done. Liberals like Patrick make bull$hit empty arguments because they want to seize our procedural democracy to their own exclusive advantage.
WMD's - do you think stale sarin gas that was likely from before 1992 that had a 6 month shelf life from when it was manufactured was the justification for us going to war? do you need a reminder on the tonnage that the world was told that we knew existed?
Intelligent design - science involves observable phenomena that can be tested and verified. Intelligent design requires belief in things that can not be tested or observed. Intelligent design is theory, but religious theory, not scientific theory. Yes, Darwinian evolution has been tested and has flaws, that is why modern evolutionary theory is not strictly darwin's claims.
challenge forms - I cited that webpage because they had a scanned image I know to be accurate because I have seen the forms in person. I didn't even take the time to read the webpage, just saw a screenshot that had the image of the challenge forms (they aren't just work product, they are the challenge forms that were submitted. go ahead and call and ask her, 2 to 1 says her answer is no comment or that her office has already explained the situation)
9-11 and al queda - zarqawi operated in areas that weren't controlled by saddam. Iraq was a secular state and bin laden helped opposition to saddam in favor of a more religous state.
do you understand logic? do you know what proving something is? how about this hypothetical - a homeless person registered with the address of the nearest govt. office (nearest to where he was standing as he registered for this example) but he sleeps and spends most of his time on the other end of town. He doesn't read the papers much but hears about voter challenges going on and has no way of knowing if his vote is being challenged. He doesn't know if he filled out his form correctly because he happens to be on the other end of town from where he registered. Scared of breaking the law, he doesn't vote. Can you prove that this didn't happen?
why I called on chris vance to release names is that the republican plan for the 06 election involves voter challenges of 28000 voters as a strategy and I think that rather than file any eroneous challenges and risk a lotof civil infractions, he could release the list to be worked on and cleaned up, and do it now instead of a week or two before the election. whichever voters on his list can't be corrected should be challenged if there is enough evidence, but why wait untill october or november to do it?
As to plenty of time, do you claim that Sotelo filed her challenges before Oct. 26th? or do you claim that less than 2 weeks is plenty of time to handle 1944 challenges to registered voters?
Anyone can call anyone a coward. It is an opinion stupid . . . nothing more.
Tonnage and irrelevant details don’t matter. WMD’s existed in Iraq and that’s all that matters.
Intelligent design - science involves observable phenomena that can be tested and verified just like Darwinism.
Theories are theories whether you like them or not.
You cited Horsesass because you could, and it shows your credibility. You are wrong. Admit it or not, I don’t care, you are proven wrong.
Weasel around and change the subject all you like, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (911) were linked to eachother.
You prove that you have no clue about logic. I have logically defeated every relevant claim you made without one single substantive rebuttal from you. Only changes of subject, and this installment is testament to that fact.
Witness the following statement made by you: ”why I called on chris vance to release names is that the republican plan for the 06 election involves voter challenges of 28000 voters as a strategy and I think that rather than file any eroneous challenges and risk a lotof civil infractions, he could release the list to be worked on and cleaned up, and do it now instead of a week or two before the election. whichever voters on his list can't be corrected should be challenged if there is enough evidence, but why wait untill october or november to do it?” Nonsensical, illiterate, illogical, stupid. This sludge speaks for itself-and for your silly claims all by itself.
Then you say, ”As to plenty of time, do you claim that Sotelo filed her challenges before Oct. 26th? or do you claim that less than 2 weeks is plenty of time to handle 1944 challenges to registered voters?”
YES, without any reservation, King County Elections is easily capable of evaluating this and many more challenges and rendering fair conclusions. This is simple, and the law is clear. Read it some time and you will be forced to agree, or lookj like the idiot that you are. No voters rights would ever be supressed, no legal votes would ever be lost, and illegal votes would certainly be eliminated.
Nice shameless liberal Democrat party try.
You can never win until you agree with my arguments because they are right.
How humorous.