As I mentioned the other day, our civil rights to fair and honest elections are under attack by some in Olympia who wish to make it impossible to remove fraudulently registered voters from the voter rolls. There are other bills that would help us defend our rights. I plan to testify in Olympia tomorrow in support of HB 2526 "Modifying voter challenge procedures". This bill would strengthen the challenge statute by permitting challenges of duplicate registrations. It would also allow a challenge to proceed in cases when it is obvious that the voter does not reside at their stated residential address, but that the actual address is not known, such as:
when the address does not exist, the address is not a residential address, or the voter has moved without a forwarding address.[I would suggest modifying the last part slightly to cover situations when it is not established that the voter ever lived at the address in the first place].
I'll also be testifying to recommend changes to HB 2752, "Concerning valid voter registrations", which was requested by the Secretary of State. This is an important issue. The bad bills will only bring fraud and corruption, the good bills will help us preserve our voting rights and our liberties. More details on HB 2752 and on testifying follow --
HB 2752 does two noteworthy things: (1) it clarifies that only people without a traditional address may register at a public building, and (2) it clarifies that a challenger need not provide the challenged voter's actual address if the stated residence address is not really a residence. Given that those two provisions appear to conflict with one another, it is unclear what would happen if someone challenged a voter who is registered at a public building. It requires but does not define what is a "valid mailing address", or indicate whether it's the auditor's responsibility to verify it. Presumably this will be yet another optional unenforceable law that only pretends to improve integrity. In a nutshell, the provision for public building registrations is a wide-open loophole for someone to avoid detection if they simply invent a name and register at a public building. Instead, anybody who wants to register and does not have a traditional address should not simply claim to live at an arbitrary public building, but should (1) explicitly declare they do not have a traditional residence and provide a reasonable description of their address which stays part of their public voter record, and (2) register in person (not by mail) and provide either photo ID, a witness, or fingerprints. If I'm missing something here, somebody please explain how else we can prevent fraudulent voters from misusing provisions that must exist for the genuinely homeless?
The other loophole that 2752 fails to close is the situation where somebody fraudulently registers at a residential address where they do not reside. E.g. it offers no recourse to the citizen who finds someone whom they've never heard of registered at their own home. I've received a number of e-mails from readers who have reported exactly this scenario. HB 2526 is better in that phantom residents with no forwarding address may be challenged.
Both HB 2526 and 2752 are on the agenda for the State Government Operations & Accountability Committee tomorrow, Friday, Jan. 20 at 8am.
House Full Committee
House Hearing Rm D
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA
Directions and guidelines for testifying, are here
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 19, 2006 12:34 PM | Email ThisThe safety valve is the registration challenge process, and there needs to be some provision for correcting obviously flawed, false residence registrations, before ballots are issued.
There's nothing scary, evil, right wing-crazed or otherwise about wanting proper registration so that all ballots are attached to live humans at proper legal residences.
Democrats are usually afraid of operating within boundaries because they know that expecting programs like public education and mass transit to conform to the realities of a market economy will in many cases, weed out the non-profitable programs. Thus they have no choice but to use fear, uncertainty and doubt to keep the election system open to abuse.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 19, 2006 01:14 PMHB 2526 still doesn't address the issue of someone moving out of state, but for emotional reasons
claims Washington as his point of origin, and it doesn't address the vital issue of someone who is one person
but for emotional reasons claims he is two or three . . . or more.
What may be worst of all is that it doesn't address requiring the home address of someone who is over 6 inches tall
but for emotional reasons claims they live in a P.O. Box.
It's the emotions that does it.
Or does it?
I couldn't find the RCW, but I pointed out that the form to challenge a registration asks for the current address of the challenged voter. It is kind of sad that those writing this legislation don't fully understand the current law.
Posted by: Janet S on January 19, 2006 02:58 PMI'm wondering if for homeless people that they have to be registered at one central location for each city (e.g. city hall, court house). Also, They can register and show proof that they are who they say they are (not sure what that would entail). I'm worried that people could use a false name and register at multiple locations (seattle, bellevue, edmonds, etc) with different names and who'd know? This isn't me being discriminatory to homeless, but I can see this happening if it already hasn't been.
Posted by: Dengle on January 19, 2006 04:51 PMRCW 29A.08.010
".. If the individual does not have a driver's license, state identification card, or Social Security number, the registrant must be issued a unique voter registration number in order to be placed on the voter registration rolls. All other information supplied is ancillary and not to be used as grounds for not registering an applicant to vote..."
You then claim absentee status and arrange for a PO Box.
No one can prove you don't live where you said you did. No one can prove you live somewhere else. In fact, no one can really prove you exist....
So far so good. Now, if you're less than scrupulous, I suppose you could pull the same routine in multiple locations - who would stop you? No one follows up.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 19, 2006 05:06 PMWhat's so damn insane is that because of the fraud-loving liberal Democrats in Olympia - we even have to push for these bills!
Who knew they could stoop so low?
Posted by: Deborah on January 19, 2006 06:44 PMYou can get him at http://heraldnet.com/stories/06/01/17/100let_20060117007.cfm
He was pretty adamant that he would get real mad if he couldn't vote in his "home at heart" state.
Posted by: swatter on January 20, 2006 07:30 AMA ballot from King County Elections. For last year's elections. Her second ballot from them, I might add. And she is not registered to vote absentee.
This begs the question: Why can we not just go there as citizens and eject these corrupt bastards ourselves, if our elected officials refuse to do the job?
Posted by: ERNurse on January 20, 2006 10:32 AMI reviewed the HeraldNet letter to the editor you cited entitled, “Wrong to cancel voter registration.” The writer Frank Leathley was upset because during his 40-odd years he spent six of those years in Wichita Kansas. There are not enough facts to draw a useful rational opinion about Frank Leathley’s situation. Nevertheless, he can be as adamant as he likes—the circumstances involve conditions and rules set forth in the law—not as you say, in his "home at heart" emotions.
Frank Leathley said, ”County officials must realize that they serve at the pleasure of all the voters and that canceling such a registration without review of the conditions is not acceptable.” County officials had damn well better NOT presume to serve at the pleasure of all the voters, only those who have legal claims in the County, and only to the extent of the law. Given that, Leathley was correct to assert that a “review of the conditions,” was in order.
The resolution of this situation has nothing to do with anyone’s emotions, but the law.
To insist as you did earlier that elections law should ”address the issue of someone moving out of state, but for emotional reasons claims Washington as his point of origin,” because that person says, “There is nothing like Puget Sound or the Cascades anywhere near Kansas,” regardless of their legal status is idiotic. Given more facts to review, a reasonable conclusion may be fairly drawn about this situation, but not for any emotional reasons.
Since apparently you propose to codify emotions, your comments exhibit the sophistication and outlook of a young school girl or a liberal democrat; amusing but not persuasive.
This guy moved out of State, established residency in Kansas, has lived there for six years and still claims he wants to vote in Washington. Recently, he bought another condo in Bellevue, just in case having a building qualifies or doesn't qualify him to vote in Washington.
I, Mr. Amused, think it is outrageous he would even consider and expect that he would have a right to vote in Washington. That he does and it appears our election officials are of the same mindset is outrageous.
He ain't in the military where it could be assumed he would move back "home" after his service is complete.
Posted by: swatter on January 20, 2006 01:33 PMYou say, "This guy moved out of State, established residency in Kansas, has lived there for six years and still claims he wants to vote in Washington. Recently, he bought another condo in Bellevue, just in case having a building qualifies or doesn't qualify him to vote in Washington." You also indicate that our election officials agree with his claim.
I don't know where you get this information (certainly not from the instant article) but assuming it is true, I, Mr. Swatter, think it is outrageous as well.
Where has our election officials allowed a voter to register under this fact pattern? I am genuinely interested to know if this is true.
Thanks.