February 07, 2006
Bogus Voting Residences (I): Seattle Office Towers
The new statewide voter database is not just for finding duplicate registrations and double voters. It's also a handy tool for finding people who are registered claiming residence at commercial addresses where nobody lives. The statewide database does not claim to help weed out this sort of improper registration, but it is a tool to help us find them.
In the extended entry I post links to voter rosters at just some of the downtown Seattle office buildings where people are registered to vote.
Columbia Center, 701 5th Ave.
Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Ave.
Two Union Square, 601 Union St
Washington Mutual Tower, 1201 3rd Ave
1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza
U.S. Bank Center, 1420 5th Ave
1000 2nd Ave
Bank of America Fifth Avenue Plaza, 800 5th Ave
Union Bank of California Center, 900 4th Ave
IDX Tower, 925 4th Ave
Henry M. Jackson Federal Building, 915 2nd Ave
Fourth and Pike Building, 1424 4th Ave
1111 3rd Ave Building
Feel free to use the database to search for voters registered at other commercial and office buildings. Feel free to email me with your findings or to post such addresses in the comments. Please do NOT post direct links to database queries as I'd prefer to check them out first before they appear on the blog.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 07, 2006
10:47 AM | Email This
Just make you sure continue to count some NO votes more than YES votes!
The supermajority limit means all your naysayers get extra value in your vote!
Rejoice! Fair and equal??? NO.....Beneift to the NO voters!
4 NO votes = 6 YES votes...now that's democracy!
2. I'm pretty sure the Fourth and Pike Building has apartments in the top several floors. It got converted a few years ago. It has businesses (a BofA for one and a SBC on the 1st floor.
3. Searching for "One Microsoft Way" results in 6 people who claim to live on the Microsoft campus. *sigh*.
4. could this include the involuntarily under domiciled pharmacological preference sobriety-deprived and the unaffiliated applicants for private-sector funding persons that reside in the alley ways and dumpsters of our metro-plex turtle island...
5. If you want to narrow the pool, setting up a query "All addresses that have more than 8 registered voters" should narrow this down to apartment buildings + commercial buildings + mailboxes. And the apartment buildings should be readily identifiable from things like the ForRent magazines, etc.
6. Most of these interesting addresses have the abbreviation APT, which presumably stands for "Apartment Number." Do we know if this tag gets inserted by the SoS software, regardless of how the "apartment" number was indicated on the registration form? In other words, for those who put their office suite number as their place of residence, did they commit a willful act to deceive, in an attempt to avoid discovery, by using the phrase "Apartment #" rather than "Suite #"?
Huckleberry asks a good question "Most of these interesting addresses have the abbreviation APT
Some counties use different abbreviations such as "Suite" or "No." in addition to "APT". In King County the only abbreviation used for such purposes is APT.
I love how this blogger spins the articles. The address listed under MY name on the database in incorrect. It also happens to be a commercial establishment (before anyone gets any idea's, its off by a single numerical digit replacement). Therefore according to what you repubs are crying about, me and everyone else who lives on my street, would be disenfranchised out of our votes because of state issued mistakes of no fault than our own. And thats not even saying that everyone elses address listing is incorrect, but by the logic you guys are going off, if one name doesnt match, and its in a democratic area, they must all be tossed out. Heres a little link incase you kids dont remember (I would give the seattle times link, but it wouldnt come up when you click it unless your registered with them) - http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:6jBcMsYet1AJ:www.seattleweekly.com/news/0452/041229_news_recount.html+%22seattle+times%22++votes+tossed+out&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7
The next day, after inquiries from election observers and The Seattle Times, Logan found another 200 or so ballots from the same incorrectly disqualified bunch. At this point, it was clear that despite Logan's best efforts, King County was having another election meltdown.
The Republican Party sued to stop King County's canvassing board from considering the newly discovered votes—735 ballots in all. On Dec. 22, the state Supreme Court ruled, again unanimously, that canvassing boards may reconsider ballots that were incorrectly rejected in previous counts. - end quote-
And just to place the nail in the coffin with this, Gregoire would have won the election either way, even if the so-called 'felon votes' were cast in, according to the very right wing Seattle TImes - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002284078_felons22m.html
YOu guys need to move on from this. Even the dems arent doing this much 'nashing' about the 2000 elections.
You need to run this database against a mailing program with Delivery Point Verification. That way, you will get ALL of the commercial addresses and ALL of the mailbox facility addresses.
"loonster": The address listed under MY name on the database in [sic] incorrect.
Well I just did you a favor by empowering you to search the database and verify your record, didn't I? Now you can contact your county elections office and advise them to correct their records. You're welcome.
looney tunes, as soon as the shark gets political regarding cleaning up the election rolls, I am outta here.
However, even you can help to clean these rolls up. It should be a bipartisan effort, and it is, though not in enough numbers for me to think the looney Democrats (your words, not mine) want fair elections.
12. LOONSTER YOU ARE THE TYPICAL DEMOCRAT ALL YOU DO IS COMPLAIN AND HAVE NO IDEAS OF YOUR OWN YOU WANT GOVERMENT TO DO IT ALL FOR YOU. WELL THERE YOU GO STEFAN DID YOUR ADDRESS CHECK FOR YOU TO BAD YOU COULD NOT TAKE THE TIME TO CHECK IT YOURSELF NOW BACK TO HA FOR YOU.
13. The first link takes you to the Columbia Center... the first name? David Ashabaugh, the named parner in Stanislaw Ashbaugh, a prominent Seattle firm. Of all the people that should know better... jeesh
you'll find more if you search on the street addresses of the microsoft buildings. I wonder if the owner of the buildings can request that those registered at the buildings addresses can be removed? If so, I'd push for the companies to clear their addresses of this sort of shenanagans.
"Therefore according to what you repubs are crying about, me and everyone else who lives on my street, would be disenfranchised out of our votes because of state issued mistakes of no fault than our own."
A couple of points:
1) Not everybody "here" (wherever "here" is in blogspace) is Republican, nor does anybody want to see you prevented from voting. Well--then again, perhaps some Democrats would like to see you disenfranchised (especially if you're a moderate). Or, perhaps NOBODY wants to prevent people who play by the *actual laws* from voting--could that be a scenario?
2) Who screwed up your address--you or the state? Didn't you check it on your voter registration?
3) Is it your responsibility, or the Democrats' or the Republicans' responsibility, to make sure that the address where you actually live is the same one you registered at?
4) Would you *really* be not allowed to vote? Or could you cast a provisional ballot and then somebody would be assigned to check your address?
Jumping to angry conclusions only makes you look foolish.
In regards to poster loonster, psedotsuga says:
Jumping to angry conclusions only makes you look foolish.
... and sometimes, looks are not deceiving. Loonster is a dumb ass.
17. The first link takes you to the Columbia Center... the first name? David Ashabaugh, the named parner in Stanislaw Ashbaugh, a prominent Seattle firm. Of all the people that should know better... jeesh...
Rules apply to the little people.
I think the county should cross check some of these inhabitants with their deceased database....
I saw several with birthdates in the 1910's.....
Kind of scary to think of some 90 year old voter living in the copyroom of an office building in downtown Seattle........
I would also be very suspicious of any one listed in those buildings - who registered to vote in 2004...
You wouldn't be that house that I drove by this weekend.
The one with the 4 X 8 Kerry/Edwards sign that can be
seen from the I-5?
Stephan - Thanks. Ive already taken the appropriate steps. The point is, this system is withstandable to errors, and you repubs are trying to claim what, in all likely hood is 99.9% error as intentional fraudulence. Disingenouity. Shame
swatter - you are 100% correct in this. Emphasize the word 'Bi-Partisan'. I dont see a lot of that from the repub side, case in point, the next guy
da wo - All I can say to respond to that is...what the heck are you talking about?
psuedotsuga - I have to respond to all of your inquisitions.
1. I didnt say everyone here is republican. My reponse was to those here who are. Im not trying to 'rabble rouse' I backed my claims up with 2 sources from the repub oriented newpaper of the puget sound, the times itself. I seriously doubt any moderate democrats would like me to be disenfranchised, considering they know I would be voting for them (I am a moderate democrat voter usually, but not a democrat, nor do I vote so on all issues). If anything, the repubs would prefer to see my vote cast out for those very reasons. I even quoted the Times article in which the Repubs did that very thing, they broke the law and trying to disinfranchise dem voters in certain areas. People with glass houses cant throw stones, and the news article pretty much verifies that repubs dont even have a house to throw from on the subject.
2. As I said earlier, I took the affirmative steps in taking care of the situation. But, not all king co voters are as capable or have the time to check up so early as I just did. THe average voter doesnt even bother thinking about such things until the last minute. Thats on both political wings.
3. See answer #2
4. I never claimed I wouldnt be allowed to vote, only that my vote would be challenged by the state repubs (such as many of the posters here) who would subsequently make every attempt to toss it out, once they found out what neighborhood/area I lived in.
Not reading my responses and making a reply only makes your arguments look uneducated. In the case that you did read, arguing to false conclusions made has the same results. Lets keep it fair and balanced here.
Therefore according to what you repubs are crying about, me and everyone else who lives on my street, would be disenfranchised out of our votes because of state issued mistakes of no fault than our own.
Then loons squawks:
I never claimed I wouldnt be allowed to vote, only that my vote would be challenged by the state repubs ....
What language do dumb asses speak, and does anybody have a DumbAss To English dictionary?
22. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in when it is in the hands of people challenging someone’s right to vote. I did a quick check of one of the names that is registered at the Federal Building in downtown Seattle. Stephan Roberts does not sleep there. But the law does not require that you sleep where you are registered to vote. I think he most likely sleeps on board the USNS Bowditch, which is where his absentee ballot is sent- via the Fleet Post Office.
23. How about verified interstate voter rolls. Do we have a database of California/Oregon voters we could check against the Washington database?
I think this is the 800 pound gorilla. Very easy to do, and hard to catch voters voting in 2+ states. How many voters vote in both New York and Florida. :)
"Kelly", you are correct that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If Mr. Roberts is currently in the military he is entitled to register and vote at his last address of residence, which is defined by statute
. I doubt he ever actually maintained his abode at the Federal Building. He should be registered at his last residence.
25. i will move on when you scrape off your kerry / edwards bumper sticker from you '70 volvo s/w.
Hey huckleberry, how does your childish name calling and quotes (which anyone who actually reads will see make my point perfectly clear) go for 'logical arguing' over on the right? I supposed whining and yelling in anger are the standards for 'reasonable debate' over on the right.
The sad thing is, Im overgeneralizing here. I know this isnt the case ith most repubs. The sad thing is the majority of the party suckles to the lowest and most unreasonable factions. I recommend reading Christie Todd Whitmans book 'Its my party too'. Its not just Dems and Independ's saying this about repubs, its repubs too.
loony, I have to hand it to ya. You've offered up the best dish of authentic liberal gibberish that I've seen in a long time.
It isn't that your ideas are indefensible (which they aren't), but that your presentation is absolutely incoherent!
I would recommend that you consider switching from the metallic colors of spray paint that you're currently huffing to earth tones....
My criticism of you was not meant to be overloaded with logical argumentation. The lack of logic in your statements is self evident. My comments were meant merely to insult you. You irritate me no end. Go away.
29. Note to Dean Logan: Clean up the voter rolls and start enforcing election law!
Loonster replied, "Psuedotsuga - I have to respond to all of your inquisitions."
Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition! THHWWIIP
"1. I didnt say everyone here is republican. My reponse was to those here who are."
So when you said "you repubs" what you really meant to say was "those of you who are repubs."
The modifier "those of you who are" is less inclusive.
"Im not trying to 'rabble rouse' I backed my claims up with 2 sources from the repub oriented newpaper of the puget sound, the times itself."
It doesn't look to me like you are trying to 'rabble rouse,' but some of the sources you cite seem a bit off-putting. That newspaper is a "repub" oriented one? Seriously?
"I seriously doubt any moderate democrats would like me to be disenfranchised, considering they know I would be voting for them (I am a moderate democrat voter usually, but not a democrat, nor do I vote so on all issues)."
So far, so good...you allow that there are moderate democrats, and the far left democrats figure you are on their side anyway, so they don't care.
"If anything, the repubs would prefer to see my vote cast out for those very reasons."
But now you disallow any moderate repubs. You can't tar all of them with the same brush, you know. You seem to be equating the far right as the whole right with what you say. If you had been here long enough, you'd find a whole lot of true moderates on both sides--including conservatives and repubs--who might not like your vote choice, but still recognize your right to cast that vote, if you are a legal voter.
"I even quoted the Times article in which the Repubs did that very thing, they broke the law and trying to disinfranchise dem voters in certain areas."
The Times concludes one thing, and you agree with it. But perhaps, just maybe, the Times isn't completely accurate in its interpretation of events? You don't say which law was broken, but I think I know what you are referring to--is that the one about needing to know the person doesn't live there before challenging the voter, under penalty of perjury?
The Times sure is quick to conclude the law was broken--but was it really?
The articles I have read also glossed over the fact that other laws were broken--certain voting registration laws. It is as if the repubs bad-doings excuses the one...but they are both equally wrong.
And as for purposefully disenfranchising voters: that is an incomplete conclusion. Which voters were being disenfranchised--legal ones, or illegal ones? If legal voters were truly being prevented from voting, or having their votes counted, that is disenfranchisement. I didn't see much of that happening, other than a few instances that the articles jumped on as representative of the whole.
If illegal voters had their votes removed, isn't that a good thing? Why aren't the Dems out looking for illegal Republican voters, anyway?
Or is that being intolerant, and against the party platform?
Loonster continues: "2. As I said earlier, I took the affirmative steps in taking care of the situation. But, not all king co voters are as capable or have the time to check up so early as I just did. THe average voter doesnt even bother thinking about such things until the last minute. Thats on both political wings."
Good for you. But clearly you value your voting rights enough to check on. Perhaps if we cracked down and enforced these things, the average voter would wake up and take care of it before the last minute. After all, the right to vote shouldn't trump the law, should it?
And finally, Loonster continued, "4. I never claimed I wouldnt be allowed to vote, only that my vote would be challenged by the state repubs (such as many of the posters here) who would subsequently make every attempt to toss it out, once they found out what neighborhood/area I lived in."
Challenging isn't the same as actual disenfranchisement. If your vote was challenged, how is that bad, if you are a legal voter?
The challenge would be disallowed, wouldn't it? and the Repubs would again look a bit stupid, right? If they made every attempt to toss it out, and yet you were legally and lawfully registered, what are you so afraid of?
There are two ways to interpret what happened:
1) Those Nasty Repubs are trying to keep Dems from voting!
3) Those Nasty Repubs are trying to keep illegal voters from voting!
The Times interpreted it the first way, of course
"Not reading my responses and making a reply only makes your arguments look uneducated. In the case that you did read, arguing to false conclusions made has the same results. Lets keep it fair and balanced here."
I believe that I did read your responses, and stated how they read to me. Your explanations of what you meant are helpful. I still think thatyour conclusions were based on hasty generalizations and problematic interpretations.
31. I don't get it. The outrage that seems to be coming from some on the left at the effort to try to clean up the voters roles is analogous to the reaction some shoppers have when asked to produce an ID when purchasing something with a check or credit card. When I worked in retail, 99% of the customers who became hostile when asked to present an ID were the ones who were trying to pass a bad check or use a stolen credit card. The rest of the customers understood that it was in their best interest to prove who they said they were and glady pulled out their ID. Every voter should be glad that somebody is checking to make sure those who are entitled to vote are allowed to vote and those that aren't entitled, aren't allowed to vote. If you have a problem with this, what are you hiding?
Kelly wrote: "...people challenging someone’s right to vote." BZZZT! WRONG!
What is being challenged is the "someone's" registration. If the challenge is successful, the challenged voter must supply a LEGAL (ie, as specified by statute) address of residence, else their registration is cancelled.
If the challenged voter is a real person (vs fraudulent double) residing in Washington State, he will NOT be disenfranchised by the challenge. Even homeless Washington residents are provided a means of registering to vote, despite the lack of a conventional address of residence.
This effort is entirely about cleaning up the voting rolls, an effort that is necessary because Sims and Logan refuse to obey the laws governing voter registration.
Rent a movie, ID required. Buy beer, ID frequently required. Buy a car ID required. Registering to vote, no ID required. Exactly which action had the biggest impact on Washington Society.
One might say watching movies while drinking and driving. NOT!