The state Senate this week passed SB 6362 "Modifying voter registration provisions", which both (a) makes it harder for a citizen to challenge an improper voter registration, and (b) creates some new legal safe harbors for vote fraud. 14 Republicans joined all 26 Democrats to vote YEA. 5 Republicans voted NO and 4 were excused. This bill is somewhat disconcerting but maybe it has some merit that isn't apparent to me. I contacted one of the leading Rs who voted YEA for a comment, but the only response was to refer me to the bill report, so I'm still confused. The bill is now working its way through the House, so I'll post some of my many concerns about it. If anybody from the legislature wants to address these concerns and explain why this bill is worth supporting, please do. The text of the bill as passed the Senate is here. My detailed concerns follow --
1) The bill requires a voter who challenges another's registration to contact representatives of the major political parties. This is an unnecessary new burden on the challenger and there is no reason why the major parties should have a distinguinshed role in the process. Instead, the county auditor should simply post a notice of any received challenge on its web site and at its office so any member of the public can learn about it and get all the details.
2) The bill now "requires" all new voter registrations to include a mailing address if different from a residential address. That's all good and fine, but there is no definition of "mailing address". Does it have to be a valid mailing address where the voter actually receives mail or can it be anything that merely resembles a mailing address? Furthermore the bill does not amend this other statute requiring the auditor to verify that the registration form contains a mailing address before enrolling the registration.
3) The bill repeats, without fixing, the poorly written statute allowing homeless people to register to vote at a "public building". There is no definition of "public building", only a couple of examples. Is a library a public building? A police station? A Chevron station? We don't know.
4) Registration at a public building is allowed for a voter who "lacks a traditional address", the definition of which includes "a voter who resides in a ... other identifiable location". There is no other definition of "traditional address" and certainly "other identifiable location" can include what most people think of as a traditional address. Therefore, it would seem that anybody is allowed to register at a public building.
5) The bill continues to use the phrase "personal knowlege" as the standard for filing a registration challenge. But what is the standard for knowledge being personal?
6) Item (c)(ii) in Sec. 4 lists three actions that constitute "due diligence to personally verify" that a challenged voter's address is not a residential address. (e.g. "contact persons residing or employed at the address to determien whether the voter resides at the address". The wording seems to suggest that all three actions are required, but that is not entirely clear. These are reasonable steps to take to challenge another's registration, but it is not clear whether these actions are to be considered sufficent or merely necessary for filing a challenged. Nor does this impose a requirement on the auditor or canvassing board to accept this evidence as "clear and convincing". The canvassing board is an inherently political body, not an objective body and this bill appears to do nothing to provide objective standards for the canvassing board to apply to adjudicating challenges. It's also not clear what constitutes satisfactory compliance with this section. e.g. What if the challenger attempts in good faith to contact someone at the address but does not succeed (the building might be vacant), is that considered due diligence?
7)The section about challenging a voter on the grounds that "the residential address provided does not constitute a residential address" is in direct conflict with the provision that allows some (or all) to register at a public building. Under the existing provisions, it is impossible to distinguish the voting "resident" of a public building for reasons of homelessness from a "resident" of a public building for reasons of fraudulent registration. Presumably a Deanron-style canvassing board would start with the assumption that any such voter is homeless, thus creating an almost unassailable safe harbor for registering at bogus addresses.
8) The bill allows "the poll site judge or inspector" to file challenges on election day, but it is not clear whether the poll worker can only file challenges against a voter who presents himself at that polling place or if the poll worker can file a challenge against any voter.
9) The bill states that "The challenger must file a signed affidavit", but it is not clear when the affidavit must be filed, whether at the time of filing the challenge or at anytime at or before the time the challenge is adjudicated.
10) Sec. 5 (p. 6 of the bill text) states that a (non-pollworker) challenge against a voter who registered more than 60 days before an election must be filed 45 days before the election and that a challenge against a voter who registered within 60 days before an election must be filed at most 10 days before the election. Two big problems here: (a) with existing processes, it's impossible to tell with reasonable certainty when a voter registered. The registration dates listed in the database are extraordinarly sloppy and many of the dates are backdated. Members of the public can't really know when somebody actually applied to register, because the evidence such as postmark is on the original form and exempt from disclosure, or perhaps on an envelope that is not retained. (b) More importantly, there can be a significant lag between the time a person submits their registration form and the time it is entered into the system. Sometimes a month or more. Indeed, King County records show that 10,347 registration records (7% of all new pre-election registrations in 2004) weren't even entered until the last 10 days before the election. The bill would create a situation where someone could vote a fraudulent or merely incorrect ballot and be immune from challenge, simply by filing his registration as late as possible. And remember, for the purposes of the existing contest statute, a vote from an improperly registered voter is not considered an illegal vote unless the voter was challenged before the election. This bill creates even more of a Catch-22 than we have today.
11) The bill also says that the county auditor "must" make a notation about the challenge on the registration record so as to prevent the challenged voter's ballot from being counted before adjudicated. That's all well and good, but there's nothing more specific and no consequences for the auditors who deliberately hold off on making such notations. (Which, by the way, is exactly what Deanron did with the Sotelo challenges in October 2005. He sat on them for a week, by which time 41% of the challenged absentee ballots had already been irreversibly "processed through the system" and tabulated before they could be adjudicated).
12) The bill allows a voter whose address we successfully challenged to change his address or reregister and be eligible to vote up to the day before the election, at which point it is too late, under this bill, for anybody to challenge their new address even if invalid.
13) If a challenge for reason of invalid address is sustained, "the board shall permit the voter to correct his or her voter registration and any races and ballot measures on the challenged ballot that the voter would have been qualified to vote for had the registration been correct shall be counted". This sounds like a difficult feat to accomplish without compromising the secrecy of the voter's ballot.
In summary, this bill appears to me to (1) make it even harder to challenge a bogus registration, (2) make the challenge statute even more confusing and prone to subjective interpretation and political manipulation than it is today, and (3) create some exciting new safe harbors for unassailable vote fraud. But I invite comments from those more knowledgeable than I to argue why I am wrong.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 15, 2006 05:01 PM | Email ThisIn fact... didn't you say that you liked the bill for the most part?
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald on February 15, 2006 05:30 PMOnes first thought it that the knife can cut both ways... but my experiance has been that conservatives generally put more wieght on minor thinks like honesty.
You guys have my sympathy.
Posted by: Olmoss on February 15, 2006 05:42 PM
Requiring the person who submits the challenge to identify the actual residence of the challenged voter is perhaps the biggest problem in the current law -- and it is retained in this bill.
Imagine this: You build your home on land which has never had a residence on it before; you live there for 10 years; you notice that someone registered to vote this past year and claimed your home as his voting residence; you know that's a bald-faced lie; but you don't know where the liar actually lives -- what do you do?
So long as the legislators keep that provision in the law, it is obvious they do not want to fulfill their duty under the state constitution.
Posted by: Micajah on February 15, 2006 09:06 PMWRT odds in the House: I will be surprised if it does NOT pass the House, given (D) majority there.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 16, 2006 12:18 AMThis is insanity!
I can't believe this bill is even being considered! I REALLY can't believe that so many foolish (or RINO) Republicans are on board with it!
Is this madness ever going to end?
Posted by: Deborah on February 16, 2006 12:23 AMPlease identify by name and city the 14 Republicans who voted for the legislation.
The county's new elections head: former state elections director Dean Logan took the helm at the county elections office September 2, 2003.
Logan inherited "a bag of manure" when he joined KCE, but he's been in office for 29 months with minimal improvement.
The Nordstroms would have terminated him after 6 months for not fixing this mess.
The SoS hasn't been of much use either.
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on February 16, 2006 07:11 AMVoting is a RIGHT. Not a privelage but your RIGHT as an American citizen. If someone who is homeless wants to vote, they should have that opportunity (likewise I also belive anyone not being held in jail/prision should be allowed to vote)
You ReThugians are always concerned about fraudulent votes why dont you take a look here -
http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1393
Even your icon Ann Coulter is registered at a different address than her residnece. (oh yeah and the penalities in Florida for this are HUGE)
The whole "voter integrity project" is Bulls**t and is just a smokescreen so McGavick can get away without talking about real issues during his campaign. Good luck with that.
Oh yeah the MSN is not covering this BEACUSE THIS IS NOT NEWS!!!! This is a fake contraversy drummed up by a political party. Wait, have you tried Fox news? I'll bet they'll run this cr*p.
So you're admitting that Ann Coulter is illegally registered and that there are laws in Florida that treat that as a felony. And yet you're willing to turn a blind eye to that same thing here in King County.
Huh?
Keep talking... as long as you are we don't have to!
Posted by: dan on February 16, 2006 08:30 AMNoting your web quote address, I am not sure you want to know the issue, but here is a refresher.
If the form says to put your legal residence down, but you can also give your mailing address, then do it. Don't give fake residences.
Why does your side not want to clean up the voters' rolls?
Posted by: swatter on February 16, 2006 08:37 AMJamie Walker
Co-Chair of the (Unofficial)
Stephan Sharkansky
for Sec. of State Committee
:)
Posted by: Jamie Walker on February 16, 2006 08:49 AMWhat bothers me is that the ReThugs use these everyday occurances as proof of wde spread voter fraud. The only Fraud I have personally seen was when Flibby Soleto signed an oath claiming "personal knowledge" of fraudulently registered voters, when the whole ReThugian party was forced to hide behind the excuse that the work was prepared by interns.
How accurate was their list of challenged voters in 2005? How about the court case for Governor? Seems I remember that the ReThugs could not prove a SINGLE "questionable" vote benefited Gregoire because "the standard was impossible to meet?" If that was the case then why were the Demos able to get a handful of votes REMOVED from Rossi's total?
The difference is that Democrats put trust in the people to be honest, the ReThugian party wants a uniformed policeman to show up at every registered voters' home asking for picture ID issued by the State, a Birth Certificate, Social Security card, and documents from their parents stating that they were indeed born and are now old enough to make responsible decisions by voting.
Again I point out the fact that this is not being covered by the MSM - BECAUSE THIS IS NOT NEWS. This is nothing more than StePHan pimping his blog for the benefit of ReThugs. If you want to whine about not getting any press, try FOX News and make sure to tell them you are a ReThugian, they'll run your story front and Center until Mr. Cheney shoots someone else.
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on February 16, 2006 09:53 AMAnd 1 rethug who is illegaly registered in Florida.
Otherwise - move on!
Keep talking lefty - deflect, minimize, marginalize.
Posted by: dan on February 16, 2006 10:04 AMSo? Shouldn't it be more accurate now that computers are involved as compared to when we were using carbon paper? I think so.
Left is Wrong, don't you think it even the least bit suspicious that Stefan reports fraud (as in not legal) in office buildings that traditionally would vote Republican? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he wants the rolls to be clean enough that even a bank would be proud of.
Posted by: swatter on February 16, 2006 10:26 AMStefan, others, let's just keep trumpeting how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Let's distribute literature pointing out all the ways fraud can be, has been, and still is being committed.
Attached to the literature, let's propose a truly safe system, one where someone has to prove that they are eligible to vote before they can register (by showing birth certificates or naturalization papers), one where voters have to certify that they and no one else cast their ballot (by requiring two witnesses to sign an absentee ballot, or a notary public to verify it was cast according to the rules). Let's introduce real penalties for toying with the vote system and committing "mistakes" (fines and jail time), and let's have a real method for challenging elections that removes uncertainty.
I don't see democrats winning the day with arguments that poor old homeless Joe can't vote because he doesn't have proof he is who he says he is, that he is eligible to vote, or that he can't follow simple instructions.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 16, 2006 10:44 AMThis is absurd! We can't know who is eligible to vote and who is not? It's really a simple matter, one that legislation can dictate and elections offices can execute.
I can't wait for the day that every illegally registered voter (non-citizen, ineligible, or whatnot) is prosecuted with the felony they committed, and any elections officer that assisted in the crime is prosecuted as well. I can't wait for the day that every illegal vote is treated as bank fraud, and the perpetrators are hunted until they are caught and sent away for many, many years.
In my mind, there are very few crimes more severe than vote fraud. (Murder, rape... I can't think of any more.) If our voters lost trust in the system, we are setting things in motion that inevitably lead to an overthrow of government by people with guns and an intent to kill those who oppose them. Why don't we just clean up the rolls and make voting work? Why do we want to walk down this path towards a civil war?
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 16, 2006 10:49 AMListen to RealAudio Listen to MP3
Secretary of State Sam Reed has issued a warning of a possible voter registration scam. The public alert comes after a King County woman was charged a fee to register online. We get more from KUOW’s Ruby de Luna.
WHEN RONA POPP MOVED FROM SELAH TO MAPLE VALLEY LAST YEAR, ONE OF THE THINGS SHE NEEDED TO DO WAS CHANGE HER VOTER REGISTRATION. SOMEONE HAD TOLD HER SHE COULD DO IT ONLINE AND DIRECTED HER TO IWANTTOVOTE.COM. THE WEBSITE CLAIMS TO MAKE VOTER REGISTRATION CONVENIENT, FOR A FEE.
POPP: “It appeared to be a secure site so I put in my debit information and thought that was convenient enough to do that, for a $5 fee, and there was a processing fee so it ended up being $9.”
POPP THOUGHT NINE DOLLARS WAS THE PRICE OF CONVENIENCE. SHE DIDN’T THINK MUCH OF IT, UNTIL LAST WEEK WHEN SHE WENT TO HER LOCAL PRECINCT TO VOTE ON A SPECIAL SCHOOL LEVY ELECTION. SHE WAS SURPRISED WHEN ELECTION WORKERS TOLD HER SHE WASN’T REGISTERED.
POPP: “I said I’ve done this already and you’re still don’t have my paperwork, I said I haven’t received anything and I don’t want to get charged again. And they said there’s no charge for this, and I said well, I was charged. I got a confirmation email that said I’ve been charged.”
ELECTIONS WORKERS PUT POPP IN CONTACT WITH THE KING COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THE AGENCY THEN TURNED THE MATTER OVER TO SECRETARY OF STATE SAM REED. REED WORRIES ABOUT THE WEBSITE’S POTENTIAL FOR IDENTITY THEFT BECAUSE IT ASKS FOR PEOPLE’S ID AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. BUT HE’S ALSO CONCERNED THAT SUCH WEBSITES WOULD DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
REED: “The last thing that I want people in the state to think is that they have to pay to register to vote. We really encourage people to vote and really make it easy here in the state of Washington.”
REED SAYS VOTERS CAN DOWNLOAD REGISTRATION FORMS DIRECTLY FROM HIS OFFICE WEBSITE OR FROM MOST COUNTIES’ ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THE WEBSITE IWANTTOVOTE.COM DID NOT RESPOND TO KUOW’S EMAIL REQUEST. SECRETARY REED SAYS IT’S AGAINST THE LAW TO CHARGE PEOPLE FOR REGISTERING TO VOTE. HE HAS SENT THE COMPLAINT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. I’M RUBY DE LUNA, KUOW NEWS.
In earlier days, I would have had assumed that the voter rolls would have been straightened out. The county would see that they are not voting, would have sent mail to their old address, which would be returned unopened, and they would remove these people from the voting rolls.
In the brave, new days ahead, with voting by mail, I don't know what will become of their ballots. I don't know if these invalid voters will ever be removed from the rolls. I don't know if the laws of Washington State have any meaningful technique for having them removed.
God how this state sucks!
Posted by: huckleberry on February 16, 2006 11:11 AMThe fees charged will pay for 'round the clock surveliance of people who die, move, or get married. We can have them removed from the rolls within minutes of their demise.
At the same time lets require everyone who want to vote show a birth certificate, US Passport, 3 credit cards (must be "maxed out" to be a real American)and then have a RFID chip implanted in them for tracking and to make future IDing easier.
The more inconvient we make voting, and the more hoops people have to jump through will be sure to increase participation and then a real representation of the people's views.
Bulls**t.
Republicans want to reduce the number of voters and make it difficult for people to express themselves at the ballot box because most people are not Republicans. Democrats dont care who you vote for but they protect EVERYONE's right to vote.
Has anyone called the press yet? I am checking all MSM religously, where are they?
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on February 16, 2006 11:28 AMWhat's wrong with proving you have a legal right to vote? What's wrong with following the rules that exist today?
Posted by: swatter on February 16, 2006 12:13 PM"One citizen/one vote" isn't how things are done anymore, and everyone knows it.
Conservatives think it's dishonest to vote more than once, and to not follow the rules. Liberal, Democrats, moochers and thieves don't see it that way. In the morality of liberals and Democrats, laws and rules are not meant to be followed. They're meant to give an advantage, to hinder and obstruct opponents, and to provide a way to damage, oppress and retaliate against opponents.
For example, if making a rule that each voter can only vote once will cause your opponents to only vote once, then by all means make that rule! Then vote more than once, deny that you did it, accuse your opponent of doing it, act outraged that your opponent is accusing you of doing what you obviously did, accuse your opponent of racism, homophobia and hating children, make your opponent take you to court and prove that you did it, and think up every possible reason why it was OK for you to do it. Whether or not your opponent votes more than once, accuse him of doing it and of everything else that you are doing, act outraged about his culture of corruption, and try to get him prosecuted, or at least investigated.
Remember, to Democrats and liberals, laws, standards and rules (e.g. the Constitution) are "dynamic," "living" things. Thus, they only have to follow the rules they can be made to follow. It's OK for them to do whatever they can get away with. Remember, "Whatever it takes."
All of the corruption and fraud of the 2004 election: people voting multiple times, dead people voting, convicts voting, fraudulent addresses, overseas military ballots sent after it's too late to use them, subjective interpretation of unclearly-marked ballots, certification of fraudulent results, "finding" more ballots until the results were favorable, and a multitude of other blatant violations of the rules - were all brought right out in the open without the slightest hint of guilt or shame in the perpetrators.
Even most Democrats don't deny that these things happened. They just deny that they did anything wrong. The few who do deny that it happened, deny it as a strategic maneuver, not because they actually expect anyone to believe them.
If conservatives and Republicans want to win, they need to learn to play with (not "by") the rules, like Democrates do.
Posted by: ken on February 16, 2006 12:27 PMOr even cheaper, bus a bunch of Canadians down from up north, hell a bunch of out-of-staters will even do so long as we get the numbers. Sickening, isnt it...
Unless I am mistaken, this is already done and is one of the reasons that Mdme. Gregoire resides in the governor's mansion.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 16, 2006 12:34 PMSeattle Times staff reporter
A former campaign aide to King County Councilwoman Jane Hague was sentenced Wednesday to perform 160 hours of community service after she pleaded guilty to a felony charge of stealing campaign funds.
Jennifer Rene Hildebrand, 36, of Sammamish, read a statement before her sentencing in which she apologized to Hague "for the years of dishonesty" that she had previously admitted.
Hildebrand, who embezzled $144,877 from Hague's 2001 and 2005 council re-election campaigns and her aborted 2004 run for Congress, said she has spent the past year in counseling, repaid all stolen money and is doing community service.
"This situation is something I am very ashamed of and will not ever repeat again," she told Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Barbara Harris.
Harris accepted prosecutors' recommendation that Hildebrand not serve time in jail.
Hildebrand has paid restitution of $190,606 and may be ordered to pay more. Hague has spent $121,000 on investigative and legal expenses related to the thefts.
Senior deputy prosecutor Scott Peterson said it was "unheard of" for an embezzler to fully repay such a large amount, plus the victim's investigative costs, before sentencing.
Hague, in a prepared statement, said she was "deeply saddened" by the thefts but defended the prosecution of her former aide. "Citizens deserve to know that the money they donate to candidates and issues will not be misused and that those who abuse this trust will be held accountable," she said.
In a phone interview after Hildebrand's sentencing, her lawyer, Scott Robbins, claimed Hague used campaign funds in 1997 and 2001 to pay for an engagement party and a catered meal for her husband's employees.
Hague could not be reached for comment.
But her campaign consultant, Brett Bader, dismissed those claims as "absolutely ridiculous and untrue. ... These are the fevered ramblings of a convicted embezzler."
Sounds like a typical ReThugian to me..
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on February 16, 2006 12:44 PMIf you honestly belive all the cr*p you write on this RepThugican Hack's blog then no wonder our country is going down the toilet.
Remember in the 90's when the country's biggest concern was weather or not our President had sex?
Now we have illegal wiretapping of citizens, hyped up reasons to send our country into war, the VP's chief of staff says he was orderd to commit treason, after a sucessful K St project uber lobbyist JA is telling all about power for sale, former House Leader DeLay is guilty of violating the ONE campaign finance law in Texas,
and the least of our worries is weather or not Cheney was Drunk when he shot his friend in the face while hunting retarded quail from a car.
Man I miss the days of budget surpluses and when gas wasn't 2.50/gal so oil companies could make record profits.
If the ReThugians were at all interested in advancing an agenda that would help the American people why have they not done so in the past 6 years?
What flavor is that Kool-Aid again. Pass me a glass please and some rose colored glasses.
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on February 16, 2006 12:57 PM(C'mon man - have you no shame? ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 16, 2006 01:49 PMPerhaps that was your biggest concern. It surely wasn't mine. I'd start with selling of military technology to the Chinese, Bin Laden bombing the World Trade Center (the first time), Bin Laden bombing our US embassies overseas, Bin Laden Bombing the USS Cole (I see a trend here), killing innocent Serbs when bombing Kosovo, troops in Haiti, Filegate, Vince Foster, killing of innocents in Waco, Buddhist temple fundraisers, Travelgate, money for pardons, bombing aspirin factories, Webster Hubbel, Billing-gate, Kathleen Willey....
There's too much to list besides you know who...