SB 6362 is the strange bill that would modify voter challenge procedures in some disturbing ways and create some exciting new safe harbors for vote fraud. Even though 14 of 23 Republicans joined all 26 Democrats to pass the bill in the Senate, none of the Republicans I've e-mailed have responded to explain their YEA votes. I assume that they either didn't read the bill very carefully or they cut a deal they don't want to talk about. Kudos to Senators Finkbeiner, Johnson, Morton, Stevens, and Zarelli for voting no.
The bill was heard in the House State Government Operations & Accountability Committee this morning. Rep. Toby Nixon has proposed a number of amendments to correct the defects in the bill and he invites public input. I haven't reviewed them in detail yet, but at first glance they appear sensible. Post your feedback on the bill and Nixon's amendments in the comments and e-mail them to him directly.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 17, 2006 02:44 PM | Email Thispage 2 line 10: define mailing address so that it’s a valid mailing address, not fictitious or absurd (court bldg, SAFECO field, etc.)
page 3 line 2: define public building; leave no room for fantasy like a public restroom.
page 4 line 3: Personal knowledge implies that a challenger must inspect or know the evidence on their own. Recommend a rewording so that it’s more manageable to deal with significant numbers of challenges. In other words it’s not practical for one person to have personal knowledge of every incident if there are hundreds of dead voters.
page 4 line 29: A poll site judge or inspector should not be limited to election day if there’s a problem. Strike “on election day.” Replace with “anytime.” I’m not sure why a registered voter or attorney cannot challenge on election day. Sounds like a way to allow fraud into the process.
page 8 line 26: Insert “not“ before permit to eliminate the ability to correct the registration so late. This would cause the vote to lose its anonymity. Also creates a delay to the count, solely because the voter is too lazy to register in a timely fashion. (If I could register and change my address from Iraq in a timely fashion, why can’t Joe citizen)
Posted by: Van on February 17, 2006 05:24 PM(shark said)
"Even though 14 of 23 Republicans joined all 26 Democrats to pass the bill in the Senate"
Over half of the republicans in The Senate voted for it?
Someone defend these RINOs because I see no defense for this sell-out!
I have lost my patience with this party and think that we either need a serious house cleaning or be prepared for perminent minority status.
A voter who has an unlisted phone # and address decides to register to vote using my Home address or business address, and I find about about this in the course of time, what are my options under this bill:
1: Call the current elections office and file a challenge, and then I would have to undertake the complex and I might add dangerous PI work to determine who this individual is and where they live.
This scenerio is almost certain to not happen
2: Ignore the situation and allow this illegal registered voter to vote?
This scenerio is almost certain to happen
And this somehow helps clean up the election registration database which is the responsibility of King County elections.
WOW!
Posted by: GS on February 18, 2006 12:06 PMNo response.....
Posted by: Deborah on February 18, 2006 07:29 PM