SB 6362 just passed the Senate 47-1.
The bill is a substantial improvement over the existing registration and challenge statutes, and a huge improvement over the first version of the bill that passed the Senate. The requirement for the challenger to obtain a signed affidavit before challenging a voter at a Bogus Voting Residence will likely prove to be a wonderful safe harbor for some to commit vote fraud, but other illegally registered voters can now be cleaned off the rolls more easily. The real test will be in how the law is applied by Deanron and the canvassing boards
The bill now awaits Mrs. Gregoire's1 signature.
1 Interesting hypothetical: Would Mrs. Gregoire have assumed her current office had this bill been the law in 2004 and the hundreds of illegitimately registered voters been successfully challenged before the election?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 08, 2006 02:15 PM | Email This"Every act which shall have passed the legislature shall be, before it becomes a law, presented to the governor."
Art. III, Sec. 12, Washington State Constitution.
Posted by: JDB on March 8, 2006 02:35 PMA lot more reform is needed if we want to be able to generate a believable result, even when the election is very close. Bottom line is that our system as it exists currently is designed to detect and approve large mandates. As long as the elections are not close, then there will be no real problems. But unlike a system that a bank would envy, when the election is close and requires a high degree of accuracy, the flaws in voter registration, authentication and challenging invalid registrations either with the canvassing board or at the polls are woefully lacking.
Even most virulent progressives (read any fool that posts at HorsesAss) have admitted that it is impossible to conduct a perfect election under our current system.
The least the Dems in majority could do for themselves and WA is to put in a provision so that when the vote is extremely close, we simply settle it with a coin toss rather than put the state through what happened in 2004/2005. Given the constraints of our current system, when the outcome is close enough to reside inside the margin of error, a toin coss would provide a cheap effective and definitive solution that would appeal to all voters as fair, final and free. (I'll spring for the quarter to be flipped.) The margin of error could be set by the percentage of total ballots counted, a number that even Dean Logan seems to be able to generate accurately if given three tries. Anything inside of that percentage would generate an automatic coin toss. No need for any recounts, no need for court cases or endless whining to fuel blogs and talk radio. No need for runoff elections. Just have the Chief Justive of the WA Supreme Court toss a coin and call it good.
Anyone that argues that a result under our current system within 100 votes or so is a true and accurate result is simply ignorant, dishonest or both.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 8, 2006 02:56 PMBrilliant, but corrupt!!
Posted by: swatter on March 8, 2006 03:46 PM