I guess I do.

Earlier this month I sent public records requests to the Auditors of the state's other large counties that use the same DIMS system that's used in King County (Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Clark and Yakima). Together with King these are six of the 9 biggest counties in the state, covering 2/3 of the state's voters.

I've asked these counties for the same kinds of DIMS records and reconciliation reports that I've requested of King County -- notably transaction logs and complete records of absentee and provisional ballots for the last two years. While King County has been scrutinized more thoroughly than any other county, I suspect that some of these other counties also have serious problems with recordkeeping, ballot reconciliation, double voting and compliance with election laws. The preliminary responses I've received from Pierce and Snohomish would suggest that I'm probably right. Residents of these counties and the candidates who anticipate close races have reason to be concerned about these counties' performance this fall --

I sent all the county Auditors letters that are essentially the same as this one that I sent to Bob Terwilliger in Snohomish County (but obviously only Terwilliger got item (13)). Clark, Kitsap and Yakima counties have all indicated they'll respond within a few weeks. I've received substantive responses so far from Terwilliger and from Pat McCarthy in Pierce County. These responses leave much to be desired. These are the highlights:

* Both Terwilliger and McCarthy claim that they are unable to produce transaction logs. I find that hard to believe. King County, which uses the same software system, is (reluctantly) able to produce the transaction logs. Besides, RCW 29A.08.770, specifically requires certain records to be made available for public inspecting and copying. I believe the transaction logs are covered by this statute. I'll accept that these counties are "unable to produce the transaction log" in the sense that the staff aren't familiar with the procedure for doing so. But they need to RTFM and release the records as required by law.

* Both Terwilliger and McCarthy claim they have no records of individual provisional ballots. This is implausible. Counties are required by federal and state law to provide a "free access system" that allows a provisional voter to check the disposition of their ballot. (Oh, wait, what's this?). It would be impossible to implement such a system without records of individual ballots.

* McCarthy claimed that "The invalid Provisional ballots have passed the required retention period for all but the February 2006 election and have been destroyed per our retention schedule". Oops. Federal law is very clear that all materials from a federal election must be retained for 22 months, which has not yet passed for either the primary or general elections of 2004. Violations are punishable by up to a year in prison.

* Terwilliger claimed that he didn't present any reconciliation reports to the canvassing board until after the legislature passed some new laws in 2005. But State administrative rules required reconciliation reports in 2004 (see WAC 434-253-204 and WAC 434-250-130, which in 2004 had number 434-240-270)

I've appealed the initial responses and am waiting for the follow-up responses. In the meantime, residents of these counties and candidates who run in these counties have reason to be concerned about the Election offices' shortcomings in transparency and recordkeeping.