June 06, 2006
Forced vote-by-mail in the news

This morning the Seattle Times, the King County Journal, and the Seattle P-I ran stories on the vote-by-mail debate at the King County council meeting yesterday afternoon.

One interesting point mentioned by Keith Ervin of the Times: "A council staff report said 10 of about 50 staff positions remain unfilled by permanent employees, including superintendent, a job vacant since former Superintendent Bill Huennekens was demoted in the face of plummeting morale and ballot-counting mistakes in the 2004 governor's election."

Besides all the other reasons why King County isn't ready for a switch to vote-by-mail, now we find out that one-fifth of the essential staff positions remain empty. I question whether the Elections office can efficiently run its six elections a year, let alone massively changing the system at the same time.

I commend the council for delaying this important decision for two weeks, and I fervently hope that at that time they don't just take Dean Logan's word that vote-by-mail will be secure and accurate. Such claims need to be proven in the absentee ballot handling in subsequent large elections. Also, as yesterday's meeting showed, this isn't just about the nuts and bolts of ballot handling, it's also about public confidence. It's a bad idea to ramrod this ordinance through on a party-line vote, when citizens all over the political spectrum think it will reduce election integrity.

Jason had a good description of the council meeting, so I won't rehash the details. I do believe kudos are due to Councilmember Kathy Lambert, however, both for her wise comments on Councilmember Patterson's concerns, and for her diligence in drafting amendments that may help to offset some of the ill effects of this ordinance, or may even succeed in putting it to a vote of the people.

Posted by Jonathan Bechtle at June 06, 2006 09:02 AM | Email This
Comments
1. ". . . or may even succeed in putting it to a vote of the people."

. . . an all-mail-ballot vote no doubt.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 6, 2006 09:06 AM
2. ..10 of 50 spots still not filled: Does that sound like an elections office ready to do a stellar job from now on??

Posted by: Misty on June 6, 2006 09:29 AM
3. Kathy Lambert hasn't said anything intelligible, much less "wise", in her entire bat-shit-crazy life.

Get real.

Posted by: Willis on June 6, 2006 09:35 AM
4. Let's see, 10 of 50 equals 20%. How many companies could go without 20% of their workforce and still do a good job?

We are ready, says deanron, build it and we shall do you PROUD!!! This is all BS..... He doesnt even have the staff support to run it the way it has always been ran.

I feel sorry for you people living in KC. But I also feel sorry for all other Voters in this state, as KC dictates the entire state, with it's voting base.

BTW ..I can't seem to find on KCTV the meeting of yesterday, does anyone have it?

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2006 09:39 AM
5. Gee Willis,

Thanks for your deep and insightful comments. It's always so nice to see grown-ups who can discuss facts and debate ideas..and then to have people like you come in and confirm what we are saying about our opponents' lack of substance is just a bonus! As I tell my children, some people's only reason for being is to set a bad example!

Posted by: suzihomemaker on June 6, 2006 09:40 AM
6. From the PI

"If King County adopts all-mail elections, a plan that would include several regional voting centers where voters could still cast poll ballots, it would be the largest local government jurisdiction in the country to go to such a system.

Only Los Angeles County processes more mailed ballots, but it also has regular voting at polling places."

Lets see, and to do this with a 20% reduction in it staff????

HA HA HA HA

And Willis.... I hope you never "try" to speak in a public meeting.....Ms Lambert was just pointing out that the council must allow a citizen to speak, without ridicule....You should use this as an example....

Posted by: Chris on June 6, 2006 09:54 AM
7. Willis, Lambert is my councilperson, and she speaks more common sense than most of the people on that council.

Posted by: Michele on June 6, 2006 09:57 AM
8. DEAN LOGAN IS A LIAR WITH A BOGUS ALIBI!!!!!!!!
The Seattle P-I said:
"Some members were also steamed about the absence of county Elections Director Dean Logan, the focus of criticism over the problem-plagued 2004 election and the vote-by-mail plan. Aides said Logan was attending an election administrators' conference in Spokane."

If folks were steamed yesterday, imagine how steamed they will be when they find out the Spokane Conference doesn't start until late TODAY!! Even worse is that many of the auditors and election officials are driving or flying over TODAY!!!
Logan clearly used this conference as cover to duck out of his responsibility to publicly defend his position on FORCED Vote-By-Mail!!!

Logan should be FIRED for ducking that Public Hearing and making up a BOGUS excuse!!!!!!!!!!!
LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE...NOSE IS AS LONG AS A TELEPHONE WIRE!!!!!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 6, 2006 10:00 AM
9. Article VI, Section 6 of Washington's Constitution states:

SECTION 6 BALLOT.
All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

It seems to me that, until the outer envelope is opened and the inner envelope is set in a different pile, the "absolute secrecy" of my ballot is not too secure. For that matter, whenever anyone receives "assistance" in filling out their ballots, it seems as if this section is technically being violated.

I know that we have had absentee ballots for a long time. Does anyone know if the actual wording of this section of the Constitution has ever been ruled upon in court as it would relate to absentee ballots?

Even if it was a "show hearing", at least a little pretense was given to obtaining public comment. Here in Snohomish County, they didn't bother.

If I remember correctly, wasn't Ms. Patterson the KC council member that currently has two active voter registrations? Maybe that was why she was so touchy about SP.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 6, 2006 10:02 AM
10. SUPERINTENDANT VACANT (how apropos)
But it sounds better than acting superintendent mendicant. I worked as an observer at the Sheriffs recount last year and Bill Huennekens was still -- for all intents and purposes -- in charge. Deanron may have taken his gold badge and stuffed it into a drawer somewhere, but Huennekens called the shots.

I know because I challenged him about open and obvious violations of the rules on the counting floor. When he became visibly angry and argumentative with me (glaring at my Republican badge), I pointed to the large KC Elections sign on an easel several feet away and said, ”Bill . . . they are your rules . . . I’m just doing my job.” At that he went through some official looking monkey motions whispering to several Democrats in the room, and quietly returned to his busy-work sorting what looked like blank envelopes.

On Huennekens account -- having over-ruled my objections by acquiescence -- changed almost nothing, and the rules were openly violated through the remaining days' duration of the counting. Those very same rules that were openly violated at the Sheriff's recount, had been strictly enforced at the 2004 Gubernatorial election recount. I worked there as well and know it to be true. How arrogant of a mere Republican like me to question Bill Huennekens authority?

Bill Huennekens should have been fired for that alone, but nothing came of it. Why publish written rules on a reader board for everyone to see, I ask? Huennekens obviously believes rules are little things that exist to break whenever it pleases him, and what he says goes. I couldn’t care less of Bill respects me personally, but on pain of firing and even legal sanctions, he must respect the voters of King County, and he does not.

Don't worry, the same culture of corruption exists, it is more experienced, intentionally obtuse, and arrogantly unfazed by indecency. Wait until they get ballots in a room all by themselves without any challenges from mere Republican observers like me. That’ll be a hoot for Bill Huennekens.

Typical liberal petty criminal Democrats all.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 6, 2006 10:05 AM
11. On the Official Washington Association of County Officials website, it shows this Spokane Conference runs from June 6th (TODAY!) until June 9th.
FIRE THE SON-OF-A-BITCH!!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 6, 2006 10:05 AM
12. I just noticed something about Article VI, Section 6:

SECTION 6 BALLOT.
All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.

I guess this means that "all-male" balloting is Constitutional.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 6, 2006 10:06 AM
13. http://www.wacounties.org/waco/Calendar%20of%20Events_files/2006Calendar.pdf

Here is the reference that Logan's "alibi Conference" actually starts TODAY!!!
LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!LIAR!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 6, 2006 10:06 AM
14. I heart Kathy Lambert!

Posted by: PJ on June 6, 2006 10:22 AM
15. Logan could have easily taken a late-Flight to Spokane AFTER yesterday's Public Hearing.
Where are his priorities???
Logan would rather play around with the good old boys & gals who worship him rather than be available to the Public to defend his comments & schemes on a FORCED Vote-by-Mail!
Disgusting.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 6, 2006 10:30 AM
16. Hey come on Cynical, Logan's a good guy . . . just ask him.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 6, 2006 10:52 AM
17. I think I finally understand Julia Patterson's objections to this site! She was complaining about the filth that trolls post in comments here, in support of her. "Bat shit life'? Come on, they can do better. Julia's counting on them.

Posted by: katomar on June 6, 2006 11:11 AM
18. It's all very sensible and moderate to question VBM. Especially when the recommendation for all VBM comes from the same elections director responsible for problems in 2004 that created the gap in public trust.

Proper consideration should be given to the many public and private analysts who have brought out important counter arguments to VBM. And the election methods of a large sample of cities and states in the US should be considered when making a decision for such a large urban area. There are many places to get honest and accurate input, but only if the council is willing to do so.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 6, 2006 11:55 AM
19. What-chu talkin 'bout, willis?!

Posted by: alphabet soup on June 6, 2006 12:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?