As noted earlier, a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent the state from verifying driver license and social security numbers before accepting a voter registration. The ruling is here. It hinged on this:
The Court finds that plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated irreparable harm. ... Plaintiffs identify specific people whose applications have been rejected simply because the identification number provided by the applicant could not be matched.Who was supposedly harmed? One Lisa Oldham, whose cause the P-I deliriously championed in yesterday's editorial. But her complaint was bogus:
She skipped an election "because I knew I was not registered and would not be able to vote."That's a load of baloney. Oldham didn't even live in any of the districts that voted in the election she claims she was forced to "skip". Same goes for the only other supposedly "irreparably harmed" voter that the plaintiffs trotted out.
I was upset to find out that even though the government knows that I am a real person and that Oldham is simply my maiden name, it would not let me register to vote under my legal last name. I had planned to vote in the May 16, 2006 special election but did not try to do so because I knew I was not registered and would not be able to vote.Oldham's complaint is implausible. If she didn't commit outright perjury, then she should at least be laughed out of court.
Unless there is another Lisa K. Oldham Graham in Clark County, she was married in 1988. It seems that 18 years is plenty of time for anybody to reconcile the issues with her maiden name and her married name. She states in her declaration that she has lived at her current address, 3011 NE 140th Ave, Vancouver, WA, since November 2003. So she wants us to believe that even though she didn't care to register and vote in the Presidential/Senatorial/Gubernatorial election of 2004, the statewide election of 2005 or in any of the other primaries and local elections that were held since November 2003, she's now all motivated to vote in the May 16 special election, which would decide financing measures in two school districts and the merger of one fire protection district into another. Fair enough, maybe she works for one of these districts or something. But no, she doesn't even live in any of these districts. Her residence is in Precinct 689. [precinct numbers aren't currently displayed in the online version of the statewide database, but it's clear from state and county voting records that her stated residence is in that precinct]. This spreadsheet from the Clark County Auditor lists the precincts that participated in the May 16 election. Precinct 689 is not among them. Clark County's precinct reports from other recent elections are here. Precinct 689 did not vote in the other special elections held after she attempted to register on Feb. 22. It is clear that she was not harmed at all.
Even if she was motivated by a sincere albeit incorrect belief that she could have voted on May 16, there is no indication that she took any steps to resolve her registration issues. She claimed that she received a notice from the county auditor advising her of the problem with her registration form in "March or April". In fact, the Clark County voter registration transaction log shows that the notice was mailed on March 2. It appears she simply chose not to act on it. As she stated in her declaration,
"I was upset to find out that even though the government knows that I am a real person and that Oldham is simply my maiden name, it would not let me register to vote under my legal last name,"She was not prevented from voting and she doesn't even indicate that she attempted to resolve the matter. She was merely upset. Has our society reached a point where feeling upset is a form of irreparable harm? God help us all.
The only other individual the plaintiffs could find to file a declaration was Marina Petrienko (declaration here) Petrienko says she handed her registration form to a registration drive activist. The copy attached to the declaration shows it was turned in on January 12, 2006. Accordingly, she should have been eligible to vote in any election held after 30 days from that date. There have been no elections involving her precinct, 648, since that time. Ms. Petrienko has never lost an opportunity to vote.
It's somehow fitting that a ruling whose main effect will be to encourage voter registration fraud was based on fraudulent evidence.
So contrary to what the judge was gulled into ruling, the plaintiffs never came up with a specific example of anybody who was "irreparably harmed". Now, if hypothetically, all else held equal, these two women lived in a district that voted on, say, May 16, and had thus been prevented from voting in an election in which they would otherwise be eligible to vote, what would have been the proximate cause of their disenfranchisement? With Lisa Oldham, it would have been her own refusal to clarify for the auditor that she was using her two names inconsistently. And in Petrienko's case? It would have been a clerical data entry error. But data entry errors can occur in any part of the voter registration process, including, say, entering the mailing address at which a voter wishes to receive his ballot. Any voter with an incorrectly entered mailing address would be disenfranchised. Taking the judge's argument, that no voter may ever suffer the inconvenience of having to monitor and correct election office data entry errors, to its logical conclusion, one would have to eliminate the entire voter registration process and simply mail ballots to every imaginable mail stop, addressed to "Occupant". For good measure, blank ballots would also be left in drop boxes at every street corner, to be cast on the "honor system".
The judge and his dopey fan club at the P-I also overlooked one other essential point. The P-I:
What are the requirements to participate in Washington's democratic process?Actually, no. In this quote, the P-I is reciting the judge's summary of Washington's constitutional requirments (his ruling, p. 7). What the P-I editors and the judge failed to note is that the state constitution also requires this:The answer from U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez is clear: A person must be a citizen, be 18 years old, a 30-day resident of the precinct in which he or she wishes to vote and must not have lost the right to vote or been declared legally incompetent.
Everything else is details.
SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to voteThe legislature decided that the balance between access and integrity is best served by requiring the voter to provide a valid ID number, for the election officials to verify the validity and for there to be a failsafe mechanism for voters to vote in case of election office errors. All that exists. But now a Soros-funded left-wing gang from New York waltzes into our state, trots out some bogus "irreparably harmed voters", and then a credulous activist judge buys their cock and bull story and unilaterally dismantles the last year and a half of improvements in election integrity.
The list of other filings in the case is here. Jonathan Bechtle of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has more on this decision: 'Back to the "Honor System": Judge Deals Major Blow to Election Security '. At this time, Secretary of State Sam Reed is still weighing his options how to proceed to defend the state's ability to ensure clean election rolls.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 04, 2006 01:55 PM | Email ThisIt's about power.
Posted by: JCM on August 4, 2006 02:05 PMWow, you continually do amazing research. This is so much more that the "layers of editors and fact checkers" in the Mainstream Media that it's actually quite staggering.
But you nailed the essential point. In fact, we now do live in a society where being upset is a form of irreparable harm. And being upset can be extended to being offended, etc.
Why don't the Democrats admit that what really offends them is that some people vote for Republicans and/ or disagree with them, and they find that unnaceptable. Expanding the vote to anyone who happens to be able to get a ballot in to the box on election day regardless of any knowledge of the issues and candidates, or even possibly a legal right to vote is all part of the Democrat mindset of relativism. To Dems, the ends always justify the means.
As Eric Earling noted, there's a reason why we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2006 02:22 PMThe Open Society Institute (OSI), a private operating and grantmaking foundation, aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. On a local level, OSI implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, OSI works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses.
We all know that he is just a crazed Frenchman trying to take over our country.
And that lawfirm...double yuck. Next thing you know, they will stop us from being able to buy the Judges we deserve.
Listen to their B.S.
Brennan Center for Justice
2004
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a hybrid public interest law firm/policy institute dedicated to developing and implementing an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education and legal action that ensures fairness to the poor and promotes equality and democracy. Funding will provide renewal support for the Brennan Center?s Fair Courts Project.
What we need is just a standard old Poll tax. Only the rich and smart should be able to vote, we know what is best for these leaches.
It's really too bad that you're not all that smart.
If you were, you'd be able to make your point with style and panache, which is certainly what you intended. Instead, we're only presented with a muddle of half-witted unfocused verbosity.
Nice try, though. Have you thought of a creative writing course after you finish 'English as a First Language'?
Posted by: Larry on August 4, 2006 02:49 PMStandard "Rovian" playbook. Don't like the message, attack the messenger.
PS I thought it was pretty focused. As far as verbosity, You spent more words distracting, then making a point then I did.
Posted by: danw on August 4, 2006 02:57 PMThe U.S. Constitution explicitely prohibits poll taxes.
Come on we elect these guys to take care of these inconviences.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Posted by: danw on August 4, 2006 03:29 PMAMENDMENT XXIVPassed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Of course, that doesn't apply to local elections...
Posted by: Perri Nelson on August 4, 2006 03:35 PMCome on we elect these guys to take care of these inconviences.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
and with that danw's true colors come out. Just another liberal troll trying at first to fool everyone with the whole Soros story and then make silly remarks about "buying" judges and poll taxes.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 4, 2006 03:35 PMIt shouldn't be; "What's the matter with Kansas?
It should be be "What's the matter with (u)SP readers.
But the cheap-labor conservative isn't really interested in "freedom". What the he wants is the "privatized tyranny" of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is - you guessed it - "cheap labor".
For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes "big government tyranny" and what doesn't. It turns out that cheap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment. They say that "government can't do anything right" - except apparently, kill people. Indeed, they exhibit classic conservative unconcern for the very possibility that the government might make a mistake and execute the wrong man.
Cheap-labor conservatives complain about the "Warren Court" "handcuffing the police" and giving "rights to criminals". It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials - you know, the one's who can't do anything right.
Cheap-labor conservatives support the "get tough" and "lock 'em up" approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it's the only approach they support. As for the 2,000,000 people we have in jail today - a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth - they say our justice system is "too lenient".
Cheap-labor conservative - you know, the ones who believe in "freedom" - say our crime problem is because - get this - we're too "permissive". How exactly do you set up a "free" society that isn't "permissive"?
Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn't like.
Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.
Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other "black bag" operation the CIA can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.
Cheap-labor conservatives support "domestic surveillance" against "subversives" - where "subversive" means "everybody but them".
Cheap-labor believers in "freedom" think it's the government's business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.
Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these "secret tribunals" with "secret evidence" and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. Then they say that liberals are "Stalinists".
And let's not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-labor conservatives want to "protect our national symbol" from "desecration". They also support legislation to make the Pledge of Allegiance required by law. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their cheap-labor agenda. [Ouch! That was one of those "hits" you can hear up in the "nosebleed" seats.]
Sounds to me like the cheap-labor conservatives have a peculiar definition of "freedom". I mean, just what do these guys consider to be "tyranny".
That's easy. Take a look.
"Social spending" otherwise known as "redistribution". While they don't mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is "stealing".
Minimum wage laws.
Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
Labor unions, who "extort" employers by collectively bargaining.
Environmental regulations and the EPA.
Federal support and federal standards for public education.
Civil rights legislation. There are still cheap-labor conservatives today, who were staunch defenders of "Jim Crow" - including conspicuously Buckley's "National Review". Apparently, federal laws ending segregation were "tyranny", but segregation itself was not.
Public broadcasting - which is virtually the only source for classical music, opera, traditional theatre, traditional American music, oh yes, and Buckley's "Firing Line". This from the people constantly braying about the decay of "the culture". The average cost of Public Television for each American is a whopping one dollar a year. "Its tyranny I tell you. Enough's enough!"
See the pattern? Cheap-labor conservatives support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it "tyranny" if government does something for you - using their money, for Chrissake. Even here, cheap-labor conservatives are complete hypocrites. Consider the following expenditures:
150 billion dollars a year for corporate subsidies.
300 billion dollars a year for interest payments on the national debt - payments that are a direct transfer to wealthy bond holders, and buy us absolutely nothing.
Who knows how many billions will be paid to American companies to rebuild Iraq - which didn't need rebuilding three months ago.
That's all in addition to the Defense budget - large chunks of which go to corporate defense contractors.
Is the pattern becoming clearer? These cheap-labor Republicans have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It's "social spending" on people who actually need assistance that they just "can't tolerate".
And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=103
Then again, why did this even need to go to court? It appears that our laws already make it really easy to register. From RCW 29A.08.010:
If the individual does not have a driver's license, state identification card, or Social Security number, the registrant must be issued a unique voter registration number in order to be placed on the voter registration rolls. All other information supplied is ancillary and not to be used as grounds for not registering an applicant to vote. Modification of the language of the official Washington state voter registration form by the voter will not be accepted and will cause the rejection of the registrant's application.
I still haven't found out what they do with the "unique voter registration number" afterwards.
RCW 29A.08.113 tells us:
(1) If a voter who registered by mail indicates on the voter registration form that he or she does not have a Washington state driver's license, Washington state identification card, or Social Security number, he or she must provide one of the following forms of identification the first time he or she votes after registering:
(a) Valid photo identification;(b) A valid enrollment card of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington state;
(c) A copy of a current utility bill;
(d) A current bank statement;
(e) A copy of a current government check;
(f) A copy of a current paycheck; or
(g) A government document that shows both the name and address of the voter.
(2) If the voter fails to provide one of the above forms of identification prior to or at the time of voting, the ballot must be treated as a provisional ballot regardless of whether the voter is voting at a poll site or by mail. The ballot may only be counted if the voter's signature on the outside envelope matches the signature in the voter registration records.
I'm not sure, but just looking at these two laws, there are a lot of specifics to register and vote, but there are "catch-all" caveats that seem to say you don't really need ID to register and when you vote for the first time after you register (even by mail, such as in Snohomish County), the signature on your ballot should match the signature on your registration card. Per the King County interpretation of residency, you don't even have to have a valid residential address - only a valid mailing address.
Seems a pity that poor judge was put to so much inconvenience....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 04:00 PMClearly you are not an employment lawyer.
Posted by: brett on August 4, 2006 04:05 PMVW
Posted by: Violence Worker on August 4, 2006 04:06 PMI am disappointed that Sam Reed has not filed an appeal and asked for a stay of Judge Martinez's August 1st ruling
Who argued the case for the State?
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on August 4, 2006 04:07 PMConsider the following:
With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the "imminent danger" pay added to soldiers' paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed "wasteful and unnecessary" by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.
This year's White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals--despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.
The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans--those with "non-service-related illnesses"--who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.
Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.
In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries--military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families get by--along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.
At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers' children at 14 military installations.
The White House is seeking to block a federal judge's award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country's reconstruction.
The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush's request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to "the cost of the extraordinary security" during Bush's recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly "would cover a vest for every soldier" in Iraq.
Woody Powell, executive director of Veterans for Peace and a veteran of the Korean War, says these White House efforts should be viewed as attacks against American soldiers. "I don't think they see it as attacking them," he says. "They see it as saving money. But it's the wrong thing to be cutting, just like cutting education is a bad thing."
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Dishonorable_discharge_112603.htm
And now you know why. Destitute people work cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorized.
And thank you for your service. You deserve better. (But not if you don't start thinking with your head)
How about Forbes..hardly a George Soros periodical.
At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half - if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.
After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/02/27/ap2557240.html
But I am sure you would rather see the top 1% taken care of, then the men and women who served.
Wake up folks....Buy a Powerball ticket, because that's the only way the Bush tax cuts will ever help any of you.
Posted by: danw on August 4, 2006 04:48 PMNuff said...I think we all know where your coming from. (wink-wink, nudge nudge, rolls eyes)
You just keep up your crusade to eliminate as many voters as you like, and lead people to believe that King Co. wasn't one of the cleanest elections in the country in 2004.
Because when you all you can do to win is smear, eliminate poor voters and terrorize the sheeple, you bring nothing to this once proud country.
The people are waking up.
Go watch "V" for Vendetta.
But the poor folks like true soldier really buy into the GOP is out for his best interest.
Clinton was just awful for the military?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=101
Posted by: danw on August 4, 2006 05:12 PMWhat a coward.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2006 05:33 PMTrueSoldier, apparently you living "in the system" is no match for Dan's "highly objective" web citations.
Per our Constitution, you must be 18 - but we do not require proof. You must be a citizen - but we do not require proof. You must have lived in the state, county, AND precinct for at least 30 days before the election - but we do not require proof.
You must have a valid residential address - but we could care less about proof.
Register by mail. Claim you don't have any of those forms of ID and they have to accept the registration anyway. Sign up for permanent absentee, especially in a county that is mail ballot only. Use a PMB for the mailing address. Claim to live near a park somewhere. Just make sure that your registration signature looks close to your ballot signature. Who'll know? When they tell you you need to bring ID to a "regional center" claim that they are trying to disenfranchise you because of the hardship to make the trip.
Rinse and repeat.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 4, 2006 06:03 PMLooks like he came up for air long enough to, as Cliff pointed out, show us how to do a mindless cut~n~paste job.
Good show danw! You may now revert to your (normally) unconscious self...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 4, 2006 06:57 PMWhat is wrong with this picture? It sounds like the Secretary of State's Office did nothing.
Posted by: sgmmac on August 4, 2006 08:00 PMWhy wasn't all of this found out in Discovery and argued in Court?
What is wrong with this picture? It sounds like the Secretary of State's Office did nothing.
I'm pretty sure that's what Sam Reed thinks the SoS is supposed to do... nothing.
Posted by: huckleberry on August 4, 2006 09:01 PMYou posted: "This year's White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals--despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago."
Dan,you failed to explain why we need less money for the VA today then 5 years ago.
The vast majority of our veterans who utilize the VA are quickly dying off of old age. My two grandfathers died in January. Both had 100% disabilities from WWII or Korea. Both were in their 80's.
Dan, you're very transparent for someone
trying to distort the truth.
Give it up.
Is it time to assume that he has gone off the hypocritical deep end for good????
Posted by: Misty on August 5, 2006 12:27 AMMisty,
The funny thing is that there is absolutely
no reason to play 'dirty tricks' against
Burner. Reichert will beat her easily.
The reason the Cantwell team is using
smear tactics and dirty tricks against
Mike McGavick is because they lack
confidence that Cantwell can win otherwise.
Then there are people who actually do research on these things, so I wouldn't like to mislead with Limbauesque quoting.
You feel that this is a better sight than HA? It is no different. Except other than the moderator asking me to leave, and the filters to keep swear words out.
Stephan, I am surprised you asked me to quit posting though. Looking at your Thread counts over the past month, I at least got someone interested enough to debate something of value unlike your Windmill tilting. I would have thought you would have liked the traffic. But I guess you just prefer the; "Ya Stephans" and the 13 times they happen per post.
True and Brent keep up your quality of debate, it sounds like you actually may have something to say, although I may disagree, you have at least been trying to make your point. (see you over at HA)
And no I am not Roger Rabbit, I just don't type that fast or have that much time. I have always posted under the same name here, and thank you for the A**kickings in the past. I took them more as; "Wow, there are people so self-centered to think this way in the NW, I thought that was only in the south."
TS/Brett
Under President Clinton, however, food stamp soldiers decreased by 25% of what it had been under President George H.W. Bush, and retirement compensation increased from the reductions of the Reagan era.
And regardless of the public's perception and harsh judgments, Clinton dispatched his defense team to work long and hard to make America the best equipped, most technologically adept fighting force on earth.
The Bush administration won two important wars using equipment and technology that was funded and advanced during President Bill Clinton's watch, both in unprecedented speed.
Still, when Bush arrived, the military was said to breathe a sigh of relief, because, finally, the Republicans were back and the military would be respected once again.
However, that's proved not to be the case at all.
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has given rise to a new phenomenon in Washington, leading to new morale problems that run deeper and wider, including the military-civilian friction he engenders. In fact, according to retired military speaking on and off the record, Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon is downright disrespectful of the military. Under-secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith describes the process to come as follows: "everything is going to move everywhere... There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be" (Source: Foreign Affairs, "New Battle Stations," by Kurt M. Campbell). Military men and women are understandably nervous, because Rumsfeld is also reportedly keeping them out of the loop.
The other factor causing military morale to plummet is President Bush's preemptive war in Iraq, which has been followed by a post-war period of no planning that has placed our soldiers in harm's way without hope.
Yet another factor causing military morale to sink to new lows, is that while touting to be pro-military, the Bush administration has led unprecedented attacks on the military. Soldiers' benefits, veterans' benefits, rehabilitation and medical entitlements have all been cut, while the Bush administration simultaneously tried to gut "imminent danger" pay to soldiers and families, and held up critical combat gear and other equipment, as tours of duty are extended with little relief in sight.
Stars and Stripes newspaper recently reported that over 49% of those polled did not plan to re-enlist, while 31% said the Iraqi war had little or no value, and 34% said morale was "low" or "very low," with only 27% saying morale was "high."
The presidency of George W. Bush has proven the difference between Republican image vs. reality.
Posted by: danw on August 5, 2006 08:43 AM
We all understand that you hate Bush, Republicans and their supporters, but your screeds really have nothing to do with Washington State voter registration issues.
So, put up your topic on the public blog and see what type of dialogue you can generate.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 5, 2006 08:58 AM"Expanding the vote to anyone who happens to be able to get a ballot in to the box on election day regardless of any knowledge of the issues and candidates, or even possibly a legal right to vote is all part of the Democrat mindset of relativism. To Dems, the ends always justify the means."
Evidence accepted by Judge Bridges clearly indicated that the Republican candidate for Governor received the overwhelming majority of illegal votes cast by felons. Had King County excluded felons from the rolls, Mr. Rossi would never have had his "lead" on election night. It would seem that the Democrats thus have quite an interest indeed in keeping felons off of the rolls; in fact, it was a Democratic legislature which passed this law, and a Democratic executive who signed it, right?
"As Eric Earling noted, there's a reason why we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy."
And the 14th Amendment to the Consitution of our Republic prevents the states from enforcing laws like the one discussed here. Amen to that!
"Evidence accepted by Judge Bridges clearly indicated..." Nope. It clearly suggested this. We haven't enough evidence to indicate anything. I apologize for this error.
Meanwhile, another problem here is that the state legislature violated our state's Constitution, by setting standards beyond the level this document permits. Therefore, a state judge could have invalidated the law, had the suit been filed in state court.
"But now a Soros-funded left-wing gang from New York waltzes into our state..."
George Soros escaped Communism in his homeland, and made huge amounts of money under our capitalist system. I'd say that he has quite an interest in keeping our elections laws clean, having seen more outright election fraud than the rest of us.
In any case, I don't know why a federal citizen should not assist another federal citizen in filing a citizenship-related complaint in our federal courts. It's not like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's flying in here to violate our state's campaign-finance laws, like it did in 2004, or paying for an error-filled ad here, like it just did. Opponents of meddling in our elections affairs can start with criticizing such actions.
The Constitution allows for more controls that enumerated in Sections 1, 1A and 3:
ARTICLE VI SECTION 7 REGISTRATION. The legislature shall enact a registration law, and shall require a compliance with such law before any elector shall be allowed to vote;
The laws enacted are to ensure that you are who you say you are, that you are of legal age, that you indeed live in the appropriate precinct, and that you indeed are a citizen. The newer laws passed to accomodate HAVA are an attempt to better enhance the above. Additionally, they are intended to quarantee that you are allowed to vote only once - all of these are of critical importance to the integrity of this most sacred right. Failure to comply with the registration law can keep you from being allowed to vote - per our Constitution.
If typos or data mismatches occur, the state has processes to notify the voter. If the voter neglects to correct any bad data, the onus is on them.
If a voter knows they can vote, but fails to register - it is not the states problem.
If the voter provides incorrect or incomplete data, it is not the states problem.
Just because someone exists in this state, it doesn't mean they can just wander into any pollong place and cast a ballot - they have a responsibility to correctly register. If they do not take that responsibility seriously, why should they vote?
Judge Bridges did make a stupid statement about the illegal votes - so what. His later criteria that an illegal vote could be "uncounted" only with the illegal voter testifying as to who they voted for negates any non proven statements he made earlier. Since only 4 of over 1,100 were produced, there is NO evidence on record that "the majority of illegal votes were cast for republicans".
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 5, 2006 07:14 PM
This judge was appointed, so he could not be recalled - may this should be told to Bill O'Reilly, so he can put the heat on him on a local and national level. Another case of the inmates running the asylum.
Posted by: KS on August 5, 2006 09:39 PMIf Soros had his way, corruption in our elections would run amuck in this country, we would be overrun with illegal aliens, drugs woudl be legal and we would lose our freedoms and the left-wing radical gasbags like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Cynthia McKinney would be running the show.
He is a greed hungry SOB who should be subpoenaed for his reputed drug trafficing, tried in a US Court and if found guilty -thrown in the slammer for the rest of his life.
My bad.
Posted by: KS on August 5, 2006 09:51 PMFinally paddy-whack says something factual!
Whack would have us believe that soros "...has quite an interest in keeping our elections laws clean..."
bwaaaaaaahaaaaa! That's too funny! Next he'll be telling us stories about his visits with the Easter Bunny....
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 5, 2006 10:50 PMDid you forget the previous lengthy discussion we had on this subject?
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006262.html
The judge made no such claim/suggestion, that most of the felon votes were cast for Rossi. He did take the word of the felon voters who testified at the trial as to who they voted for, but since the secret ballot (by design) makes that impossible to prove, such testimony should never have been permitted.
And from the record, it is clear that the illegal votes (from all sources, not just the felon voters) tended to favor Gregoire.
Mistakes and errors by KC Elections rendered the result of the gubernatorial election unknowable, but it is likely that Rossi got a higher percentage of the legitimate votes.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 6, 2006 12:22 AMTherein lies the problem. A bureaucrat makes a mistake on a form, and it becomes your problem. You have to correct it, or you lose your right to vote. That's why the law was unconstitutional.
I have helped to maintain databases for statewide political organizations. Correcting errors was a full-time job in every case, and one such database had less than 1/10th of the number of registered voters that this state has. No one's right to vote should rest upon assuming perfection from other humans.
"Did you forget the previous lengthy discussion we had on this subject?"
I recall it quite well. You claimed that we must always believe every felon who claimed residence in King County, even when we have no independent evidence to confirm this. You also claimed that we should not believe any felon who claimed to vote for Mr. Rossi, even when we had independent evidence to support his sworn testimony. You made no attempt to prove that the number of felons was large compared to the number of eligible voters, even though the latter was about three orders of magnitude larger than the fomer. (Absent such proof, your statistical arguments remain meaningless.) In sum, you assumed everything that you needed to prove, just as Judge Bridges told the plaintiffs.
I know that it must've been painful, believing all those empty assertions about how felons voted, only to have all of the evidence go the other way. Too bad. I didn't like hearing how felons had made my candidate governor, esp. since they really tried to do the opposite.
"And from the record, it is clear that the illegal votes (from all sources, not just the felon voters) tended to favor Gregoire."
Where does Judge Bridges note this? Please quote exclusively and extensively from his ruling, as it is the only legal decision that will ever matter.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 6, 2006 01:42 PMRather than respond to your misstatements of the arguments I made in our previous discussion, I will simply refer you, again, to that discussion:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006262.html
Your arguments were, and are, incorrect, and having dealt with them, extensively, in the previous discussion, I will not spend further time on them here.
With respect to your comments on the voter registration legislation, you are wrong again.
It is the responsibility of both the individual and the government to ensure the correctness of the information in the voter database. The government is responsible for the overall database, and each individual shares responsibility with the government for his or her information.
There is certainly room for discussion as to the best way to ensure the correctness of the information in the voter database. If, in practice, problems arise, then they should be fixed.
But your claims about "losing the right to vote" are simply fallacious. If the voter registration process is not properly completed (for whatever reason), the affected individual can cast a provisional ballot. If the individual was eligible to vote, the ballot will be counted. If not eligible to vote, the ballot will not be counted.
Just as it should be, either way.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 7, 2006 01:28 PMAgreed. But under this law, the individual loses even if she has done nothing wrong. She has to correct the error, even if she did nothing to make it. If she gets lost in the maze of bureaucracy, she loses her vote. That's why the law was correctly ruled unconstitutional-- by a Republican appointee.
"But your claims about 'losing the right to vote' are simply fallacious. If the voter registration process is not properly completed (for whatever reason), the affected individual can cast a provisional ballot. If the individual was eligible to vote, the ballot will be counted. If not eligible to vote, the ballot will not be counted."
We're talking about cases where the voter registration process WAS properly completed, by the citizen. In 2004, group of legal voters had their legal ballots lost by the clerks. When found, the Republican party went to court to stop the legal counting of these legal votes. Hundreds of legal voters almost lost their legal votes, all due to clerical errors beyond any voter's control. These errors almost cost the rightful winner her place in the Governor's Mansion. We should not pass any law which increases the chance of errors compounding.
Finally, I see that you're still assuming that which requires proof, just as Judge Bridges told the plaintiffs.
"Rather than respond to your misstatements of the arguments I made in our previous discussion, I will simply refer you, again, to that discussion...
"Your arguments were, and are, incorrect, and having dealt with them, extensively, in the previous discussion, I will not spend further time on them here."
"My" "incorrect" arguments are, and forever will be, the final word on the 2004 Governor's race in Washington State. Not because I made them, but because they follow from the laws of mathematics, and the rules of evidence in this state. That's why the "evidence" that you championed will forever be known by it's correct name: "fallacy", and why a Republican Judge in a Republican county used the phrase "judicial activism" to describe the request made by the plaintiffs. I refer you, now and forever, to Judge Bridges' ruling, and I will dismiss any other claim you make with pr-- well, you know.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on August 7, 2006 08:16 PMProcedures have been invented aeons ago to allow both parties to maintain a chain of custody over voting materials. It's not hard. Any public officials who can't manage such a thing should be fired.
Posted by: supercat on August 7, 2006 11:13 PMWhat does the abject failure of KC Elections to properly handle ballots (and, it should be emphasized, MAIL ballots at that) have to do with voter registration procedures?
You say that their registrations were properly completed. That being the case, the mistakes and errors made by KC Elections (which rendered the result of the 2004 gubernatorial election unknowable) in handling these ballots (and all others, for that matter) are the problem, not the voter registration process.
The horrendous problems with ballot handling and accounting in KC Elections are far more likely to result in a person's vote not being counted, than any hitch in the registration process.
Changing the subject...Paddy, you are welcome to live in the past, and cling desperately to Judge Bridges' ruling if you wish. Subsequent events, and the still-ongoing revelations of further mistakes and errors at KC Elections, have made a mockery of said ruling.
Most people get this, which is why about 60% of the voters in this state feel that Mrs Gregoire was not legitimately elected.
Also, I find your comments about "the laws of mathematics" to be rather amusing, since it is clear from your remarks in our previous discussion ( http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006262.html ), and those above, that you do not have a grasp of the mathematics involved. In the spirit of good-sportsmanship, though, I'll give you a hint: you're barking up the wrong tree with the line about the ratio of felony voters to eligible voters.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 8, 2006 10:00 PMNothing. Which is why the Republican party should not have filed a lawsuit to tie the two issues, and why we should not have a law tying clerical errors to voting rights.
Imagine if this law had existed in late 2004. After failing to disenfranchise legitimate voters en masse (for their "crime" of having clerks misplace their ballots) , the Republicans could have tried to disenfranchise each voter individually, challenging each one who might have had a typographical error in his or her record. We don't need more laws inviting such nasty mischief from desperate political operatives.
"You say that their registrations were properly completed. That being the case, the mistakes and errors made by KC Elections (which rendered the result of the 2004 gubernatorial election unknowable) in handling these ballots (and all others, for that matter) are the problem, not the voter registration process."
Agreed. Even a perfect voter registration process can lead to attempted disenfranchisement. Tweaking the law, to make it harder for a voter to exercise her rights, just makes matters worse. (See above paragraph.) The judge even mentioned the 2004 election as a reason to invalidate the law. (I do NOT agree that the election results were unknowable.)
"The horrendous problems with ballot handling and accounting in KC Elections are far more likely to result in a person's vote not being counted, than any hitch in the registration process."
So, why then should we add more complexity to the registration/verification process?
As for the "horrendous" problems, please read Judge Bridges' ruling, where he notes that problems occurred across the state. Singling out King County was a flatly dishonest trick, perpetrated by a party which had already filed a lawsuit to disenfranchise some of King County's legitimate voters. They wanted an excuse to try it again, using a statistical "fallacy" as their only evidence.
"Changing the subject...Paddy, you are welcome to live in the past, and cling desperately to Judge Bridges' ruling if you wish. Subsequent events, and the still-ongoing revelations of further mistakes and errors at KC Elections, have made a mockery of said ruling."
All of your words do nothing to alter the legal reality of this state. All of Soundpolitics' claims mean nothing, since they were tested in that same courtroom, and invalidated. A Republican judge in a Republican county absolutely rejected every claim that the plaintiffs put to him, and even used a phrase with very strong meaning, "judical activism", to describe their request.
"Also, I find your comments about 'the laws of mathematics' to be rather amusing, since it is clear from your remarks in our previous discussion ( http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006262.html ), and those above, that you do not have a grasp of the mathematics involved. In the spirit of good-sportsmanship, though, I'll give you a hint: you're barking up the wrong tree with the line about the ratio of felony voters to eligible voters."
I made a very good living from statistical analysis, thank you very much, and so I need no hints of yours. If you think you can prove the validity of your non-random sample, please do so. Now, onto another gaping hole in your claims:
Mathematics aside, you never answered another issue: why do you believe a felon's claim to residency in King County on a voter registration form, with no corroborating evidence, but not his testimony in court, supported with independent evidence? Your claim absolutely depends upon doing both, but they contradict each other.
I have given you the courtesy of reading your arguments, considering them, and responding to them - with civil language, at length, and in considerable detail.
I am very disappointed that you did not return the courtesy by reading my responses.
Worse, you have claimed that I did not respond to your arguments. Worse yet, you have repeated this claim, even after I referred you to the previous discussion, provided a link there for your convenience, and informed you that, in fact, I had previously responded to your arguments.
For the record, in our previous discussion,
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006262.html
at #70 and #73/74, I responded to your argument about whether the number of felon and other illegal votes was large compared to the total number votes cast. At #78 I responded to your argument about felons' residency.
In both cases my responses were detailed, and countered your arguments.
Paddy, denying the existence of an opposing argument, when you are unable to answer it, is not very sporting.
So, once again, I have already responded to your above arguments in our previous discussion, and I will not spend further time on them here.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 9, 2006 11:36 PMI believe your memory is playing tricks on you.
ewaggin:
"What does the abject failure of KC Elections to properly handle ballots (and, it should be emphasized, MAIL ballots at that) have to do with voter registration procedures?"
Paddy:
"Nothing."
Well, I'm glad we got that settled, at least.
Paddy:
"Which is why the Republican party should not have filed a lawsuit to tie the two issues, and why we should not have a law tying clerical errors to voting rights.
"Imagine if this law had existed in late 2004. After failing to disenfranchise legitimate voters en masse (for their "crime" of having clerks misplace their ballots) , the Republicans could have tried to disenfranchise each voter individually, challenging each one who might have had a typographical error in his or her record. We don't need more laws inviting such nasty mischief from desperate political operatives."
Paddy, that lawsuit was not an attempt to disenfranchise the voters whose ballots were "misplaced" by KC Elections. Rather, it was an appeal for equal treatment under the law.
The ballots in question were not counted in the initial tabulation, nor in the first recount. After Gregoire lost in the recount, KCE, by the merest of coincidences, produced several hundred ballots and said that they planned to count them.
This occurred after nearly every other county had completed their tabulation of ballots. Many of them had found ballots that were either misplaced or invalid (but subsequently validated) at the time of the initial tabulation. Following what they believed to be established law, those counties did not count the ballots that were not included in the initial tabulation, even though they wanted to, and closed their books on the election.
After KCE announced that they were going to count ballots not included in the initial tabulation, many of the other counties wanted to do the same, and asked to be permitted to do so.
The lawsuit was filed to compel equal treatment under the law. Preferably (following established practice), that KCE should be forbidden to count ballots not included in the initial tabulation, or alternatively, that the other counties should be permitted to count their ballots that had not been included in the initial tabulation.
The judge allowed KCE to count their ballots, but denied the requests of the other counties to count theirs, on the basis that the other counties had "completed" their tabulation, but that KCE had not.
So, by dragging their feet until after the other counties stopped counting, KCE was rewarded for its inexcusable behavior, and was able to keep "finding" and counting ballots until they put Gregoire in the lead.
Which is why about 60% of the voters in the state believe that Gregoire was not legitimately elected.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 10, 2006 12:36 AM"Imagine if this law had existed in late 2004. After failing to disenfranchise legitimate voters en masse (for their "crime" of having clerks misplace their ballots) , the Republicans could have tried to disenfranchise each voter individually, challenging each one who might have had a typographical error in his or her record."
Paddy, your hypothetical scenario fails, on several fronts.
1) The law covering challenges of voter registrations requires that they be made thirty days before the election. If they are made after that point, the challenged voter's vote stands. Since you posit "lost ballots" occurring before the challenge, the election has already occurred, the votes stand, and there is no disenfranchisement.
2) If a challenge is timely made before an election, the challenged voter is given the opportunity to cure the defects, if any, that exist in his registration, or otherwise show that the challenge is mistaken. Any "typographical error" would thus be swiftly resolved. The voter would vote in the election, and there would be no disenfranchisement.
3) If a challenge is not timely made before an election, or is made afterwards, the challenged voter is given the opportunity to cure the defects, if any, that exist in his registration, or otherwise show that the challenge is mistaken. Any "typographical error" would thus be swiftly resolved. The voter would vote in the election, and there would be, again, no disenfranchisement.
The important point to note here is that the challenge process does not disenfranchise any legitimately registered voter. Instead, it has the beneficial effects of improving the integrity of the voter registration database by requiring erroneous information to be corrected, and of removing any illegitimate or fraudulent registrations.
The goal of this process is not disenfranchise any legitimately registered voter, but to prevent illegitimate and fraudulent voters from disenfranchising the rest of us.
By allowing incorrect registrations to remain uncorrected, and refusing to permit the identities of registrants to be verified, the risk of illegitimate and fraudulent voting is greatly increased, and so too the risk that all legitimate voters will be disenfranchised.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 10, 2006 01:32 AM"Hundreds of legal voters almost lost their legal votes, all due to clerical errors beyond any voter's control. These errors almost cost the rightful winner her place in the Governor's Mansion. We should not pass any law which increases the chance of errors compounding."
Paddy, that is a most interesting claim.
When I show that the probability is extremely high that the illegal votes cast in KC provided Gregoire with her margin of "victory", you say that I'm mistaken.
Now you claim that several hundred legal votes, if not counted, would have cost Gregoire the election.
Paddy, haven't you been paying attention to the forceful and cogent arguments that you yourself have made in our discussion?
For instance (Paddy @ #61), how do we know that these voters actually live in KC?
And you're not suggesting, are you, that merely because they voted in KC, that we can infer that these voters all cast their ballots for Gregoire?
Also (Paddy @ #67), isn't "singling out King County a flatly dishonest trick"?
Posted by: ewaggin on August 10, 2006 02:25 AM"I made a very good living from statistical analysis, thank you very much, and so I need no hints of yours."
All well and good, but do you grasp the mathematics involved? Apparently not, because you follow with this non-sequiter:
"If you think you can prove the validity of your non-random sample, please do so."
Your continued use of the phrase "non-random sample" when referring to my probability calculations suggests that you do not understand the difference between extrapolating a known sample (accuracy requires it be random) to estimate the makeup of an unknown population, versus calculating the probability that the distribution within a subset of a known population varies from the distribution of the population.
However, if you do grasp the math, then at least do me the courtesy of responding to what I did do (probability calculations), instead of trying to float arguments about why something that I didn't do (extrapolation from a sample) is invalid.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 10, 2006 03:23 AM