Ron Sims discussing his mail-only voting scheme on KUOW Weekday, June 15:
We do have a very good plan. And Dean has really put together a very, very good plan[audio clip of quote. complete exchange online at KUOW starts at 5:28]
I've been seing indications for the last two months that Sims didn't really have a plan for mail-only voting. Now I've seen what Sims calls his "plan" and I can say with assurance that he really doesn't have a plan.
Timeline: I sent a records request to Sims' spokesman on June 20th asking for the details of the "very, very good plan". Deanron responded a few days later indicating that the documents would be produced by July 20th. On July 20th I received a letter indicating that there were 1,968 pages responsive to my request, and that I could get copies of all of them as soon as I paid $295.20. I asked to review the documents before I ordered copies. I didn't hear back until I received a letter on August 10, informing me that there were actually "730 responsive documents", and that I could get copies of all of them as soon as I paid $109.50. I asked again to review the documents before I ordered copies. Yesterday I was able to review what were represented to me as "all documents responsive to your June 20, 2006". As I suspected, these documents cannot reasonably be characterized as an adequate plan for the transition to mail-only voting.
Most of the substance is in this glossy brochure, which was released on January 31. It's not a plan, but mostly a lot of half-baked brainstorming, and at best what one source called "a plan for a plan". What then were the "730 responsive documents"? It included multiple copies of the January 31 document and multiple copies of various working drafts and source memos for the January 31 document. There were also some additional documents of interest, such as working memos with details that didn't make it in the final version, interna e-mails, correspondence with prospective vendors.
What was most interesting about the documents is that reveal how rushed and incomplete of a job King County did in order to create the minimal semblance of a "plan" that Sims could trot out to the Council and the news media.
* The only real work on the "plan" commenced on January 11. (I find it interesting that Paul Tanaka attended the kick-off meeting to provide "context". Tanaka is one level above Dean Logan in the King County foodchain, and his presence signals to me that Ron Sims had a personal interest in this project above and beyond his routine responsibility for election administration).
* The work on the plan was essentially finished on January 26. The next few days appear to have been spent wordsmithing the meeting notes into a somewhat readable document.
* This e-mail from Bill Huennekens acknowledged that they really don't have much information other than product literature on some of the vendors they're considering.
* This e-mail from one of the project leaders calls the whole process "rushed"
* I saw no documents that would indicate that any substantive work has been done since the glossy brochure was finished on January 31.
This all makes one wonder -- if this was such an important project to improve accuracy and accountability of election administration, why was there such a rush to produce a plan-like document in 3 weeks, only to suspend all further work on the plan? One gets the impression that the whole thing was all about Ron Sims' hard-on to ram this through the Council as quickly as possible.
And by the way, King County just scored a $4.7 million federal HAVA grant for mail ballot processing equipment, which Ron Sims calls "the foundation for the County to transition to all mail voting." Hmm. If I am to believe that the documents I was shown yesterday are "all documents responsive" to my request for the mail-only voting plan, then there is no plan for spending the HAVA money. Somebody should alert the federal auditors.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 17, 2006 06:40 PM | Email This'...if you can't convict, you must acquit..."
will history repeat itself? usually does for those who don't remember...
HAVA nice day!
I would love to hear Larry Phillips response. After all, remember the big City Council meeting where the public was allowed to comment on mail voting?
Does Larry Phillips want to reconsider his support in light of your exposure of lack of planning from the Sims camp? Or wouldn't that at least be grounds for revisiting the issue and taking more public input?
One would think that all parties would be concerned about moving a county as large as King County to all mail balloting with no more consideration than a glossy brochure and some brainstorming amongst election staff?
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 17, 2006 08:46 PMHAVA grants info for Wa State
Interesting 7 page pdf file from sos office. also worth noting, Dean Logan was on the Advisory Board !!!!
Posted by: Chris on August 18, 2006 06:37 AMAnd whenever asked about supporting an elected auditor, Ron Sims says that King County is too large for one.
Posted by: Commentator Anonymous on August 18, 2006 07:03 AMJust got done reading the questions on the grant request for HAVA funds. Like 3 big questions. After further digging (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/Elections/hava/HAVA_board_meeting_minutes_10272005.aspx) and (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/Elections/hava/HAVA_board_meeting_minutes_01232006.aspx) it becomes evident that the board just bent over backwards to DeanRon.
I would like to get ahold of KC's application to see the detail of the request for funding.
Posted by: Chris on August 18, 2006 07:14 AMTop vote counter becomes prize job
Excerpts:
The political battle for control of the federal government has opened up a new front: the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.
Secretaries of State control most voting regulations and influence state purchases of voting machines. Looking ahead to 2008, Democrats say they want people they trust in those offices.
Posted by: Cheryl on August 18, 2006 11:22 AMBe honest with folks here...you are taking this positon for partisan reasons. If you lived in a blue state, you'd be in line with the republicans in those states and endorse it.
Honesty is always best.
Posted by: Harry Horseman on August 18, 2006 11:33 AMSorry...I apologize for my error.
Posted by: Harry Horseman on August 18, 2006 11:34 AMWhere do you reside? I live in Lewis county, and I want King County to clean up it's act. I want them to elect an auditor, so there is ONE person who is responsible to the voters. Not some wamby pamby that is Ron Simms Lackey. The voters of KC deserve that much.
The utter refusal (of sims and council) to listen to constituant's in King county is embarrassing. VBM or Not, KC has problems, and there will be no restoration of the public's trust, until they can get their sheet together.
RED-BLUE or PINK, doesn't make it transparent and done correctly.
Posted by: Chris on August 18, 2006 12:08 PMHonesty is the best policy. It's time that Dhimmicrats discover that...
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 19, 2006 08:32 AM-1- Provide a means by which people who buy votes can be sure they're get what they pay for. With polling-place voting, there's no way to know the guy one paid $10 to vote for John Jones didn't actually vote for Steve Smith. Mail-in ballots solve that "problem".
-2- Provide a means by which people can vote many times without risk of being recognized. Someone who registers multiple times to vote in person risks being recognized if noticed by someone with a good memory. Mail-in ballots solve that "problem".
-3- Polling-place ballots allow people to know on election day that they've satisfied all the requirements for their vote will be counted. Mail-in ballots allow for the possibility of lingering questions.
-4- If election officials play by the rules, polling-place ballots can be watched over by members of all interested parties from the moment they're cast until the count is finalized. This makes it difficult for anyone to fudge them. Mail-in ballots solve that "problem".
-5- When using polling-place ballots, it's possible to account for nearly all balloting materials printed (if someone decides to walk off with a ballot without casting it, it may not be possible to stop that person, but it should be possible to make a note of such behavior; in any case, the quantity of unaccounted-for material should be small. As a result of this, because it's possible to account for nearly all ballot material, some annoying person who doesn't want any funny business might insist upon such accounting, making manipulation difficult. With mail-in ballots, the quantity of material unaccounted for will be so much larger that extra or missing ballots would go unnoticed, thus solving the "problem".
Should I go on?
Posted by: supercat on August 19, 2006 03:24 PM