Sound Politics: Federal judge rules: evidence in voter registration case was bogus

September 08, 2006

Federal judge rules: evidence in voter registration case was bogus

The judge who blocked Washington State from validating a voter's identification as condition for accepting a voter registration, has now ruled that the evidence upon which he based his earlier ruling was bogus: The pro-vote-fraud plaintiffs failed to respond to the state's motion showing that the plaintiff's allegedly "disenfranchised voters" weren't really disenfranchised, so the judge ruled for the state.

More background here, here, here and here.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 08, 2006 05:44 PM | Email This

Comments

1. So did he vacate the earlier order as well?

Posted by: karl on September 8, 2006 06:47 PM

2. I'm shocked at the change of ruling, but will wait and see what the result is..

Posted by: KS on September 8, 2006 07:55 PM

3. Another great example Stefan, thanks for reporting this and holding these people feet to the fire!

Posted by: GS on September 8, 2006 07:56 PM

4. Credit goes to Stefan. Nice work. A small step for defeating false registration claims but a large step towards the overall goal of clean elections.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 8, 2006 09:09 PM

5. karl,

Good question, but it doesn't look like he did. Looks like he just agreed to have the official record supplemented with this: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/MOTIONtoSupplementtheRecordbyDefendantSamReed.pdf

Still, he may be starting to wonder what kind of goofballs he's dealing with here, and that's a good thing.

Posted by: TB on September 8, 2006 10:34 PM

6. Does this mean the plaintiffs, Ms Oldham or Ms Petrienko are guilty of false reporting and/or perjury?

Posted by: Chase on September 9, 2006 12:18 AM

7. Great first step. Good question Chase.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 9, 2006 06:53 AM

8. And WHO was the local blogger who first pointed this out?

Stefan - That's who!

Mega Kudos to you Stefan. If I could give you an award, I certainly would.

Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2006 12:33 PM

9. I see the eight plaintiff organizations and Oldham and Petrienko as being bystanders with respect to these two declarations. The lawyers hunted down two people who appeared to have missed a chance to vote, contacted them, had them sign some statements, and filed them with the court. To prove perjury, you would need to prove that Oldham and Petrienko were as wise about elections as Stefan, and knew that election didn't apply to them, but signed the papers anyway. Even for the lawyers who first "determined" that they had been denied their vote, you'd have a very hard time proving it was not just an honest goof.

Perjury charges aside, the way to find out for your own personal curiosity whether the lawyers knew the declarations they prepared were false or not is to replicate their search for the "disenfranchised." Look through all the registrations that got kicked back during the first half of the year (about 178), figure out which ones were in jurisdictions where elections were held before July 25th (when they signed their declarations). If you come up with nothing, smart money says the lawyers knew they had nothing, and fudged a bit. If you come up with a couple of hits, but when you contact them about signing a declaration, they tell you to go pound sand, and "why do you lawyers keep bothering me about this?" then you almost have a smoking gun. If you come up with lots of hits, several of whom agree to sign a declaration, then you know the lawyers are just stupid.

Posted by: TB on September 9, 2006 12:44 PM

10. Let's see I remember a ballot for Deomcrats, Republicans, Independants.....but nothing for "Honest Goofs". I wonder what that meeting with the lawyers was like. Hey you at the bus stop! I was just on my way to file this bogus lawsuit in court and I was wondering If you would sign this sworn affidavit. No, you don't have to know whats in it. Who cares if its true. Nah, nothing can happen to you, they can never prove intent...there is $10.00 an hour in it for you. We call that reasearch funding here at the Brennan Center for Theft of Democracy.

Posted by: Huh? on September 9, 2006 02:51 PM