September 19, 2006
Election Results

The polls have just closed and the counties can now start reporting results.

KING-5 already has some numbers --
State Races (Supreme Court, Legislature).

The Secretary of State is now also posting results. SoS pages for some of the races of interest --
Supreme Court #2 (Owens/Johnson)
Supreme Court #8 (Alexander/Groen)
Supreme Court #9 (Chambers/Burrage)

State Senate #35 Democrat (Sheldon/Lucas)

State House #43 Democrat

State Senate #26 Republican (Hines/McMahan)

Also watch for a possible meltdown in the King County vote count.

King County numbers are starting to come in. Try this page.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 19, 2006 08:10 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Groens going to need to do a lot better then he has in the red counties if he is going to pull this off. Not looking good for him so far.

IT also looks like Michael Johnson is getting some of Stephan Johnson's votes.

Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 08:18 PM
2. although the fact that both had their occupations listed next to them, may have helped them both.

Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 08:20 PM
3. Went to the polls. Yeah, I know . . "How Quaint!"

The polling place was run by a shrivelled up unionite who was so uninformed, she did not know that this election was anything other than a partisan only "primary" for her party.

I first asked the lady at the table and then had to ask three other people at other tables whether I could NOT vote on the partisan selections, but only on the non-partisan section.

Of the four asked only one seemed to be able to read. My ballot said plainly that one did not have to select a party in order to vote the non-partisan selections.

The poll "BOSS" (that's the only term that really fits), was adamant that I must choose a party or I could not vote on any portion of the ballot. When I pointed out the statement on the ballot that refuted her, she just glowered at me as if I was stupid.

The one poll worker who did know how to read remembered that in training they were told about how to count ballots such as mine, but neither she nor anyone else manning the polling place knew how to do this.

I was lucky in that the poll technical dude was in the polling place at the time I asked how this was to be done since my ballot could not be read without some intervention from the poll workers. It still took him sveral tries to get the machine to read my ballot.

What kind of political hacks do we have running the polls? Do these same political hacks program the voting machines and maintain them. So it would seem.

I choose to not interfere or particiapte in the party's selection process and I am told that I may not vote in sections of the ballot where this is not required. The ballots are designed in such a way as to make it almost impossible to exercise my right to vote.

If I were not persistent in demanding that my rights be respected I would have either been forced to choose a party which I have no inclination to do or I would have disenfranchised on important judicial and other items on the ballot.

Rant over - Thanks for giving me a place to have it!

Posted by: deadwood on September 19, 2006 08:26 PM
4. While I believe a non-partisan cannot vote in the primary for the partisan races, it's reprehensible to disenfranchise you for the non-partisan races.

But what are you going to do, sue Ron Sims?

Posted by: steve miller on September 19, 2006 08:29 PM
5. Stephan, The #43 link goes to #35.

Posted by: Dengle on September 19, 2006 08:38 PM
6. Took my Voter Card to the poll, but kept my ID in my pocket...and nobody asked for it. Last election I was asked for ID before voting. So, the voter fraud reforms have lasted less than 1 year?

How did this go for other poll voters?

Posted by: dl on September 19, 2006 08:45 PM
7. The link to the voters guide on this page (http://www.king5.com/election/results.html?federal) takes you to the 2004 election. Scary to see Dave Ross running again.

Posted by: steve miller on September 19, 2006 08:49 PM
8. Burner is making toast out of the Sheriff in early returns. Cantwell is clobbering McGavick 50 plus to 30 something. Groen does not appear to have made it - the numbers will only get more grim for him.

So how does anyone explain why so many voters appear to be picking up Democrat ballots in so many counties? King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark, Clallum, Mason etc. etc. (save for the Eastern Washington standards) all appear to be overwhelmingly Democrat.

Posted by: thor on September 19, 2006 08:54 PM
9. I voted in a forced vote by mail county. Although I did hand over my ballot in a remaining polling place, no ID is required to buy a stamp. My signature on an envelope is now my ID. It's depressing.

Posted by: Elaine on September 19, 2006 08:55 PM
10. Thor: Maybe Western Washington needs more peas and lentils?

Posted by: Elaine on September 19, 2006 08:59 PM
11. Clark has Alexander up 54 to 46 with about 40k votes counted. Benton which gave Rossi 70% is only giving Groen 55 with over 11k votes counted. Thats about 1/7 of the total cast in 2004. Looks like Groen may be finished.

Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 09:03 PM
12. looks like that Michael Johnson tool is stealing votes from Stephen Johnson, hopefull Owens will stay under 50%. Groen is toast! I do not think the R's had any reason to vote, a lot of those Burner people are excited to vote for her, I would not read a lot into the primary results as you know a lot more D's voted than R's.. Remember most D's don't work so they had all day to leave there parents home and vote.

Posted by: ckl on September 19, 2006 09:06 PM
13. King County
District Court Northeast Electoral District Judge Position No. 2
Richard Pope NP 3057 34.37%
Mary Ann Ottinger NP 3196 35.93%
Frank V. LaSalata NP 2638 29.66%
Write-in 4 0.04%

Snohomish County
NORTHEAST ELECTORAL DISTRICT JUDGE POS 2
Richard Pope 508 39.56%
Mary Ann Ottinger 491 38.24%
Frank V. LaSalata 282 21.96%
Write-In 3 0.23%

Posted by: Richard Pope on September 19, 2006 09:06 PM
14. The fact that Michael Johnson has been 4-6% ahead of the other nobodies in the race is pretty interesting. this whole race tells me that about 30% of people simply vote randomly for judges and another 4-6% can't tell to people appart. Go figure.

Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 09:06 PM
15. dl @ 6
"How did this go for other poll voters?"


ummm... I thought you were supposed to show ID, but I was never asked. surprise, surprise

Posted by: eric on September 19, 2006 09:15 PM
16. Why are we deciding judicial races in a primary?
Why are we voting on levies in a primary?

This is ridiculous! primaries are intended for the parties to select their candidates. I say we do away with them althogther and let the parties select via caucus.

Non-partisan positions and any initiative/tax levy, etc. need to be decided in the General Election!

Posted by: eric on September 19, 2006 09:20 PM
17. From the Secretary of States office, claiming 100% reporting:

Darcy Burner, Democrat, 11474

Dave Reichert, Republican, 10438

http://vote.wa.gov/elections/PrimaryResults/Results.aspx?o=7b7f42a5-3c 6e-4bd1-92d5-0e11d5bd6d16

Not a good day for Reichert.

Posted by: JDB on September 19, 2006 09:34 PM
18. Ironically, for all the wailing about screwing up the election for S. Johnson, having Ericson, M. Johnson and Smith in the primary may have prevented Owens from winning outright tonight.

Posted by: wayne on September 19, 2006 09:41 PM
19. On further review, that is percentage of primary vote, not reporting. Still, a good night for Burner.

Still, by this point of the night, this is significant:

Maria Cantwell: 235614

Mike McGavick: 163550

Nearly 70000 different.

http://vote.wa.gov/elections/PrimaryResults/Results.aspx?o=8f43af96-81c1-47c6-8b5f-3ad9dee0e6ad

Posted by: JDB on September 19, 2006 09:44 PM
20. Wayne:

I was thinking the same thing. Still, with all the money that the BIAW put into this race, you have to figure this was their best chance.

Posted by: JDB on September 19, 2006 09:50 PM
21. So you think Reichert is finished??? He had 8000 less votes than Dave Ross in the 2004 primary...And we know how that ended up....

Posted by: Sierradog on September 19, 2006 09:51 PM
22. Either I'm not reading it right or damn King County and its brethren in corruption, Pierce County, seem to be LAST in reporting... again.

They BOTH have -0- precincts reported.

Imagine that.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 19, 2006 09:52 PM
23. King County changed its procedures to require ballot tabulations to be hand delivered instead of transmitted electronically. They said earlier this would mean no returns till after 10pm (except early absentees.

Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 09:55 PM
24. Thank you.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 19, 2006 09:56 PM
25. Sadly for the future of democracy, the Washington state elections process has been reduced to irrelevancy by Sam I Am, Deanron, and what's left of KCE. Elections in King County are now on par with electing homecoming queens or (all-white) sorority presidents.

But you know what? A week after November's beauty contest, nobody will give a rat's a*s about the judges, congressmen, or dog catchers that are "elected." The only election that really matters in this country happens every four years, and thankfully we've gotten it right as a nation for the past two.

Posted by: Organization Man on September 19, 2006 09:57 PM
26. Groen's unwillingness to expose Alexander's racketeering will likely cost him the election. that's OK; it will be exposed in a court of law starting on October 16th.

Posted by: Don on September 19, 2006 10:17 PM
27. Groen's unwillingness to expose Alexander's racketeering will likely cost him the election. that's OK; it will be exposed in a court of law starting on October 16th.

Posted by: Don on September 19, 2006 10:18 PM
28. Can we say there is a meltdown yet? 10:30 and counting.

Posted by: Michael on September 19, 2006 10:21 PM
29. Looking at the King County results at http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/200609/resPage3.htm, I noticed the following (currently only already returned absentees counted):

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NO. 1
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 5132 / 134236

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NO. 2
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 22 / 364

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NO. 7
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 19110 / 367653

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NO. 8
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 13172 / 310418

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NO. 9
Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 8085 / 142461

Please tell me that the District 2 is incorrect. Do we actually have a congressman representing 364 voters?

Posted by: DJ on September 19, 2006 10:21 PM
30. Don, please take tonight as a sign that you need to shut up. Your constant obsession with and insane delusions involving Alexander are old and pathetic. Your need to come on here and sound like a psycho do nothing to help the conservative cause.

Posted by: Tired of Don on September 19, 2006 10:24 PM
31. What's up with King County's lack of results?

Don't they know how to commit fraud "quickly" without Dean?? Sheesh!

Posted by: Deborah on September 19, 2006 10:25 PM
32. Re: #30,

The judge hearing the case does not share your opinion. In fact, he has ruled I am entitled to call each of the nine justices as witnesses. furthermore, ther is at least a 95% chance I will also be able to call gregoire and McKenna to testify.

Can you explain on what basis the Governor and the AG can make a legitimate claim that the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of a judge who commits a crime? Unless you can explain away that inconvenient lie, maybe you need to shut up. I have the document in which they make such an absurd claim.

Posted by: don on September 19, 2006 10:36 PM
33. You all, of course, have seen the Chopp bitch-slap tonight, right?

Chopp goes down to Clark County, and gets rid of an announced candidate for 17th District House Pos 1 (Paul Waadevig) and has Jack Burkman anointed to take Paul's place.

That torqued the local democrat party off so much that the county chair and treasurer both resigned in protest.

Chopp gave Burkman $10,000 to get the ball rolling... David Nierenberg arranged for several thousand more... and all was right in Chopp's World.... until tonight.

At the last minute, a thrice-failed candidate by the name of Pat Campbell, who first ran against then-Rep. Marc Boldt as a Republican (in 02) in the primary and then ran as a democrat against Rep. Jim Dunn (in 04) followed by a losing effort for city council in 05, losing all 3 times, filed against Burkman.

The Columbian down here refering to it as an "unwise" move, Campbell jumped in at the last second of filing.

And he kicked Chopp's hand picked guy's head in, spending NOTHING compared to Burkman raising $97,000!

This is like Meadowdale knocking off USC in a football game.

As for Chopp... he not only got egg on his face... he got the whole omelet!

Details here: http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/09192006news60592.cfm

Posted by: JustSumGuy on September 19, 2006 10:58 PM
34. Lo and Behold, guess who was Deanron2? None other than San Fransisco's John Arntz.

"Buck has been filling in since Logan resigned in July to take a job in Los Angeles County. King County Executive Ron Sims offered the post to John Arntz, elections director in San Francisco, but he turned it down last week."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003266378_webvote19.html

Posted by: Michael on September 19, 2006 11:01 PM
35. It blows my mind that people are pouncing on the Reichert/Burner race as a beating of Reichert. He got 1,139 votes less in his uncontested primary than she got in hers. It's a partison primary, with low turnout... only 23,327 total voted in the race as of now according to the SoS' website. Whoopdee Freakin Do, hardly something to get excited about on either side. How many people in this district who are voting in November actually voted today, and of them, how many were eligable to vote in this race?

I wouldn't get your hopes up yet for a Burner blow out.

Posted by: Mike H on September 19, 2006 11:14 PM
36. Don, take your crusade elsewhere. #30 is right - it doesn't belong here.

Posted by: deadwood on September 19, 2006 11:16 PM
37. 29 - the 2nd CD doesn't have a lot of king county voters, but congressional seats are portioned by population. The 2nd is roughly the same size as any other CD in the state

Posted by: a nony mouse on September 19, 2006 11:36 PM
38. Well I can say this:

If the people of Seattle said a big H_ _ _ no to giving millions more to the failed School district there

Then the billions the Mayor, and King County want in the next general election for their Big Dig and the already lost Sonics, are sure to go down in flames.

Posted by: GS on September 20, 2006 12:25 AM
39. Two years ago, dems garnered more votes in their primary than Rs for 8th congressional race AND here in the 5th leg. district.

Republicans went on to win big in all those races in the general. Dems, be sure to celebrate tonight because your girl Darcy is goin' down come November. We know how this thing works now. 2nd term for Reichert.

Posted by: Michele on September 20, 2006 01:02 AM
40. Two thoughts: 1) the vote counts in Reichert/Burner aren't significant--it is pretty well known that Dems drive the vote in primaries much better than the GOP, so Darcy and Dave being neck and neck is actually bad news for Darcy. If she wanted to have a chance, she would need to be showing about 30% margin on Dave, not 10%.

2) When do we get to start the prosecution on Michael Johnson for deliberately causing voter confusion? Almost 50k votes for a guy who didn't campaign and wasn't even remotely qualified is a travesty, and I would hope that at least the Bar would take away his privilege of practicing law after that stunt.

Posted by: Marc on September 20, 2006 05:07 AM
41. What's his name, jdb/biteme/blowjob?

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 20, 2006 09:10 AM
42. Eric @16--i guess i'd lean with you and have them on a general. this may be a strategy to sneak in things without a lot of scrutiny since many voters "just want to get it over" and not analyze;

for first time, i voted down an emergcy. levy. why? i support police & fire strongly, but for simple matter that they wanted to extend it 10 years!

i think every few 2 or 3 years max it needs to be audited & reviewed; i resent being locked in to a 10 year tax. how will i as a taxpayer unravel it if it's wasted? and remember--it's property value assessed, so as home value rises, it's a nearly invosible automatic tax increase without a taxpayer vote;

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 20, 2006 12:23 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?