Certain elections officials believe all voting should be done by mail:
Secretaries of State Sam Reed and Bill Bradbury today advocated voting by mail as a secure, popular way of voting proven to increase turnout.Well it does increase turnout, after a fashion: "Woman charged with voter fraud"
The Oak Harbor woman allegedly signed and mailed her daughter's absentee ballot during a school bond election in May.Raise your hand if you think this is an isolated incident. Raise both hands if you also think the incidence of such voter fraud will decrease if and when King County forces everybody to vote by mail.
hat tip: Lori H
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 28, 2006 09:01 PM | Email This"she told her mother to vote on her behalf"
"So far, this is the only one from the May election that we believe was voted illegally,"
Well those and the FACT that they caught the alledged fraud.
What a waste of tax payer time and money.
My wife asks me what I think about on the issues and who I'm going to vote for, she usually votes the same, but I make sure she actually fills the thing out and that's normally not an issue as we vote at the polls. This year we will be gone and are voting absentee (the true reason to have this...not in state for the voting day, not that your to lazy or busy [and yes I don't count the disabled in that]). It's her vote and her responsibility to fill it in, even while sitting at the kitchen table.
Sam Reed may be an educated man and have experience with voting, but he sure doesn't seem to care about integrity of the vote.
It looks like that's exactly what happened. By all means toss that ballot out, but it seems a waste of time and money to charge these folks with a crime.
It also seems that this shows the opposite of what is being alleged here. This story really shows how safe vote by mail is. I mean they did catch it after all.
Posted by: me on October 28, 2006 09:42 PMa few voting problems will shrink in importance
Posted by: Jac on October 28, 2006 10:28 PMVote fraud, no matter how small, is not like a speeding ticket. It is not like assault. It is a very, very serious thing. I claim it is even more important than assault or any other crime, save the most serious. Name one thing more important and more critical to our freedoms than the ability to elect our own government. Sure, free speech, right to bear arms, all of these things are important. But without the right to elect our own government, how can we protect these freedoms?
Let me illustrate the importance of election integrity by examining a hypothetical situation. Suppose the people of the US really lose faith in the election system. If everyone thought that their vote really didn't count, and that some group was fixing all the elections, what would happen next? Do you think the situation will be remedied with anything but bloodshed and massive civil disturbances? It certainly can't be fixed with an election or referendum or initiative. What do you think the rest of the world will do when the American system falls into chaos? What rights will you have when there is no longer domestic tranquility in the land?
Even if everyone in the entire US speeds, they cannot cause this kind of damage. That is why vote fraud is so critical and why it is so important to prosecute every case and apply an appropriate penalty. Should the American people ever actually believe that elections do not matter, we will have a far bigger problem on our hands than old ladies doing 70 in a 60 MPH zone.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardnr on October 28, 2006 11:38 PMIt is like shitting your pants. Never plan on it ..... but then all goes wrong and it is the best solution.
Out of hundreds of thousand of ballots there is little fraud, by anyone.
Take heart, people are really good. I think Jesus would be happy.
Do you all make money doing this? If not, get a life. Do some real charity ... I cook at the mission two evenings a week. Better than obsessing so much on so little ..... but I guess that is the definition of an obsession.
Posted by: Jac on October 29, 2006 04:17 AMPot, meet kettle.
Posted by: Elaine on October 29, 2006 07:04 AMThey brought in the Elections supervisor who quickly determined all but one was OK and told me I was not an expert in reading signatures. The one she did not approve, had one mans name printed on top and signed by a different mans name (correct DOB for the name on top). She said it went to suspension?
On one of the 10 which was Oked, the mans name on top was written by femine handwriting. Signature was bold, heavy, shaky. The date of birth was 1901. The elections suppervisor said anyone could fill out a ballot as long as the person voting was the registered one and the signatures were correct with one on file. Might have been the same person, but the signature did not look like the one on the screen (very changed). But it was approved because "old people's signatures change over time". I wondered what nursing home allowed someone to vote for a resident.
Two might have been interchanged by spouses..or?
I have filed challenges to all 10 asking they go before the canvasing board. I would bet she will present them with the same comment: Observer is not an expert and we determined they are all correct. I look forward to Monday afternoon and seeing the board's decisions.
We have manditory mail in. Sorry for this post being so long, but I encourage everyone to volunteer as an observer and really see what goes on.
Prosecuting on any illegal signature is the biggest surprise I have in this case.
Oh, did I mention I am a retired Cop who used to work forgeries? But then I am not an "expert".
Posted by: Old Sgt on October 29, 2006 07:44 AMSorry, Jacko. I have to disagree with your mistaken assertion that "people are really good". Since you injected Jesus into the discussion, I will point out that after man fell from grace, his nature became inherently EVIL, and it requires a continual and conscious act of the will to do GOOD. If human nature was inherently good, then that would make Jesus' sacrifice completely pointless, wouldn't it?
BTW... if you had read the article completely, you would have read where voter fraud is a FELONY. Speeding is NOT.
Vote at your local polling place. Sign the log book. Fill out your ballot, and feed it into the machine YOURSELF. Make sure your vote is counted!!
Posted by: BRC on October 29, 2006 07:47 AMYour story confirms what those of us who pay attention have been saying for several years now. I realize that someone who was born in 1901 COULD still be alive and COULD possibly be fully aware of the issues and be voting accordingly...but chances of that are pretty slim! If you get the chance during the hearing, try to get the address of the voter and check the database to see how many other ballots came from that same address. I'd be curious to see if it is a nursing home and if perhaps a whole slew of "voters" had some help in filling in their ballots! The whole process is a mess and I don't know what it will take to fix it, although I'd love to go the "purple finger" system which seems pretty straightforward and would certainly cut out the frauds. I live in Sno County and have now been forced to all mail voting. I took my ballot, along with my husband's, to a polling drop off for the primary last month and Snohomish County isn't sure if they actually received it! Really gives me a feeling of confidence in the elections department!
Posted by: suzihomemaker on October 29, 2006 07:58 AMBy the way....what do you suppose happened to those 1,100 Voter Registrations sent in too late to King Kounty by ACORN????
I think it's very important for someone to get a copy of each of those Voter Registrations and try to track down every single one of them at the address listed. That will be mighty interesting, don't you think?? Apparently King Kounty has set them aside in a box unopened. Really?
Here is just part of what it says
Secretary of State Sam Reed recently reported that 93 percent of Washington state voters who participated in the Sept. 19 primary did so with a mail-in ballot.
and they follow up with
But the statistics from the primary clearly show that voters prefer to vote from the comfort of their home.
My only question is, what is the percentage of registered voters actually voted?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on October 29, 2006 09:30 AMOne could in good conscious believe that 1)they have the authority to sign for their children and 2) its ok to fill out ballots for family members as long as you vote how they tell you. These are, of course, incorrect, but are a far cry form say voting many times, forging numerous ballots ect. Like I said this is a good opportunity to correct those assumptions and impose a nominal fine.
I would add that prosecuting and jailing a mother who tried, in good faith, to help her daughter vote would do equal damage to peoples faith in the system. I highly doubt that many would even consider what she did to be fraud.
Posted by: Giffy on October 29, 2006 09:38 AMPosted by TrueSoldier at October 29, 2006 09:30 AM
3,250,216 Registered voters statewide
1,261,030 Ballots counted statewide
38.7983% Turnout in Primary
I also never said she should not be punished. I think a small fine would be sufficient to deter her and probably enough to deter others. The choice is not punishment vs. no punishment, it is what sort of punishment.
Posted by: Giffy on October 29, 2006 10:16 AMAlso, I would certainly question the judgment of a prosecutor that wanted to waste taxpayer resources on this case. It's going to be almost impossible to prove the criminal intent necessary to obtain anywhere close to the maximum penalty.
Posted by: scottd on October 29, 2006 11:04 AMNotice the use of the words 'maximum' and 'or'.
Posted by: Giffy on October 29, 2006 11:58 AMMy opinion is that they are afraid of this system of technology because then it would be made tamper proof and omit the bipartisan folks!
The far left Democrats don't get it and never will!
As for all the liberals out there (and they are really out there out of their minds!) Liberals just want us to tell them the truth over and over! It's just so their story gets twisted enough to suit what ever the hell they believe!
This is why scrolling trolls and not letting them annoy me has been my decision!
Seattle is full of these obnoxious little trolls! And like their parents I don't have time for the little assholes!
Michele@11, your analogy is flawed. This illegal voting could have made a difference (just like most speeding offenses), but didn't in this case.
Nonetheless, I agree that even this case of "friendly" vote fraud should be prosecuted as an example. And, in light of the circumstances, the defendant should and doubtless will be given a minimal fine at most.
Posted by: Bruce on October 29, 2006 01:23 PMyours is a misapplied analogy. voting is a personal thing. i'm not a lawyer, but i think it requires power of attorney and is not subject to delegation (in theory). one person, one vote. unique. like the person. can't be 2.
you anaogy is misapplied--close, but no cigar. like me signing a contract for my wife & alleging i'm her. not true. it's a fraud on the courts & the contracting parties. individual voters are unique--not blocks of votes. it's like you saying your birth cert. is also you wife's. not true. cant be. try another analogy.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 29, 2006 01:45 PMDing, you lose. Stop making excuses for vote fraud.
Posted by: Michele on October 29, 2006 01:50 PMYour situational ethics aside, what she did is ILLEGAL. She had many warnings that she ignored. She blew it.
If her daughter had asked her to shoplift, or rob a bank, or punch a neighbor for her, would those acts have been any more legal or acceptable?
You seem to have a very low regard for the sanctity of the vote.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 29, 2006 02:10 PMMy opinion is that they are afraid of this system of technology because then it would be made tamper proof and omit the bipartisan folks!
Me thinks the liberals doth protest too much... it looks like their commie mentor and good pal Hugo is going to help them perpetuate vote fraud...
FEDS PROBE CHAVEZ LINK TO VOTING MACHINE FIRM
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on October 29, 2006 02:21 PMShe either failed to read the oath, though her conduct fell under the "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW" exception, or just figured it was not a big deal. All, like I said earlier, were wrong.
What I objected to was prosecuting her as opposed to making a deal for a modest fine. Not all wrongs are equal. If they were we would give the death penalty to shoplifters.
Posted by: Giffy on October 29, 2006 05:52 PM"situational ethics" Hell yes I use "situational ethics" sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes you need a sledge hammer. It's an important skill to be able to distinguish between the two.
PS ethics are by their nature situational, you're confusing ethics with morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Am I too polite to call you a fool?
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on October 29, 2006 10:34 PMForget the Mom that helped the daughter. We have much bigger game to hunt.
Posted by: snuffy on October 29, 2006 10:44 PMFortunately, you can count on me's situational ethics (and your wife's tolerance), otherwise you could be breaking rocks...
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 30, 2006 09:31 AM