I'll be in Olympia this morning testifying against HB 1742 "Providing for privacy protection for certain voter registration information".
The bill would exempt voter birthdates from public disclosure and exempt absentee ballot envelope signatures from being copied. This bill was introduced at the request of county auditors and would mainly allow elections officials to sweep mistakes under the rug. (e.g. double voters and signature verification screw-ups)
The hearing, which will also consider other bills, starts at 10am and will be shown live on TVW
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 13, 2007 07:34 AM | Email ThisI was called alst week about my signature not matching what King County has on file. This was obviously overkill. I have been consistant absentee ballot voter all my adult life.
I resented the call. King County was very professional and insisted it important that I provide an updated one if I did not want another screw-up.
I will do my part, but if i find out some of the stuff you are doing ADDS TIME and UNNEEDED STRESS to my lawful exercise of vote, I will let you know in the most clear terms.
Hold King COunty accountable - yes.
Prevent my vote from counting - Stef we will have words!
Respectfully
Once At City
Good luck with Chairman Sam Hunt and the other (D)s on that committee, but not holding my breath: There are 3 really good (R)s, but they're outnumbered 2:1 by (D)s.
SIDEBAR attempt at brief bi-partisan credit where due: I and other Farm Bureau members testified at the House Ag and Natural Resources Committee hearing on HB 1748 last week, and we got a fair and positive reception from Chairman Brian Sullivan and other (D)s on the committee.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 13, 2007 07:57 AMSo are you worried that your vote will not be counted? Or it will counted MANY times?
I think Stef is not your problem, unless you like cheaters.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 13, 2007 09:12 AMIn the scheme of life, you by your own admission have saved plenty of time by voting absentee - so spending a little bit of that surplus to validate your signature should not be a problem. If you voted in person regularly, then they would be able to validate your signature every time. And since it appears that you have not shown your face at a polling place for quite some time, who's to say someone is forging your signature on the absentee ballot? It happens.
In other words, you should be happy KC is taking some steps to cut down on fraudulant voters...
Posted by: rbb on February 13, 2007 09:46 AMI am sorry I do not understand your question. I am displeased as a lawful absentee voter I have been asked to resubmit my signature. Believe me, I will do it and that is ok. But I assure you Army no one who gets the call is pleased. Its like the DMV calling to tell you you have to come back to the office and wait in a big ass long line for something as mundane as confirming your--lets say--eye color or weight.
Army I appreciate cleaning voting rolls of cheaters. I am afaired you have me confused with someone else. Not unlike the way King County treated me, I am sorry to say.
Respectfully
Once At City
I am happy KC called. Its government working, I suppose. The thing is, I have voted lawfully all my life. And most of my childhood would accompany my mother. It was and continues to be something very important to me and my family.
I am sorry you think I protest with whine. You meant that to offend and hurt. I am sorry I must have said something that you thought worthy to attempt to hurt me. Not likely, but no doubt you are one whom feels participation in the process is more than just voting, its trying to protect the process from cheaters. Fair enough.
Respectfully
Once At City
Give me a break!
My wife had to do this as well. Simply fax in a form - piece of cake.
Small price to pay to insure that our elections process is clean and not being abused.
Bravo, Stefan!
Posted by: Eric on February 13, 2007 10:05 AMNo. You're not. Your entire post, and subsequent posts were complaining about the call.
Just like those retailers who request you pull out your drivers license when purchasing with a credit or debit card, you should be thankful somebody is checking up on things.
I will do my part, but if i find out some of the stuff you are doing ADDS TIME and UNNEEDED STRESS to my lawful exercise of vote, I will let you know in the most clear terms.
And I'd be more than happy to let you know in the most clear terms as well. See? Aren't Internet tough-guy threats fun? Lighten up.
Posted by: jimg on February 13, 2007 10:24 AMI am happy they called to advise me. I was not happy someone Thought My Signature was not as it should have been. The County has at least 10 ballots of my signature.
What Jimg, has happened all of a sudden, I should have my signature questioned?
My view? Some are still upset at Rossi Loss (I voted for Dino, so do not get it twisted). And that is why KC cranked up reviews of signatures to the point of going overboard. Is there something wrong with that? not really, but isn't it interesting. I was merely mentioning it to Stefan.
But lets not (meaning you, Rbb, Army and Stef) act like all of sudden rules were broken when Chrintine became governor (Ps...I do not like Gregeiore, so please lets NOT GET IT TWISTED).
This Country and State went many years when people were purposefully KEPT, did I whisper? KEPT from voting NOT because of the signature NOT matching.
Jimg, from the tone in your email to me, you think you are one WHO CARED ABOUT THOSE AMERICANS IN THE PAST DONE WRONG BY ELECTIONS FRAUD?
Respectfully,
Once At City
hey appleton? What part of public record do you not understand?
Posted by: eric on February 13, 2007 11:09 AMAre you comparing what happened to you to the disfranchisement of blacks in the south prior to the voting rights legislation of the 60's? That seems kind of a stretch.
You must be a very emotional person.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 13, 2007 11:11 AMThe left is afraid of making voting more secure, primarily because it removes their ability to use emotion to influence voters immediately prior to elections. The left media and many Soros funded lefty groups have become adept at using emotion to influence elections, and they know that the time for action and maximum emotion is immediately preceding a significant election.
Efforts to provide basic security and process to elections, however reasonable and well intentioned, are vigorously resisted because the left knows that defusing emotion and the crisis nature of their politics would leave them with an insurmountable hurdle. One won't buy into socialism, environmental hysteria, corporate defamation, mass transportation schemes, etc. that are based on good solid facts, rational economic analysis, true fairness, etc., because most often, those facts won't allow the inferior ideas of the left to compete in a rational market.
It's all about playing the heart strings, and the left will do or say anything to preserve their monopoly on emotion.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 13, 2007 11:23 AMKaren Flynn (Kitsap auditor) seems to be conciliatory toward the birthdate issue. However, on the scan/copy signature issue, she is most concerned about identity theft and misuse of this information. I think she is well intentioned, and I understand her point.
However, your point was dramatic, and you made it by example. You showed examples where people voted twice, proved by their own signatures. I would have expected the committee to be picking their jaws up off the floor, but instead you were hurried to complete your presentation.
I suppose that it could be argued that a watchdog organization could be given access, and if a problem was found they could let the proper authorities know that ballots #xxxx and #yyyy are duplicate or otherwise problematic. However, if you already have the photocopy and you give it to them, they see it with their own eyes, and still choose to ignore it (as today), what chance is there that your disclosure of improper ballots will be looked at at all?
The most overlooked part of this subject is that we need a completely different way of authenticating and validating ballots.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 13, 2007 11:43 AMTo my point above. As someone who works in computer security, providing a decent level of security for voting is not a hard problem. And if done right, it would in no way be limiting of those who want to vote legitimately, in fact, after the initial learning curve, it would most likely make voting even easier and more efficient. But also as I note above, this not about streamlining voting, or election integrity, this is about protecting the emotional franchise which Democrats have built. And that's why Stefan was hurried right along. They know exactly what the stakes are, and they'll do anything to protect their methods.
Look for a media barrage with respect to HB 1742, replete with a lot of emotion and worry about disenfranchising poor, blind, minority, grandmas who just want to vote. And they'll go find the one poor, blind, minority grandma who's birthdate was confused with another voter with the same name, and parade her before the cameras.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 13, 2007 12:02 PMAnd if I am an emotional person - that makes me less? yes!
And so I deserved and earned Rbb, Army and Jimg hurtfull scorn, dare I sugguest Disrespect.
Thanks all. We improved our Country today, didn't we?
Respectfully
Once At City
Is that it? Are you gone? Is there nothing more you wanted to discuss?
Being overly emotional doesn't make you less of a person, it just makes me want to listen to your opinion less. The scorn that you feel coming from rbb, army, and jimg, and probably me is real, but is it really a surprise to you? Did you assume that when posted here, you would be answered with respect? That wasn't terribly bright, now was it?
So let's go over your complaint. You abandoned long held principles of the best way to conduct a safe election that uses secret balloting, in favor of your own personal convenience. When the down-side of that convenience has been exposed, and the county elections department does perhaps the only responsible thing it has done in about 8 years, you bitch that you are inconvenienced. What is respectable about that? You are whiney, and you are barking in the wrong doghouse. That is just stupid.
So what more do you want to discuss?
http://www.theolympian.com/124/story/65108.html
***************************************
HB 1363
This bill would make voter registration available at work for state employees. It would require all state agencies to have links on their Web pages connecting to the secretary of state's voter-registration Web page. It also would require agencies to keep track of employees who request, apply, register to vote and so forth, and would require the secretary of state to produce a report from the data collected on an annual basis.
*************************************
There go your tax dollars!
I don't like sounding alarmist, but doesn't this sound like the first step toward the state being able to determine who has voted and who has not? Isn't this a necessary ingredient for creating one of those societies with 99.9% voter turnout, and they all vote for the same guy?
Posted by: huckleberry on February 13, 2007 06:16 PM"It's all about playing the heart strings, and the left will do or say anything to preserve their monopoly on emotion."
I know what you mean, Jeff. It's like telling us that the Islamofascists will take over the country and put all our daughters in hejabs if we don't give the government our DNA and retinal scans -- and vote Republican -- because our civilization -- and our precious bodily fluids -- are at stake.
That damned left, just playing on emotion.
Don't you think you embellished a little there? Hijabs? Check daily rhetoric from Ahmadinejad if you need more proof that there is, at minimum, something going with violent Islam beyond your fantasy image of paranoid wingnuts.
But that's the great thing about violent Islam. If they haven't convinced you today that they are serious, they will blow something up soon. And that's not emotion, that's reality.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 13, 2007 11:40 PMThe reference to hejabs came directly from a post right here on Sound (?) Politics. This is the kind of crap that you lot are spreading.
As for Ahmadinjejad, yeah, I guess if we invade their country, they'll blow something up here. I guess that'll be my fault.
Posted by: ivan on February 14, 2007 05:45 AMWithout the verification, mail-in balloting is simply too rife with the the potential for fraud. If we don't see this yet, we must be blind.
Since the legislature is determined to simplfy mail-in fraud, our only recourse is to greatly restrict mail-in balloting and return to polling places. At least then we will know that a single body was present.
Posted by: deadwood on February 14, 2007 06:35 AMRight now, the public information of who voted is available days or weeks after the balloting. (With polling place voting, that information was available real time for anyone interested in monitoring the polling places, although data collection was distributed and inefficient and cumbersome.)
Anyway, there is nothing in the voter database that says that voter John Doe is the same John Doe who works for, say Washington State Department of Ecology. It would take too much time and money for the Director of Ecology to monitor the voting habits of her employees. This house bill would seem to say that, by state law, the counties would supply the Director of Ecology with a roll of registered voters who work in their department.
There is a big difference between the two. What possible value or purpose can such legislation offer, except to make it easier for heads of state departments to influence elections?
Don't want the price I paid for my house to be public record either. No one gets to know how much I paid for my car, underwear, computer, etc.