A recap of yesterday's public hearing on HB 1742, which would re-exempt voter birthdates from public disclosure, and forbid the copying and publication of absentee ballot signatures -- only making it easier for election officials to sweep problems under the rug. Audio is on TVW here. The hearing on this bill starts at 1:23:22. My testimony starts at 1:36:27. My prepared remarks here. Also testifying against the bill were Bill Will and Rowland Thompson representing state newspapers; and Toby Nixon. Testifying for the bill were county Auditors and Sam Reed's lobbyist Katie Blinn.
I showed the committee photos of mishandled ballot envelopes, which ordinary citizens were able to expose only by having access to birthdates and the ability to photograph ballot envelope signatures, both of which the bill would prohibit. (Examples: 11 pairs of absentee ballot and provisional ballot cast by the same voter where both were counted, 4 examples of pairs of absentee ballots cast by the same voter where both were counted (here and here), 2 examples of obviously mis-signed absentee ballots that passed signature verification, and 1 example of a voter who was disenfranchised because her signature was wrongly rejected).
It's bad enough that the county Auditors are less interested in election integrity than in sweeping their own mistakes under the rug. But the Secretary of State especially should be an advocate for election integrity and not for covering up evidence of bogus election adminstration. This is what I find particularly disturbing. Two years ago when citizens were concerned that (primarily) King County managed to come up with more votes than voters, what was the Secretary of State's office saying? Here's a quote from a pre-trial public statement by Elections Director Nixon Handy:
"I am completely convinced that the reconciliation [sic, should be crediting] issue being raised by the Republicans in the litigation is completely unfounded...If we can successfully demonstrate that this is an unfounded claim, I would hope that this would severely undermine the confidence of the court in the other R claims"Wow. So only after the trial was I able to obtain incontrovertible evidence of double votes and illegal votes from unregistered voters that proved that the concern about the excess of votes over voters was completely well-founded and that the Elections Director was either incompetent or a liar. Now the Secretary of State wants to prevent the public from having access to the very information that exposed that his office was (either incompetently or deliberately) falsely reassuring the public during the biggest elections screw-up of our lifetime. Sheesh.
Sam and Nick: it's time for you to go.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 14, 2007 01:02 PM | Email ThisBut Jim, SOS really should be nonpartisan, don't you think? What does party affiliation have anything to do with this job? Don't both parties want clear and honest elections?
At least they should.
Posted by: swatter on February 14, 2007 01:21 PMWhen did Reed tell Dino he sould run for County Commissioner? That's pretty galling.
Posted by: DJ on February 14, 2007 01:32 PMThe writers of HB1742 know that the public will only be able to respond to known mistakes. If it's impossible to find out whether an election was properly and accurately conducted, then there won't ever be any unrest or questioning from concerned citizens. And that's what they want.
Trust them to do the counting and make no mistakes, nevermind auditing and citizen oversight. Stalin would be proud.
Sam Reed's chances were gone long ago.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2007 02:05 PMBecause Democrats, like Sam Reed, would rather not see him run for governor in 2008.
Posted by: TB on February 14, 2007 04:59 PMThe testimony of his lobbyist Katie Blinn on TVW clearly indicates that Mr Reed does not want honest elections
The title of this blog posting is correct
Mr Reed needs to be replaced w/ a competent person
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on February 14, 2007 07:52 PMRoger that.
ram sez: ''Toby Nixon''
I remember that some time ago Stefan made a not-quite iron-clad ''Shermanesque'' statement about NOT running for public office....
But then I also recall subsequent musing about how if things got bad enough that initial decision might be subject to revision. Sooo....:
My question 2 Stefan 4 tonight is:
How bad does the leftie assault against the integrity of the voting process have to get, before it gets bad enough that you might allow yourself to be drafted to run for SOS ??... :-]
Hope it doesn't have to get much worse, because the way the bills are flying through the House and Senate committees I shudder to think what REALLY bad would be... If you can be drafted, tell me where to send a campaign contribution (seriously).
SIDEBAR: Great written testimony, by the way.
If Stefan stays with the ''full Sherman'' thing:
Yeah: Toby Nixon would be high on my list.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 14, 2007 09:05 PMNot that Toby doesn't also have lots of other things to do, but I'd love to see him run for SoS. Sam would get the crossover votes in the primary, but that would only help Toby in the general.
Posted by: TB on February 15, 2007 12:14 AMNot one thin dime not one for any R!!! I'll give to any American running but not a PR hack in a suit thinking he can appease my enemies with my liberty!
Posted by: Col. Hogan on February 15, 2007 01:55 AM
God no. I don't mind getting f*%ked, but I'd like to know who's f*%king me.
Anyhow, Nixon should challenge him in the primary.