King County Elections has a new Assistant Superintendent for Voter Services, responsible for voter registration and provisional ballot processing-- Laura Lockard.
Except for a few months as understudy, Lockard has no experience in elections management. She's been a Democrat political operative: executive director of the anti-gun group Ceasefire, manager of the No on I-920 campaign, and even served a stint on a Ron Sims campaign.
Sims claims he needs to appoint the elections director to ensure that a competent professional is in the job. Yet he puts his own campaign aide without relevant experience in charge of voter registration.
King County Elections should be run by a non-partisan officeholder who is directly accountable not to Ron Sims but to the voters. Citizens for Accountable Elections will make that happen. Send them a check today.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Email ThisBut I bet she will take orders as as Sims loyalist, and in his mind, that's that matters. In fact, the less experiences the better. Then this person would be unlikely to question higher-ups in the event of problems, or other serious elections situations like we have seen in the past that demand objectivity and integrity.
Remember, last time we got Dean Logan looking the other way while Bill Huennekens "opps, counted those ballots."
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 27, 2007 10:52 AMThis used to be true of Elections Superintendents as well until the Council changed the method to appointment so that they would have to confirm the hiring. The Manager's position was changed to appointive under the provisions of the home rule charter to keep the position out of the political spectrum, based on lessons learned from the other Washington counties.
Unfortunately, with only one exception in the past twenty-five years (at least) Managers have been political appointees and had to learn on the job. In all fairness to some of the previous managers, the main requirement was in fact to be a good and experienced manager. The technical capability of actually conducting the election is the responsibility of the Elections Superintendent. However, if you haven't hired a qualified Superintendent, the Manager could be in trouble. At least Dean Logan had elections administration experience, as did Bill Huenekens. They just didn't understand how different and complex King County was to the other counties.
Electing the Manager of Records, Elections and Licensing Services (the County Auditor in other counties) may solve one problem but may create others. Remember the rule of unintended consequences.
Posted by: Bob on February 27, 2007 12:30 PM
Case closed.
The best option is for King County to be divided into South, SouthEast, North and West. Then at least we can get real representation for the suburbs that are not at all represented by the Seattle power bloc.
Ron Simms is the local don -- ie: a crook
Posted by: Lew on February 27, 2007 01:11 PMRon Simms is the local don -- ie: a crook
Posted by: Lew on February 27, 2007 01:12 PMLaura Lockard - isn't that the name of a porn star?
Posted by: Seattle Con on February 27, 2007 01:16 PMYou know--the ones who are being replaced by political hacks by Smirky McFlightsuit.
Posted by: Jim on February 27, 2007 01:22 PMmy guess is that she's doing prep to do standup...she gets more laughs than some comics I've seen.
Re: Sims...I'm not sure what the superlative of "chutzpah" is, but I'm sure that he qualifies.
Posted by: scott158 on February 27, 2007 01:33 PM
I've heard he might be interested in running for such a position if it was created. Sounds like a sure fire way to de-politicize the elections process - have elections!
Then the (non-partisan) elections can be run just like our non-politicized supreme court elections.
AGAIN, FROM THE SPOKESMAN REVIEW -
2,107,370 votes later, only 1 under suspicion
Remember all the aspersions cast on Washington state's voters after the 2004 gubernatorial election? All the hand-wringing about people voting twice to stuff the ballot box, and dead people and felons casting ballots?
With those images being kept fresh in voters' minds by angry state Republicans ever since, it may surprise folks to learn that potential voter fraud in the November election was - at most - a one in 2 million chance.
That figure is contained in the secretary of state's latest update of the state's voter rolls.......
But even with all this careful screening, local and state elections officials still wound up with 61 pairs of votes cast in November that they thought might have been cases of somebody voting twice. In other words, they had that many pairs of ballots in which there was a John J. Doe who had the same birthday and the same address or some other matching information.
So they investigated. They cleared 56 pairs of ballots right away by determining that they were in fact cast by two different people. One was chalked up to a clerical error, where someone who had moved to another county was credited with voting at his old residence, but actually didn't. Three others turned out, on further investigation, to be voters who do have the same name and birthday but are different people.
That left one case of someone who may have voted twice. It was turned over to the King County prosecutor and might - repeat might - result in prosecution. More investigation is required.
So at most, there was one case of double voting out of 2,107,370 ballots cast.
Reed said he was "pleasantly surprised" with the results. The state is doing a better job of cleaning its voter records but, he added, "we really don't have a history of voter fraud here."
That may come as a huge shock to some of his Republican brethren, who still hope to run Dino Rossi in a gubernatorial grudge match against Chris Gregoire to win the seat that was "stolen" from him.
It also might give pause to some of their pollsters, who seem to delight in reporting that when people are asked if they have confidence that the problems of the 2004 elections have been cleared up, those people tend to say, "Nope."
LOOKS LIK EOUR ELECTION SYSTEM IS IN SHAMBLES AND WE NEED NON-QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO RUN FOR A NON-PARTISAN POSITION AND GET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER.
I'm guessing our friend Toby might be planning to run for King County Auditor, an obvious stepping stone to the Secretary of State's office.
What's that you say? I've got my head up my ass? Toby can't possibly run for Auditor because it is an appointed position? Well, not if Toby has his way. Just last week Toby filed a C1 with the Public Disclosure Commission creating "Citizens for Accountable Elections," a new PAC supporting a King County initiative to make the Auditor an elected position. Given Toby's deep interest in election reform, and his admitted eye on the SOS office, this would seem to be an elected office tailor made for (and by) Toby Nixon.
Toby and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but he's a standup guy and a great sport. I'm off this weekend, but Toby has agreed to come on my show on 710-KIRO the following weekend, when I'll have the opportunity to ask him the tough questions, and he'll have every opportunity to respond.
UPDATE:
Via email, Toby elaborates on his initiative and his plans:
The proposal is not for an elected "auditor", but an elected "elections director" - it wouldn't include the full range of auditor responsibilities, but just the election functions. There have been folks trying to encourage me to seek the office if it were to become elected, and I haven't told them flatly No. I haven't told them Yes, either, but I haven't ruled it out. I do believe an important part - maybe the most important part - of the responsibility of the office would be to exercise leadership to create a culture of excellence, accountability, integrity, accuracy, and transparency in elections, and anyone who knows my legislative record knows that I am strongly committed to those things. But you also know that my interests cover a wide range of topics, and I'd have to think hard about whether I'd want to forgo other opportunities to serve where I could have an influence in those broader areas in order to focus specifically on the elections office.
Toby will join me on 710-KIRO in the 8PM hour, on Sunday Feb. 25.
WHY DOESN'T TOBY APPLY FOR LUKE ESSER'S OLD JOB WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?
And in any case, your post is about a low-level manager. Do you think that position should be elected too?
Posted by: Bruce on February 27, 2007 02:30 PMWhen you close all the polling places, and everyone mails in the votes. Poof there goes Democracy.
Posted by: Gentry on February 27, 2007 02:30 PMI hope he succeeds...because losers like you insist on spinning KingCo's performance beyond recognition.
KingCo failed to reconcile votes & voters and got away with it because of a horribly written State Law. Ballot boxes were stuffed...and unstuffed. Yet no consequences.
KingCo Elections appears to have improved and has at least a few well-intended staff. That is probably why Sims is sending in this loyalist...to make sure things don't get too fair.
Read Toby's statement again - it's obviously an unsaid admission that he'd probably run for the position if it's available. I'm a Democrat, used to live in the 45th, and think Toby is a great fit for the role. Given the current behavior of Oemig, I wish Toby had won last year, too.
Ballot boxes were stuffed and unstuffed? And you have proof of that right? Oh wait, you must have gone to the Mary Lane school of ethics - any statement can be considered true if it serves your purpose. Repeating over and over again is more valuable than actually proving it.
I guess that GOP-appointed judge in Chelan County, handpicked by the Rossi campaign to file their challenge, who ridiculed the fraud claims (as well as KC DOE's overall structure and performance) was a liberal partisan elitist hack, too.
Posted by: mr. smitty on February 27, 2007 03:00 PMI'll continue to reiterate what the Spokesman Review so eloquently said in a recent article......
".....So at most, there was one case of double voting out of 2,107,370 ballots cast.
Reed said he was "pleasantly surprised" with the results. The state is doing a better job of cleaning its voter records but, he added, "we really don't have a history of voter fraud here."
That may come as a huge shock to some of his Republican brethren, who still hope to run Dino Rossi in a gubernatorial grudge match against Chris Gregoire to win the seat that was "stolen" from him.
WE NEED ANOTHER ELECTED PERSON TO ENSURE THAT THIS ONE POSSIBLE CASE OF DOUBLE VOTING NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAYBE WE CAN PAY TOBY NIXON A NICE TAXPAYER SALARY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS ATROCITY!!!???!!
Get over it!
Posted by: Eunice Burns on February 27, 2007 03:52 PMRepeated often. Wrong every time.
Superior Court judges are elected. They are specifically non-partisan. And lest you think Chelan County is some GOP-infested swamp, the multiple re-elections of Renn Cone and Carol Wardell - two, well-known Democrats - would blow your accusation out of the water.
Now, Chip Small was the original judge. He recused himself. Yes. Chip is a Republican. Which is precisely why he got off the case because people like you would rail against a partisan judge being hand-picked by the GOP. But heck, he should've stayed on for you aren't changing your version of the events in any case.
John Bridges took over, and is about as non-partisan as they get. I know he would consider your accusation to be a joke.
The Rossi campaign lost the case because there was no statute on the books that could be applied to the accusations leveled. And quite frankly, the charge of organized election fraud by King County was an error on the part of the GOP, as it could never be proven. But hey. Don't let the facts get in your way.
Now, as soon as you can explain how King County counted 1,800 more votes than voters ....
Posted by: jimg on February 27, 2007 04:11 PMi'm sure she will truly earn her $90,000+ or whatever bloated salary for 'experience' & 'life-smarts.' a teen kid behind the wheel of an expensive race car. and we say nothing as voters.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 27, 2007 04:35 PMTue. Feb. 27. 2007
Sound Politics reports the questionable appointment by King County Executive Ron Sims of political hack Laura Lockwood to the position of King County Assistant Superintendent for Voter Services.
Wed. Feb. 28. 2007
King County Executive Ron Sims announces "The search is over. I'm pleased to announce the selection and appointment of Laura Lockwood as King County Elections Director. Ms. Lockwood brings with her a plethora of knowledge and skills gained during her extensive dedicated service as King County Assistant Superintendent for Voter Services."
But it doesn't change the fact that the Judge Bridges did smack down the fraud claims as being completely without evidence to support them.
The errors between total voters and actual votes has been explained numerous times, and backed up by election experts in large counties: errors in entering the lines - literally messing up the lines in a spreadsheet. Human errors in entering that amount of data are simply unavoidable.
There were over 600,000 votes in King County in this race, so assuming your 1800 discrepancy is correct, that would translate to about a 99.7% accuracy rate. I think anyone who has worked in database management recognizes that accuracy rate is realistic, although it obviously means process improvement is possible.
I'm not saying that errors didn't happen, as they clearly did. But there's no evidence of fraud, and bensucks seems to think it's a proven fact, so I was pointing out that there's nothing to back up that claim outside of his lost little mind.
Posted by: mr. smitty on February 27, 2007 05:42 PMRegardless of what you all may think by reading the doings of Ms. Lockard. What she is and what she stands for is greater than those of you who will sit and piss and moan, yet lack the intellectual apptitude to do anything positive that helps society today.
Posted by: Curtis on February 27, 2007 06:48 PMCurtis: sounds like she's your new boss. If she is ask her to help you improve your writing skills.
Posted by: curt says it's 4 the children on February 27, 2007 07:19 PMYou'd would think that someone would notice. Wouldn't you?
Mr. Smitty,
You're a reasonable type. I appreciate that.
The errors explained 'numerous times' only matter if they're explained in a matter than makes numerical and logical sense.
1. Rossi led after the original count
2. Rossi led after the first machine re-count.
I don't recall the exact numbers after the machine recount, but I do recall Gregoire winning by a margin of 129 votes after a state-wide, hand-recount with thousands (and second batch of several hundred) unsecured ballots 'found' after the first, machine count. You'll pardon me if I don't find that to be within the bounds of literally messing up the lines in a spreadsheet.
Point is, the 2004 gubernatorial election is over. Yet some people, rightfully imo, are upset that the executive in charge of the 2004 debacle is appointing a partisan crony to lead the charge heading into the next election
You wouldn't like it if the roles were reversed.
Posted by: jimg on February 27, 2007 11:59 PMI don't think so. You flunk the sanity test.
Posted by: swatter on February 28, 2007 08:26 AMAnd by the same reasoning:
1. People thought the world was flat in the year 1000.
2. People thought the world was flat in the year 1500.
The purpose of a recount is not to take another data point; it's to reach the best possible conclusion based on all the data available. Sorry, but "best 2 out of 3" is limited to the playground.
Posted by: Bruce on February 28, 2007 10:43 AM1. Do you think that the current system of elections is free of corruption?
2. Do you think it is possible under the current system to manipulate the vote count?
My thesis is this: The end game is the 2008 election. Whoever controls the current system will ensure a win for their party. The prize, a possible cabinet appointment or department head.
The thesis is this the current power structure wants to ensure that votes are counted as they are in Chicago, Philly and NJ. Am I wrong?
If she's qualified, then it's fine. If she's not, or if someone clearly more qualified was passed over b/c of cronyism, then she should go.
Posted by: mr. smitty on February 28, 2007 12:07 PMI am an indie and don't belong to either political party. My "feeling" which almost qualifies me for honorary secular progressive status is that the vote count in the last election was manipulated. Of course, I can't prove it and since the media, government agencies, and republican party putting on the case didn't investigate, we will probably never know unless someone does a deathbed confession. As an indie, the last election stunk to high heaven.
Posted by: WVH on February 28, 2007 12:17 PMIt always amazes me when you give an opinion the next words out of someones mouth isnt very interesting. Hmmm wonder why that is?
Posted by: Charles on March 1, 2007 11:54 AMPS, you still have poor grammar skills.
Posted by: curt says it's 4 the children on March 1, 2007 06:51 PM