I'm about to be on the Dave Ross Show, 710 KIRO, to talk about John McKay.
UPDATE: We only had a couple of minutes in the last segment, and there's more to talk about, so Dave will have me back on again at 11am.
I'll be referring to this post: "No evidence of election crimes?"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 26, 2007 09:49 AM | Email ThisYou keep claiming that it was "clearly illegal" to count the "fatal pend" provisional ballots.
However, this is clearly not proven. As you concede yourself in your Stranger article this was done following legal advice that it was permissible:
"A spokesman for Sims, Sandeep Kaushik, confirms that a number of fatal pend provisional ballots were counted last November, following advice that Logan requested and received from Janine Joly, the deputy prosecuting attorney assigned to the elections office."
Moreover, 110 of the registration forms that you claim were defective for lack of a signature, were in fact signed by the voter, just not under the oath line. There was a strong legal basis to argue the signature requirement was substantially met here. At a minimum it was not "clearly illegal" to accept them.
In order to prove a violation of federal election law, you have to show that accepting "illegal" ballots was "knowing and wilful" and with the intent to "deprive the public of a fair" election. That is just too high a bar to meet here. Whether Jolley's legal opinion was right or wrong, the election officials were entitled to rely on it.
And as I mentioned the DOJ guidelines make clear that the Feds shouldn't criminalize the normal errors and mistakes in the election process.
I believe that similar allegations regarding provisional ballots were presented to Judge Bridges at the election contest, including the legal advice to count the ballots. He found that in general no fraud had been shown.
Posted by: crawford on March 26, 2007 10:44 AMHis callers are interesting in the 10:30 on time frame.
I don't do Ross, so maybe I am getting "sticker" shock with the type of listeners.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2007 10:45 AMI'll be listening online.
McKay wasn't fired for being honest. He was fired because he refused to investigate or prosecute public corruption in the state of Washington.
His failure to investigate and prosecute vote fraud, but that is just the most visible example. There is a lot of public corruption in this state, but the US attorney's office simply refuses to prosecute it. I have specific examples.
I recently read where no less than 66 public officials, judges and cops in Memphis have been prosecuted since 2000.
I can find no record of any judge in the state of Washington ever being prosecuted for corruption related offenses. It isn't because there haven't been any corrupt judges; just that McKay and early US Attorneys simply refused to do so.
The state hasn't prosecuted any, either. They cover up judicial corruption. Gary Little and "Caddillac" Anderson come to mind; not to mention our current chief justice, Gerry Alexander.
Posted by: Don on March 26, 2007 10:47 AMIs it "innuendo" that the election should be looked at? Ross had the crux question; Stefan answered it pretty well (he couldn't say he had the information and he couldn't come out and say fraud but he gave a couple of examples of what could be called fraud- or at least negligence).
Durkan did good as she gave the D talking points from a lawyer standpoint. Stefan nailed her, though, when he commented the info wasn't available at the time of the contest.
She flubbed it a little when she said she knew the records better than anyone. We all knew that because she was running the election department at that time.
Well worth the wait. Thank you Stefan and Dave Ross.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2007 11:35 AMYou should have used the 'F' word - FRAUD. There was plenty of evidence of vote fraud. You found it, so why not use the word. You came across as simply 'speculating' when you know it that there was plenty of evidence.
McKay simply chose to not investigate and prosecute the vote fraud.
Posted by: Don on March 26, 2007 11:50 AMAfraid?
Totally disagrees w/ Stefan?
Clueless?
What about the Republican on the canvassing board? Wasn't that individual livid at the calls and discrepancies and was getting run roughshod over? And those were the reports that convinced me there was a "there" there.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2007 11:59 AMNot all of the "fatal pends" were for missing registration signatures. Also, what are the excuses for the other categories of illegally counted ballots - unregistered voters and voters who had already had an absentee ballot counted?
I have seen enough bad information come out of Sim's office to make any statement suspect. Is there any information to back up the claim that 110 were OK because registrations were signed, but on the wrong line? This would be a Canvassing Board decision so it must be in the record. Are these the same as those identified by Stefan?
Posted by: Bob Edelman on March 26, 2007 12:10 PM"Moreover, 110 of the registration forms that you claim were defective for lack of a signature, were in fact signed by the voter, just not under the oath line. There was a strong legal basis to argue the signature requirement was substantially met here. "
Not really. Canvassing board member Dan Satterberg told me on-the-record for The Stranger that the canvassing board ruled that the oath itself has to be signed for the registration to be valid.
"the Feds shouldn't criminalize the normal errors and mistakes in the election process"
fair enough. But are these normal errors and mistakes? We don't know, because there hasn't been any official investigation.
"I believe that similar allegations regarding provisional ballots were presented to Judge Bridges at the election contest"
The fatal pend provisional ballots were never examined in the contest trial.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 26, 2007 12:13 PMThe Dems actually went out and got 5 signed affadavits and they were added to the vote totals. That was the concrete evidence that the judge used in the outcome. As for McKay, he claimed that he was waiting to see what the court case in Wenatchee produced. Since it upheld the result, it was expedient and lacking of testosterone for McKay to punt it, which in the end may have been his undoing. Good riddance !
Posted by: KS on March 26, 2007 12:51 PMAnd there has been no official investigation because there is no evidence of fraud. You call this a chicken-and-egg problem that can only be solved by an official investigation. I assume that John McKay, Sam Reed, Judge Bridges, and the media looked at the evidence that was presented and the explanations from King County, and used their common sense to conclude that there was no reason to believe there was fraud.
Posted by: Bruce on March 26, 2007 12:59 PMWhat's King County going to say? OF COURSE they will say they did nothing wrong! Do you honestly think when there is fraud occurring that the offending office is just going to come out and say, "Well yeah, we knowingly counted illegal ballots". Please.
.
The mistakes you claim here wrt to the "fatal pend" ballots are just not so indisputable or dishonest on their face that one could hope to prove that a particular official "knowingly" or "wilfully" counted ballots that he knew to be illegal. Nor could an intent to "deprive the public of a fair election" be shown.
You'd have to have a particular official confess that he knowingly with intent to affect the election counted ballots he knew to be illegal. Otherwise that official can always point to some rationale that excuses their counting of the ballots.
Moreover, your claims really should be dealt with by state law enforcement, the local prosecutor or the attorney general, since they all involve the minutiae of state election law and practice. This doesn't seem like something the feds would know about or have an interest in adjudicating. This is not simple ballot stuffing or forged signatures which are dishonest on their face.
Posted by: crawford on March 26, 2007 01:26 PM""I believe that similar allegations regarding provisional ballots were presented to Judge Bridges at the election contest"
The fatal pend provisional ballots were never examined in the contest trial."
I wasn't talking about the fatal pend ballots. If I recall correctly, the Republicans presented evidence of provisional ballots that shouldn't have been counted because their validity couldn't be verified. Despite that Judge Bridges found no evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. That high level of proof would also be required for these fatal pend ballots, and you would have the same problem here.
Posted by: crawford on March 26, 2007 01:33 PMQuestioning all those people in KCE would have been great. In a deposition, under oath. As part of a full-scale investigation into the illegally counted ballots. Problem is, that didn't happen. A subpoena of all department emails might have revealed something as part of that investigation as well.
Posted by: Palouse on March 26, 2007 01:34 PMIf stefan's thesis is correct what venue do you see protecting our rights to fair election? None?
Posted by: righton on March 26, 2007 02:32 PMEveryone in the state could vote on Diebold Electronic Voting Machines...the GOP would never loose another race. With no paper trail there would be no way to prove the election was fixed.
When all of those people belong to the same party, one must trust their integrity or, ultimately, the voters to replace them. In the case of Gregoire/Rossi, both parties were well-represented. You obviously disagree with their conclusion, but you can't (convincingly) argue that the process was unfair.
Also, there are specific elections statutes, such as the one that Judge Bridges ruled on. Bridges had to base his ruling on the statute as written, and while I wonder what evidence of who voted for whom he would have found persuasive, I don't think judges are expected to tell plaintiffs that.
Posted by: Bruce on March 26, 2007 03:07 PMI don't quite understand how Diebold helps R voters over D voters, though. Your side cites a couple of obscure tests- probably the same samplers that declared the Global Warming debate is over.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2007 03:13 PMCato...do you have trouble sleeping at night with all those black helicopters flying over your head, or does the tinfoil hat seem to help?
Posted by: drw on March 26, 2007 03:38 PMAm I missing something here???
Let's get a clear legal definition of WHAT McKay could be lloking for (Is it FRAUD...or ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES (of which FRAUD is one example of an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY) And
Why does McKay seem to think his investigation must stop at the information presented at the Trial???
Remember, KingKOUNTY stonewalled Public Records requests until well after the Trial was over.
I wish I could have listened today.
Does KIRO have archives???
If so, Stefan, can you please publish the link??
And it really was a good discussion by all sides. Very professional by all parties, IMO. Durkan's comments were not valid, but hey, she introduced those goofy felon voting affadavits and got a couple extra votes for Gregoire, so who am I to question.
I wonder, I wonder what role Rossi had in the contest. We know he asked for the expedited trial because he didn't want to drag the contest out, but then, did he also ask McKay, Reed, Meleng, etc. to just go aobut their business? Just asking.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2007 04:18 PMAnd dumping this onto voters is not answer either; should we similarly ignore corrupt judges (not in this case, just my example) and leave it to voters to throw them out? No , of course not; that's why FBI has public corruption unit.
(keep in mind we have extra handicap in this area, no independent news media to auger into this;)
Posted by: righton on March 26, 2007 04:27 PMare you suggesting that, in trying to understand whether a crime was committed, one shouldn't question the suspect?
No, I think that what is being suggested is that an investigation shouldn't be dropped just because the suspect said he didn't do it.
This whole lack on interest in the integrity of the voting system by those is charge has a bad smell.
There was no truly open investigation of the process. Logan / Simms /Reed and the multi-colored ribbon panel had a vested interest in not finding anything wrong with the system. If you trust this crowds evaluation of the election, then you surely have no problem with Arthur Andersens "independent" audits of Enron.
Bridges took the expediant way out. It is not enough to catch somebody stuffing ballots, you must prove who they voted for. since you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who a felon or dead person voted for, then the votes must count.
McKay may have thought he was taking the politcally safe route by not investigating. Better to enrage citizens that you are not accountable to than to possibly have your career ruined by the political elites.
This whole fiasco sorely lacked an unbiased assessment.
Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on March 26, 2007 04:30 PM"Are you telling me that McKay could only investigate FRAUD?? Or could he investigate "ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES"?
Only FRAUD. McKay could only investigate a federal crime. Federal elections crimes require proof of "evil intent" similar to fraud. For example 42 USC 1973gg-10 makes it a crime for one who:
"knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by--
.......................
(B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held".
"Knowingly and willfully", deprive of a "fair and impartial" election, and "known to be materially false", all together this language would require some showing of dishonest intent on the part of the defendant.
I think you would probably have to show that any mistake in counting votes was in fact intentional and in bad faith.
Posted by: crawford on March 26, 2007 04:46 PMYou're right -- the state's largest newspaper endorsed Rossi.
Serf writes: "Bridges took the expediant way out. It is not enough to catch somebody stuffing ballots, you must prove who they voted for. since you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who a felon or dead person voted for, then the votes must count.
That's not what the law says. The law talks about who it "appears" they voted for. I admit it's unclear how one shows that, and Bridges didn't say. One might say Bridges was conservative as opposed to activist.
"McKay may have thought he was taking the politcally safe route by not investigating."
You're seriously saying that a Republican US Attorney, appointed by an extraordinarily partisan Republican president, thought he was taking the politically safe route by not investigating? LOL.
Posted by: Bruce on March 26, 2007 04:57 PMLet's see US Atty fired for something the FBI & a GOP Judge didn't think was worthy of an investigation.
Besides the last GOP Governor we had was a miserable failure.
The GOP have a great opportunity in 2008 if they can avoid nominating an Ellen Craswell style Republican.
First off, McKay is more accountable to the local political machine than to a President. The President appoints local US Attorneys and Judges based on local recomendations.
Also taking on a high profile partisan political case can be a career ender regardless of who supports you. A high profile case can bring you fame, but can also leave you as damaged goods.
Has Bush appointed Kenneth Star to be a judge. Sure Star has some celebrity status, but he is DOA should be nominated for a federal job.
How about Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of Scooter Libbey? Do you think he will go far in goverment? Should a Dem every appoint him as a judge he would surely be "borked".
What judgeship was Watergate special procescuter Archibald Cox appointed to?
Posted by: Serf in the land of Queen Christine on March 26, 2007 05:49 PMYou are correct in saying that McKay was more accountable to the local political powers than to the US DoJ. If McKay's goal was a federal judgeship, he would have had no chance if he had actually investigated and prosecuted vote fraud. The Democratic Senators of Washington would have never allowed his name to come up for a vote in the Senate.
As it is, McKay is never going to get a seat on a federal court unless appointed by a Democrat President. That may happen at some point as a payoff for ignoring vote fraud.
Posted by: Don on March 26, 2007 06:22 PMThe only answer, would be to level the playing field by approving Diebold voting machines. Does anyone have the incentive to get that ball rolling. Anywhere else, they would be deemed to favor the R's. However, with the tilt to the left - thanks in part to illegal votes that are ignored and stonewalled by Sims and the Elections cabal, the Diebolds would neutralize elections, and bring back fair elections for the first time in the last decade.
Posted by: KS on March 26, 2007 08:11 PMFine, Dino Rossi is a loser. Happy now?
Which GOP judge was that?
"While the evidence focused especially on problems in King County, adjacent Chelan was chosen as the venue because it was more solidly Republican and the GOP questioned the ability of King County judges to rule impartially in such a case." - Wikipedia
Looks like the Judge voided a prior election due to evidence. Even the GOP praised him as a good choice before he ruled against them. Election fraud is a fact of life, .
What's rather ironic about that link to the 2000 election is that news media in Florida actually did their own analysis and investigation into the Florida ballots AFTER the trial and Bush still won.
Too bad the news media here is too lazy (or more likely apathetic) to do the same with the hundreds of illegally counted ballots after the 2004 trial. You can bet they would have been more interested had it been Rossi who overtook Gregoire.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2007 01:20 PMIf it were the Ds, they would have gone to Thurston County- an easy mark.
So, Chelan is solid R, but so are a lot of other counties. Was it Dale Foreman, a then practicing attorney, that made the decision since it is his home territory?
And didn't the first selected judge step down? Bridges was option B? So, it wasn't entirely the level playing field the Rs thought they were getting.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2007 03:30 PM