The self-serving conduct of Ron Sims' Elections Office regarding I-25 illustrates exactly why the office should be taken away from the County Executive and turned into a separately elected non-partisan office.
The Elections Office is responsible for verifying the I-25 signatures. But instead of examining a statistical sample as allowed by state administrative rules and county code [1.16.100], the Elections Office has decided to examine every signature until they hit the qualification threshhold (or, unlikely, exhaust the pile). And before qualifying I-25, they will similarly qualify I-24, which is ahead in line.
That's the difference between checking 109,000 signatures for both initiatives vs. 4,700 (3% random sample as described in the WAC). There is no legitimate reason to check the extra 104,000 signatures. They're only doing this to delay qualification to hurt the campaign. The taxpayer-provided resources used to check the unnecessary extra signatures would be better applied toward improvements in election operations.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 18, 2007 03:17 PM | Email ThisThere are many people sufficiently trained to perform this, and Ron Sims knows it. Who keeps voting for this corrupt SOB?
Posted by: John Galt on July 18, 2007 03:29 PMLiberals.
And don't when they SHOULD.
Posted by: Michele on July 18, 2007 03:59 PMThe KC Office of Dem Predilection will take forever to validate the signatures on I-25. Have the authors hired a good lawyer?
Posted by: me on July 18, 2007 05:06 PMI never heard of a County government having so much power anyway! Where's the precedent...and why does it have to be here?!
Oh, dream on......
Sam Reed, useless as tits on a boar.....
Posted by: Hank on July 18, 2007 07:07 PM(lol at the pseudo-righteousness.)
Posted by: Sewer Of Hypocrisy (XXXVI) on July 18, 2007 09:50 PMA census is a hell of lot different than my voting/initiative rights.
If you think different, burn your ballot and save us all the trouble, that is if you are even old enough to vote!!!!
Posted by: chris on July 18, 2007 10:47 PMI can't say its any better up here in Snohomish county (where we already have forced mailed elections...).
Posted by: CrazyFool in Lynwood on July 19, 2007 05:48 AMCat got your tounge
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 19, 2007 06:50 AMWelcome to Civics 101 (which you apparently missed in high school):
The Census is governed by the US Constitution, which mandates an "actual enumeration" of the population (i.e., not a sampling). The results are then used to apportion Congressional seats.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) explicitly allows for the use of sampling to certify initiatives for the ballot: "In the verification of signatures on initiative and referendum petitions, under RCW 29A.72.230, the following statistical test may be employed:...".
The King County Code states that "When petitions for initiative and/or referendum action are filed with the county council, the records and elections division shall forthwith proceed to canvass and count the names of the legal voters thereon. The records and elections division may use any statistical sampling techniques for this canvass which have been approved by the county council."
Objecting to the use of sampling for the US Census and calling for its use in canvassing signatures on petitions is not hypocritical - it is in fact consistent, in that both stances call for compliance with the law as written. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy.
Posted by: Patrick on July 19, 2007 07:42 AMDon't think that an elected election elections won't be a dem, or that she won't try this type of stunt, but at least there's the threat of a recall.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 19, 2007 07:57 AMWould we like to go back to the rest of the literal constitutional stuff? Maybe we should go back to "gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
There are many literal constitutional phrases, sonny.
The mathematicians Pascal, Huygens, Graunt, J. Bernoulli, De Moivre, D. Bernoulli, Bayes, Laplace and others all worked to advance the branch of mathematics known as probability and statistics in the century before the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure they'd be most interested in your theory as to why their work didn't apply to the "New World" until after the signing.
Posted by: jopalm on July 19, 2007 10:07 AMNice try.
I suppose if Congress ever passes a law allowing the census to use statistical sampling, and it survives constitutional review by the Supreme Court (as has been the case with our currency for over a century - cf Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis), then there would be nothing wrong with it. However, the *law* would have to be changed through the legislative and judicial review processes, not unilaterally by some government agency. Until that happens, statistical sampling is not a legal option for the census.
The point still stands: asking that applicable law be followed for both the census and signature canvassing, though they differ from each other (think apples and oranges), is not hypocrisy - it is consistency.
Posted by: Patrick on July 19, 2007 10:28 AMI'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you were trying to be ironic. The alternative to irony is too either too funny or too pathetic for words.
Posted by: jopalm on July 20, 2007 08:47 AM