The Elections Office has now had the I-25 petitions for verification for 21 days. If they had used a legally defined statistical sample, I-25 should have been qualified by now. Instead, they've chosen to spend an estimated $50,000 extra in public funds to do a full check in order to delay qualification by several weeks.
Last week I sent Elections spokeswoman Bobbie Egan a few questions asking her to explain why they're doing a full check instead of a sample, and to give us a status report on progress and estimated completion time.
Egan e-mailed that she'd answer my questions on Friday. But she didn't keep her word.
In an e-mail to Sherril Huff last year, Egan wrote (about me) that she
enjoy[s] when we have logical explanations which, over time, discredit themI hereby invite Ms. Egan to discredit me with a logical explanation for the way they're handling I-25. Go ahead, make my day! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 30, 2007 08:41 AM | Email This
These things make me daydream of Frankenstein. Remember when the villagers decided to go to the castle with torches burning and pitchforks. Nah, I guess nobody today would do that to RonSimmsenstein. Not while we have mortgages and cable TV. The Seahawks and the Mariners. Pity.
Posted by: REBEL on July 30, 2007 08:47 AMI would hope they give all amendments the same screening process to weed out the invalid signatures by possible dogs, ACORN folks, and illegal immigrants who may have signed them.
You can't have it both ways Stefan.
Posted by: Cato on July 30, 2007 09:20 AMYeah, the efforts to return King County to a fraud-free transparent elections systems is pretty sinister, isn't it?
I wonder if Huff disclosed prior to her hiring by Dean Logan that she had hired Logan out of high school in his first government job? How proper would that have looked if made public prior to her hiring?
I wonder whether the hiring firm hired by King County to find Logan's replacement, for unknown tens of thousands of dollars, knew that they were recommending Logan's mentor to replace him in such a critical position of public trust? Especially when that trust had been eviscerated by Logan's actions during and after the 2004 election. I wonder if they found it as huge a coincidence as any outsider does that Logan's first boss was the best choice for his replacement?
I wonder to what extent King County bureaucrats are using their email to create attacks against their opponents, knowing now that they will likely be made public through PDA?
And finally, I wonder what means of communication the county bureaucracy may be using today to avoid anything subject to PDA that would expose their real activities behinds the scenes to keep their conspiracies against the people secret? Not that I really trust them to turn over anything they don't want to anyway, of course.
Posted by: MJC on July 30, 2007 10:15 AMThe Initiative validation standard, IMHO, should be more lax, and statistical analysis should always be used. It is generally a good thing to give VOTERS a choice in the elections.
I would like to see a better, easier method of collecting petition "signatures". Possibly something online. Whenever I see signature collectors I always worry about the confidentiality of my info, since I don't have a clue who these folks are. The particular issue is irrelevant. I may support something, but I'm not gonna leave my signature for any old body to keep in their possession.
As for the I25 debacle - never ever trust King County and never ever trust Ron Sims. Period. I will bet that the initiative will not be validated as signature "mis-matches" will abound. Too many 40-somethings who registered as 20-somethings will have morphed signatures that will be thrown out.
Posted by: Seabecker on July 30, 2007 10:35 AMUmmm yeah, so when there are numerous stories floating around about illegal voting (dogs), and illegal registrations (ACRON), and illegal voters on the rolls (felons) one would hope the Govt. would not play fast and loose with their amendment screening, especially since these signature gathers were paid (which has led to problems in the past).
I would hope the publicly elected elections manager would make the same choice given the publicity surrounding the numerous problems with voting / signature gathering in this state.
I-25 is likely going to get on the ballot come November. Given the slim chance that the initiative is rejected it's not like you can go out, re-collect signatures and resubmit.
Well Cato...can you point SPECIFICALLY where theis has led to problems with INITIATIVES in the past? Because Steve Excell of the Washington State Secretary of State office is on the record as saying:
"Historically, there was no real way to tell which petitions were circulated by volunteers and which were circulated by paid signature gatherers." He did say "that some felt there was "anecdotal" evidence that paid signatures had a higher rejection rate than signatures collected by volunteers, but acknowledged that this wasn't based on particularly reliable information."
The United State Supreme Court found in the Meyer decision:
"It cannot be assumed that a professional circulator - whose qualifications for similar future assignments may well depend on a reputation for competence and integrity - is any more likely to accept false signatures than a volunteer motivated entirely by an interest in having the proposition placed on the ballot. Moreover, other statutory provisions dealing expressly with the potential danger of false signatures are adequate to minimize the risk of improper circulation conduct."
So please show us where the US Supreme Court and the Secretary of State are wrong and you are right.
ACORN had problems with paid signature gatherers..but that wasn't initiative gatherers.
Posted by: drw on July 30, 2007 11:08 AMWhen Olympia was engaging in their annual legislative jihad against the initiative process this year, we refuted all the accusations made about signature gathering. Here's the Secretary of State's response to our public records request: "we have no instances of verified forgeries or fraud in the signature gathering process for statewide measures in those years (1999 through 2006)."
Eight years, over 8 million signatures, zero instances of verified forgeries or fraud.
Don't even try to lump the clean record for signature gathering with the dirty record for voter registrations and voting. The two are heaven and hell by comparison.
The difference being? One had to sign a voter up to vote, the other has to sign someone up so others can vote. They're still paid the same way.
I personally have issues with paid signature gathers (on both sides), but the courts allow them so unless the law changes I'm not really in a position to criticize people who try buy their laws on to the books.
You mean with high-paid lobbyists and bribes? Well, us little people can't afford these luxuries. so we sign initiatives and referenda and FORCE lawmakers to obey our will --- a guarantee explicitly made by our Constitution, which has nary a mention of lobbyists...
Posted by: Rey Smith on July 30, 2007 12:29 PMPlease explain how using paid signature gatherers is buying laws onto the books? No one has ever offered to pay me to sign onto an initiative. I have heard of Democrats giving bums, er I mean homeless people cigarettes to vote for their candidate. Is that where you get that idea?
But then, there's NO EVIDENCE that paid initiative gatherers have any higher error rate than non paid ones.
Another difference as stated in Meyer:
"The refusal to permit appellees to pay petition circulators restricts political expression in two ways: First, it limits the number of voices who will convey appellees' message and the [486 U.S. 414, 423] hours they can speak and, therefore, limits the size of the audience they can reach. Second, it makes it less likely that appellees will garner the number of signatures necessary to place the matter on the ballot, thus limiting their ability to make the matter the focus of statewide discussion."
You can argue that initiative gatherers buy their way onto the ballot...but projecting that to buying their laws onto the books is a stretch since every registered voter, who is so inclined to do so, may vote on the matter.
Posted by: drw on July 30, 2007 12:47 PMExactly like that.
Well, us little people can't afford these luxuries. so we sign initiatives and referenda and FORCE lawmakers to obey our will
While I agree, I feel people like Tim Eyman (who is by no means exclusive in this) and his army of paid signature gathers fall into the same category as the people you mentioned above.
I fell if your initiative is worthy and people feel it's in their best interest you won't need to use paid signature gatherers. Many successful initiatives (I-91, passed by 75%)consisted of hanging petitions on stationary sandwich boards on public sidewalks.
It appears we've strayed off topic though, if enough signatures are valid (paid or not) the initiative will be on the ballot. If not Stefan will make a big stink, pout a bit, accuse Ron Sims of fraud, and come back to try again next year.
You seem to be feeling particularly upset today. You may need a couple of Advil.
And you are seeming to miss the topic entirely. Of course if enough signatures are validated, the initiative will go on the ballot. The problem, and the topic, lies in the decision to individually inspect all the signatures. To change methods for this particular cycle begs to have questions asked. The problem, and the topic, lies in those who were appointed to do this job, who know that they should be fearing for their jobs, are not acting in the best interest of the taxpayer and voter.
Cato, if it wasn't for this microscope, I doubt that this initiative would have a chance. Swept under the rug like everything else Sims and the idiots he has surrounded himself with don't want to be held accountable for.
So...For the people, By the people.
Or am I off topic?
Posted by: Chris on July 30, 2007 01:15 PMWith all the negative publicity surrounding Ron Sims and the recent elections one would think you would welcome the extra scrutiny on all initiatives to be sure we have no animals, illegal immigrants, or convicted felons signing this initiative.
To change methods for this particular cycle begs to have questions asked.
You seem to think having a party hack elected to the position will change anything. It's a powerless position, the real power is in the legislature.
The problem, and the topic, lies in those who were appointed to do this job, who know that they should be fearing for their jobs, are not acting in the best interest of the taxpayer and voter.
The best interest of the voters would be validate that the process hasn't been overrun the way the voter registration system has. While I agree it deserves it's chance on the ballot you would want the same sort of scrutiny if the Latte Tax initiative came back.
First, the KCE will delay review until the last possible moment and make a false claim that the initiative is invalid.
I-91 couldn't be put on sandwich and message boards anymore. There are much stricter restrictions on what is and isn't a valid signature/petition.
These electeds are on a vendetta to eliminate the initiative process and that vendetta has filtered to the staffers.
Stefan - Doesn't the sampling process provided by law pretty well protect us from this type of abuse?
Posted by: Curtis Mohr on July 30, 2007 02:39 PMFirst, the KCE will delay review until the last possible moment and make a false claim that the initiative is invalid.
I'll believe it when I see it. If your right I'll happily eat crow and sign/vote for the initiative next time around.
There are much stricter restrictions on what is and isn't a valid signature/petition.
I had not heard this, but I'll take your word for it.
These electeds are on a vendetta to eliminate the initiative process
As Rev Smith said at 13:
"so we sign initiatives and referenda and FORCE lawmakers to obey our will --- a guarantee explicitly made by our Constitution"
So how will they eliminate something "explicitly made by our Constitution"? I don't see an initiative floating around calling for the end of the initiative process. I don't see the legislature acting to kill the initiative process. Care to call out these electeds you speak of?
Can we agree that Dean Logan was incompetent? If so, great.
If Dean Logan had not decided to quit, he would still be KCE director today, because Sims would not have fired him. That's how making this an elected position would make a bit of difference.
You said: "I don't see the legislature acting to kill the initiative process. Care to call out these electeds you speak of?"
Here's the anti-initiative bills from this past legislative session and below it are a list of the legislators who sponsored/co-sponsored/pushed them during this past session:
* Senate Joint Resolution 8205 - sponsored by Senate Seattle Democrat Ken Jacobsen -- Amending the Constitution to remove initiative and referenda powers.
* House Bill 1087 & Senate Bill 5356 - sponsored by House Democrat Sherry Appleton and Senate Seattle Democrat Adam Kline - Putting citizens in jail for 90 days and finding them guilty of a misdemeanor crime for compensating another person on a per-signature basis.
* Senate Bill 5182 and House Bill 2019 - sponsored by Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) and Joe McDermott (D-Seattle) - Citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights BY SIGNING an initiative petition MUST have their signature INVALIDATED if the person who gathered their signature forgets to fill out the back of the petition.
* Senate Bill 5636 - Sponsored by Senate Democrat Karen Keiser - Citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights by ASKING VOTERS to sign initiative petitions to subjected to criminal background checks - valid voter signatures gathered by "unacceptable" people would not count.
* Senate Bill 5392 - Sponsored by Senate Seattle Democrat Jeanne Kohl-Welles - A 1900% increase in the filing fee for initiatives.
* Senate Bill 5181 - Sponsored by Senate Democrat Jim Kastama - Requiring citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights gathering signatures to be publicly identified by wearing ID.
* House Bill 1696 - sponsored by House Democrat Joe McDermott - Allows politicians to handpick a bunch of "super citizens" to serve on an "independent" panel to tell voters which initiatives to vote for and which to reject - and we, the taxpayers, get to pay for this boondoggle.
Here's a list of the politicians that sponsored/co-sponsored/pushed for anti-initiative bills this past session:
Secretary of State Sam Reed (R)
Sherry Appleton (D-Poulsbo)
Lisa Brown (D-Spokane)
Tom Campbell (D-Roy)
Maralyn Chase (D-Shoreline)
Steve Conway (D-Tacoma)
Richard Curtis (R-La Center)
Jeannie Darneille (D-Tacoma)
Mary Lou Dickerson (D-Seattle)
Hans Dunshee (D-Snohomish)
Deb Eddy (D-Kirkland)
William Eickmeyer (D-Belfair)
Darlene Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park)
Dennis Flannigan (D-Tacoma)
Karen Fraser (D-Olympia)
Bill Fromhold (D-Vancouver)
Tami Green (D-Lakewood)
Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland)
Kathy Haigh (D-Shelton)
Larry Haler (R-Richland)
Bob Hasegawa (D-Seattle)
Zack Hudgins (D-Tukwila)
Sam Hunt (D-Olympia)
Christopher Hurst (D-Enumclaw)
Ken Jacobson (D-Seattle)
Fred Jarrett (R-Mercer Island)
Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup)
Claudia Kauffman (D-Kent)
Karen Keiser (D-Kent)
Phyllis Kenny (D-Seattle)
Lynn Kessler (D-Hoquiam)
Steve Kirby (D-Tacoma)
Adam Kline (D-Seattle)
Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle)
Kelli Linville (D-Bellingham)
Chris Marr (D-Spokane)
Rosemary McAuliffe (D-Bothell)
Joe McDermott (D-Seattle)
Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way)
Jim Moeller (D-Vancouver)
Ed Murray (D-Seattle)
Al O'Brien (D-Mount Lake Terrace)
Eric Oemig (D-Kirkland)
Timm Ormsby (D-Spokane)
Jaime Pedersen (D-Seattle)
Eric Poulsen (D-Seattle)
Craig Pridemore (D-Vancouver)
Debbie Regala (D-Tacoma)
Mary Helen Roberts (D-Edmonds)
Phil Rockefeller (D-Bainbridge Is.)
Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Is.)
Tomiko Santos (D-Seattle)
Shay Schual-Berke (D-Normandy Pk)
Mike Sells (D-Everett)
Paull Shin (D-Edmonds)
Geoff Simpson (D-Covington)
Helen Sommers (D-Seattle)
Harriet Spanel (D-Bellingham)
Larry Springer (D-Kirkland)
Chris Strow (R-Freeland)
Dan Swecker (R-Rochester)
Dean Takko (D-Longview)
Rodney Tom (D-Medina)
Dave Upthegrove (D-Des Moines)
Deb Wallace (D-Vancouver)
Brian Weinstein (D-Mercer Island)
Brendan Williams (D-Olympia)
Alex Wood (D-Spokane)
Yes we can
If Dean Logan had not decided to quit, he would still be KCE director today, because Sims would not have fired him.
Now he's gone to screw over LA. Now if we had voted we could have made him quit, and had him replaced by someone else who would be appointed by Sims to fill out the term. Next year we'd get some other partisan hack to take his place or maybe no would care enough and Logan's replacement would be reelected as an incumbent.
How has anything changed? Oh wait, nothing has except we vote now. Wow, big change.
Thank you Tim that was quite enlightening. Nice to know a majority of those bills never made it out of committee. While I don't agree with paid signature gathers and I feel they should be banned, the courts have said otherwise and I respect that decision.
Now you point to these bills like they would ever pass out of legislature and be signed by the Governor. If that ever happened (extremely unlikely even under Gregoire) I'm sure you would be the first to take them to court and ask for an injunction on the enforcement of the law.
It's still interesting to know representatives are interested in eliminating the initiative process, thank you for pointing/calling them out. Interesting to find Sam Reed at the top of the list.
What Tim has at length pointed out to you are people intent on limiting your ability to legislate. By voting, you can hold these people accountable. You can remove them from office. That is what we want from KCE. It is the only way to re-establish faith and trust.
Yes, we will probably end up with a party hack. That goes without saying in the Socialist Republic of King County. That person will however be accountable to the voters and not another politian (ie Sims).
I would also like to point out that most of those names Tim listed are in your camp. Are you going to be out campaigning against those fellow D's who want to kill your right to Initiatives and Referendum.
How does this mesh with Pro-Choice? Oh, now we may end up off topic since Choice is synonmous with abortion....
Posted by: Chris on July 30, 2007 07:18 PMGlad you agree that Logan was incompetent.
What's changed is that we are able to choose when an incompetent person is removed from office. Yes, the person replacing him/her would be a partisan Democrat. But you know what? Not all Democrats are incompetent. I'm more comfortable with the voters making that decision than Ron Sims, because he is obviously incapable of making the proper decision. His misplaced loyalty to Logan proved that.
Posted by: Palouse on July 30, 2007 09:35 PMThe position is such that it touches lots of different areas of government. From roads, to police, to elections, the Executive is by definition networked into the system at large. Therefore, if you have a certain problem with a single aspect of the County Executive's job performance, you may like 99 other tasks overwhich he or she has oversight. Therefore, you would not necessarily care to replace the County Executive because of those other 99 things.
Now to me, elections are of the highest priority. The person who is responsible for oversight of elections should have a limited scope of responsibility, and a laser like focus on getting elections right.
The County Executive is too much of a "generalist" position to be in charge of elections... or to even be in control of the appointment of the elections director. The King County Elections Department is more an anchor around the neck of the County Executive position, than it is a bright example of how the current system functions well with elections being under the control of the Executive.
Posted by: Gentry Lange on July 31, 2007 12:52 AMFinally, a rational statement for the initiative that doesn't involve name calling or stupid black helicopter Govt. is evil arguments.
Thank you Palouse for making a sound argument for this initiative. :)
Amy M/V, go suck on your firepole. When you actually contribute something of worth (like you did in the Iraq debate) I'll listen.
What's the matter Cato. can't take the heat. LOL
I see your lib side came out again.