King County Elections determined yesterday that I-24 had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. They have already started checking I-25 and expect to complete verification within 10 days.
Also, it turns out that both the initiative campaigns and county officials had previously erred in calculating the number of signatures needed for qualification. The correct number as determined by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office is 52,817, not 54,732 as stated earlier.
(The magic number by King County Charter 230.50 "ten percent of the votes cast in the county for the office of county executive at the last preceding election for county executive." Nearly everybody who looked at this originally misinterpreted that to mean the total turnout in that election, which was more than the votes specifically for county executive. Kudos to Joe Fain of Councilman Pete von Reichbauer's office who caught the error and asked the Council Clerk for correction).
All good.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 15, 2007 02:04 PM | Email ThisSince 1,915 fewer valid signatures are now required, this will significantly increase the chances that I-25 will qualify.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 15, 2007 01:50 PMSoon everyone will get a chance to vote on this pointless initiative.
I'd be surprised if this "pointless initiative" passes with less than 60% of the vote (the 40% being Ron Sims lackeys, assorted government employees and union stooges). There isn't a rational argument against it.
Posted by: Palouse on August 15, 2007 03:06 PMWhen was the last time KCE did not use the statistical sample method unless the count was close.
Once you answer that question.
Ask yourself why?
Posted by: JCM on August 15, 2007 03:16 PMI do not feel this way at all. I disagree with this initiative because I feel it's a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. I don't think electing partisan-hack to a supposedly non-partisan position is going to make a bit of difference. If you want to deal with the problem of elections you go through the legislature who creates the election rules.
I could be wrong, I will not vote in favor of this initiative but I'm sure it will pass. What's to say the voters won't elect another Dean Logan type official? Just because an official is elected doesn't mean they are beholden to the peoples interests (just look at Congress).
They might. However, at least the voters would promptly remove him/her the next election. Again, left up to Sims, we would still be stuck with Logan. That's far worse.
Posted by: Palouse on August 15, 2007 03:43 PMBut appointment of a partisan-hack by another partisan-hack to a supposedly non-partisan position is better???????
Posted by: pbj on August 15, 2007 04:03 PMYou asked a reasonable question. But by smugly assuming ("Ask yourself why?") the wrong answer, you betrayed your conspiracy paranoia.
Posted by: Bruce on August 15, 2007 04:18 PMWith the history at KCE?
Surely you jest.
Posted by: JCM on August 15, 2007 05:20 PMDunno, King Country is pretty liberal. He did them a favor, what's to say the voters won't respond in kind. =)
But appointment of a partisan-hack by another partisan-hack to a supposedly non-partisan position is better???????
Why not vote Ron Sims out of office? Oh wait, some people actually like him and the GOP can't seem to find anyone half-decent to throw their hat in the ring to challenge him. Hmmm, could this be a precursor to the new elected official in charge of elections?
Give it two years, Sound Politics will be complaining that the new guy the people elected doesn't hold water and should be voted out of office. Can't wait to see what happens when the voters choose a populist Jim McDermott/Ron Sims elected-for-life type. Stefan will be fuming all the way to the ballot box.
I see Cato strikes again.
So let's see Cato, why would Ron Sims have the the I-24 & 25 checked this way? When has never done it before?
Maybe he's worried or as in the GOV mess he can find or remove a few votes.
Next you know I'll be talking about Black Helos.
SCARY!!!!!
Let's see if Cato takes the bait.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 16, 2007 03:32 PMI have no contact with Ron Sims or his office I can only speculate on his reasons.
Here is my guess:
Given all the election mishaps (Gov Race, ACORN) and bad publicity recently wouldn't a more thorough signature check on all initiatives be wise?
Since I-24 & 25 were the only initiatives submitted this election season neither of us is in a position to prove either theory wrong.