Sound Politics: More voter registration violations at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

October 02, 2007

More voter registration violations at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

It turns out that Joel Connelly isn't the only P-I columnist to participate in voter registration violations. Editorial writer D. Parvaz is also unlawfully registered, falsely claiming residence at the P-I building!

Property records show that Parvaz has owned a home in Seattle since August 2004. Election records show that she was registered to vote at that home from July 2005 until October 2006 when she changed her registration to list her residence as the P-I building. I e-mailed to ask whether she actually lived at the P-I building. Her reply:

Although at times I do feel as though I live in the P-I building, I don't. And your e-mail brings up precisely why I don't want my home address to be public record. Here's the thing: I get threatening e-mails at work now and again (such as the one from a local reader who expressed his wish to toss me into a wood chipper, "feet first") but when I received some disturbing mail at my home address, I started feeling rather uneasy when walking home alone at night. And that was that. A line had been crossed and I needed to feel safe at home, so I switched my address to my work address.

I get vicious hate e-mails too and I'm sympathetic to Parvaz's desire for privacy. I wish I could change my voter registration to conceal my real identity and register under a false name, a false address and a false birthdate. Who wouldn't? But the state legislature has considered the matter over the years and has decided that voters' names, birthdates and addresses must be fully disclosed and in the public record. State law is also clear that the address a voter claims as their voting residence must be their actual physical residence. This is done for a very good reason. Since the act of voting is secret and irreversible, the only way to maintain integrity and confidence in the system is for the voters to fully and accurately identify themselves. The voter registration form warns:

If you knowingly provide false information on this voter registration form or knowingly make a false declaration about your qualifications for voter registration you will have committed a class C felony that is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both

Parvaz's concern for privacy is understandable. But (1) Her home address is available from other public records anyway, so using a false voting address doesn't protect her and only sets a bad example for others; and (2) there is an address confidentiality program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, which includes the ability to register at a confidential address. But there is a prescribed procedure for getting into that program; people cannot make up their own address confidentiality program by filing at a false address, whether they're a federal judge, a newspaper reporter or anybody else.

But that's exactly what Parvaz tried to do, in spite of the plain language warning on the voter registration form. And she knew that providing false information on a voter registration form is a felony, at least when she wrote this column on Jane Balogh in July and before she voted from her false address in August.

Although Balogh and Parvaz committed a similar violation, Parvaz' offense is far more serious. Balogh was not trying to corrupt the integrity of elections, on the contrary to point out the flaws in the system. Parvaz deliberately broke the law in order to procure a privilege that isn't available to those of us who play by the rules, and which would undermine our political system if the rest of us followed her example.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 02, 2007 08:52 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Caught red handed and yet NOTHING will happen to her. The mob (Seattle justice system) will mail her a "Get out of Jail Free" card. Of course it will come to the P.I. building.
Care to post odds to she if she gets a similar penalty than Jane and the pooch.

Posted by: PC on October 2, 2007 09:01 AM

2. Why do I always think of the voting sequence in "Gangs of New York" when King County elections come up?

Posted by: swatter on October 2, 2007 09:10 AM

3. Where are the frog-marchers now that we need them?

Or should SP throw a house-warming for Parvaz in order for her to furnish her new digs at the P-I building? Anyone know if she's registered anywhere? Like at MoveOn.org or ANSWER or RichardPope.com?

Put me down for a set of four Joel Connelly signature editorial birdcage liners.

Anyone checked the P-I's circulation numbers lately? Would W.H. Hearst approve?

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on October 2, 2007 09:10 AM

4. I would look damn closely at where they have their vehicles registered. I got my notice to renew my tabs adn included in the $134 is RTA/Sound transit Tax: $73. One thing in this world that is for sure and for certain is that libs are amongst the biggest evaders of taxes they agitate for.

Posted by: JDH on October 2, 2007 09:21 AM

5. Surely you're not suggesting that you have as many rights as a Professional Honest-to-God Journalist, nor that a P. H.-t.-G. J. should have to obey the same laws as you. That would be un-American. Everyone knows that the Founders intended journalists to have special privileges not available to the common people.

Posted by: ScottM on October 2, 2007 09:30 AM

6. Welcome to the real world, Ms. Parvaz. You act like only one side has cornered the market on hate, threats and attempts at physical violence.

Exercise your Second Amendment rights, carry and then you won't have to worry about breaking the law out of fear some big meany is going to get you.

Leave it to a liberal to break the law and then play the victim card.

Posted by: jimg on October 2, 2007 09:35 AM

7. Stefan: I am gasping at your audacity!. Don't you know that Ms. Parvaz is a "Seattle Opinion Maker"? Such esteemed personages are not held accountable as we mere mortals are.

Posted by: John425 on October 2, 2007 10:01 AM

8. No, she apparently has the same rights as, say, a waitress to have some douchebag with a blog run a smear campaign against her.

Posted by: Eathechildren on October 2, 2007 10:07 AM

9. Eathechildren (8):

What smear? Either the allegation is true or it isnt. According to Shark, Parvaz emailed him "so I switched my address to my work address."

Are you saying that Shark made up the email? I think it unlikely, as the audit trail would be clear (unlike the Dan Rather documents, for example).

Do you consider it a smear to point out the self-admitted felonious acts of ones ideological opponents. Does this cut both ways, or does it only apply to those on the right pointing out the foibles of those on the left? Do you have any contribution to this issue other than name calling?

Posted by: Steve on October 2, 2007 10:26 AM

10. Typical liberals Selectively choosing what rules to follow. It is this typical thought process where they will attack someone for doing the things they do. Destroy the evil non liberals yet they themselves are above those same standards.
But as the Bible stays. First remove the log from your eye before you remove the speck of dust from anothers eye.
I judge not because I am not perfect. Yet they require everyone else to be perfect except for themselves. They need to take a close look at what they are doing. It is their excuses and doublespeak that makes me laugh at them and ignore what they have to say.
I have come to the conclusion that the Newspaper people in this area are too stupid to find problems. They look for others that do what they do inreal life and condemn them for their breaking of the rules they themselves already break. How else can they find attack points they have no imagination they just claim everyone else is doing what they themselves do every day. And condemn all Conservatives to be corrupt by the actions of a few corrupt conservatives.
She is a case in point. and Eathechildren just defends her yet does not see by her defense she proves conservative points that LIberals are DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO. No integrity. No honesty. No compassion except unto themselves.

Posted by: david anfinrud on October 2, 2007 10:26 AM

11.
Seattle needs to be abandoned.

I suggest reading:

Where homes are affordable

Posted by: John Bailo on October 2, 2007 10:53 AM

12. ScottM, sigh. And the govt just gave journalists even more rights, with this nonsensical shield law, which McKenna supported. Slightly offtopic here, but with the shield law and the defense of the top two primary, McKenna is really ticking me off.

Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2007 10:53 AM

13. Editorial writer D. Parvaz isn't the only one with such concerns. Judges, policemen, even King County Councilmembers have asked to be able to use their office address for the same, if not more serious, reason. At least in the past, they have all been denied. As Shark indicated, there is one way to go and that is the State confidentiality program, but it must be sent to SECSTATE with appropriate justification. The criteria is quite stringent.

Posted by: Desert Rat on October 2, 2007 11:24 AM

14. @13...DR...

Which KCC members? If any switch their LEGAL address from the district from which they were elected to the KC Courthouse (jail a better option for some?), doesn't this pose an issue as to the legality of them holding office...

Please let it be Julia Patterson...Please, please, please, please, please, please, please...

The Piper

Posted by: Piper Scott on October 2, 2007 11:32 AM

15. defense of the top two primary, McKenna is really ticking me off.

The shield law is one thing, but he's got no choice in the primary issue. His job is to represent the state in court. Nothing more.

Posted by: jimg on October 2, 2007 11:47 AM

16. There is absolutely no reason to register to vote under a false address. NONE! In Clark County there are just over 30 registered voters who have their information blocked. If one is that concerned about threats, they need to file a complaint with the authorities and go through the proper channels to get their info blocked.

To pre-meditate falsifying information on a voter registration is illegal. Period. This whole story is rubbish.

Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 2, 2007 12:03 PM

17. What is most chilling to me is the stunning admission by Dorothy Parvaz that vote fraud isn't so bad as long as it goes in favor of her [liberal] candidate. Okay, I really wasn't stunned, but it was awfully brazen of her to put it into print.

In light of that is it any surprise that she herself would be contemptuous of such bureaucratic minutia as actually living where you are registered to vote?

Posted by: threeoddnumbers on October 2, 2007 12:06 PM

18. Kim @16, it is not so easy in pierce county. Unless you are female living in a shelter it is nearly impossible to have your information blocked.

I personally think we should use the same purple finger method that was used in Iraq. It would solve many issues.

Posted by: Vince on October 2, 2007 12:56 PM

19. JIMG: You Brilliantly wrote:

"Leave it to a liberal to break the law and then play the victim card."

Worth repeating.

Posted by: Kudos on October 2, 2007 01:27 PM

20. JIMG: You Brilliantly wrote:

"Leave it to a liberal to break the law and then play the victim card."

Worth repeating.

Posted by: Kudos on October 2, 2007 01:28 PM

21. three@17,

What is so chilling or brazen about felonious voter registration in King County? Do you really think King County Elections or the prosecutors office will do anything....even now that she has publically admitted to a felony? Why would the authorities start to care about such things now? It's just business as usual in King County, or any county controlled by leftist machine politics.

Posted by: Saltherring on October 2, 2007 01:28 PM

22. I believe Ms. Parvaz is guilty of having a "hyperactive self-importance gland". Perhaps increasing her dosage of Prozac and laying off the recreational drugs for awhile will help her realize she is not significant.....except for the fact that she committed perjury on her voter registration! Her musings & drivel mean little to folks with a mere lick of common sense.

Oh and one other thing Ms Parvaz....
Everyone knows you don't throw shit in a woodchipper! It clogs it up and ruins it.....and they are expensive.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 2, 2007 01:37 PM

23. So a woman registers her dog to expose the flaws in the elections registration system and she is prosecuted to make a point that government will not tolerate a citizen exposing their process flaws. Now, "two" columnists for the PI have been caught violating election laws that carry a felony classification and what is the King County Prosecuting Attorneys Office doing about it? Appears to be another clear opportunity to make a point, huh?

The silence is deafening. Could this be another double standard applied by King County law enforcement? Say it isn't so.

Here's an open challenge to "stand-in" King County Prosecutor and hopeful Dan Satterberg. Show the people of King County that the law applies equally to all its citizens, and not just those outside King County's circle of friends. Show the people here that you have the courage and independence to be King County's Prosecutor. And if Satterberg isn't the right guy for the job, let's hear his challenger Bill Sherman start asking why columnists appear to be getting special waivers to violate the law.

Posted by: DoubleStandard? on October 2, 2007 01:41 PM

24. I wonder what John McKay's response to this would have been....

Posted by: Chris on October 2, 2007 02:32 PM

25. #18 Vince

There is a way to get your info blocked using the State's election laws. If Pierce County is not honoring these laws, expose them to the proper authorities. /Just be sure to let the rest of know what is going on in that county.

#23 DoubleStandard?

Very interesting point you make. Brilliant as a matter fact!

Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 2, 2007 02:58 PM

26. #18 Vince

#23 DoubleStandard?

Very interesting point you make. Brilliant as a matter fact!

Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 2, 2007 03:00 PM

27. Since Norm Malang and Dan Satterberg dropped the ball repeatedly with the false voter reigistration in 2004 and improper voter registrations in 2005, don't expect anything to change in 2007.

John McKay is still clueless

Another win for Sims and the Nickels machine

Posted by: Parvaz is wrong on October 2, 2007 03:14 PM

28. Just another example of the crooked liberal run stolen elections.

Posted by: obj on October 2, 2007 03:26 PM

29. BTW, D. Parvaz's first name is Dorothy and she lives on 4th Avenue.

Posted by: Eunice Burns on October 2, 2007 04:46 PM

30. Chris @ 24:

John McKays response? Not enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

Posted by: Saltherring on October 2, 2007 06:05 PM

31. FYI O'Reilly bestowed a "Pinhead" award on Dotty on yesterday's Factor show for her editorial defending A-Jad.

Posted by: Organization Man on October 2, 2007 06:39 PM

32. Dear Ms. Parvaz,

If you're in doubt where you legally reside please check zabasearch.com. No muss, no fuss, no public records search. Simply enter Parvaz and select a search on Washington.

Posted by: zaba on October 2, 2007 06:50 PM

33. Ever notice how Progressives defiantly resist attempts to improve voter authentication, and security for elections? And yet they'll bestow the deepest forgiveness and every possible civil liberty protection for serial killers like Tookie Williams. And then they will have the gall to request plenty of security and authentication to protect themselves.

It's the upside-down world of today's Progressive. Defend the dictators, and make up lies and smear anyone who does not see it your way.

Nothing will happen to Parvaz. She votes, speaks, writes and thinks "correctly." so all officials in King County will look the other way.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 2, 2007 11:05 PM

34. Wow. So, because someone has a liberal bent, you all feel fine calling her "shit" and supporting whoever sends her hate mail threatening violence, or mails threats to her home. I find that a great deal more troubling than any voting issues.

Posted by: Shore on October 3, 2007 09:42 AM

35. Nice try at a straw man "Shore" but as usual, you are off topic.

The topic is the woman's fraudulent voter registration. I don't think anyone here is "supporting" nutjobs sending her hate mail. Funny though, I never seen to see the liberal outrage about hate mail when it is a conservative on teh receiving end.

Posted by: pbj on October 3, 2007 10:48 AM

36. Nice try at a straw man "Shore" but as usual, you are off topic.

The topic is the woman's fraudulent voter registration. I don't think anyone here is "supporting" nutjobs sending her hate mail. Funny though, I never seem to see the liberal outrage about hate mail when it is a conservative on the receiving end.

Posted by: pbj on October 3, 2007 10:59 AM

37. It's no straw man, pbj. Look at the comments right here on this page (#22 is only the most straightforward.)
Isn't it basic human decency to be able to disagree without name-calling, curses, sneers, hatred, and support for threats? This should be true for liberals, conservatives, independents, or anyone. I try to teach my kids to deal with disagreements "like grownups," I would be horrified for them to see the way people are talking here and think that is an "adult" way to handle disputes.

Posted by: shore on October 3, 2007 11:11 AM

38. shore-
Ms. Parvaz has a history of being quite....mean herself. You seem a bit uptight and lack humor like most Leftists.
The bottom-line shore, is that Ms. Parvaz views herself so highly that she can justify being above the law. Comprende? And to use half-baked threats as an excuse for cheating & lying ain't good enough. In fact, it's dispicable.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 3, 2007 12:45 PM

39. #37 shore

TROLL ALERT! Run and hide.

Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 3, 2007 12:48 PM

40. #34 shore

TROLL ALERT! Everybody run and hide.

Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 3, 2007 12:50 PM

41. So Ms. Parvaz has done in Seattle what Ann Coulter did in West Palm Beach... registered at an address where she did not live (and which was actually in a different district).

I guess she saw the lack of concern and prosecution there and figured it would be OK here, too.

Or are you screaming for the head of the Coulter, also?

She gave much the same excuse - she didn't want her 'fans' to find out where she really lived.

Posted by: SeattleMike on October 3, 2007 01:26 PM

42. Mr. Cynical -- lack of humor? Gosh, I had no idea that stalking someone at her home address or threatening bodily harm should be considered just half-baked fun! Maybe Ms. Parvaz really should conceal her home address through the battered women's route, because, legality aside, she needs to watch out for herself if people like you think harassment is irrelevant so long as you don't like someone's politics. Sorry if that isn't ha-ha-ha enough for you.

Posted by: shore on October 3, 2007 01:58 PM

43. shore--
Ummmmm, Ms. Parvaz makes claims which I agree are unacceptable. However, if they are as bad as you imply, one would think she would have filed a police report. Right?! Did she?.....
If not, it almost looks like she is "puffing" a story after the fact to justify cheating & lying.
Show us the Police Report she filed shore.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 3, 2007 02:42 PM

44. I have to agree with Mr. Cynical shore.
Ms. Parvaz's claims are certainly worthy of the filing of a Police Report.
Fortunately, Ms. Parvaz claims to have received disturbing mail at home. That means she ought to have written documentation that she could have easily turned over to the cops.
Did she?
If not, why in the world not?
Did she save the letters & envelopes??
If she felt so threatened, certainly a woman of her intelligence would have turned those documents over to her employer and the Police...and certainly she would not have destroyed them.
shore ought to contact Ms. Parvaz as her chief sympathizer and share all these evil documents with us doubters.
Where are the documents shore?
Where is the Police Report shore?

Posted by: yikes on October 3, 2007 02:49 PM

45. Mr. C and yikes: I'm glad you agree that stalking and harassing are unacceptable. I have no idea if she filed a police report. What does that have to do with the intrinsic goodness or badness of the behavior? My point is that the comments on this board seemed to imply that it's OK to be malicious and potentially dangerous to someone so long as you don't like their politics.

Posted by: shore on October 3, 2007 04:51 PM

46. shore--
Bad try....No Sale.
You have made a big issue about Ms. Parvaz's claims of brutality.
I'm asking for the Police Reports.
It's called put up...or shut up.
If this alleged harrassment was bad enough for her to cheat & lie...it MUST have been bad enough to file a Police Report....or at least retain the evidence.
Just because she CLAIMS something happened to defend her decision to cheat & lie when backed into a corner....doesn't make it so.

shore---you seriously aren't interested in seeing the Police Report or any evidence to back up her claims of being afraid??????????????
If not, you are certainly the troll pbj accused you of being.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 3, 2007 06:09 PM

47. Troll? Oh, I see. This is only a place for people who already agree with everything you think! Why didn't you post a big smug sign at the top: "RESERVED FOR THOSE OF SIMILAR MIND. NO DEBATE ALLOWED."

You are making a straw horse out of the police report. I don't care if one exists or not, because -- I guess I have to say it again -- my point is that you people were cheering on the idea of this woman being harassed and stalked. You sound like a lynch mob. Trying to turn it around now and pretend the issue is just how you wanted official proof of harassment is just silliness.

I'm not going to repeat my point again, since you persist in ignoring it, so if you don't hear from me you can just mentally fill in the blank with a "repeat above post."

Posted by: shore on October 3, 2007 08:31 PM

48. my point is that you people were cheering on the idea of this woman being harassed and stalked

No one was doing that. Yes, #22 was a rude comment, but no one was cheering the idea. You know, you can call him on his rude behavior without pretending he said something more than what he actually said. That interpretation is simply unwarranted, and even if it WERE, that was only ONE PERSON, not "you people."

I do agree the police report is beside the point, though, because that is not sufficient justification for her perjury. There is not justification for her crime. Perhaps you could address the point of this story: do you think her crime is justified? Yes, or no?

And if you won't answer that, doesn't it call into question the honesty of your posts calling for people to follow YOUR point?

Posted by: pudge on October 3, 2007 09:20 PM

49. Shore - where was anyone cheering on the idea of Ms. Parvaz being harassed and stalked? I am skimming the comments and don't see it. What I do see are commenters who are offended that Ms. Parvaz thinks she can break the rules at her own discretion and who also don't believe that the King County authorities will do anything about it, despite clear evidence of her illegal action.

Posted by: Irene on October 3, 2007 09:26 PM

50. shore--
We differ because I dare to question if Ms. Parvaz was actually afraid...or if this is just an excuse. Certainly if she filed a Police Report, I would look at it more compassionately.
Bottom-line shore....unlike you, I am unwilling to just take Ms. Parvaz at her word.
And even if it is true, there is a process she needs to go through.....not merely take it upon herself to lie & perjure herself. That is unacceptable....and corrupts the integrity of our election system.

shore--who was "cheering on the idea this woman was being harrassed & stalked"???????? You really, truly believe it is out of line for someone to ask for "official proof of harrassment"???
Parvaz was painted into a corner by Stefan.
She responded.
I am simply asking that if she was so afraid, where is the Police Report.
You seem to attack anyone who asks the obvious follow-up question....why?

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 4, 2007 11:51 AM

51. Still trying to figure out what sh*t in a woodchipper is a metaphor for...although it does make sense not to.

Posted by: Organization Man on October 5, 2007 07:19 PM

52. Aw, come on, folks.

All of the brave souls puffing up their chests here about fear, stalking and anonymity should back up their brave words with a certain action of their own: Sign your real name before you post.

Show me the courage! Piper Scott does it; Stefan Sharkansky does it - so too a few others here with which I am unfamiliar.

Parvaz has committed voter registration fraud. Washington State law would seem clear on this. She should rightly face the suitable legal ramifications for her action. However, her concerns as a public figure and protection from nutbar threats are not to be scoffed at. To those here who would mock her fear - and yet hide behind anonymous 'handles' themselves - should take a long look in the mirror before condemning her motivation and the intention behind the regrettable, illegal, act.

I say this as a liberal - hold for collective gasp - independent. As a liberal utterly fed up with certain right-wingers who would seek to define and challenge my patriotism on their terms and by their standards simply because I find the current Chief Executive in the White House to be a real horse's ass. However snide, nasty, and downright disagreeable I may sometimes be in my own comments, I never stoop to cry sedition toward my antagonists on the Right.

Speaking of asses and horses, that's a another blog that could use a dose of similar fortitude with respect to the identity of posters. That, and a sink, a towel, and a bar of soap...

Posted by: Laurence Ballard on October 9, 2007 02:00 PM