October 05, 2007
Surrender Dorothy

Unlawfully registered Seattle P-I editorial writer Dorothy ("D.") Parvaz cancelled her voter registration today, mooting a registration challenge, says King County Elections Director Sherril Huff.

Perhaps this item in today's Tri-City Herald convinced Parvaz to correct the record: "Prosser man told he must register to vote using actual home address"

But it was overkill for Parvaz to cancel her own registration. All she had to do was re-register at her home address, like every law-abiding voter does. (and including her name and address in the list of registered voters poses no threat to her safety, as she claimed. Her address is easily available from other sources, same as for most of the rest of us).

It remains to be seen whether the Prosecuting Attorney will file charges against Parvaz for submitting a false registration form, as he did with Jane Balogh.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 05, 2007 04:21 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Or, she could apply for the exception regarding cranks.

Or, she could register at the local curmudgeon's private cottage on Whidbey Island.

Question: has anyone filed election challenges for those registered in the mailboxes at the U-Mail Its? Or any of those other phony living establishments?

Posted by: swatter on October 5, 2007 04:24 PM
2. Do people not understand why they have to register at their homes? It seems so obvious to me why you can't just register wherever you want that I find this whole "controversy" insane.

I remember some lefty arguing on these threads that Tom Foley should be able to vote in Washington State's elections even though he now lives in DC, and I was shocked that he seemed not even to grasp the basic issues of representation and self-government.

Posted by: ScottM on October 5, 2007 04:50 PM
3. ScottM: If Tom Foley was a republican or a conservative democrat, then the lefty wouldn't understand why he *should* be allowed to vote in Washington.

In other words, the only consistency for a lefty is that they are superior to everyone else and have more rights than everyone else

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on October 5, 2007 04:56 PM
4. Thank you for reporting Dorothy Parvaz's improper voter registration.

You're right Parvaz should have "cured the defect" by "re-registering at her home address".

Dan Satterberg only files charges against nonvoting canines and individuals who register as cartoon characters and do not vote.

Mr. Satterberg is not concerned with individuals who have actually voted and are improperly registered per his letter to you earlier this year.

"In October 2005 ... a activist ... challenged more than 1,900 voters, contending they had illegally registered at a post-office box or other nonresidential address." Dean "Logan joined by King County Councilmember Dow Constantine ... voted to reject most of the ... challenges, saying (they) had to prove where the voters actually lived."
Seattle Times September 24, 2007


Posted by: Parvaz was wrong on October 5, 2007 05:21 PM
5. Just because she cancelled her voter registration doesn't mean she won't be voting.
I'm sure she knows the words "provisional ballot"

Posted by: PC on October 5, 2007 10:17 PM
6. There's a simple solution, but the left won't have any of it. If we instituted some form of two factor authentication, there would be no need to worry about where voters lived. But that would make it much harder for the left to either commit fraud by submitting many provisionals and hoping they will be counted as happened in 2004, and harder for them to encourage last minute GOTV drives.

All we really need are polling places and a few gallons of purple dye and we'd know with certainty there were no double voters.

The left thinks that we are above the need to dye our fingers as Iraqis did in their elections. And yet the left won't abide by our much more civil authentication of registering at one's primary place of residence. It's the height of arrogance.

Thanks Stefan for calling out Connelly and Parvaz. Keep it up.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 6, 2007 12:26 AM
7. ...there would be no need to worry about where voters lived....

Actually, we still would, so that the voter would know what to vote on. That's half the problem with this, being registered in one place and voting in another. Let's say she actually lived in Lynnwood or Tacoma, but registered at the P-I building. She would get a ballot to vote on a whole host of things she has no business voting on because she wouldn't live in Seattle (or King County for that matter). So registering at the address where you live is important.

Posted by: Mike H on October 6, 2007 06:04 AM
8. Jeff B. @ 6 -

You've confused the issues of identity confirmation (you are who you say you are) and voter authorization (you are an eligible voter for a particular jurisdiction).

Posted by: zappini on October 6, 2007 07:42 AM
9. I still haven't heard if Dotty actually filed a Police Report because of her alleged harrassment that lead her to lie & cheat.
As I have said before, if she filed a timely Police Report accompanied with the alleged threatening letter....I would have some empathy for her (although it still isn't the right way for Dotty to handle this......and heaven knows Dotty consistently holds our President & all Conservatives to a high standard of following the rules).
Perhaps the rules are for everyone but Dotty???
That would be consistent with the LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN mentality.......do as I say, but don't you dare question what I do.

Cancelling her Voter Registration is certainly an option. Perhaps she will re-register at some point. I would hope she is not allowed to register without her address unless she provides clear evidence of harrassment & follows to rules 100% to get some sort of exception.

Bottom-line: I don't trust Dotty Parvaz and would not take her word for anything.....ever. Show the Police Report Dotty. If the standard for not showing your home address is merely an allegation....then anyone can do it. The consequences of that are not good.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on October 6, 2007 10:41 AM
10. Stefan,
Your headline "Surrender Dorothy" seems to set you up as the Wicked Witch of the West. This is the way your liberal opponents would like to characterize you. But those of us who know you would rather associate you with Glenda, the Good Witch of the North. Instead of "Surrender Dorothy," you should be saying:

"You have always had the power to register at home. Just click your heels together three times and say, there's no place like home, there's no place like home...."

It's not quite as short or catchy, but perhaps your headline should have been "There's no place like home."

Posted by: Bruce Tin Woodsman Guthrie on October 6, 2007 10:48 AM
11. PC @ 5: Just because she cancelled her voter registration doesn't mean she won't be voting. I'm sure she knows the words "provisional ballot

You can only vote provisionally if you are legally registered.

Posted by: pudge on October 6, 2007 11:13 AM
12. Just so everyone is clear. She still broke the law.

Just because she cancelled it, doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed. The DA needs to remember that as well...especially in light of Jane's trial. And the coming election.

Posted by: Chris on October 6, 2007 12:00 PM
13. Love the headline!

Posted by: Michele on October 7, 2007 01:36 AM
14. 12--(hic) you're right (hic); maybe we need a WA (hic) S.Ct. judge to preside (hic); bumper cars, anyone? justice is blind & evenly administered, i'm sure;

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 7, 2007 06:18 AM
15. @12: Just so you are clear, the D. Parvaz case differs from the Jane Balogh case in that Ms. Balogh created a voter registration for a fictitious voter using a faked document, causing a single person to receive two ballots and thus drawing the interest of the KC Prosecutor. Ms. Parvaz moved her own legal voter registration to her work address in violation of elections law. The third case Stefan referenced (in the Tri-City Herald article) is that of Larry Loges, a man who moved his legal voter registration from his home address to the address of a property he owns, which also violates elections law. Mr. Loges had his registration canceled by the county auditor and was instructed to re-register at his proper address. No penalty was assessed, nor is one likely to be assessed to Ms. Parvaz.

Posted by: J.R. on October 7, 2007 01:56 PM
16. You don't understand. If she had registered at home, she wouldn't be able to whine about being denied her right to vote by vicious right wingers who want her to be mugged.

Posted by: Ken Hahn on October 7, 2007 02:18 PM
17. JR: no, YOU misunderstand. Balogh violated the law intentionally TO GET CAUGHT, to point out flaws in the system. She WANTED to get caught, and never at any time had any intent to vote fraudulently.

Parvaz, on the other hand, did NOT want to get caught, and DID vote fraudulently.

Posted by: pudge on October 7, 2007 05:58 PM
18. Sorry, pudge - "JR: no, YOU misunderstand. Balogh violated the law intentionally TO GET CAUGHT, to point out flaws in the system. She WANTED to get caught, and never at any time had any intent to vote fraudulently."

Sounds just like that pedophile elected official who, after using the internet to arrange an "encounter" with a minor-minor-minor child, responded "I was just tryinh to see if the police were doing their job"

Posted by: Martin on October 8, 2007 05:36 AM
19. Hey, I don't mind if she cancelled her registration. One less idiot-vote.

Posted by: John425 on October 8, 2007 07:50 AM
20. Martin: that was the stupidest comment I have ever seen on this site.

Congratulations, that is quite an accomplishment.

Posted by: pudge on October 8, 2007 08:40 AM
21. Let's hope that she does time. She deserves to be not only thrown in jail, but to be stripped of her office, and then being a felon, never allowed to vote again.

But this just proves, yet again and without a modicum doubt, that the collective stupidity of the liberal Democrat Party is overshadowed ONLY by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty

Posted by: thirteenburn on October 8, 2007 08:53 PM
22. Yo!

What do you think about Apple Iogo? >:)






Posted by: CandyShopGirl on October 9, 2007 09:01 AM
23. Aw, come on, folks.
All of the brave souls puffing up their chests here about fear, stalking and anonymity (especially on Oct. 2) 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.

If you're brave enough to vote by secret ballot, be brave enough to use your own name online.

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...

If you're brave enough to vote by secret ballot, be brave enough to use your own name online.

Posted by: Laurence Ballard on October 9, 2007 04:41 PM
24. Laurence Ballard: but everyone knows who I am ... don't they? It's no secret.

But I didn't "mock her fear" so I guess you're not talking to me anyway. But the point is that using a handle doesn't mean you are anonymous -- or intendeding to be -- by a long shot.

Posted by: pudge on October 9, 2007 10:02 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?