For the presidential preference primary last week, King County gave out a single ballot for the Republican and Democratic parties. So if you signed on the sheet for one party or the other, when you voted, you could choose to vote for either party.
This violates RCW 29A.56.050, which states:
(2) If requested by a major political party, the secretary of state shall adopt rules under RCW 29A.04.620 to provide for any declaration required by that party.
(3) Voters who subscribe to a specific political party declaration under this section must be given ballots that are readily distinguishable from those given to other voters. Votes cast by persons making these declarations must be tabulated and reported separately from other votes cast at the primary and may be used by a major political party in its allocation of delegates under the rules of that party.
Sherril Huff talks about how separate ballots are more confusing for voters (I don't see how having only the choices that the voter chose to have available to themselves could be MORE confusing), and higher costs, but that doesn't change the fact that state law clearly states that voters who sign one party's declaration must be given a separate ballot than other voters.
Whatever reasons Huff thinks she has for doing it this way, it doesn't justify breaking the law.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 26, 2008 12:47 AM | Email ThisAs I read the law, the unaffiliated voters should have been counted too -- but separately from the party declaration voters. That is what they did in 2000 and previous years.
RCW 29A.56.040 requires the presidential primary to be conducted in the same way as a regular partisan primary, but with the addition of separate counting of ballots cast by voters who publicly sign a declaration for a party.
So if a voter doesn't sign a public party declaration, they should still have been allowed to privately choose either a Democratic or a Republican candidate. But those votes would be counted separately from those cast by public party declarants -- just as was the case in 2000 and before.
Basically, Sam Reed got rid of the unaffiliated ballot unlawfully, when that ballot should still have been available for the beauty contest results of voters who did not wish to publicly affiliate.
I suspect Sam Reed eliminated the unaffiliated ballot to boost the chances of John McCain. In 2000, George W Bush was only slightly ahead of McCain in overall votes. But most Bush voters publicly affiliated with the Republican party, while most McCain voters took the unaffiliated ballot. So Bush got the lion's share of the delegates.
By eliminating the unaffiliated ballot, McCain supporters were forced to publicly declare with the Republican party to participate in the primary. That way, all of McCain's votes would be counted for the delegates.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 26, 2008 02:02 AMThe Council had a quick fix, though. They implemented a process where they would have a voice vote on the final plats. And even though they still didn't review the plats in any way, and they declined to record the vote to note those who voted against a particular plat, they plugged the hole sufficiently to follow the letter of the law, if not the full intent of the law.
So when DDES makes a major concession to a developer after a preliminary plat has been battled and approved, and they label it as a minor modification, you can be sure that there is no one on the King County Council who will notice, or even care about the change before it is signed as approved.
I point this out, because while we could have sued the Council over this alleged decision to not do their jobs, you can't make government be responsible if they don't want to. And even if you win a lawsuit, like Armen Yousoufian has over Ron Sims' violation of public disclosure laws, it is only our money that is being spent to pay for all the lawyers, any fines, and this government still won't honor the public trust.
The only thing this bunch cares about it the personal political consequences of their actions. If you can't impose a political cost for their violation of the public trust, then you won't even be on their radar. Hold a public demonstration and get thousands on TV with signs condemning lawmakers by name, then maybe you'll get their attention. Go to court and even you win years later after the county has spent millions of our money to defend its wrongdoing, don't expect a "government" judge to make it worth it.
Posted by: MJC on February 26, 2008 06:33 AMStick a fork in yourself, you are done --- just like the real 'rebels'.
Posted by: headless lucy on February 26, 2008 08:38 AM
Sigh.
Again. Each and every one of the problems in the 2000 election in Florida were in - read this slowly now - Democratic-controlled counties, and those errors were the result of elected Democrat officials.
You're not dumb, Duff. Give up the tired rhetoric.
Posted by: jimg on February 26, 2008 09:09 AMDuffman: no, I don't think it will be a close election this year: I have no reason to doubt that Dino will win by several points. Please don't try to tell us about the polls; the polls had Gregoire way ahead throughout 2004, too. Besides, the UW poll is not a normal poll: it is not a random sample (it re-asked participants of a previous poll), it took place over more than a week and a half (and people tend to change their views quickly, so someone asked at the beginning of the 11 days might have changed their view by the end), and it had a small size (only 300 people).
So not only do we -- for obvious reason: they failed last time -- not trust the polls, but this poll in particular is less trustworthy than most.
Big yawn.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 09:20 AMSeattle named #1 healthiest city in America:
http://www.goodmooddiet.com/blog/2008/02/congratulations_seattle_1.php
Posted by: FreedomLover on February 26, 2008 11:50 AM"WAC 434-219-240 Canvassing consolidated ballots that include a party checkbox.
If a county auditor issues consolidated ballots that include a party checkbox on the ballot, the following canvassing protocols must be followed:
(1) If a voter:
(a) Signs a party declaration on the return envelope;
(b) Checks the party box on the consolidated ballot for the same party declared on the return envelope; and
(c) Votes for candidates of the same party declared on the return envelope, the votes shall be counted....."
In other words, as long as there is a provision for party declaration checkbox that can be read by the ballot tabulating device, a consolidated ballot is permitted. King County has been doing it that way for the past three (at least) Presidential Primaries. The political parties all agreed to these rules before they were published.
Posted by: Desert Rat on February 26, 2008 12:08 PMThe should run their own, private elections, based on membership and paid by private donations and dues.
The results do not have to be made public, or accountable, except to members.
Anyone who doesn't like how the Republicans or Democrats run things, can (a) run as an indepdendent or (b) form their own party.
And EVEN IF this DID apply, a WAC cannot overrule an RCW, and the RCW is clear: "Voters who subscribe to a specific political party declaration under this section must be given ballots that are readily distinguishable from those given to other voters."
There are no IFs or BUTs, no regulatory authority granted to the Secretary of State. Whether the parties agree to it is irrelevant: there is a law to follow.
Voters signing a declaration for the Republican Party MUST be given ballots READILY DISTINGUISHABLE from the ballots given to voters signing a declaration for the Democratic Party.
That is the law. King County broke it.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 12:40 PMCan anyone think of any practical way in which this is important? Are we worried that the D's might see our information? Was the secrecy of the ballot compromised? Was there voting fraud as a result of this issue? I don't think so.
If not, we should stick to criticising King County elections for the many really bad things it has done and not pick at them for minor things like this. There is plenty of material issues to attack them on.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 26, 2008 01:02 PMSure.
1. The obvious: people can vote in the Republican primary without signing the Republican declaration, defeating the whole point to the Republicans having the primary in the first place.
2. The legal: because this is a public election, there is a responsibility to the equal protection clause, and since voters in one county can vote in the Republican primary without signing the Republican declaration, while others can't, it is quite possibly unconstitutional.
3. The practical: the Republican party -- at the state level -- might choose to disregard the results of the primary, or the King County portion of those results, because those results cannot be trusted, and could lead -- at the national level -- to a credentials challenge which could put some of our delegates at risk.
Besides, you're a libertarian: since when did it become OK to you to violate a law just because you don't see a problem with doing so?
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 01:21 PMYour comments represent why there is an ever growing lack of respect for the law at all levels. If the government doesn't have to follow the law and can ignore them at their pleasure, then it is hard to expect the common folk not to follow the same path.
Posted by: RJK on February 26, 2008 01:22 PMStill banging that proud drum?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 26, 2008 01:56 PMSo, I could have attended the Dem caucus, meaning that my "vote" counted and they know who I am.
Then for the primary, I could have signed the Dem oath on the outside of the envelope and then on the actual ballot, I could have voted for the Republican and no one would have been the wiser?
Cool. I don't get on a mailing list I don't want to be on and I get to vote in the other party's primary with no trace ability.
I'll have to remember that.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 26, 2008 05:08 PMBesides Ragnar, San Antonio fared far worse than Seattle did (is anyone surprised to see Detroit got #1 for Wrath?). =)
I guess that shows you how DUMB Seattle is when you can get 'em free at any Seattle school
Curious statement. You suggesting people should go hang out in SPS just so they can get free condoms? That's just creepy Ragnar.
If I understand your description correctly, then SnoCo also violated the RCW.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 26, 2008 07:23 PMAnd while RCWs cannot be overruled by WACs, I just am not sure how the RCW applies to absentees.
And of course, as we know, in SnoCo you could NOT (well, unless an error was made by the poll workers) sign one declaration and vote in the other party's primary.
So it's a fair question, but a. they are following the WACs and b. there is NO negative effect, and those two factors make SnoCo unlike King County.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 07:32 PMAgainst KCRE, it would be better for Stefan, Eric or whoever to pick their battles, but when they pick one - throw in the kitchen sink. Dwelling on every little thing King County Elections does wrong is kinda like crying wolf. Focusing on the bigger things would probably reap more benefits and attention.
Posted by: KS on February 26, 2008 09:45 PMIsn't Sam Reed up for re-election this year???
Posted by: dl on March 3, 2008 09:47 PM