1. Great, more illegal votes for Rossi. So, we have a Republican Secretary of State who won't remove felons from the rolls, and a Republican Attorney General who's kind of slow in investigating the many deep links between the "G.O.P. Party" candidate and the BIAW's "independent" expenditures. Given how much the felons liked a smarmy, smiling, self-dealing salesman who deceitfully called himself a "broker", and who blames all of his problems on other people, I can foresee another needlessly close election, courtesy of criminals.

Posted by: tensor on October 16, 2008 08:24 PM

2. Eight years, Eric. Reed's had EIGHT YEARS to address the "appropriate data infrastructure for felons"

There is no excuse. He's either incompetent because he didn't get it done, or he's just implementing his own laws and ignoring the ones in place because he's opposed to denying felons the vote.

Either way, particularly when combined with his failure to address the illegal alien/non-citizen vote and his failure to require legal ID TO vote, he's not fit to hold any elective office, let along Secretary of State.

Posted by: Hinton on October 16, 2008 08:26 PM

3. Given the democrat criminal vote, you may be right, ten cents. I mean, "Inmates to Support Barack Obama" isn't a pipe dream; its a real organization that supports the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot that YOU favor.

So, while you're partly right, your blinding hatred and bias against Republicans has obviously made you delusional concerning who would benefit the most from the criminal vote.

Posted by: Hinton on October 16, 2008 08:32 PM

4. Felons for Rossi?

Posted by: kilroy77 on October 16, 2008 08:51 PM

5. While Reed is a pretty weak dam against the rising tide of Democrat voter fraud, imagine how bad it might be if a Democrat were elected to that position. We can see the result of putting a criminal (oops, I meant Democrat) in charge of voting by the impact in Ohio.

Democrats know that felons break more than 2-1 for Democrats. I guess like recognizes like.

Posted by: iconoclast on October 16, 2008 08:54 PM

6. Reed is a Dem...nothing he does is helpful to our party AND is helpful to theirs AND is not in keeping w/ law. He's their "boy"

Posted by: righton on October 16, 2008 09:45 PM

7. "Given the democrat criminal vote, you may be right, ten cents."

Uh, please quote Judge Bridges' ruling as to which felons voted for a Democrat. After all, your G.O.P. Party Party Party candidate spent $M of your money to get that result, so you must love it, right?

I mean, "Inmates to Support Barack Obama" isn't a pipe dream; its a real organization that supports the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot that YOU favor.

Which is why you posted a link to support your allegation, right?

"So, while you're partly right, your blinding hatred and bias against Republicans has obviously made you delusional concerning who would benefit the most from the criminal vote."

Again, how many felons were shown to have voted for Gregoire? After Mr. Rossi spent millions of OTHER PEOPLE'S money to obtain that result, you could at least quote it. Or, do you not approve of Mr. Rossi's administrative competence? Do tell.

BTW, "tensor" refers to advanced concepts in mathematics and science. No wonder you failed to recognize it...

Posted by: tensor on October 16, 2008 10:13 PM

8. I don't get it. How can a KIRO reporter find all these felons, but the Secretary of State can't ?
Can we elect this KIRO reporter to the office?

Posted by: ljm on October 16, 2008 10:35 PM

9. ten cents, you've been around here long enough that you should know two things:

First: I NEVER make it up.

Second: Google is your friend. Find a search window, and type in "Inmates to Support Barack Obama"

And by the way, ten cents is what I think your biased, hate-filled anti-Republican rants are worth. No wonder you failed to recognize it...

Posted by: Hinton on October 16, 2008 10:56 PM

10. It's nice that Earling posted this, but it should have been obvious from the start that "lack of appropriate data infrastructure" -- not a desire to enable voter fraud -- was the justification for the Secretary of State's policy. As I wrote in response to Earling's earlier post, what would be far more unacceptable than sending ballots to all felons would be sending ballots to none of them. The former option creates a small possibility of people improperly casting votes. The latter option would be certain to disenfranchise those people in our society who are already most often voiceless.

Posted by: northwind on October 17, 2008 07:18 AM

11. I was soundly attacked here in this forum four years ago when I stated that Reed is a scandal and a disgrace to the office, and by extension to the State. He is a poster child for my assertion that donations to the WSRP are nothing more than contributions to buy a rope that will be used by Democrats and psudoDemocrats, like Reed, to hang you with.

Posted by: JDH on October 17, 2008 07:54 AM

12. Regardless of the cause, the end result will be the same: Thousands of those who are not legally entitled to vote may now do so. And the responsibility for that begins and ends with the Secretary of State... and it's time for him to go.

It is entirely acceptable to send ballots to none of these felons. In fact, if ever a situation demanded it, this is it. Those with their voting rights restored would have no difficulty going to their respective elections offices and getting a ballot on the spot if they were so inclined.

Apparently, you can't seem to grasp that those who've lost their right to vote have done so and chosen to do so under entirely voluntary circumstances. In short, no one ever made them commit the crime that has caused them this right; that they are "voiceless" is their own damned fault, and they should have considered this consequence before they got stupid and victimized someone through their crime(s).

Thus, the only reason for your position is that you want felons to vote, be they the few with their voting rights restored... or the massive number out there who have not completed their sentences... and have not had their rights restored.

And that ain't happenin'.

Posted by: Hinton on October 17, 2008 08:55 PM

13. Second: Google is your friend. Find a search window, and type in "Inmates to Support Barack Obama"

Hinton, impossible though it may be for you to comprehend, the rest of us have better things to do with our time than to chase down rumors on the internet. Even if we did feel that bored/useless, we would at least chase rumors relevant to this post. The activities of certain inmates have nothing to do with the (willful?) refusal of local Republicans to remove released felons from our voter rolls. The only connection occurs within the dank, vacant, narrow space you call a mind, and only because you feel the juvenile need to equate liberals with conservatives' moral depravity. If inmates are being allowed to influence our elections, by all means complain to the prison authorities. Action on this point will only help us liberals; we all know how felons voted, right?

"And by the way, ten cents is what I think your biased, hate-filled anti-Republican rants are worth."

There will always be a dime's worth of difference between us, Hinton.

Posted by: tensor on October 18, 2008 01:09 AM

14. Densor,

Why is it that Dimocrats (Hillary) are the ones who have proposed national legislation to extend across the board voting rights to convicted felons? Because even Dims are smart enough to realize who convicted criminals vote for...en masse. And felons are evil, not stupid. So why should they vote for candidates from the party (Republican) that wants to:

1. Lock violent, convicted criminals up until they rot
2. Impose the death penalty with more frequency
3. Arm every law-abiding citizen so they can resist violent criminals
4. Require voters to show picture ID

Everyone knows that only the Dims are actively working (Acorn) to grant voting rights to convicted felons, illegal immigrants and the dead. So don't lay your lying, leftist bull$hit on us.

Posted by: Saltherring on October 18, 2008 06:34 AM

15. They still haven't purged people's names, at least in Yakima County, because just today I received ballots for 2 family members who haven't lived here for a very long time. I have talked to them, in fact 4 years ago I talked to Sam Reed and no matter, we are still receiving ballots. I think the counties get money from the state based on the number of people they have registered.

I throw the ballots away and there is no record of my daughter voting, but if I wanted to I am sure I could vote these ballots and no one would be the wiser.

Posted by: Hanna on October 18, 2008 11:54 PM

16. Hanna
There are many others not as honest as you. They are called democrats. We know that people living in NY have ballots going to thier parents homes. And they vote every year. I want the votere rolls to be fixed. That is why I am against Mail in ballots. Too much corruption. too easy to fix an election if you have a mail in election. I know people like the convience to vote.
But if they can not get off their butts to vote on election day they do not need to have their vote counted. The only exception is our military that are overseas. They do not have a chance to get to the ballot box.
Show ID also required. So someone does not vote for many people. Just go from one precinct to another and voting for some name they are reading on the voter rolls. How else do you think the dead walked in to vote. It has to be some random person voting for another person.
If you remove corruption and remove the possiblity of cheating we could again trust our votes are counted correctly. But while funny business is still allowed to take place. Well I do not trust our current system.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on October 19, 2008 02:34 PM

17. Things do need to continue to get better, but massive improvements have been made from what the situation was in 2004. Since that time Reed and the SoS office have removed over 480,000 ineligible voter registrations.
Among that number, 11,600 felons were found & removed from the rolls.
The SoS office has publicly called attention to the shortcomings of our state’s records.
Washington State is a national leader in creating the cleanest, most modern voter database management possible. It is much better here than in most states.

Regarding the various negative comments on Reed, it is odd that some seem to think that electing someone like Jason Osgood - that no paper in the State has endorsed - would be an improvement on one of the most professional SoS in the country. We would be much much worse off electing Osgood than keeping Reed who is actively - and successfully - working to improve the system.

Posted by: Klaus Havel on October 19, 2008 05:03 PM

18. Some states are not as backwards as Washington State is when it comes to those convicted of a felony. In Montana, once a person has completed his sentencing and paid all his fines fully, and complied with all the restrictions in his sentence, and then been totally released from his sentence, all rights taken upon conviction are restored. This of course takes at least ten years and for someone to stay out of trouble for that long is evidence that they are law abiding once again. And that is the whole purpose of incarceration. It is to change the mindset of those committing the crimes. Once you have changed the mindset, if you still continue to punish and suspend people's rights, all you have done is create a second class of citizens who are not really citizens at all but just persons living here and paying taxes with no representation. Montana has it right, Washington still needs to mature. People are not the same at 50 as they were at 20. Lifetime punishment should be reserved for those who commit rapes and murders. And not all felonies fall into those classifications.

Posted by: Ridge on October 20, 2008 01:02 AM

19. Northwind: Anyone who believes they have the right to vote but are not on the legal list can ask for a provisional ballot so it's difficult to argue anyone is disenfranchised who is truly eligible to vote.

That old, tired argument is always used by the left as a scare tactic to make people believe thousands of eligible voters are not being allowed to vote when the opposite is true.

Posted by: Elaine on October 21, 2008 08:30 AM

20. ten cents, you own the lame button.

Typing that phrase in would have led DIRECTLY to NEWS articles on the subject.

Clearly, the only thing you don't have time for is the same thing no leftists have time for:

Getting the facts, you moron. You have time to spew your anti-Republican rants here but you don't have time to type 5 words into a search window?

You remind me of those assholes that lived across the street from the concentration camp at Dachau. They swore up and down they had no idea it was a concentration camp.

Like you, if they didn't know... it's because, like you, they didn't WANT to know.

If ever there was proof of a fringe nutter not being interested in getting to the truth (as if it would matter to a BDS carrier if you DID get the truth) this is it.

So take your bogus criminals voting for Rossi allegation and shove it up your ass.

Posted by: Hinton on October 21, 2008 10:53 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?