October 21, 2008
The Disgruntled Sam Reed
Sam Reed isn't exactly thrilled with a recent KIRO story on felons having access to ballots this year. Accordingly, he sent an email to supporters that KIRO obtained; it includes this:
But, as happened during the 2004 gubernatorial recount, a few of the blogs have gone wild - particularly the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's blog and -- to a lesser degree - Sound Politics. Also, Bobby Williams has gone on talk radio to blast me and my office. So, learning from that experience, I ask for your help to respond to those blogs and talk radio shows.
My brief posts on the topic can be found here and here. If that modest commentary is construed in any fashion as "gone wild" then Reed's standards for political discourse are fascinatingly lame.
More importantly, the latter post not only linked to the Secretary of State's full response, it said the situation was "also to some degree understandable given the lack of appropriate data infrastructure for felons prior to 2006 who did - or did not - have their voting rights restored."
How inappropriate, and indeed "wild," of me to acknowledge one of Reed's defenses.
In the meantime, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation as a full response [pdf] to Reed's email. I won't pretend to have the time or expertise to get into the nuances of that debate, but I will say this:
A significant reason there is dissatisfaction within the GOP base at Sam Reed is that after Election Day 2004, his first reaction - and that of Nick Handy - was invariably defend King County first and ask questions later when red flags were raised. Reed and his staff were then forced to walk back a number of those defenses as the recount process and resulting trial brought forward a series of errors that at best can be described as gross incompetence in election administration.
Additionally, Sound Politics's own founder Stefan Sharkansky did yeoman's work via public information requests to expose even more evidence after the trial that raises questions about the basic ability of King County to maintain ballot integrity. Given Reed's title as Secretary of State, one would think that would be of some concern to him.
In sum, Reed was tragically wrong in his misplaced faith in King County's work in 2004. Republicans remember that. Thus, his dismay at being questioned this time around about a legitimate issue is not going to garner much sympathy (cutting through all the layers of the current argument, even Reed's office will admit they don't have a reliable system for screening out all ineligible felons from before 2006).
More importantly, rather than encouraging supporters to weigh-in via the comments - where I can say without fear of contradiction they will be outnumbered - someone from his office could actually email me at ericearling at gmail dot com. Reed knows my dad rather well and knows who I am too. It really shouldn't be that tough. I don't bite.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 21, 2008
09:35 PM | Email This
1. Not surprisingly, and not that it will effect the outcome, I have already not voted for Reed. Not that I voted for the Democrat fool that wants to immediately restore voting rights to felons upon their release from the pokey. When are we going to get a SoS that believes in elections decided by legal voters with as little opportunity for fraud as posible?
Judge Bridges listed the faults. You haven't fixed them. Goodbye.
I'd be willing to bet that good old Sam isn't half as disgruntled with you as many of us are with HIM.
Wake up, Sam.
4. Send Reed packing. Either way the SOS will cover for Democrat fraud. Might as well be a DEMOCRAT and not a RINO covering for it.
5. If we're all bailing on Reed, how about we write in "Stefan Sharkansky."
6. At least two from my household will not be voting for Sam, who's gone from being completely lame to stupid. Your post now solidifies my reason for not voting for him. There is no way Osgood can be worse than this. But then, Stefan Sharkansky as a write-in sounds even better to me.
7. Al at #5 - that's what I was just thinking. If you don't want to vote for Sam Reed or his opponent, write in "Stefan Sharkanksy." He probably knows as much about the nuts and bolts of ballots and vote-counting as anyone else in the state.
Gee. I thought I handled this with my blog post at 1:00.
Sam Reed: Secretary of Snivel (and Whining).
Where it really matters, which to me is election security, defined as:
* Keeping illegal aliens from voting and;
* Keeping all non-American citizens from voting and;
* Proving citizenship to register to vote and;
* Providing legal identification TO vote and;
* Keeping felon voters who have not had their rights restored from voting...
... Sam Reed has been an utter, abysmal, failure.
He has had EIGHT YEARS to get this straightened out, and has done absolutely nothing but whine and snivel and bitch and complain.
Well, here's a clue, Sam... that don't get it done.
The problem we have with you is that since you don't want to do these things, these things haven't happened.
It's not that you CAN'T address these issues. It's that you WON'T address these issues.
To my mind, you not only shouldn't be re-elected; you should, in fact, be thrown out on your incompetent ass.
You see, Sam... you've had EIGHT YEARS to fix this. And what's the result? 24,000 illegal felon voters THAT WE KNOW OF.
And all you can do is whine and moan and complain when you're busted.
You're a disgrace to elected officials generally and Republicans particularly. You're a part of the reason why I have left the party. You're a disgrace in every sense of the word as you have done NOTHING to address these most important issues.
Hopefully, you haven't had lunch when you read Sam's punk-ass whine, below, because if you have, you'll lose it.
[title]Insert Sam Reed whinefest here:[/title]
Now, Reed's letter is moronic on so many levels, but let me start with this one.
NO one wants to deprive ANY legal voter of the right to vote, INCLUDING felons with their rights restored.
Now Sam doesn't give a damn if felons pay their restitution or not, an attitude he might change if the felon in question owed HIM restitution.
In his pin head, he wants all felons that get out of jail, WHETHER THEY'VE PAID THEIR RESTITUTION OR NOT, to get their voting rights back.
Why? Well, it's sure a HELL of a lot easier to figure out who can and can't vote if the only ones restricted are locked up.
That's a crock, or course. Restitution is just as much a part of a sentence as serving time. But not to ol' Sam!
Also, he says nothing about the other major issues he did nothing to address, the issues listed in the first part of this post.
His utter and complete failure to address this issue; his reliance on blaming others ("When we asked Chris Halsne if he checked to see if these people had their voting rights restored by Superior Courts or the Board of Prison and Paroles or governors, he said no: "We have no way to use a computer to show which felons may have had their rights restored..." Well, Sam, WHY DON'T WE? YOU'VE HAD EIGHT FRICKING YEARS TO COME UP WITH ONE!) and his failures in all of the other areas he's responsible for means that re-electing this clown means we'll be having this discussion AGAIN... in 4 MORE years.
I don't know the name of the democrat running against Reed off hand. But truth to tell, I also don't care. He's getting my vote... and I hope he's getting yours as well.
Gee. Where's Pudge when you need him?
I'm sure his defense of the Secretary of Snivel would be scintillating.
10. Yep, writing in Stefan is definitely optimal in this case.
Thanks for posting the link to our (EFF's) point-by-point analysis of Reed's response.
What is stunning is that apparently from KIRO's first approaching the OSOS with this story, the one and only reaction has been to defend the status quo. And the status quo is to just ignore the RCW provisions that really lay out how all this is supposed to work (and they don't say "maybe" or "if it's not too much trouble," they say "shall").
12. This Republican is voting democrat for SoS. Sam Reed is the bottom of the barrel...and deserves to be run out of town.
The disappointing performance of Sam Reed in the 2004 election has not improved as we move into this election. Sam Reed has looked the other way in the vote fraud that occurred, had excuses why he couldn't do anything about it. Now he whines even more about the criticism.
The democrat can't be worse than Reed. Or if he is a buddy of ACORN at least we will know we are being screwed as opposed to hoping that there is any integrity in Sam Reed.
Sam Reed needs to get a new job, perhaps mowing a golf course. Then he could know what needs to be done because he can see it. Oh, look that grass is higher - perhaps it should be cut. As opposed to claiming he can't find any felons in the voter rolls. The don't stand out as much.
14. SOS suffering from SRS; (school results syndrome)
when will voters learn; public office s/be "stand & deliver;" stuck on Baltic Avenue--not even a hotel after all these passings of "Go;"
This proves once again that the Republicans value the ability to cheat if needed just as much as the Democrats.
I wonder what Ralph Munro would have done, if anything.
16. HR What it proves is that Republicans are willing to allow the ability to cheat, particularly if the cheating is done by the Democrats.
17. I held my nose and voted for Reed anyway,with the zeal with which I cast my Presidential vote for McCain. Reed is the devil we know vs. Osgood who is the devil we don't...other than he belongs to the oligarchy party that already controls this state (to our detriment).
I refuse to vote to install yet another 'rubberstamping' Democrat in this state.
I do think you have been fair in your reporting and in this case are getting "lumped" in due to the overall tenor at times here at SP. Reed may also still be smarting over Shark taking him to task and basically doing his job in 2004.
Not to sound cynical, but readers here will need to realize that given the current budget deficit, IT and "process" related failures like this won't necessarily be looked at. CG is cutting back agencies budgets, and I am sure this is an area that won't be a high priority to her. Rossi still needs to come up with what specific cuts he will make to balance his proposals, like his transportation funding, which will rob other agency funds.
19. Did anyone notice that at the end of the KIRO article it says, "Instead, all will be handed ballots for the upcoming primary election. PRIMARY? KIRO can't even get it right!
20. It is time the Republican party gets itself some new leadership. Starting with Rossi, the party needs to get some new blood and respect so it can run a statewide election. Time for the Gortons, Evans and Reeds to hit the stud farm and get off the track.
The question really comes down to:
Has Sam Reed done EVERYTHING he could possibly do WITHIN OUR CURRENT LAWS to ensure fair elections AND has Reed asked for Legislative Changes to improve laws to close any problem areas he KNOWS or SHOULD KNOW about?
Has he or hasn't he??
He has had 4 years since the 2004 debacle.
Bridges pointed out some of the errors & loopholes in his decision...but certainly not all of them.
Have you fixed everything Sam?
Have you asked the Legislature to provide fixes for ALL problem areas Sam??
If at the end of this election, I hear Sam Reed say we had problems because of what the law says...HE MUST RESIGN!!
No excuses this time Sam.
No blaming "the law" or mistakes.
The buck stops with YOU!
22. Our household will not be voting for Reed either. He'll probably win, just because no one knows who Osgood is, but it won't be because of our votes. My guess is that most Independents and Democrats will vote for Reed so that they can say they "vote for the person, not the party" or some B.S. like that.
The fact remains that Reed has done a lot to clean up the voter rolls and has knocked off 480,000 wrongful registrants. Progress still needs to be made but it is incorrect to say Reed has been sitting on his hands. He's proactively been seeking new legislation so that even more can be done.
Every paper in the State is endorsing Sam. We're crazy if we decide that Osgood is a better option than Reed.
So, Tonda... was the email sent to you as one of his supporters? Or did you just hear about it and decide to reply?
Sorry, Tonda... but close ain't good enough.
In this business of politics, that Sam refuses to do his job on ALL election security is the only issue at hand. He has to do it ALL, not just the parts he agrees with and his inaction on the issues I raised is inexcusable.
I'm ashamed he's a Republican. I'm ashamed he's an elected official. It sickens me that he is in any position of authority AT ALL.
Rewarding this guy with re-election would be the craziest thing of all.
25. you people think your state is bad come to rhode island where the union bosses control our budget.our politicians give huge deficits and increased taxes with nice raises for them selves. our illegal aliens get to vote for more welfare and hand outs and it does no good to complain to our commiecrats as they could care less.
26. you people think your state is bad come to rhode island where the union bosses control our budget.our politicians give huge us deficits and increased taxes with nice raises for them selves. our illegal aliens get to vote for more welfare and hand outs and it does no good to complain to our commiecrats as they could care less.
27. Can anyone tell me how a Secretary of State like Mr. Reed can be reelected, when it takes weeks in Washington State for all of the votes to be counted ? I am from another state. How is it that the Commonwealth of Virginia can count 99.9 % of ballots within 24 hours of the polls closing.
The counting process in Washington State are unworthy of a third world country.
28. Dennis -- one of the big reasons it takes a long time to count ballots in WA is that they are valid as long as they've been postmarked by election day. In many states it is that they have to be receivied by election day. In WA it can be several days after the election before it is clear how many ballots were received.
29. Bruce: Unions, taxes, deficits....yeah, we've got 'em.