Sherril Huff's King County voter registration has been challenged by Chris Clifford. Huff, a resident of Kitsap County for decades, leased a home in Seattle and changed her voter registration to King County two days before she filed to run for Elections Director.
Clifford asserts that Huff was not actually living in King County at the time she filed, which would disqualify her from running.
The Seattle Times reports on the voter registration challenge hearing held on Friday.
In a separate action, Clifford filed suit in King County Superior Court last week to disqualify Huff's candidacy.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2009 10:00 AM | Email ThisFurther, it says that you've moved when you physically leave your previous residence with intention of establishing a new residence.
Huff seems to have complied with the letter of the law, if not the spirit.
Posted by: Camille on January 12, 2009 11:38 AMAgendas are fine as long as they are not prolonged to death...or to the point where it becomes a personal vendetta.
Posted by: Duffman on January 12, 2009 01:10 PMIt all starts with the ballot - and ends with the ballot. We're seeing in Minnesota what happens when corrupt partisan election officials and a corrupt and biased canvassing board is controlled by Democrats willing to use it reverse the outcome of an election. We saw it happen here in 2004 too, remember?
Posted by: Reality on January 12, 2009 01:14 PMVoter Registration Challenge: At worst, Huff registered prematurely on December 9, before she actually established residence in Seattle. But she clearly lives here now, so her voter registration is valid and the challenge fails.
Candidacy Challenge: Clifford filed his lawsuit on January 7, 2009. This would be timely to challenge the election, which will take place on February 3, 2009. The only timely issue would be whether Huff is eligible for the office on the date of the election. She will be, since she will clearly be a King County resident on February 3, 2009 (so long as she keeps living in her Seattle home).
Clifford SHOULD have sued to challenge Huff's placement on the ballot. If Huff did not live in King County when she filed for office, then her placement on the ballot could have been timely challenged. To file for office, Huff had to be a legal King County resident at the time she filed. However, the deadline to challenge her declaration of candidacy and placement on the ballot under RCW 29A.68.011 was the second Friday after the close of filing. Filing closed on December 12, 2008, and this deadline was December 26, 2008. So Huff validly remains on the ballot, and the only timely legal issue is whether she will be a legal King County resident as of the February 3, 2009 election date.
So even if Clifford is factually correct, he loses for not filing his lawsuit earlier.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 12, 2009 03:34 PMFirst of all, RCW 29A.68.011 only provides deadlines for "General" Elections and "Primary" Elections. This is a "Special" Election, so it would take a judge to figure this out.
Second, Huff's name will undoubtedly appear on the ballot, but her candidacy can still be disqualified.
Third, Richard, why was your license to practice law suspended?
http://pro.wsba.org/MemberDetails.aspx?Usr_ID=765024
The upcoming election seems more like a "general" election, since there is no "primary". To the extent it is called a "special" election, I don't see how this would make a difference. True, a judge would have to decide this issue, but I think Clifford would lose on being timely.
If Clifford had challenged Huff's candidacy earlier, the challenge could have been decided before the ballots were printed and before people started to vote on this election. If Huff was disqualified for not being eligible to run at the time of filing, then King County voters would have had the ability to choose between the remaining five candidates, or write some other person in on their ballots.
Since Huff will appear on the ballot, I don't think a judge would overturn her election if she were eligible for the office at the time of her election. Clifford (or anyone else) could have filed a lawsuit timely to knock Huff off the ballot if she were not eligible.
If Huff does not get the most votes on February 3, then Clifford's lawsuit becomes moot. (Obviously, if Clifford's lawsuit had merit, then timely knocking her off the ballot could have resulted in a different winner in this case).
If Huff does get the most votes on February 3, and Clifford's lawsuit is successful, then her certificate of election would be overturned. This would require holding a new election for the office, presumably at the 2009 general election in November (if the lawsuit and all appeals have been decided). The vacant position would presumably be filled by a vote of the King County Council under the state laws for filling non-partisan elective office. (If for some reason, Huff "wins", but the court stops a certificate of election from ever being issued, Huff would probably continue in her current appointment to the non-elective position, since the elective position does not become effective until someone is elected.)
The lawsuit will be interesting, but look for Jenny Durkan to file an early motion to dismiss on not being timely.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 12, 2009 04:07 PMHuff was recently at the helm as almost 11,000 thousand attempted vote-by mail ballots were disenfranchised, as reported by the Seattle Weekly.
http://novbm.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/vote-by-mail-disenfranchises-10993-voters-in-king-county-alone-no-one-notices/
If Huff is supporting Vote-By Mail, then she is not the candidate I am looking for... Far from it.
In fact, so far I haven't seen or heard from any of the candidates on their positions regarding voting integrity in general. Except fo Bill Anderson. And his positions are completely out of line with what I would consider real voting integrity in King County.
From his website, Bill says:
"King County�s move to voting exclusively by mail is but the first step in gaining control of the voting process."
Well right off the bat he's totally wrong. It is not the first step in gaining control. It is the last in a long series of steps in undermining the system of voting at the polling places, and counting those ballots at the precincts.
But then again, that could be your perspective on things. I think about "We the people" having control and losing control of the process of voting.... and maybe you are looking at it from the reverse perspective of "Government taking control of the process."
If that's the case then you might be onto something.
Sherril Huff, while qualified in terms of "experience" doesn't talk about voting integrity either. Her website talks of accomplishments, including 300 reforms?? But doesn't really tell me what she thinks about the current state of things in King County and Washington.
She obviously supports the transition to Vote-By Mail, and "new technologies," but doesn't say anything about Premier Election Systems, or Diebold, and doesn't come right out and say anything about supporting Vote-By Mail or Touchscreens, etc. This is just giving her wiggle room later.
Either way Bill and Sherril Huff seem to embrace Vote-By Mail and "new election technologies." Which is exactly the attitude that I don't want to see in this position.
Onto David Irons, well having debated both Ron Sims and David Irons many times, I wouldn't vote for either of them... ever. David is incapable of telling the truth when it is important. He has a history of not showing up to fundraisers thrown in his honor, and is as nutty, oh, a big ole bag of nuts. Irons website says nothing REAL about election integrity, vote counting accuracy, etc. He just has the "words" up there without any defenition of what he means.
Julie Anne Kempf.
Julie Anne is the most honest election integrity activist I have ever met. And the most knowledgeable. I have learned a lot from her, as have many, many voting integrity activists all around the country.
Of course, for this reason she is being slandered in the media. Originally scapegoated years ago, the county has continusously worked to malign her on many levels. Even the average dumb person should be able to read the lies spewed in the papers about Julia Anne Kempf and realise that the accusations against her usually don't even pass a good old fashion "smell test."
Her candidate statement is spot on.
Regardless though, the typical Seattle voter reads the news, and rarely thinks for themselves. The number of people I've literally seen show up at a voting booth with the "Stranger's Cheat Sheet" election guide is stupifying. Julie Anne is a true fighter for election integrity.
Therefore, she obviously will not win.
Christopher Clifford. Hmm, doesn't seem to know a damn thing about this race other than what the "media has feed him." Hey Mr. Clifford, you obviously think very highly of yourself. Well, after reading your candidate statement, I don't.
Tell me something about your position on Vote-By Mail, the counties use of electronic voting equipment, or the process of counting votes Mr. Clifford... I can read personal attacks on others in the Seattle Times any day I please.
Your students should learn one thing from your candidate statement. People who move into glass houses to enter a political race should not throw stones.
That was probably one of the most useless and arrogant candidate statements I've ever read Clifford.
Ok, onto Pam Roach. A very partisan Republican, who says her first responsibility will be to be "non-partisan." Well good luck with that Pam Roach. And interestingly you somehow sponsored the Help America Vote Act? I thought that was Federal Legislation. Or was their a similarly crappy version in Washington State that I missed?
The Help America Vote Act, at least the Federal Version, is nothing to be proud of...
Regardless, your candidate statement doesn't suck. I don't know anything about the mountain of personal crap people throw your way, so I won't comment. However, your lack of specifics on Vote-By Mail, or most other important election related topics throws me off.
I do like that you supported the initiative to elect the director of elections in King County. However, I also know that you did it as a very very partisan Republican.
So, in the end, I would vote for Julie Anne Kempf. Regardless of the incredibly shameless smear campaign that has tormented her for years, she is the most qualified, honest, and knowledgeable person in this race.
Too bad Seattle and King County will make this a race between the least honest and least interested in voting integrity.
Oh, and one more thing. If anyone cares to think for themselves, when was the last time you heard of someone trying to "run over a police officer" not being charged with attempting to murder an officer of the law? And for that matter, if it were a true charge, why is it still, years... YEARS later still something that is still just an accusation?
Luckily I can no longer vote in King County, my vote is tossed out in Kitsap County instead:
http://novbm.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/i-tried-to-vote-for-jason-osgood-and-got-rejected/
Posted by: Gentry Lange on January 12, 2009 05:46 PMVBM Ballot rejected in Kitsap County
No, you can register to vote as soon as you move and live somewhere. The 30 days refers to the window between the time you register and the day of the election.
So if you register two days before an election, you are not eligible to vote in that election.
Posted by: Terry on January 13, 2009 02:00 AMI think we can do better than Nichols and his people. Just my two bits.
Posted by: topher on January 19, 2009 11:23 AM