John Lovick, Democratic legislator from the 44th District and candidate for Snohomish County Sheriff, has erroneously claimed endorsements he does not have and has failed to correct his error after being notified weeks ago.

A page on Lovick's official campaign web site listing various endorsements he claims he's been given for his race. One of those names is Rep. Kirk Pearson, Republican legislator from the 39th District, where I am the district chair for the Republican Party.

Late this week I was told Pearson was endorsing Lovick; I thought I'd heard something about this previously, so this afternoon I called Pearson myself to find out. He was surprised his name was still on the web site, for when he was asked about it by Tom Greene -- the other candidate for sheriff -- "several weeks ago," he talked to Lovick and told him that he never endorsed him, to take his name off the page. Lovick said he would.

This is the kind of error that needs to be fixed the same day. The only possible excuse is that they were unable to modify the page for some technical reason, but that isn't the case, because a new endorsement has made it to the page in the meantime (specifically, Rob Beidler, the candidate who lost the primary, who announced his endorsement just this week).

I don't want to cause problems here; my goal here is to set the record straight, because I've had people come up to me saying that Pearson endorses Lovick, which shows that Lovick is not only defaming Pearson, but is committing fraud on the voting public, regardless of intent.

I won't guess as to how this endorsement got on the page in the first place, or why it remains there after weeks of Lovick being told by Pearson that it was wrong, or whether or not it impacted the results of the primary. I only know that Lovick is responsible, that he has been negligent, that he has been defaming Pearson through his negligence, and that he has called into question the trustworthiness of almost all of the other names on that page.

ADDENDUM: Lovick is in violation of RCW 42.17.530:

(1) It is a violation of this chapter for a person to sponsor with actual malice ... (c) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that makes either directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying the support or endorsement of any person or organization when in fact the candidate does not have such support or endorsement.

Further:

(1) "Actual malice" means to act with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity.

That Lovick was notified by Pearson weeks before I mentioned it, and that this web page was updated in the meantime without removing Pearson's name, proves, at a minimum, reckless disregard.