That's the position of the New York Times on Washington's gubernatorial election and San Diego's mayoralty election. In the San Diego case, the illegality of the ballots in question does not appear to be in doubt, but the New York Times wants them counted anyway. The legality of including additional votes in a re-recount of Washington's gubernatorial race is not clear to me; I suspect that including them is, in fact, not legal.
But that wouldn't matter to the New York Times editorial board. If they favor counting illegal votes (to help a leftist candidate) in San Diego, I think we can reasonably conclude that they would favor counting illegal votes (to help a leftist candidate) in Washington, too.
Would the New York Times favor counting illegal votes if they helped Republican candidates? I doubt it. The newspaper did an extensive investigation of military ballots in the 2000 Florida dispute hoping to establish that some had been cast illegally. (A few had, or at least that's what the investigation concluded.) The newspaper did not do an extensive investigation of the other side of the question, whether military ballots had been improperly disqualified. (Some had.)
The background of a recent addition to the Times editorial board, Carolyn Curiel, may be of interest for those wondering just how partisan the New York Times is.
She served as special assistant to the president and senior presidential speechwriter in President Clinton's first term, . . .
There's a woman who can instill confidence in Republicans.
The New York Times is not the only newspaper to argue that illegal votes should be counted; Mark Trahant, editorial page editor of the Seattle PI, took the same position in this column.
How the editorial board at the Times, or Mark Trahant, expect Republicans to have confidence in a system that counts illegal votes, most of them going to Democratic candidates, is beyond me. Maybe neither have enough contact with Republicans to understand that point.
I have thought for some years that newspapers are one of the biggest obstacles we have to real election reform, reform that would lead to systems that count, not every vote, but every legal vote. Sadly, this editorial and this column provide two more reasons for thinking that newspapers are part of the problem.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at December 20, 2004 02:08 PM | Email ThisHe correctly identifies this as a broken process in need of a major reengineering effort (in Six Sigma-ese, a "Process Improvement Project"). It will require much more than simply choosing a technology or firing everyone and hiring new staffs. It will take people who are skilled in process reengineering to challenge the current mindset and define a new approach to voting. It will also likely require that we as voters embrace new approaches and shoulder more responsibility for our own franchise.
In the meantime, failure to follow the rules in place at the beginning of the election cycle (however flawed they may be) will only lead to chaos.
Posted by: Patrick on December 20, 2004 02:30 PMIf demoncRATS want no election laws, they should say so. Ignoring the ones they don't like is not a reasonable option.
Posted by: South County on December 20, 2004 02:40 PM1. Had King Co. properly checked its records against the signatures, some substantial portion of the now contested ballots would have been counted.
2. Since they were rejected without verifying signatures and the time periods for protest under the statute have passed (which time period BTW passed at the time the first count was certified), the Pierce Co. judge has ruled that these ballots cannot be included in the recount.
3. If the Supreme Court agrees with this position, then we have an untenable situation in the State of Washington. As more and more voters move to permanent absentee status, how can anyone be sure that their votes will be counted? No matter what the reason and regardless of whether the vote would have been legal if originally counted, the votes can't be included in a recount. The opportunity for abuse should be obvious. No one is claiming that these votes were purposely excluded, because they are D precincts in King Co. What if these were D precincts in Spokane Co or Clark Co? or R precincts in King Co? If the Supreme Court agrees with the judge in Pierce Co, then the legislature has to make some changes to the election statutes before a real fraud occurs.
Posted by: Steve on December 20, 2004 03:42 PMGiven your two-party stranglehold on American politics and the insidious tactics you use (and have used) to attain office, neither you Republicans nor you Democrats have ANY FUCKING RIGHT to complain about ANYTHING! CAN IT! SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Liars.....
Posted by: Verne on December 20, 2004 04:30 PMBlogs are not for the "shut-the-fuck-up" sort. We're all opinionated loudmouths here (albeit usually less foul-mouthed than you). You don't like it, don't read it.
Posted by: Joel on December 20, 2004 04:38 PMI also have no doubt that these type of votes are being watched and logged by attorneys, and my hope is both of these recountes will be thrown out due to the extreme democratic fraud that is apparent in the King County election. We'll see who laughs last!
Posted by: Greg on December 20, 2004 04:48 PMHowever, as every single poll, both scientific and unscientific have shown during the entire time since the election was known to be close, if you don't believe that King County has screwed this election past the confidence of Washingtonions, you are in the CLEAR minority.
The Times seems confident that these votes were "valid". Our Republican Secretary of State agrees, so this position is at least plausible. You may disagree with the Times because you believe (a) the votes were illegal, or (b) they were legal but it's too late to count them. But don't say the Times (or anyone else responsible) advocates counting illegal votes. That just diminishes your credibility.
Posted by: Bruce on December 20, 2004 05:07 PMThe absentee ballot was originally instituted to allow citizens in a very limited set of circumstances (travel, unavoidable work conflicts, or physical incapacity) to cast their votes. The rest of us were expected to do our duty and actually go to our local precinct and cast our vote.
In recent years, our "disposable/drive through" culture has co-opted the absentee ballot, changing it from a tool of necessity into a toy of convenience. This has placed an almost impossible burden on our election officials, who must now try to verify tens of thousands of signatures, rather than the hundreds originally envisioned by the process.
Not to mention the fact that citizens participating in "early voting" or voting absentee are really voting in a different election than everyone else. What do you do if important information about an initiative or candidate comes to light in the closing days of a campaign - but darn it, you already sent in your ballot? Those voting at the polls get to do so with full knowledge of the facts as of election day, but you're out of luck.
For these reasons, I still believe that absentee ballots should be reserved for those who are legitimately unable to vote in person on election day.
Posted by: Patrick on December 20, 2004 05:44 PMSteve - I entirely agree about the awkward parts, but I think we should follow the law, even if it is awkward. And then change the law after the election.
Verne - Please avoid FCC banned language, although it is amusing to see some profanely tell others to shut up.
Bruce - Please take another look at my post. I said that the votes in San Diego were illegal -- and I got that from a New York Times article -- and the New York Times wanted to count them. (Here's my post on that controversy.) From that, I infer that the Times does not care whether it is legal to include the King County ballots. Since they favor counting illegal ballots in one instance (San Diego), I conclude that they would favor counting illegal votes in a similar instance (King County).
Marc - I understand your thinking, but like Patrick I think we should go in the opposite direction. I have been collecting stories of vote fraud for the last few years. Most of them share the following characteristics: The fraud was committed by Democrats (often against other Democrats), by minorities, by people who had committing fraud for years -- with absentee ballots. Britain just did an experiment using postal votes, as they call it, and they had many reports of fraud and intimidation. (I wrote about their experiments a week or so ago.) I have concluded that we simply can not have clean election and large numbers of absentee ballots.
Arguably, if states want to pursue the intent of the voter, they should pass a law saying that. (Does Florida have such a law or is that just what the Florida Supreme Court asserted in 2000?)
Of course, the Times still seems confident that the disputed King County votes are valid, but I know you are questioning that.
Posted by: Bruce on December 20, 2004 06:30 PMHowever, the fears expressed here have not turned out to be problems. There are other problems that I won't get into.
re: intimidation? Not likely -- we're voting in the privacy of our own homes, then either mailing the ballots or taking them to the courthouse.
re: early voting. Politicians have adapted to the three-week window of campaigning they need to do.
There are no more last-minute hit pieces. Voters have gotten smarter, too. More and more are holding their ballots until the last minute. The vote turn-in now is a reverse bell curve - lots of ballots when they are first mailed out, fewer in the middle days, and a huge bunch of ballots arrive in the last three days.
re: possible fraud? Well, we have two urban Portland counties: Multnomah County and Washington County can be counted on to have late results, if necessary.
More citizen involvement and more transparency are one cure for this problem. Another cure (that has many other drawbacks) is smaller population counties - so that citizens would be closer to their elected officials.
My biggest fear: if the general population loses confidence in reported vote tallies, we in the US are in big trouble.
That seems to be just what the lib/lefties want. They have been setting the stage for this distrust for many years. First, perfect the fraudulent tactics, then charge the other side with doing what you have been doing. How else do you have such a good idea of how its done?
I'd change my name to Mr. Cynical if someone on this board didn't already have it!
Dude, that is serious projection. If you don't know what the word means, look it up.
The Times seems confident that these votes were "valid". Our Republican Secretary of State agrees, so this position is at least plausible. You may disagree with the Times because you believe (a) the votes were illegal, or (b) they were legal but it's too late to count them. But don't say the Times (or anyone else responsible) advocates counting illegal votes. That just diminishes your credibility.
Bruce,
You do understand the distinction between "valid," and "legal," don't you? It's important to try to count all votes, if they are valid. However, it must be done in accordance with law. If it's not, it's not legal. If the Times does advocate counting ballots against legal procedure, they are in fact advocating counting illegal votes.
That toothpaste can't be put back in the tube, short of running another election. We deal with the problem by cleaning house at King County Elections. That's the legal way. We don't say aw shucks, let's just drop these ballots in the mix.
Posted by: South County on December 20, 2004 06:36 PMDespite what the NY Times said, and what the Republican Secretary of State is alleged to have said, the Supreme Court of Washington said the ballots are not valid. That's what really counts. I hope it's starting to sink in for you.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on December 20, 2004 07:01 PMNo offense, Kevin, because you sound like a nice enough guy, but . . . yeah, it kind of does.
Posted by: J.A. on December 20, 2004 08:27 PMKevins great comment, "The NYT editorial pages and news columns fused long ago" is why I stopped the Seattle Times years ago. I just couldn't read a news article without a partisian stab or slant. I think the editor at the time must of had a quota.
Posted by: Mike on December 20, 2004 09:43 PMthe democratic party is predisposed to lying, cheating, and steatling. with the rejection of moral absolutes in their worldview no adherence to the rule of law is necessary for the corrupt of mind and values.
Posted by: ray on December 21, 2004 07:05 AM