My promised scoop that I broke on the Dori Monson Show: I found a specific case of ballotless voters. Three precincts that share a polling place in Issaquah [2602, 3464 and "Gilman"] where the total number of voting voters noticeably exceeds the number of ballots counted. Unlike some of the similar discrepancies I found with polling place ballots, this one can't be explained by adjusting with other precincts from the same polling location.
The only possible explanations that I can imagine: (1) A number of voters were erroneously recorded as having voted when they didn't vote. (2) ballots disappeared and weren't counted. (3) ballots were mixed up in the counting center and placed with other precincts. (4) The ballot counts are bogus. I suspect we'll never know the answer.
Either way, this is just another sign that we're facing an irreparable mess and the only solution is to throw out the election and have a revote.
[I'll post specific details later today, along with a longer explanation why I believe this is the first bona fide smoking gun that should nullify the election.]
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 03, 2005 02:51 PM | Email ThisOn December 20th @ 2:18PM, Corky Mattingly sent an e-mail to all other County Auditors. Mattingly is President of the Washington State Association of County Auditors and the Yakima Co. Auditor. Mattingly is a loyal Dem., fairly new County Auditor (ie probably doesn't know what she is doing) AND I'm told she was very active in the Maria Cantwell campaign.
Mattingly writes:
"I have been requested to send a letter in support of Dean to the Seattle PI and Seattle Times. Thanks to Bob Terwilliger we have composed this letter. I would like to get buy off from you so that I can send this letter as President of the WSACA".
1) WHO requested that Mattingly send this letter????? Gregoire? Sims?? Berendt??? WHO??
2) WHY would this professional asscoiation write such a "letter in support of Dean Logan" without first independently investigating what Logan has actually done!!!! I thought auditors "validated" information before certifying.
The letter itself is 2 long, gas-bagging pages. However, the last paragraph should be noted:
"The public can have faith in the fact that the King County recount process in the Governor's race is in good hands and is being carried out according to the laws and procedures of the State of Washington."
HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE YAKIMA COUNTY AUDITOR KNOW THIS????? Was it because Berendt or someone of his ilk told her so???
She also siad in the letter:
"Dean has the full confidence of WSACA in the actions he has and is continuing to take to ensure that the recount process in King County is open and transparent to the public at large."
This e-mail created a maelstron of e-mails---many from County Auditors intent on the "go along, get along" "circle the wagons" attitude of many bureaucrats.
Fortunately, 5 County Auditors challenged this and it died a slow death. But the correspondence is public record....and I have it.
Does this type of "Blind support" give y'all confidence in this election statewide???
It doesn't me.
I do suppose however that the answer to this is that we really shouldn't be discriminating against someone just because they voted after they died, heavens, they may have believed in life after death, and although they couldn't fill out their ballot, someone should be allowed to enhance these people's ballots! Don't ya think?
Posted by: Back from the Dead on January 3, 2005 03:37 PMYou can do this yourself. Go to http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/
Click on Advanced Search.
When the form comes up, fill in only the Last Residence (WA) and Death Year (2004).
Click on Submit.
You will get 2242 returns with Name,Birthdate, Deathdate, Last Residence, Last Benefit sent to, SS# and state where issued. Looks like it could be copied into another db to Sort.
Repeat for other years.
You said:
"Either way, this is just another sign that we're facing an irreparable mess and the only solution is to throw out the election and have a revote."
Sorry, but the best solution is a suit in Fenderal court, that would discard the hand recount. The second-best solution is a revote. BUT . . .doesn't the power to order a revote reside solely with the Democrat-contolled State Legislature? And if that's true, a revote will absolutely not happen.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 3, 2005 04:18 PMYou said:
"Either way, this is just another sign that we're facing an irreparable mess and the only solution is to throw out the election and have a revote."
Sorry, but the best solution is a suit in Fenderal court, that would discard the hand recount. The second-best solution is a revote. BUT . . .doesn't the power to order a revote reside solely with the Democrat-controlled State Legislature? And if that's true, a revote will absolutely not happen.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 3, 2005 04:18 PMChange the law in the future -- don't reinvent the law but allowing some but not all recounts just because you don't like the result of some of them.
I spoke with an incredibly loyal R and an incredibly loyal D today -- both admitted to me, in person, that it's not possible to know who got more votes.
But they both agreed that it's possible to follow the law.
They were both mature enought to admit all the wrangling about voting errors, etc. were looking at the same facts in a way that helps their candidate -- and they acknowledged voting problems but agreed that such problems always existed and exist all throughout the state...not just in the area where Gregoire leads after the hand recount.
They agreed it was selective efforts to highlight the differences - before the hand recount to favor Chris and after the hand recount to favor Dino.
Both agreed the law needs to be rewritten to remove all recounts when the result is within the margin of error and do a runoff. However, both admit that the current law does not work that way and the courts really shouldn't become activist in a way to undermine the existing laws under which the elections were run.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the folks here and on horses*** would be as mature as these folks?
But, I'm too cynical to believe that would ever happen....
Because the partisans, on both sides, want their guy/gal in....at whatever cost and using whatever technique. Reminds me of all those criminals getting off because one set of lawyers is better than the other....
Posted by: tom on January 3, 2005 04:32 PM I agree with what your saying.However I would
add that the hand recount system is unreliable
and flawed period.
If it was such a good system the federal gov
would be using it instead of machines.
Remember the machines don't care who wins
people do.
Don't know about you, but sounds no different than the blind faith most Americans who voted gave George Bush when he assured us that we will bring freedom to Iraq, and that we will defeat terrorism, and that we will capture bin Laden.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 04:38 PMI agree with you too.
What if they do away with hand recounts
and do machine recount until the numbers are
correct twice?
Why do you hang out here just to snipe at Bush over the Iraq situation? You sound like a spoiled little kid who doesn't get what he wants.
Why didn't you write: "...the blind faith that people who contributed to John Kerry's Presidential Campaign had that Kerry would spend the money on his bid for the White House and not keep it in the bank for his next run in 2008 nor give it to Christine Gregoire to help finance the Washington State Gubernatorial hand-recount?"
Why don't you snipe at Kerry too? You're one-sided, but you probably think you are independent.
Posted by: Larry on January 3, 2005 04:47 PMThe problem is not recounting, it is how much separation between the winner and loser, and make sure the final recount gets your base voters included. This recount and hand-recount would not mean much if King County did not show willful negligence by "forgetting" to count huge segments of ballots. That is the great trick of Daley in Chicago and LBJ in Texas. Always have the miraculous appearance at the final count.
Posted by: smegma on January 3, 2005 04:50 PM"With the Dems doing a state wide recount
This keeps the State from doing a recount of its
own"
Huh?? The recounts are performed by the counties, and the same people do the counting regardless of who is asking for it, or paying for it.
Please get your information straight.
Phil wrote, "I would add that the hand recount system is unreliable and flawed period.
"If it was such a good system the federal gov
would be using it instead of machines.
Remember the machines don't care who wins
people do."
There is a misconception about how a manual count is performed. It isn't as if just one person counts 2.8 million ballots. Small stacks of ballots are counted by a group of 3 people. They each do a count. If the counts are not the same the stack must be counted again by another group. The reason manual counts are not the first option is because they take far more time and they require far more people to perform.
This isn't rocket science to understand.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 04:57 PMLucky for you that it isn't rocket science, because you are certainly NOT a rocket scientist.
You are a partisan, but I can't resist correcting you anyway....
The ballots in the manual recount were counted by two people, not three. The third was the person who tabulated the counts of the other two, the third person never counted.
However, the accuracy of this count totally depends on the sorting that happened prior. If the sorting was done incorrectly, then the counts could be the same, yet yield incorrect results. For instance, if ballots from two precincts were co-mingled, the two counters could reach the same tally, yet the precinct numbers would be incorrect.
This is why a machine recount is MORE accurate - all the ballots have bar codes which the machines read and tabulate accordingly. The ballots can be in any order, and the machine will count the precincts properly - unlike your inaccurate hand count.
Get it, Danny 'Einstein' K? It doesn't matter if the hand recounts are done first, last, or in the middle - they are always less accurate.
Posted by: Larry on January 3, 2005 05:05 PMThanks! It has been a while since anyone was kind enough to call me a kid.
"Why didn't you write: "...the blind faith that people who contributed to John Kerry's Presidential Campaign had that Kerry would spend the money on his bid for the White House and not keep it in the bank for his next run in 2008 nor give it to Christine Gregoire to help finance the Washington State Gubernatorial hand-recount?"
Agreed. That is a tricky one. I'm one of the people that gave to Kerry's campaign. When one does so you have to realize you have little control over how the money will be spent. It is fair to condemn this usage of the money, but it happened.
This is all way off topic, so apologies to everyone else, but because Larry has asked, one thing that I really didn't like coming from Kerry was his "we will kill and destroy" rhetoric when trying to one up Bush on his commitment to fighting terrorism. Really turned me off.
But, Larry, we can agree that we have differences of opinion, but we should equally agree that we will both say things that sound one-sided, or sound like "a spoiled little kid who doesn't get what he wants". Many would easily attribute that description to many of the voices at this site calling for a re-vote.
I choose not to because I know that for many of you, it is not so much that Rossi lost (although believe me you make it hard for one not to think so), but just that you can't abide the possibility of fraud and are good samaritans simply trying to find the truth.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 05:11 PMYour platitudes are worthless and your logic is faulty. Please stay on-topic, okay? This post isn't about the war in Iraq, though you seem to think that every post is on that subject.
Yes, my mistake, it was two counters and one count recorder. I'm open to further clarification on this. Could you kindly elaborate on this possible mix-up scenario for me?
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 05:19 PMI hear you Larry, but I believe this is the first time I mentioned Iraq here. Now back to the topic at hand...
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 05:27 PMI'm no lawyer, but it might be better to ask for this information from their source rather than from RootsWeb.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 05:37 PMJust ignore Daniel K. He's a troll who's picked up a makeshift vocabulary from NPR, and obviously has too much time on his hands.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 3, 2005 06:21 PM I have been a professional genealogist for
over 25 years. the information on rootsweb
can be found at over 20 additonal sites.
As to its accuracy they get the same info
that everyone elses does from the ssi dept.
SSI updates the info every 3 months.
any further questions.
How so? Seems like a reasonable minimal requirement to me.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 3, 2005 06:45 PMPlease stop feeding the trolls.
Posters like DanielK and ScottD are here for the purpose of taking us off track. They want to cause confusion in our investigations into King Countys vote counts. They want to cause premature doubt in our efforts. They want to mix truths with absurdities to sway not only our opinion of the outcome of the Governors race - but also the opinions of those who lurk here to read Stefans posts.
They are eloquent in their post's - yet can't seem to get beyond their partisan counter-points and playing devils advocate. They post merely to counter our efforts.
Stop feeding them! THEY WILL NEVER AGREE WITH YOU! IT ISN'T IN THEIR LIBERAL SCRIPT! They will eventually go away.
The voter can indeed walk out with the ballot – and the precinct election officer is supposed to note the fact that it happened:
WAC 434-253-080 Voter leaving polling place without voting. Whenever it is noted by a precinct election officer that a voter has been issued a ballot and leaves a polling place without returning the ballot, a notation shall be made in the poll book or list along with the ballot stub number of the ballot issued.
I haven’t researched all the written regulations, but I suspect that the existing rules constitute an attempt to establish a system by which the number of voters recorded in the precinct books will match – or at least closely approximate – the number of ballots in the box.
If the rules were followed diligently by the people responsible for administering the election, I believe it would be difficult (if not impossible) to slip a significant number of illegal votes into the pile to be counted along with the valid ballots – or to make some valid ballots disappear before the votes on them can be tabulated.
If there are holes in the rules (and this election might uncover some), then they need to be plugged before next time.
snicker......
I have to remind myself:..
I am not a moderator here...I am not a moderator here........I am not a moderator here....I am not a moderator here.....
I just see the DanielK's and scottd's all over the net! They use the same script..the same method..the same annoying persistence....and cause the same timely distractions....
Is there a course these people take? Can one get their masters degree in aggravation? I think I've heard of a cult that teaches this.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 3, 2005 07:45 PMThanks for the info. The WA legislature has thought of darn near everything. The conclusions I draw are
1. It is possible that a voter could walk out with a ballot.
2. This is a possible explanation for ballotless voters if the election officer fulfilled his duty of recording the event.
3. If a voter walked out with a ballot and the election officer did not note the event, then the election officer has failed his duty (conducted a sloppy election).
If #3, then nothing has changed in Shark's premise -- election officials conducted a sloppy election.
The next question is, "According to election officials, how many voters left the polling place without voting?" Better ask that question, too, Shark.
Posted by: Greg V. on January 3, 2005 07:53 PMRCW 29A.84.510
Acts prohibited in vicinity of polling place -- Prohibited practices as to ballots.
(1) On the day of any primary or general or special election, no person may, within a polling place, or in any public area within three hundred feet of any entrance to such polling place:
(a) Suggest or persuade or attempt to suggest or persuade any voter to vote for or against any candidate or ballot measure;
(b) Circulate cards or handbills of any kind;
(c) Solicit signatures to any kind of petition; or
(d) Engage in any practice which interferes with the freedom of voters to exercise their franchise or disrupts the administration of the polling place.
(2) No person may obstruct the doors or entries to a building in which a polling place is located or prevent free access to and from any polling place. Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or municipal law enforcement officer shall prevent such obstruction, and may arrest any person creating such obstruction.
(3) No person may:
(a) Except as provided in RCW 29A.44.050, remove any ballot from the polling place before the closing of the polls; or
(b) Solicit any voter to show his or her ballot.
(4) No person other than an inspector or judge of election may receive from any voter a voted ballot or deliver a blank ballot to such elector.
(5) Any violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor, punishable to the same extent as a gross misdemeanor that is punishable under RCW 9A.20.021, and the person convicted may be ordered to pay the costs of prosecution.
Posted by: Micajah on January 3, 2005 09:37 PMStefan, today is almost over (only about 15 minutes left) and I am still waiting. You are very busy, and doing excellent work, but when you tell us you are going to be providing juicy details, it is nice to honor your announced schedule.
Q: How do you keep a horse's a$$ in suspense?
A: I will tell you tomorrow.
P.S.: I listened to you today on Dori Monson. Great piece on your part. And I loved Dori's follow-up on the extra ballot topic after you were finished.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 3, 2005 11:46 PMI see no choice but a revote; however, Gregoire may continue to fight for a completely illegitimate and impotent role, except for the major press being in her pocket the whole way.
Posted by: Paul on January 3, 2005 11:56 PM"GOP questions vote discrepancies: 8,500 and counting
08:49 PM PST on Monday, January 3, 2005
Associated Press
SEATTLE - Republicans laid the groundwork Monday for a potential legal challenge to the governor's election, with attention turning once again to possible voting discrepancies.
"Perhaps there's a logical explanation for all this," said state GOP Chairman Chris Vance, referring to public records that show nearly 8,500 more ballots than voters in five counties. "But if there is not, this election is invalid on its face and the Legislature cannot in good conscience certify Christine Gregoire."
Vance said the voting discrepancies - if they're not accounted for - could form the foundation for a legal challenge to the election of Democrat Christine Gregoire, who beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes after a hand recount of 2.9 million ballots.
Gregoire's inauguration is scheduled for Jan. 12. Republicans are pushing for a revote. Democrats say it's unlikely......................."
More at the krem site
Posted by: Deborah on January 4, 2005 12:29 AM