WSJ's John Fund was on Hugh Hewitt's show claims that handwriting analysis of 400 Washington absentee ballots reveal that they were written in the same hand... developing...
Will post more when we have something linkable.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: by Seth Cooper: "John Fund’s entry in today’s OpinionJournal Political Diary ($ub$cription required) sports a picture of Christine Gregoire and is entitled “Tarnished Crown.” Fund states that “A handwriting analyst hired by the state's home-building industry believes there is strong evidence that one person may have signed over 300 provisional ballots cast in a controversial precinct [1823] in which hundreds of voters listed the county's administration building as their home address." Fund then goes on to say that with so much uncertainty in the election that “It's time to call in both state investigators and the FBI and have a look at the anomalies in this race.”
He notes that the final outcome of the election might not be changed by all of this, "…but at least some of the myriad of unanswered questions about the vote count may be resolved.”
UPDATE: (From Stefan, 8:30pm). Timothy Harris, General Counsel for the home-building industry association (BIAW) called me to deny the above report. Harris says that his organization is investigating a number of irregularities and confirms that they have hired a handwriting expert to review certain documents, but that the handwriting expert has not reported any findings yet, and certainly not the findings reported above. Harris did mention, however, that their investigation has revealed a substantial number of illegal votes cast by felons!
Posted by Brian Crouch at January 04, 2005 05:04 PM | Email ThisI am not sure how hand-writing analysis can be a good judge here. When I filled in my ballot it was all about the scantron, and not writing someone's name on a line.
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 4, 2005 05:12 PMhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Posted by: Boonie on January 4, 2005 05:16 PMIt wouldn't be a problem if they were all written by one person but signed by each individual voter. Beware the Spin.
Posted by: bmvaughn on January 4, 2005 05:35 PMLook around, pretty quiet at the Puget Sound liberal blogs.
But really c'mon, there should be no surprise at all here. Stefan has been diligently researching this for weeks and something was clearly wrong.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2005 06:18 PMWhat the heck is going on in King County, and why isn't everything being conducted in the light of day so that Washingtonions might have some confidence?
There should be observers watching as they work on reconciling the database.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2005 06:30 PMHas anyone seen Mike Lowry since Yassar Arafat passed away?
Posted by: Tim on January 4, 2005 06:32 PMFirst, I've been, in recent years, of a puzzlement as to why the Repubs have let this vote theft go on for so many years.
It's an old tale and I share it often, but as a child, in Baltimore city, my Dad, me and my brother, used to go downtown after the precincts closed and rig the voting machines!
Yes we did though they were the old-fashioned lever type affiars. But the electricians knew how to set them to any number required and it was the big unions behind it.
We did it mostly for local elections but I remember going all about after the election of JFK. That's NOT John Kerry.
Anyway, I went through my liberal Democratic phase and now, as a Republican, I witnessed Florida 2000, New Mexico 2000, Tom Daschle illegally elected until someone got some gonads. Also, don't forget Ashcroft running against a dead man. It goes on and on.
I was scratching my head because if I remember this so distinctly when I was but and eight year old, damn, the pubs haven't figured it out in lo , how many? Gosh, we're talking forty plus years here.
Also, now that I'm a Republican I really, really resent that the Dems are still at their old habits and likely stealing MY vote. It wasn't so bad when my side was getting the stolen votes.
This Washington thing has intrigued me from all the way across America in tiny Delaware.
I knew in my heart of hearts and from all that I read, that that election was being stole right under the Repubs eyes. I would shake my head and think, damn, now they're stealing a Governorship.
Yet I was reading, even on vaunted conservative web sites such as this fine one, exhortations for Rossi to give it up. There was a tone of resignation across conservative sites across the Internet and I simply could not believe it, could not believe it. What a bunch of wimps, I thought.
I hope, against all spineless Republican hope, that Rossi and whoever's behind him don't give this up. Because the Repubs never want to contest an election AS it is being stolen from under them. Lately it seems to me they've taken to targeting "problem areas" like New Mexico and hey, they got Daschle and his Indian buddies to stop their fraud.
I don't know why the Repub always take that position. Perhaps there was some good intentions. Because, folks, you all tell me, what the hell is going to happen now?
The Washington governor's election had already been certified! How, legally, can they force another election?
Is there anything in Washington's election law that, say, has some sort of proviso that if the opposing party finds, say, a couple hundred fake signatures or, say, a few counties with more votes than voters, then is there some way to "contest" this election? After certification that is.
Recall in the Ukraine 90 percent of the reason there was a new election was because of the bad publicity. That and Putin threw in the towel. Is that what will happen in Washington state? Are the Dems, finally faced with obvious fraud, going to have to back down? I mean they rammed through that certification after the "hand count" with a ferocity.
Maybe this is why the Repubs always back down in situations like this. The legal system is designed to expedite the certification of an election and the placement of the newly elected into their jobs. And rightfully so. But that limited time span doesn't allow for the sort of things the Repubs are doing in Washington state, ie checking signatures with handwriting experts, yada, yada.
Thus the only way to "save" a stolen election besides preventing it the next time, is to raise a ruckous like Rossi is doing now. And HOPE that public sentiment swings your way.
Which brings me to my final thought. This is such bad publicity for America. I mean, damn, didn't President Bush himself complain about the Ukraine elections for the international radar? I can see the London Guardian headlines now. Yet another reason, I'm supposing, the Repubs always let the Dems steal elections.
There is so much to gain, even in the face of adversity, in doing what the pubs are doing in Washington state, despite the drawbacks. First, this is really flying below the national radar right now. But let Washington state announce it plans a new election and the beltway will be buzzing. That kind of national attention will draw so much attention to these Dem shenanigans that future dividends will be realized in some genuine skepticism when the Dems cry wolf in the future.
Anyway, I'm done. If anyone lives in Washington state I'd sure be interested in how the local citizenry is taking all this. I'm a blogger and I'm wanting to do a big post on all of this.
164 posted on 01/04/2005 9:14:45 PM EST by Fishtalk (Once a liberal and victim of all the spin. Ask me to interpret.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I'm registered next door to Precinct 1823 at a venue that serves flophouses, half-way houses on one-way streets, homeless hangouts, and crematoria: the domiciles of motivated voters. Never got my absentee ballot, so don't know if a cold corpse voted it for me. Do know that voting as a breathing voter at the Ad Bldg was no fun for me or for the election "workers" who had hardly a clue about the work they were supposed to do. (Having shown no proof of anything to anyone when I registered to vote by mail, I was not surprised that nobody wanted proof of my identity before erroneously giving me a provisional ballot, and that nobody knew how to account for the bad ballot before giving me the ballot I should have had.)
Posted by: sandalista on January 4, 2005 06:35 PMI agree that it's time to call in the Feds...but why bother with state investigators? No offense to our state (Washington)investigators..but I think at this point it would be best to let outsiders take a look....
Due to our faulty and possibly fraud-ridden election process here in Washington, we may have members in congress that were never truly elected by the people of this state over the past years! This possibility alone should warrant a national investigation!
In the public records request, Dean Logan's former boss in Kitsap County Auditor Karen Flynn was rah-rah-rah Logan. Wouldn't you expect Flynn to be a cheerleader for a former employee? Otherwise she would have to admit she trained an ASSUMER. I doubt Logan is corrupt. He simply ASSUMED the folks underneath him knew what they were doing. BAD ASSUMPTION! This is NOT a conspiracy theory....YET. If they try to cover up the incompetence...then it will be. A handful of deceitful Dem operatives spoiled this election along with God only knows how many "I got away with it before" types who did one or two wrong things.
Oh, just to show you how small a world it is. Logan worked in Kitsap County.
His old boss,Flynn, wants other Auditors to sign a support letter for Logan.
And the kicker....doesn't Logan's wife now work for Flynn as her Election Supervisor????
It's a small Election Official world out there. The gene pool is highly polluted with institutionalized incompetence.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 4, 2005 07:35 PMI suppose we can allow Goldy on our Rossi "love train" but we should probably make him sit in the back or perhaps the cattle car.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 4, 2005 07:40 PMComment: Since these were provisional ballots, we don't even know if they were counted.
Question: How did the building trades group get the signatures for comparison? Is it possible that KC released that info so fast when they seem to be as slow as molasses with everything else?
Posted by: Greg V on January 4, 2005 07:49 PMLet's hold judgment on this one just a bit longer. The provisional ballot consists of a folded ballot inserted inside a security sleeve, inserted inside a Special Ballot envelope, which includes a form explaining why the special ballot (provisional ballot) was given out, along with information identifying who the voter is. Finally, it needs to be signed by the voter. In case the voter is incapable of signing, the voter "signs an X" and the poll worker signs for her.
It would not be at all unusual for most or all of the special ballot forms to be filled out by the same person, probably the inspector. The question is, was the handwriting analyzed by the experts the voter information and explanation, or was it the signature? And if it was the signature, there had better be a lot of X'es too.
This is suspicious to be sure, but let's be sure we have all the facts.
Posted by: Huckleberry on January 4, 2005 07:50 PMIt seems that you are getting closer to the iceberg I told you about. Fund has only found part of it. You might look at the 2000 Senate data to get deeper. Several people in the kc office breathed much eaiser when Gorton did not contest. You will find the same problems here, maybe even more blatent.
Happy searching.
Posted by: kcinsider on January 4, 2005 08:05 PMWhat else can you share with those of us who follow-up on stuff?
Goldy,OK, fine a way to spin this one.
Jeff... somebody tipped me off that you had left another message for me here. Believe it or not, I don't read the comments here every day, so if you want to get my attention, you know where to find me.
Well, I was going to spin this by saying that I don't believe anything coming from the BIAW, the lying bastards that they are. But since Stefan now reports that the BIAW has refuted the John Fund story, gee... well, I'm stumped. Except to say... Do any of you guys feel like complete idiots yet for believing every last piece of dirt, without waiting to see if its corroborated?
And Cynical... yes, the statute clearly says that 129 illegal votes, would be grounds for contest. But the question remains... what is an illegal vote?
RCW 29A.08.810Registration of a person as a voter is presumptive evidence of his or her right to vote at any primary or election, general or special.
The time to contest a voter is before he votes. It is not clear whether you can go through the registration files after the fact, and use that to set aside an election.
Again... this is a purely legalistic argument. I'm not arguing for counting votes from illegally registered voters. I'm just saying that such votes may not be grounds for a contest.
Now if John Fund had been correct (and not the crap journalistic hack that he really is,) well that would have been a different story entirely. That would have been quite analogous to what went on in Foulkes v. Hayes.
Posted by: David Goldstein on January 4, 2005 09:39 PMFELONS?!!! I'm not at all surprised---thanks for unearthing THAT one!
Queen X-tine Gregoirovich is likely exceeding her anti-perspirant's capabilities now and wonders if she really SHOULD be eyeing that ballgown for her coronation, I mean, inauguration.
Posted by: Michele on January 4, 2005 10:02 PMIt apparently is too late at this stage of the election process to challenge particular voters' right to vote, but not too late to contest the election based on the illegal votes of convicted felons and the illegal votes cast by people who committed fraud by casting ballots in the names of dead people.
It also isn't too late to base a contest on a situation involving voters who voted more than once -- which the 3000+ "voterless ballots" in King County indicate may exist.
A contest of the election requires evidence of illegal voting, defined as:
RCW 29A.68.020
Commencement by registered voter -- Causes for.
Any registered voter may contest the right of any person declared elected to an office to be issued a certificate of election for any of the following causes:
(1) For misconduct on the part of any member of any precinct election board involved therein;
(2) Because the person whose right is being contested was not at the time the person was declared elected eligible to that office;
(3) Because the person whose right is being contested was previous to the election convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person's civil rights restored after the conviction;
(4) Because the person whose right is being contested gave a bribe or reward to a voter or to an inspector or judge of election for the purpose of procuring the election, or offered to do so;
(5) On account of illegal votes.
(a) Illegal votes include but are not limited to the following:
(i) More than one vote cast by a single voter;
(ii) A vote cast by a person disqualified under Article VI, section 3 of the state Constitution.
(b) Illegal votes do not include votes cast by improperly registered voters who were not properly challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 and 29A.08.820.
You can't actually believe that kind of garbage? I can't believe you wrote that.
A man called into the radio today and said his dead fathers absentee ballot was recorded as a vote. Of course, according to your logic, we would have had to tell his dead father "No! Sir, stay in that grave! You may not vote!" Before, shame on him, he did...
According to you, that wouldn't count as an illegal vote either, right? Since we didn't catch him before he did it?
Posted by: Julie on January 4, 2005 10:14 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA+Washington+Governor&dpfrom=tsto
They tell people the website to sign the petition is at "www.revotewa.org" instead of "www.revotewa.com"
...honest mistake.
Posted by: Erik on January 4, 2005 10:27 PMIs this true?
Posted by: bob the builder on January 4, 2005 10:32 PMTo stand by the Certification is naked partisanship and completely undermines your position of objectivity.
What I want is a clean result. I can promise you that there will be a substantial number of fraudulent votes and or ballots and then you will finally have to eat crow.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 4, 2005 11:01 PMMy point is, ballots properly cast by voters who were improperly registered are not grounds for a contest, even if they might not have been eligible to vote. With the exception of felons who have not had their rights restored, there are no "illegal voters", only "illegal votes."
As I said, if John Fund had been correct, those would have been illegal votes. If somebody has cast a ballot for a dead person, that would be an illegal vote.
But while 129 illegal votes are all that is needed as grounds for a contest, Rossi still must prove that Gregoire received a net gain of 129 from these illegal votes. This is a very heavy burden in the absence of some sort of organized fraud.
Posted by: David Goldstein on January 4, 2005 11:35 PMWhat? We've had a poll judge write in to say that the election/poll workers must have 'personal knowledge' that the voter should not be allowed to vote.
I don't know the statutes/laws involved, but I've worked at the polls several times, and I've never seen anyone even TRY to challenge any voter. Voters do not have to provide identification, and everyone who is not in the register is given a provisional ballot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take is that it's damn near impossible for anyone to contest or challenge any voter before the vote is cast. Anyone care to shed some light on this?
So how do we prevent illegal VOTES? I don't care if it's an illegal voter or an illegal vote - neither should count. And it seems to me that we've seen many indications of one or the other.
What is the difference if a voter who is not an 'illegal voter' casts an 'illegal vote'? You can spew all the statutes that you want, but the people of the state won't understand.
This statement sums it up: "ballots properly cast by voters who were improperly registered are not grounds for a contest, even if they might not have been eligible to vote." What? I know what you're saying in a legalistic sense, but as the saying goes - try explaining that to your five-year old child!
If that's the law, the law must change. And if that is how Gregoire got more votes, the straight-shooting, intelligent people of Washington will not understand, nor stand, for it. Period.
Posted by: Larry on January 4, 2005 11:59 PMThe standard the Democratic party choose for
deciding whether, or not, to uphold a contest
in North Carolina was simply, "Did the number
of missing ballots exceed the margin of victory?"
It was a mathematical certainty that the
Republican candidate won more than 25% of the
early vote in a heavily Republican county. But,
that did not stop the Democratic majority on the
state elections board from changing the rules on
a party-line vote so that they could order a
revote on a party-line vote.
The Democratic party is going to have to answer
the consistency question!
If your county can't run an election properly, your votes shouldn't count. That puts a bit of presure on the local guys to get it right. Here in Whatcom Co. we do it very well. As a Libertarian party official, I observed the process from the tests through the re-count and was very happy w/what I saw. Our auditor is one of the best. Maybe the state should oversee future King Co. elections until they can get it right.
Don't know the details, but Pierce and Sno counties need to be more careful too.
Libertarian Larry
Posted by: Larry on January 5, 2005 10:04 AMThus the only way to "save" a stolen election besides preventing it the next time, is to raise a ruckus like Rossi is doing now. And HOPE that public sentiment swings your way.
First I want to say that as a democrat, I voted for Rossi because I did not like Gregoire. It was a tough decision for me, because I don't really care for Rossi either. For me, it was the lesser of two evils -- much like the choice (or the lack thereof) in the past two presidential elections.
I personally do not see any systemic voting fraud in this state. What I do see is a system that is broken not only here, but all across the nation. There are as many different ways to collect and count votes as there are precincts. In many of these jurisdictions, there is no way to guarantee that the vote you cast will actually be counted, let alone that the person doing the voting is eligible to vote in the first place.
Here we are in the 21st century and we conduct our voting much like we did our banking in the 19th century. There is no standardization and the potential for fraud in the lack of this standardization is great.
For the past four years, it has been the democrats who have been complaining about voter fraud and illegitimate voting practices. But since it was the Republicans who have benefited in the past three elections, those complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Now, it is the Republican's turn to complain and hopefully will finally begin the process of doing something about it.
Voting and making your vote count is a fundamental process that makes this country work. It is the foundation for democracy. If you lose faith in voting, then you no longer have faith in a democracy -- both the winner and the loser become losers.
We should have as much confidence in our voting system as we have in the banks that hold our money. As a voter, we should be able to check to see not only how our vote was counted, but if it was counted at all.
What I would like to see is a standardized system nationwide that is patterned after the way we bank.
Voters would be registered in a nationwide database that assures that the voter is not only eligible, but is only registered once.
Polling places could be done away with by utilizing the thousands of ATM machines already available. A registered voter would have a voter's card that would allow that person to vote anywhere in the country for the election for that person's district. Once the voter has cast his or her "ballot" the ATM machine would print out a receipt summarizing that vote. If that person wants to check to see how that vote was recorded, all they would have to do is check their "voting account" online.
There should also be a voting week instead of a voting day to give people enough time to cast their votes.
I am glad that there is this controversy in this particular election. I hope that it finally gets everyone up off of their collective complaining butts and try to do something about it.
Posted by: Political Pulpit on January 5, 2005 10:18 AM