52 Felons (and still counting) voted illegally in Pierce County.
The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) is proving that the governor's election was rife with illegal votes by felons, dead people, and double voting. BIAW is the state's largest association representing homebuilders, remodelers, and contractors.
The following is a press release from BIAW:
ELECTION NOT OVER – ROSSI AND BIAW CONTINUE TO FIGHT
While the state’s liberal newspapers are calling the election over and are calling for Dino Rossi to concede, Rossi (winner of two out of three ballot counts) continues to press forward in his effort to ensure a clean and fair election result in the Governor’s race. The Rossi campaign believes the only way this will now be accomplished is through a revote to determine the winner once and for all. BIAW members and staff are continuing to do everything possible to assist Dino Rossi in finding the necessary ammunition to legally challenge the election.
BIAW Activities
Over the last two months, BIAW members and staff have actively participated in the recount process. BIAW has done everything from coordinating recount observers in key counties to providing in-house attorney support to challenge voting irregularities and arbitrary decisions of county election officials. BIAW even filed a brief in Supreme Court two weeks ago challenging King County’s decision to count an additional 700 plus votes.
Evidence is Mounting
Since Gregoire’s apparent margin of victory is 129 votes, election law requires that at least 130 fraudulent votes must be found in order to contest the election. Assuming Gregoire’s supporters would steal the election, BIAW staff set out in mid-November to find as many fraudulent votes as possible. Starting with an initial list of 400, BIAW found felons, voters who voted twice and even voters who said they didn’t sign affidavits from Democrat campaign workers attempting to harvest more absentee ballots for Gregoire. Armed with this initial success, BIAW staff working over the Christmas holiday expanded the search and discovered a large number of fraudulent votes were cast in Pierce County. Dozens of Pierce County felons voted in the past election. Under law, convicted felons are prohibited from voting unless they have applied for and are granted voting rights from the court. BIAW is now in the process of comparing the list of felons to voters in both King and Snohomish Counties. In addition, BIAW has uncovered instances of potential signature fraud and even a couple of instances where it appears dead people have voted.
Armed with these illegal votes, along with the fact that the number of ballots cast in King County exceeds the number of registered voters by over 3,500, Rossi and BIAW have a decent chance at getting the election thrown out.
What’s Next?
The Legislature is scheduled to certify the Governor’s race on January 12. All of the evidence of voter fraud will be presented to the press, public and Legislature before certification. Although the Legislature can throw out the election and call for a new one, it is expected that the Democrat controlled House and Senate will certify Gregoire as the winner. At that time, if enough evidence of voter fraud is collected, you can expect the Rossi Campaign to go to court in order to ask for a revote. In the meantime you can assured that BIAW is doing all it can to uncover more instances of voter fraud.
What Can You Do?
If you know of any instances of voter fraud or election irregularities in your County, call Brian Minnich at 1-800.228-4229.
This does not seem very workable. Any time someone loses a close election, they go over the voting rolls to find voters who slipped through. Find enough and you get a re-vote. You don't even have to show the illegal votes went to your opponent?
I am skeptical of this theory. Can anyone support this with a statute or past court opinion from Washington?
Posted by: Wayne on January 5, 2005 04:09 PMYou said:
". . .it is expected that the Democrat controlled House and Senate will certify Gregoire as the winner. At that time, if enough evidence of voter fraud is collected, you can expect the Rossi Campaign to go to court in order to ask for a revote."
Go into court to ask for a revote? A revote may be better than the current result, but why don't you go into court and ask that the hand recount be thrown out, returning the election result to the previous Rossi 42-vote victory? Is that because nobody can tell exactly when the fishy votes were added to the totals?
And which court would you be going to?
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 5, 2005 04:25 PMEx-cons tend to vote liberal and Democratic, this is why so many Dems try to pass laws that restore the vote to them--the dream of a new Democratic voting block.
A couple of reasons for convict voting patterns: 1. Education. Felons tend to have not completed high school and this group is shown to support the Democratic agenda. The other education group the supports Dems are those with Ph.Ds and a small majority of those with Master's. The GOP wins the high school and B.A. crowd.
2. Tough on crime. The GOP is percieved to be tough on crime and therefore more responsible for sending crooks to jail. Even cons aren't stupid enough to vote for those they think are responsible for their prison sentences.
So actually pretty easy to see how this benefits C.G.
Cheers from Juneau
Posted by: GreyBob on January 5, 2005 04:25 PMBy Michael Keyser, SRC Staff Counsel
There are three procedures to force a runoff in the gubernatorial race. Two of the procedures are available to the Legislature. The non-legislative procedure would be via a court action by “any registered voter” under the contested elections statute (RCW 29A.68).
The two legislative procedures are as follows: (1) through a bill specially-tailored and passed during a special session of the Legislature, or (2) via Article III, Section 4 of the Washington State Constitution.
If either of these scenarios is determined to be likely pursued by the Legislature, we need to revisit these methods and seek greater legal clarity before moving forward. The following is my best speculation given the current state of the law.
METHOD 1: THE LEGISLATURE CONTESTS THE ELECTION
The Washington Constitution states:
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 4: RETURNS OF ELECTIONS, CANVASS, ETC. The returns of every election for the officers named in the first section of this article shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government by the returning officers, directed to the secretary of state, who shall deliver the same to the speaker of the house of representatives at the first meeting of the house thereafter, who shall open, publish and declare the result thereof in the presence of a majority of the members of both houses. The person having the highest number of votes shall be declared duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given to such person, signed by the presiding officers of both houses; but if any two or more shall be highest and equal in votes for the same office, one of them shall be chosen by the joint vote of both houses. Contested elections for such officers shall be decided by the legislature in such manner as shall be determined by law. The terms of all officers named in section one of this article shall commence on the second Monday in January after their election until otherwise provided by law.
The Constitution clearly vests in the Legislature the power to decide contested elections. In statute, RCW 29A.68 outlines the court’s procedure for handling a contested election. It appears to me that the power earmarked in the Constitution for the Legislature has been given to the courts. See RCW 29A.68 “Contesting an Election.” Either one of two things happened: (1) the Legislature delegated a portion of this authority to the Courts and kept its authority, or (2) the Legislature entirely delegated its authority to the Courts. If the Legislature delegated its entire authority, then the RCW section, as it stands, may be unconstitutional, thereby keeping the power in the Legislature’s hands. Only the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the law, can decide that issue at this point.
Because both the Constitution and the RCWs provide very little authority or specifics as to the Legislature’s role in contested elections, it is most likely that the Legislature would need to fall back on its general parliamentary procedures and processes were it to handle a contested election. It may be that the Legislature chooses to pass a joint resolution by which it sets forth rules, process, and timelines under which to operate. This would be very similar to other such resolutions the Legislature passes regularly to set forth cut-off dates or hold joint sessions. Each chamber would need to separately pass such a resolution. Of course, the Legislature could choose to simply fall back on joint, Senate, and House rules and not pass a special resolution for this process. It may be that the Legislature would decide to proceed in a joint session (such as when the state of the state address is given), or each chamber may decide to operate separately (such as the process by which a bill is heard and passed). It may decide to form committees, or handle everything in front of the full body. All of these scenarios, as well as various permutations and combinations of them, are possible.
It seems clear that there must be some sort of joint session of both the House and the Senate to “open, publish, and declare the result” of the election. If the Legislature were operating under traditional parliamentary rules, any member could rise and object to the process or the outcome, or otherwise ask for a contest of an election. It could also be that a candidate or a voter may submit something to the Legislature seeking to contest the election. What such a submittal would be, and whether (as well as how) the Legislature would take up such a submittal is unclear. Under general parliamentary rules, a majority of those present could decide such questions and procedures. As an interesting side note, while the Lieutenant Governor generally presides over joint sessions, this Constitutional provision specifies that it is the Speaker of the House who is to “open, publish, and declare the result” of the election.
It seems possible that the Legislature could vote to decide who the winner of a statewide election shall be. Beyond this, it is unclear what actions the Legislature might take—invalidating an election or calling for new elections, for example, may be possible, but there is no specific legal authority for these or any other options beyond the general grant found in the Constitution to “decide” contested elections. Of course, the Legislature could also decide to take no action, and let the results stand.
Note that in the case of a tie, a joint vote of both houses decides the race. Whether the outgoing or incoming legislature decides this depends upon the date of the decision. The outgoing legislature is in office until the second Monday in January following the date of the election, at which point the incoming legislature has power.
METHOD 2: CONVENE A SPECIAL SESSION
The Legislature can convene a special session by resolution of the Legislature, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses (Constitution, Article II, Section 12).
· A special session can also be convened by proclamation of the Governor (Article III, section 7).
· The legislature is required to specify a specific purpose and stick to only that purpose, except, if the governor proclaims a special session, then the legislature is not bound to only that purpose (Article II, Section 12).
· Which legislature can convene the session, the incoming or outgoing?
o Answer: The outgoing. RCW 44.04.021: “The regular term of office of each senator and representative shall commence on the second Monday in January following the date of the election.” Arguably, the outgoing senators are still in office until the second Monday in January.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 36 of the Constitution, during the special session, the Legislature can immediately consider and pass laws relating to a runoff. Such law would have to be fitted to the current facts of the gubernatorial election so that the current election may apply. The likely scenario would be to craft an amendment to the elections statute (RCW 29A) which required a run-off in the event of certain facts (i.e. manual recount results in change in winner, difference in vote total less than 200 after manual recount, etc.).
· No law shall be enacted except by bill (Article II, Section 18).
· The legislature could make such law retroactive to force the law on the governor’s race, OR
· An “emergency clause” would then force a gubernatorial runoff immediately following passage into law.
· A joint resolution of both houses, which does not require governor signature, is an idea, however it is unlikely that it carries the force of law outside the Legislature.
3.Governor Locke would also have to sign the bill (Article III, Section 12).
Has the Legislature ever been faced with a contested election before?
In 1941, a document entitled, “Notice of Election Contest” contesting the election of Governor was submitted to the Legislature and read into the record of a joint session. A motion was made to refer the notice of election contest to a special joint committee composed of House and Senate members, but the motion was defeated and no further action on the matter was taken. The Speaker and President of the Senate then signed the certificates of election.
In 1949, a document entitled, “Petition of Contest” contesting the election of the Commissioner of Public Lands was submitted to the Legislature and read into the record of a joint session. A motion was made to indefinitely postpone the contest, which carried, and no further action was taken on the matter. The Speaker then signed the certificates of election.
Because of the limited actions taken by the Legislature in each of these historical cases, very little in the way of legal or parliamentary guidance can be gleaned. In both cases, though, the Legislature did entertain the contests on some level, even though statutes at the time listed bases and processes for contesting elections in court (but not in the Legislature).
What is the role of the courts?
Chapter 29A.68 RCW sets forth numerous processes and bases by which an election may be contested in court. Moreover, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of state legal issues, and it is also the arbiter of disputes between the executive and legislative branches (in a contested election, it is possible that the results of the Secretary of State could be at odds with the decision of the Legislature). Given this, it is highly possible that—even were the Legislature to act in a contested election—a court could review the actions, processes, and remedies undertaken by the Legislature and might reverse the results if it found some legal or Constitutional basis for doing so.
John Fund on John's show said that 79% of the felons who voted in Florida (there were a lot of them!) were registered democrats~!!!!
Mr. Cynical, you crack me up!! Yes, x-tine has probably already removed that tag from her ballgown that she bought at Nordstrom and now she can't return it@!!! Guess she WILL have to dance in it somewhere. Maybe the Grange will let her rent a hall somewhere.....
Posted by: Michele on January 5, 2005 04:38 PMSo, do you think Paul Berendt will be in an orange jumpsuit pickin' up trash along I-5?
Someone has to accept blame for that debacle. I can just see the Dems working on a strategy to blame the Republicans for this one.
Typical leftie response. Fire the flamethrower and then wish everyone "Peace".
Don't forget to wish victory to the Iraqi "Insurgents" while your at it.
Posted by: Shaun on January 5, 2005 05:13 PMThe irony of Paul Berendt wearing "orange". he he :)
Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 5, 2005 05:25 PMDino would win 65% of the vote.
Posted by: South County on January 5, 2005 05:29 PMyou say:
"This does not seem very workable. Any time someone loses a close election, they go over the voting rolls to find voters who slipped through. Find enough and you get a re-vote. You don't even have to show the illegal votes went to your opponent?"
I say:
should we not hold EVERY election to this same standard? What part of "ILLEGAL" is not making sense to you?
Posted by: recallgregoire.com on January 5, 2005 05:51 PMThis does not seem very workable. Any time someone loses a close election, they go over the voting rolls to find voters who slipped through. Find enough and you get a re-vote. You don't even have to show the illegal votes went to your opponent?
I am skeptical of this theory. Can anyone support this with a statute or past court opinion from Washington?
Wayne, check these two statutes.
RCW 29A.68.090 tells what you need to allege in order to get into court, namely a number of illegal votes that exceeds the margin of apparent victory. That would be 130 in this situation.
RCW 29A.68.110 tells what you need to successfully contest an election in court, namely enough illegal votes that benefited the apparent victor such that the apparent victory is invalid. Since you rarely would be able to prove which candidate benefited from any particular illegal votes, the second statute apparently means that some kind of apportionment of the votes would be assumed. So, you would need a lot more than 130 illegal votes to prevail in the contest.
Here’s the text of RCW 29A.68.110, which sets the standard for invalidating an election:
No election may be set aside on account of illegal votes, unless it appears that an amount of illegal votes has been given to the person whose right is being contested, that, if taken from that person, would reduce the number of the person's legal votes below the number of votes given to some other person for the same office, after deducting therefrom the illegal votes that may be shown to have been given to the other person.
At any rate, the gist of my question, which no one has answered, was why some, including apparently the BIAW, think that showing 130 illegal votes is enough to successfully contest the election, especially since no one can prove what the votes were.
Posted by: Wayne on January 5, 2005 06:12 PMYet, you say: "At any rate, the gist of my question, which no one has answered, was why some, including apparently the BIAW, think that showing 130 illegal votes is enough to successfully contest the election, especially since no one can prove what the votes were."
Which part of “a lot more than 130 illegal votes” is unclear?
Are you simply puzzled that some people may think 130 is enough? If so, perhaps you can get someone who thinks so to answer your question.
Actually, it's the Democrats who are proposing to let convicts out of prison earlier, first in 2003 and again this year, in a proposal by Gov. Locke.
A gentle suggestion: Know just a little of what you're talking about before you post.
Posted by: J.A. on January 5, 2005 06:36 PMSimply put, Gore did not have enough time to mine for votes. There was not enough time for Gore to have a statewide recount that stayed within the constitutional mandated dates. He ran to much time off the clock out prior to having the FL results certified.
Rossi is still within the legal timeframe given in WA Law. Just as Gregoire was within her legal rights.
Posted by: ordi on January 5, 2005 06:42 PMWhat authority do you have for your statement? RCW 29A.68.110, as cited by Micajah, seems inconsistent.
Ordi: I wasn't addressing the way the 2000 election turned out, but rather the implications if BB's theory was applied in that case.
Posted by: Wayne on January 5, 2005 06:55 PMAllowing a losing candidate to scope around after the election for illegal voters who slipped through seems like a prescription for paralysis after every close election. Do you think Gore couldn't have found 350 (or whatever the final margin was) illegal voters in the state of Florida? And then Florida re-votes while we all wait to see the result. Not very workable.
I read that as a complaint. If I was wrong I am sorry. Your comment concerned SOP's in close elections. It is done by both parties and is perfectly legal as long as it is within the Legal timeframes.
Posted by: ordi on January 5, 2005 07:21 PMThey cause more questions to be asked:
1) Why didn't KingCo have Larry Phillips and so many others signatures scanned into their system when the SOS did.
2) How did dead folks get ballots, especially those dead for 6 months or more?
3) How did felons get ballots?
4) How did hobo's get their ballots when they were sent to General Delivery?
5) Why don't # of voters reconcile to ballots counted?
6) Why did provisional ballots go directly into the pile without being validated first?
The list goes on and on and on>
ANSWER: Dean Logan was negligent in the management of his database. PERIOD!
Why wasn't this a priority?
ANSWER: Distributed Voter Fraud. Simply, the tighter the internal controls and follow-up, the less likely cheating is available.
The Dems and Logan were anxious for questionable stuff to be counted immediately. WHY?
Because once ballots are co-mingled, you cannot identify who fraudulent voters voted for. Then you "spin" away that the R's now have to show way more than 130 votes for the COurts to set aside the Election.
Dear Friend,
Last Thursday the Secretary of State certified Chris Gregoire governor-elect.
We have just finished the longest, most scrutinized election in Washington State history. Ballots have been checked, double-checked, and triple-checked. Democrats and Republicans from across the state have joined together to make this the most accurate election in state history.
But, instead of taking Chris Gregoire's call for unity to move our state forward, Dino Rossi and the Republican Party have gone off on a bitter battle to tear down this election.
They are trashing the Republican Secretary of State, they are trashing county auditors across the state, and they are trashing their own Republican and Democratic observers. They're even shamelessly manipulating military families to falsely suggest that our soldiers' ballots weren't counted. All because they didn't like the result of this election.
And after two weeks of wild, unfounded accusations they still have no evidence of any wrongdoing. Not a one.
I need you to take action right now.
On Tuesday the legislature will vote to certify the election. We already know that Republican operatives are working hard to pressure legislators to undo the results of this election. We need to fight back.
Right now, call the legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Tell your legislators to do the right thing, stand up to Republican rhetoric, do their duty and certify the election on Tuesday. It's time to get on with the business of moving our state forward.
The Republicans are working hard to make this election a circus. Let's make sure they do not succeed.
Sincerely,
Paul Berendt
Chair, Washington State Democrats
Keep up the good work guys! You've got them on the run!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 5, 2005 07:48 PMI did hear that the Pubs went out after this initial ruling and got ballots signed too, but unfortunatley no other county that I am aware of got second chances on ballots like good old King...
I keep hearing about Florida and 2000....first off, not all ballots across the country were counted,so we don't actually know what the popular vote was...
In Florida, the Democrat party dreamt up a scenario where possible voters for Gory might have voted for Buchannon, the ballot being so darn hard to read and confusing to the Democrat mind....
they tried then to count their Democrat stronghold county in a differant way then the entire rest of the state...they set out to decipher how a chad could actually be called for Gory if it flexed a certain way......ridiculous!
they did then what they are apparently doing now....counting ballots in differant ways mid way thru a 3rd count...
how this can stand is beyond me...
Can any democrat look squarely in the mirror and say that the hand recount produced all positive for only one canidate in King co?????.....if they are honest, no they can't...
Well, there you go! They aren't.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 5, 2005 08:49 PMIf TRUE reform were done across this nation...I think the dems would really be seeing red. In fact, I don't think we'd have to worry nearly so much about some areas being so sad and blue :)
Posted by: Julie on January 6, 2005 07:50 AMYou said: "The voting irregularities in Ohio make the problems in Washington look like peanuts..."
I'll be charitable: You have been deluded by a bunch of liars and scoundrels who are using any tool they can to trash the election becuase THEY LOST. There is no proof of any fraud, no proof of any hidden or miscounted votes, and the whole state has been through a clear, transparent, and open recount, unlike the sad recount in King County.
Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes, sir. Don't get suckered by Jesse Jackson and John Conyors (who came from a place like Detroit, where there seem to be real and numerous voting irregularities, as well as taking turkeys from the poor, for staff and donors). The worst complaints made are that people had to spend hours in line to vote, and the real vote totals don't match the results of slanted exit poling data. Air tight case there, huh?
Opps, but I just remembered, the Ohio SoS is an Uncle Tom (Black Conservative), so it's not just Bush they are trying to trash, it's racial too.
Please, don't even try to compare a fair, open vote that was succesfully run with the mess in your state. It's another myth.
Go Rossi!
Posted by: Ohio Voter on January 6, 2005 08:21 AM
Just one more thought: The Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court justice threw out a suit brought by the people you believe. In response, they instiuted a new one, challenging the votes count in his race for reelection. The reason: His election was tainted so the conspiracy to make sure Bush won would have a sympathetic judge in the case.
Please David, get a life.
Posted by: Ohio Voter on January 6, 2005 08:31 AMOh yeh I guess they are meeting today on the Ohio issue, so this may still come up!
The Democrats in this state have had 20 years to rule, and what have they brought the people of this state:
1 of the hightest taxed states in the nation
1 of the highest unemployment rates in the nation
1 of the highest anti-business climates in the nation
Fight on, and we can change this mess! See you all at the Revote Rally in Olympia next week!