You can probably get them from the election office with a PDA request (provided they haven't shredded them to hide the evidence, or "misfiled" them along with some of their absentee ballots....)

Alternately, just send me an e-mail and we can work out the particulars. And keep up the good work!

http://www.facts-online.org/campaign/takeactionforwa

Dean Logan and company must go, as well as the head man himself... you know, the guy who is responsible for all this chaos, Mr. "tax to the max" Ron Simms.

REVOTE!

If the challenge works, shouldn't the entire election be thrown out (not just the governor's election)? Shouldn't we re-vote on each and every issue from November 2nd? Isn't that necessary for consistency and to properly throw out the results from an election which is seen to be illegitimate?

The answer to your serious question is that any ballot item in which the margin of victory is smaller than the number of illegal ballots (or smaller than the size of the unreconciled difference in voter/vote counts) should be thrown out. In races where the margin of victory is larger, it can be presumed that the errors in balloting did not change the outcome.

P.S. We have now have an interim Auditor. Dave Bowen who some credit with "leading the charge" to support Dean Logan is gone. Apparently his e-mail to encourage the Auditors Assoc. in backing Dean Logan was a parting shot in his leave-taking from office.

Please email me at theshark .At. usefulwork .dot. com

You actually expect competance? They are government workers after all (no offense to good gov't workers...of which my father was one RIP). I didn't learn to be accountable for my work until I left government service and started working in the private sector. It's a lot harder to slack off when there is serious accountability...after all, who are they accountable to? Us? Looks like they're shakin' in their boots.

The process of crediting voters for voting is not designed to determine if voter fraud occurred, but rather a process to ensure voter registration lists are updated and current

A call or e-mail couldn't hurt.

It would otherwise suggest fraud is ok, as long as there isn't enough. Bad message and bad result.

Seems like it's all or nothing....plus, I bet there are plenty of elections within the margin of error isn't the margin ususally 4% or something) throughtout the Nov. 2nd election (local, state, and federal elections)...

Plus, does this affect the primaries? There were some close primary races as I recall...

One of the men (can't remember his name) running for DNC Chairman was on Fox news. When questioned about the Ohio debaucle today he said it was important for the dems to hold up certification to make a point that voting regulations need to be changed to make it easier for everyone to vote. If Washington State is an example, how much easier can it be. It doesn't matter who you are, alive or dead or how many times you vote. I think they would like to implement this system nation wide. Which brings me to the point, if Christine becomes our governor she will go along with the dem agenda and we will not see election reform in the State of Washington. IMHO

I don't know if changing the rules would be legal, but I am sure they're thinking about that.

Following the rules that exist already would probably reduce the margin of error quite a lot, and I would guess a lot of voters are annoyed enough to switch to Dino. (Some the other way too.)

What do you think, though?

I believe you will see more "circling the wagons" on this reconciliation issue. I know they did it in Jefferson County prior to certification FOR ALL 3 COUNTS. If they can do it...why can't everyone else. I mean how do you know if there was ballotbox stuffing and/or unstuffing going on??
Interesting Sam Reed wouldn't put this on his priority list of changes. Maybe it's because it already is required and he won't admit it?

Has it occurred to anyone (besides me - I have a nasty suspicious streak, frequently tinged with a bit of paranoia) that the one action that (I believe it was) Huennekens pointed to as evidence of his commitment to cleaning up the process may actually be a diversion?

I refer to his statement that he was shocked - shocked! - to find out this past May that election workers had been routinely counting absentee ballots that arrived that had no signature, contrary to state law. He said that he immediately ordered a stop to this practice.

Is it possible that his real reason for wanting this stopped is that this is an easily verifiable violation, one which could (and ultimately did) focus a lot of unwanted attention on what was going on?

If you are going to run an operation that will reliably deliver the vote to the party in power, the smart way to do it is to use methods that are not obvious, such as allowing people to register with no address (Precinct 1823), or mixing provisional ballots in with poll ballots.

As a follow up to that last thought, what is the latest word on the story (reported here) by one of the people who participated in the manual recount in KC, that a third of the way through the policy on overvotes was changed, so that all such were passed up to the canvassing board for a determination of voter intent (BTW, being Greek or Assyrian or whatever, wouldn't haruspex be spelled "haruspex" in Ukrainian?), rather than being disqualified on the spot by the 3-man teams?

That's what he'd like people to think. His focus nonw is to let the media lable him incompetent rather than a designer of election fraud.

http://www.metrokc.gov/MKCC/docs/CEOC_report.pdf

Provisional ballots. Page 47
-“There is currently no way to identify a provisional ballot that has been counted in error at the polling place.”

-“Some provisional ballots are counted at poll sites in error during each election.”

“Some provisional ballots are incorrectly processed during the canvass period.”

“With the increased turned expected in the 2004 presidential election, there will be an increase in the number of provisional ballots cast.”

“While the correct process requires that provisional ballots should be validated during canvassing before being tabulated and that they should not be counted at polling places, running a ballot through the poll site tabulator is an easy mistake for a voter to make. Poll workers are not always able to watch provisional ballots closely enough to prevent them from being counted.

Security. Page 48
“ Reviews of Elections Section by the Secretary of State and the King County Council’s consultant have highlighted significant shortcomings with basic election security.

“Serious issues have been raised by national computer experts and local activists concerned with the security of our elections, including the activities of the County’s major elections vendor.”

“Security practices have been improved in response to concerns. However, security should be addressed proactively, fixing issues after they arise harms public confidence. Indeed, some observers have expressed concerns about MBOS security.”

Process Control (Computer System). Page 52
“Although unlikely, if a malicious programmer did gain access to the tabulation programming, it would not be difficult to evade detection by the current testing process, because absentee counting is spread out over many days.”

Whatever happens with the re-vote effort, contesting this election is necessary to set in motion the steps leading to real reform. Until the rules are tightened and enforced, an "acceptable level" of sloppiness invites corruption while covering up even worse behavior that works to manipulate the results.

This statement by Dean Logan bothers me......

If this *process* (of ensuring voter registration lists are *updated* and *current*) has been the true purpose behind attempting to reconcile the votes after elections over the years.....Why are we seeing so many voters listed twice - when they moved prior to the previous election? Why are we seeing people who died before the previous election listed now?

Why does it appear that the current list contains so many voters that should have been purged during prior election *reconciliations*?

I mean heck! In what year does King County intend to update their voter list information? It is apparent - they have not done it for several elections!

This makes Dean Logan's entire statement ridiculous!

Me, too. He seems to be saying that the voter lists are maintained for the purpose of ensuring that the voter lists are up to date and correct. And here I thought the voter lists were created to ensure that only qualified citizens voted, and that they did so only once per election...silly me.

Every time I read his explanation, the term "circular reasoning" comes to mind.

Good point. My former pastor used to say "if you can't say Amen, say Ouch!" One thing I haven't been able to figure out is why the Demos keep talking so much. Don't they know "you have the right to remain silent..."

Imagine two scenarios:

(1) In an election, it is clearly provable that two votes have been fraudulently cast (but there's no way of knowing for whom); the final tally is 5001 to 4999. Should the election be thrown out?

(2) In an election, it is clearly provable that two votes have been fraudulently cast; the final tally is 9997 to 3. Should the election be thrown out?

True, both elections are somewhat marred by fraud, but ruling that the second should be thrown out would allow anyone who didn't like the way an election was going to trash the results. The fraud in the second case shouldn't be ignored--whoever perpetrated it should be prosecuted--but it should not affect the election results.

What if some of the other race's outcomes fell within the fraud/error margin?

What if it was determined that 8500 ballots were cast in error or by fraud AND they were discovered in an area where there was another close outcome?

Yanking those ballots COULD change the outcome of other close races within the state.....

Why shouldn't that be a consideration?...(Other than the obvious nightmare consequences..)

I really don't know how, or if, the Demos in charge of King County think. I encourage you to ask Ron Sims, for the definitive answer.

From an R in another KC, i.e., Klickitat County,who was an observer in the hand-recount:

We were all relieved that our auditor and staff had proper policies and procedures in place, which resulted in a 0/0 outcome, i.e., no difference between the machine-recount and the hand-recount.

There's a common-sense reason for that. I spoke with one of our county commissioners yesterday, whose job it is to supervise the canvassing board, and was told that the FIRST thing they do is determine whether the votes cast are the same number as those signing up to vote. Duuuh!

They were the same in this election, so the board proceeded with its subsequent canvassing duties. Had they not been the same, the board would have attempted reconciliation before proceeding, during which process they would have determined mistake or fraud.

Our rural KC is much smaller than the urban KC, but that should not matter a whit. Accounting principles don't change at the bank with the size of the deposit!

I suspect King County's electoral process has been fradulent for years and now, perhaps, we will learn the truth. I'm hoping for a court case and evidentiary proof of what many of us have suspected for a long time.

Does this remind anyone of New York's Tammany Hall or Chicago's Daley Machine or LBJ's ballot stuffing, Democrats all?

If provisional ballots are forwarded to the precinct where a voter is registered, then whoever is processing them can check the voter rolls to ensure that the person has not already voted. If two provisional ballots exist for the same person--even if they come from different precincts--this can be detected. If a privisional ballot is cast for a person who also voted in person, this too can be detected.

Perhaps there is some way to validate provisional ballots outside the "right" precinct, but I don't see how.

provisionals are supposed to be counted in the precinct where the voter is registered.