January 11, 2005
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Signatures

It's all slipping away from the King County elections department, and you read about it here first, thanks to ace Sound Politics data-miner Stefan Sharkansky. The latest crushing revelation of institutional incompetence is the admission, reported to newspaper readers here in today's Seattle Times, that the department's Friday Jan. 7 estimate of 1,217 more gubernatorial votes than voters in King County was about 600 shy of the revised figure. Even then, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens can only guess that the number of unnacounted for votes is "somewhere around 1,800."

Democrat Christine Gregoire's victory margin was 129 votes, and King County, of course, was where she "won" the election.

The "around 1,800" does not include the estimated 348 provisional ballots fed directly into the voting machines without inspection for legitimacy. That in itself is grounds for a new election.

What's really revealing to me in today's Times story is this (paraphrased by the paper) statement from Huennekens' boss, county Election Director Dean Logan:

...Logan, said Friday many of the unexplained ballots probably were cast by registered voters who failed to sign in when they went to polling places.

Or many of those (now 2,148 and counting) ballots were cast by people who were not legitimately registered, and we can't really know if they were now, can we? It seems we are at a real fork in the road here, Mr. Logan; Ms. Gregoire; and State Supreme Court justices.

We can keep making lame excuses for the failure of safeguards to ensure the legitimacy of this election, excuses for failures of the type that in the private sector would result in termination of those responsible.

Or we can have a new vote for Governor, with some basic, court-ordered (?) safeguards in place to prevent the sloppiness and unaccountability that plagued the Nov. 2 vote. In so doing, we start down the road to credibile, 21st Century elections in Washington State.

Dino Rossi's suit contesting the election is initially to be heard in Chelan County this Friday. The whole nation is watching. This debacle has the clear potential to do more harm to the Evergreen State's reputation than we would have suffered if Boeing had decided to assemble the 7E7 somewhere else.

But then, priorities are priorities.

UPDATE: from Sound Politics reader Larry, in the comments string to this post.

I was a poll observer and a poll watcher in the 36th (Queen Anne Hill) on election day. My polling place comprised four precincts.

EVERY voter who walked in and requested a ballot was made to sign in. If they were not registered in the book, the poll judge gave them a provisional ballot and explained the envelope procedure BEFORE handing it over.

At the end of the day, the poll judge (a Democrat, we had chatted) produced the printout from the machine while the four poll workers (presumably Democrats, but I'm not sure) reconciled their books/ballots. There was a difference of ONE ballot in one precinct, and the others went through the book/ballots until they figured out that she had not counted one signature. Everything balanced perfectly.

Maybe these folks should be put in charge of the King County elections division.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 11, 2005 09:50 AM | Email This
Comments
1. With all the scrutiny that King County Elections knows it has, it continues to make errors! It is beyond me how anyone can believe that the election results, as reported, are valid. Initially I believed that a revote was unworkable, but know I think it's necessary. And it would be wise to find an outside agency to run the new election in King County!

Posted by: Darrell on January 11, 2005 09:55 AM
2. I wouodn't worry too much about the Evergreen State's reputation in the eyes of the rest of the nation - it isn't that great. I've spent fifty years living other places, and Washington is seen as one of the triad of "left coast" states, reliably and inevitably liberal, no matter what it takes to make that happen.

Posted by: Jay Dowling on January 11, 2005 09:58 AM
3. In that same article, did you also notice this toward the bottom?

------
Yesterday was the second time in two days that King County elections officials corrected a factual error. They changed the county's election Web site Sunday to correct the date when absentee ballots were sent to 3,055 military and overseas voters. The county initially reported the ballots were mailed Oct. 10, two days after a deadline negotiated with the federal government.

The online fact sheet now says ballots were mailed Oct. 7.

Logan said Sunday that he discovered the date on the fact sheet originally posted by King County was in error. He said numbers on the report, which he produced himself, were inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site.
------

So, I've done a fair amount of web publishing myself, and I can't remember a single occasion where a 7 turned into a 10 simply because I posted my text as HTML.

I like how they use the term "code" to add mystery and complexity for the everyday person who doesn't know that HTML is just plain text.

I also like the fact that Dean Logan is now personally implicated in the fabrication of dates for when these military ballots were mailed out :-)

Posted by: Jason on January 11, 2005 10:05 AM
4. How does the court propose to discover the jurisdiction to order "safeguards" for a revote? They cannot write procedures for an election; only the legislature can. By law the revote would take place under exactly the same procedures, which is why it is no remedy.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 10:07 AM
5. How long before the usual crowd of liars and fools comes around crying that because we can't prove that all of these votes were illegally cast for Gregoire we just have to shut up and live with it? [Geez, I see it didn't take long. Up yours, torridjoe. I am so damned sick and tired of you election-thieving swine that I can't even pretend to treat you with respect anymore.]

"Huennekens said the numbers released Friday were wrong because the names of 1,003 voters appeared twice on the voter list. Not all of them voted in the November election. Computer experts are trying to figure out why some names were on the list twice."

And are they making any effort to "figure out" is any of them voted twice?

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 10:11 AM
6. 5...4...3...

Posted by: Jim in Clark County on January 11, 2005 10:12 AM
7. I know this is an old saw, but, hey, why not let the lottery people run King County's election in the revote. It's been a while since they screwed something up.

Even though it is a state election, the feds are only going to take so much before they either step in and do something or sue us for so damn much money we have to raise the tax on soda pop.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 10:17 AM
8. Someone tell me how in hell someone can walk into a polling place and get handed a ballot WITHOUT signing in? Not in my bloody precinct. If Logan's using that as his defensive line, his grasp of reality has failed and he should be toast.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 11, 2005 10:18 AM
9. Whew...I was a little worried there for a minute. Now I get it. The Director of Elections says a couple of thousand people just walked up to the polls, did not sign in and were allowed by the election workers to vote.
I'm sure none of the thousands of unknown people would have voted twice,three or four times..Hey why not 10 times..hell no one is checking....
I'm ok with all this now, thanks Dean for clearing all that up.

Posted by: Brad on January 11, 2005 10:19 AM
10. I see ScottM has snapped. I guess if the statutes and case law don't help you make your case, the next best thing is just to lash out and call people thieves, liars and idiots while insulting them. I didn't steal any elections--why are you calling me an election thieving swine? And if your own candidate doesn't think the election was stolen, why are you continuing that tired refrain? Don't go blaming me because you think the courts can order new election procedures.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 10:21 AM
11. It continues to appear to be "half-truths" and lies coming out of King County Elections in defense of obvious discrepencies.

When will it require the Feds to get involved and conduct an independent investigation?

I truly believe there is a scandal that is just under the surface right now.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 10:21 AM
12. "Logan said Sunday that he discovered the date on the fact sheet originally posted by King County was in error. He said numbers on the report, which he produced himself, were inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002147549_recount11m.html

i want to see some outrage from Shark or other programmers on this comment.

Posted by: Rex on January 11, 2005 10:24 AM
13. But remember: Those extra votes were counted with 99.9% accuracy. They were under close scrutiny while being counted, so even though they have no idea where they came from they were counted accurately.

Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 11, 2005 10:27 AM
14. "Someone tell me how in hell someone can walk into a polling place and get handed a ballot WITHOUT signing in?"

Because someone let them. And why not? After all, letting people vote illegally has nothing to do with stealing an election and cannot be remedied by any possible means. I know, because torridjoe told me so.

Everything's fine. Nothing to see here.

Just shut the hell up and bend over so the Democrats can sodomize you.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 10:29 AM
15. Code!!! What the heck does that mean? How hard is it to generate some html? I rea10y ha7e when 7he convers10n process messes up my post1ng.

Posted by: Jon on January 11, 2005 10:29 AM
16. I'm going to go into detail about my experience at my polling place on election day.

I entered the polling place and walked over to a table that had several workers seated. Each one had a card taped in front of them on the table with precinct numbers written on them. I looked for the precinct number that matched the number on my voters registration card an walked up to the poll worker. The poll worker asked for my name and found it in a book. She had me sign the book and afterwards gave me a ballot, explaining some of the particulars of the ballot.

Did anyone else have a different experience than the one I described?

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 10:30 AM
17. Vince - You are giving KC to much credit. I don't even think they were counted accurately.

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 10:31 AM
18. Torrid Joe, you notice I put a question mark next to my remark (in the post) about how the court should order some basic minimal procedures to make a revote less prone to errors, mistakes, and possible fraud.

Even if they can't, (and yes, long-term that is absolutely the leggie's job) the level of scrutiny would nonetheless be intense. A revote might not avoid all irregularities, but it would certainly be a good deal cleaner than the mess of Nov. 2.

Does anyone really believe a revote would involve thousands of people voting at polling places without signing in? Or the stuffing of provisional ballots into machines without verification?

A revote is justified (tho of course it is not for you or me to decide), as the evidence increasingly shows the Nov. 2 results are badly tainted.

Logan's latest admission is utterly scandalous. people walking into polling places and voting without signing in? And that's OK? Come on Joe, you're not very "torrid" if that's OK with you.....

Posted by: Matt R. on January 11, 2005 10:38 AM
19. Ohhhh, it was a technical problem that changed Logan's 6 and 10 to 7.

That's right the dates were changed in TWO places...Oct. 6 and Oct 10th both became Oct. 7th. Funny typo.

Must've been one of them virus thingamajiggers.

Still though, why was he doing this on a sunday???

Posted by: kristen on January 11, 2005 10:38 AM
20. ...inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site.

Calm down, everybody. I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that comment. For instance, perhaps they keep their written records in base-7. Makes perfect sense.

posted by Liberal Troll at January 14, 2005 10:37 AM


Hey guys, I think Liberal Troll may be onto something here.

Posted by: Skor Grimm on January 11, 2005 10:38 AM
21. "The whole nation is watching. "

I wish this were true. I think the national press will give this just as much careful & thoughtful coverage as they did for Oil for Food.

That is, the NYT will do a story next fall and will put it on page Z-88. And they won't mention the party affiliations of the KC officials, nor any of the specific details. The impression you will receive from the story is that something wasn't quite right, but it's being investigated & fixed by the best minds in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 10:41 AM
22. "...Logan, said Friday many of the unexplained ballots probably were cast by registered voters who failed to sign in when they went to polling places."

What the heck? It's nice to know I'm not the only person who caught that quote. They wouldn't give me a ballot until I signed in. How can someone just get a ballot with out signing first? Talk about sloppy.

Maybe they were registered voters, Mr Logan... but we don't know that.

Posted by: Mike H on January 11, 2005 10:42 AM
23. More likely, they keep their records at 7-11.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 10:42 AM
24. "it's being investigated & fixed by the best minds in the Democratic party."

you certainly got the "Fixed" part right!

Posted by: furrier on January 11, 2005 10:56 AM
25. There he goes again. torridjoe talking like he knows the law better the anybody else.

He does sound like a lawyer. A defense attorney that knows his client is guilty and his only way to win would be to twist the law to say something it does not.

Posted by: Doug on January 11, 2005 11:01 AM
26. jaybo,

My polling place experience was nearly the same. This was the first time I had voted in my precinct (moved here in April). So I didn't realize that my polling place was for multiple precincts, and in their infinite wisdom, the poll workers had placed the precinct signs at knee level, hanging in front of the desks. That essentially made it impossible to tell that the various desks were any different.

So I just walked up to the desk with the shorted line. When I got to the poll worker, she searched through the book and couldn't find my name. Then she looked at my voter registration card and said "Oh, you are in XYZ precinct, this is WXY". It took a few seconds to register, then I realized that each desk was it's own precinct. So I craned my neck and tried to knudge around people so that I could see the signs in front of the desks.

When I found my precinct desk, the poll worker looked at my registration card, my driver's license, and then showed me where to sign. Only then was I given a ballot.

So yeah, I too am wondering how Dean Logan can so casually claim that these ballots were propbably for properly registeed votes, who somehow simply forgot to sign in. As if it's no big deal, happens all the time, silly signatures.

I mean, what the hell was the Seattle Times reporter thinking? "Oh, ok, that explains it, thanks Dean!" Is the art of the follow-up question simply lost on Seattle Times journalists these days?

Posted by: Jason on January 11, 2005 11:01 AM
27. I was a poll observer and a poll watcher in the 36th (Queen Anne hill) on election day. My polling place comprised four precincts.

EVERY voter who walked in and requested a ballot was made to sign in. If they were not registered in the book, the poll judge gave them a provisional ballot and explained the envelope procedure BEFORE handing it over.

At the end of the day, the poll judge (a Democrat, we had chatted) produced the printout from the machine while the four poll workers (presumably Democrats, but I'm not sure) reconciled their books/ballots. There was a difference of ONE ballot in one precinct, and the others went through the book/ballots until they figured out that she had not counted one signature. Everything balanced perfectly.

I wonder how these poll workers and poll judges, who carried out their jobs professionally and appropriately, feel about these statements and accusations (dare I say, slanders of sloppy poll workers) by King County?

Posted by: Larry on January 11, 2005 11:03 AM
28. furrier sets out the roots for an apt joke

When is the Washington election system no longer broken? When it's been fixed.

Posted by: Rex on January 11, 2005 11:03 AM
29. Jason,
Pretty sad, isn't it. We are better at investigative reporting than the numbskulls in the MSM!

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 11:04 AM
30. It's hard to sign a registration book when you're dead, I'm told.

Posted by: Eileen on January 11, 2005 11:05 AM
31. It was hard but even the dead people signed in or signed their env.

Posted by: Doug on January 11, 2005 11:08 AM
32. "Can I get a cherry slurpy, some Ho-Ho's and 129 King County Voters Ballot please?"
"Yes sir Mr.Logan, will that be all?"
"I might be back for some more."

Posted by: Mehutch on January 11, 2005 11:09 AM
33. My confidence in KC's ability to conduct an accurate enough counting of ballots in a close election is waning day by day. With an election as close as this nothing but perfection is good enough. KC still maintains they were "99.9x%" accurate (down from their previous claim of "99.99%" accuracy). By my count it's really more like 99.8% (1807 ballots without voters out of 898,851 counted per Shark's numbers).

With a margin of "victory" of 129 votes or 99.986% the margin for error is clearly more than the margin of "victory."

Also, like others have said, it is absolutely unbelievable that Dean Logan can say the missing voters probably just walked in and cast a ballot without signing in. There is only one way that can happen, out and out fraud or unbelievable incompetence by election workers. Either cause should be enough to throw this election out. If this is not stealing an election I don't know what is.

Posted by: Tucker on January 11, 2005 11:11 AM
34. torridjoe: "How does the court propose to discover the jurisdiction to order "safeguards" for a revote? They cannot write procedures for an election; only the legislature can. By law the revote would take place under exactly the same procedures, which is why it is no remedy."

All they need to do is ENFORCE the safeguards that are already in place. The basis for Rossi's challenge is that the established procedures were not followed for a significant number of votes cast. We wouldn't be in this mess if:

1. All persons voting at precincts signed in properly;
2. Voters not verified as properly registered were required to cast provisional ballots, properly signed and documented;
3. All provisional ballots issued at polling places were kept separate from regular ballots (and hence, were NOT run through the machines);
4. All provisional ballot signatures were checked against registration records (per statute) before being added to the count;
5. All precincts were required to reconcile the number of regular ballots cast with the voter roll, and the number of provisional ballots with the log of provisional ballots issued/received.

Actually, none of this is very hard, especially if it is done at the precinct level (as it should be). It is no harder to handle millions of pieces of paper than tens or hundreds of them, if each precinct does its job. Or, as we like to say in IT, "data is data" - doesn't matter how much of it there is.

Posted by: Patrick on January 11, 2005 11:13 AM
35. Eileen,
This current scandal is over and obove the "after-life vote". This particular discrepancy involves votes that were "supposedly recorded" in voting places by live bodies (assuming the dead can't walk and talk).

Anybody have any other explanations for how this could happen?

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 11:13 AM
36. "...Logan, said Friday many of the unexplained ballots probably were cast by registered voters who failed to sign in when they went to polling places." Question--How do you even get your hands on a ballot without signing in at the polling place? Such a lame explanation sounds very much like coverup for fraud to me.

Posted by: Bill on January 11, 2005 11:14 AM
37. What about this as an explanation.

There were individuals that were registered to vote at more than one precinct. These same individuals went (in person) to each of these polling places on election day to vote.

When King County scrubbed the rolls (or cooked the books) they created a discrepancy by voiding these double registrations.

The next question. How many more are in the total that hasn't been discovered yet?

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 11:21 AM
38. The ever increasing revelations of the behind the scenes vote manipulation has caused me to suggest an alternative hypothesis for the lack of post-election action by SOS Sam Reed. I laid out some of my reasonsing in an earlier response to Stefan's (1-9-05) "Asleep at the Switch), raising some possibilities and questions that have not thus far received comment.

Briefly, maybe the reason Sam Reed was willing to certify the election while admitting he fully expected it to be contested was, just as he said, to move the process along. It also allowed him to escape some of the political heat. Imagine for a moment if he had refused to certify the election! The leftist press would have decended upon him unmercifully.

So passing it along, knowing at least some of the irregularities that would come to light with a contesting of the election became a viable option. We could wish he had just done his job, ennforcing clear rules to as to avoid this mess, but he didn't.

So I find him somewhat enigmatic. A lack of political will is not to be confused with ignorance. He likely knew what to expect from a close, contested election and was observed to chuckle at the prospect of "problems" associated with this election. He, like the legislature, is not directly involved in any illegal acts and can join the rest of us in watching the whole thing play out in the courts with testimony under oath from deposed witnesses. What do you think?

Posted by: RLG on January 11, 2005 11:27 AM
39. correction: it's "descended" upon

Posted by: RLG on January 11, 2005 11:31 AM
40. Is it just me, or do we seem to be eerily missing some of our regular posters?

:) Hope they are having fun at the Kremlin, er, the Kapitol.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 11:38 AM
41. RLG:

My dem legislator responded with something that sounds vaguely similiar:

"If the partisan Legislature (and I believe it is too partisan many times) is allowed to call for a revote, we open the door to this process for any future elections...

I believe every election should be decided by the voters. But if there are concerns that fraud or gross errors occurred, the impartial courts
should look into the allegations, not the partisan Legislature. The Rossi campaign has filed their action in Superior Court and the Supreme Court will undoubtedly take up this issue. "

Posted by: Julie on January 11, 2005 11:38 AM
42. Christine can't count...her website today says she won by 128 votes...

Chris Gregoire issued the following statement after King County completed their count and certified their results. King County was the final count to certify their results. With all ballots counted statewide, Gregoire leads by 128 votes.

Where did the one vote go??

Posted by: Glenn on January 11, 2005 11:44 AM
43. In today's Seattle times article about yet anohter error, the bits below just shows how ignorant/incompetent the KC election officials are:

"It’s impossible to come up with a precise number, Huennekens said, because workers are adding and deleting names of registered voters as they update the list in preparation for a Feb. 8 special election"

Haven't anybody heard of a back-up or snapshot? Why are they using a live registration database to verify? Shouldn't they be using the snapshot of the database as of November 2? It seems to suggest that they have added names to cover up the initial discrepancy, and now they are explaining that this new error is caused by their attempt to cover up the initial 3500+ discrepancy. Hmmmmm.....? Even my own son would not be making as stupid mistakes as these supposedly grown/educated people.

Posted by: number1dad on January 11, 2005 11:46 AM
44. Obviously, they took the ONE dead voter OFF.

Posted by: I see dead voters on January 11, 2005 11:47 AM
45. Maybe Dean Logan needs to sue Al Gore for his code screwup - after all, it was Gore who took the initiative in creating the internet.

(See, aren't I good? - I didn't say he invented the Internet - I used his own words).

Posted by: thecomputerguy on January 11, 2005 11:50 AM
46. I wish I could have gone to the Rally, but I couldn't miss work this morning.

I think RLG might be on to something. Think about how the maintream press would spin it if Sam Reed were to delay certification:

--Imaginary Seattle PI article--
Today the Washington Secretary of State, himself a Republican, refused to certify the Governor's election in which Democrat Christine Gregiore won the third and final recount in what has become a highly politically charged election contest. When asked if this was partisan meddling, Mr. Reed replied "I am simply doing my job". However Mr. Reed hadn't raised these same objections when Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate, was ahead in both the first count, and mandatory machine recount. Many Democratic observers are claiming bias on the part of Mr. Reed, and the state Democratic Party has filed suit in King County Superior court to force the Secretary of State to certify the election."
--Imaginary Seattle PI article--

Does anyone here really think that an article like that wouldn't happen if Sam Reed were to refuse to certify the results?

Posted by: Jason on January 11, 2005 12:03 PM
47. This state is strting to really suck. We have Bahgdad Jim, Patty fricking Murrey! Chrissy G.
An outgoing Govenor who gave Boeing a 40% tax break to build a jet here and then has the odacity to cry about not having enough money for education etc.!!! When will the people wakeup ?
The Democrats when in charge always screw things up.And with both houses and the governorship locked up.....we're doomed!

Posted by: log on January 11, 2005 12:04 PM
48. Snoco voter had a good post yesterday about some other close elections in the People's Republic.
Man, if I was paying $500 to register my car in payment for that billion dollar Kiddie ride.. " the momorail" I would be more than a little skeptical about now.

Posted by: Brad on January 11, 2005 12:04 PM
49. I wonder how the rally is going/has gone. I wish I could have been there. I hope there were hundreds and hundreds of folks in orange to show their support. I would have really liked to hear all the speakers. I bet it was great!!!

Posted by: megs on January 11, 2005 12:06 PM
50. "'Logan said Sunday that he discovered the date on the fact sheet originally posted by King County was in error. He said numbers on the report, which he produced himself, were inadvertently changed when converted to code for the Web site.'

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002147549_recount11m.html

i want to see some outrage from Shark or other programmers on this comment."

7's don't change to 10's. Even in base 7. Or base 6 for that matter.

The CS stands for Computer Science

Posted by: VaCSProf on January 11, 2005 12:10 PM
51. Thank you, Jason. My imagined press response has just received articulate expression.

Posted by: RLG on January 11, 2005 12:11 PM
52. Oh the irony is so delicious. Explain to me how, exactly, this is different from Florida in 2000? And weeren't the Republicans complaining then that the Democrats wanted to keep counting?

In any case, the margin of victory is less than the margin of error, so we really don't know who won. But since the law has been followed and there have been 2 recounts, it's over.

Posted by: Matt on January 11, 2005 12:11 PM
53. The election laws were not followed. It boggles my mind that there are people in denial about that.

Truth is, they've been caught.

I'd like to see the feds in on this, to preserve the voters' rights. Disenfranchisment by a vote from the dead is no different from shredding a ballot.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 12:15 PM
54. Matt,
Say what you want, the fact is that the Dems have decided to risk their future in an effort to help Gregoire.

When the facts surrounding this fiasco begin to come out (and they eventually will) it will result in future democratic candidates losing elections.

This thing is a ticking time bomb for them.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 12:16 PM
55. "But since the law has been followed..."

Liar.

Ever stop and think that if you have to lie, you're probably wrong?

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 12:20 PM
56. "Huennekens said the larger number of unaccounted-for votes should not shake people’s confidence in the outcome of an election that he said was still “99.9x” percent accurate.".

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_011105WABseattleonly_voteerrorsLJ.9b62bb97.html

Were those Huennenkens actaul words?!? What kind of idiot would be confident in an election this close, if the results were only 99.9% (or 99.99 or even 99.999%) accurate?

Posted by: thecomputerguy on January 11, 2005 12:25 PM
57. Matt, Like most who try to compare this election to Florida 2000, your memory is probably selective. In case you really don't remember, however, here is the one big glaring difference: Gore NEVER won either the initial count or any of the recounts. There are two areas in which both this election and the FL 2K election are strikingly similar: 1.) The voting-related shenanigans and incompetence occurred in counties run by Democrats 2.) The Democrats tried to disenfranchise the military votes.

Posted by: SheriJo on January 11, 2005 12:27 PM
58. Matt,

There really isn't any irony, because this is a very different situation from Florida 2000. You can keep counting as many times as you want, but it won't give any more accurate of a count, because we don't know who voted. That's the central issue. It doesn't matter if all the votes were counted and counted with 100% triple checked accuracy, because if you have garbage in, you'll get garbage out. This isn't about counting again, it's about making sure that only legitimate votes are counted.

Posted by: Jason on January 11, 2005 12:32 PM
59. Matt Matt Matt,
This is the an example of liberal selective memory. In 2000, Gore was NEVER ahead, ever! NYT and the others looked but never found the 'lost' votes needed to defeat Bush.
It seems now that Dem's also discovered God, and guns, and maybe abortion isn't the only answer. That sound you hear is the left slidding to the center just to get elected again. Ouch! Watch the slivers in your rear!
Revote baby!

Posted by: Mehutch on January 11, 2005 12:32 PM
60. Wonderful! The Democrat Party response to every problem is consistent. Those watching the legislature debate the election are hearing: our job is to ensure jobs and health care, not interfere with partisan political processes that would call into question what has been the responsibilility of the SOS and 39 County Auditors. That's the same lame, time-filling nonsequitur the Dems blathered on about during the filibuster of the blocked court nominations in the U.S. Senate.

Oh yes, and strenuous effort to fix the NEXT election.

Posted by: RLG on January 11, 2005 12:35 PM
61. As I said, the election was really too close to call. I'm sure if they kept recounting they'd keep getting different results. SOMEONE has to win.

In any case, it's still fun to watch. I've figured out that the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans are much more determined to win at any cost. I'm glad the Dems are finally learning that lesson.

I think James Baker's statement after Florida is appropriate here (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/10/baker_statement/):

"We understand, and I understand personally, that it is frustrating to lose by a narrow margin. But it happens."

Posted by: Matt on January 11, 2005 12:40 PM
62. Correct me if I am wrong, but what is the incentive for the Democrats in the Legislature to "fix the system for the next election" if Rossi doesn't contest the election and highlight the icompentence of King County? The broken system will have allowed Gregoire to "win". For some reason, fixing election systems never seems to benefit the Democrat. Why would you "fix" something that doesn't benefit you or your party - answer - you don't.

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 12:43 PM
63. Matthew,
We understand it.

Unfortunately, Chrissie, Cryin' Paul, 25 state senators and however many democratic legislators there are obviously do not.

BUT...I think they will all get their opportunity. Soon.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 12:44 PM
64. "Republicans are much more determined to win at any cost. I'm glad the Dems are finally learning that lesson."

This is on par with believing that Democrats have to learn to run nastier campaigns in order to win. (I'm sure you most sincerely believe that.)

By all means, please encourage the Democrats to be as nasty, underhanded, and litigious as possible. Everything you did in 2004--do more of it, more loudly. Let's have more Moore.

I eagerly anticipate the 2006 races and the next exodus from the Democratic party.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 12:47 PM
65. Republicans will try to win at any cost? We can personally thank Democrats for the following 2 fantastic precedents: 1) Count, count, and recount until you win (Gore FL 2000) 2) Contest electors in Congress in states where the margin of victory is 118,000 votes if it can hand your guy the Presidency (Kerry OH 2004). What nifty precedents can you come up with in 2008?

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 12:48 PM
66. That accuracy number at King County
99.99%
99.98%
99.95%
99.9X%
reminds me of one of those Wal Mart price change boards,
not that I've ever been to a Wal Mart....

Posted by: John on January 11, 2005 12:54 PM
67. Logan is quoted as saying he made the error, but the ballots were actually mailed 7 Oct. Above several questioned whether such an 'error' could be made the way he says it was. But what about the fact that the 7 Oct date might be another 'error'. In earlier posts on this blog there was a suggestion that the ballots may not have been mailed until 13 Oct.

"He discovered that Bulk Permit #1455, the permit that is used for mailing absentee ballots, only had activity on October 2nd (1,605 pieces) and October 13th (28,000 pieces)... with no activity between those dates!"

I didn't see anything further on this. Did this prove to be wrong info?

Posted by: wilinsky on January 11, 2005 12:58 PM
68. Elections are messy. Even if only .0001% of the ballots were not counted, or spoiled, or whatever, that could throw the election. There will never be a 100% accurate election. Is there even a precedent, or a law, that allows for a revote?

Like I said in my first post, it's been fun...Good luck.

Posted by: Matt on January 11, 2005 01:02 PM
69. Matt: "I've figured out that the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans are much more determined to win at any cost."

So it's the Republicans who illegally counted provisional ballots? It's the Republicans who illegally permitted ballots to be counted when no one had signed the poll book? It's the Republicans who illegally enhanced ballots, covering up voter intent?

Seems to me the people who want to win at all costs are those who violate the law, and thoe who defend (or, like you, dishonestly deny) those legal violations.

But there I go again, feeding the trolls.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 01:03 PM
70. Scott,
It's like smoking. It's an easy habit to start, and tough as nails to break.

Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 01:10 PM
71. Delay,delay, delay - deny,deny,deny - attack, attack, attack. The Soviet style Democrat mantra. A tactic perceived is a tactic. Right, ScottM ? True, Republicans are more determined to win legitimately than Democrats, who are out to win using any means possible - Law Schmlaws along with Polls Schmolls is the cry of the Trolls...

Posted by: KS on January 11, 2005 01:22 PM
72. There are only two options left for King County:

1. Thrown the election team bums out(starting with Sims, Logan, etc).

2. Give them a fair trial, and then hang them.

3. Or do both!

I am now applying for a King County job based on my superior math skills. Dean, I want your job.

Posted by: straightshooter on January 11, 2005 01:31 PM
73. Maybe I'm being too simple-minded on this, but there are two things that confuse me about the re-vote issue, and I'd like a Washington Democrat to help me out:

1) If you are confident that Gregoire legitimately won the election, i.e. you are certain that the majority of Washingtonians voted for her, then a re-vote should just reinforce that, no? After the re-vote makes clear that Gregoire is the choice of the majority, then she can take office with confidence.

2) However, if a well-conducted revote places Rossi in the governor's seat -- either because that's what Washingtonians wanted all along or because something during the course of this election has caused a few to change their minds -- then that represents the will of the people, no? Why would you want to thrust someone into the Governor's seat whom the majority doesn't want?

My family and colleagues are watching this election from Texas. It appears to many here that Democrats simply counted votes until they won, and are now in a hurry to close the books on the election despite the concerns of many. It would be far better for Washington Democrats to stop paying lip-service to "democracy in action" and "the will of the people" and show the rest of the nation that you really believe in those things.

Posted by: Sarah on January 11, 2005 01:43 PM
74. Matt Matt Matt.

You really don't get it, do you?

If the count is only accurate to 99.9%, and the margin of victory is smaller than the margin of accuracy of the count of the election, then the results are (and should be) subject to challenge.

We all know that there is a margin of error in every counting method. The way to win is not to just keep counting until you get results you like - which is what we have now in Washington State - the way to win is to correct the errors. If it requires cleaning house, and revoting, then so be it.

Posted by: thecomputerguy on January 11, 2005 01:43 PM
75. I cannot believe all the disparaging comments made about Dean's ability to count. Obviously, he did very well...top of the class!

Sincerely,
Dean Logan's Old Creative Math Teacher

Posted by: Dean Logan's Math Teacher on January 11, 2005 01:45 PM
76. Matt R--you admit that removing irregularities and human error from the process cannot be accomplished. Then what's the point? How would the scrutiny be any more intense, necessarily? The procedures don't change, and the enforcement of procedures would be in the hands of the very same people who apparently didn't enforce them the first time. And no matter what you do, you cannot recreate the Nov 2 election. The sentiment to "do it better" must come from legal reform, not judicial fiat--because the judiciary doesn't have that fiat power.

Patrick--you say much the same thing as Matt. I'm sympathetic to charges of incompetence, but it doesn't appear that it's abnormal incompetence--as bad as that may saound--and it's been conceded there was no fraud at all. Poorly enforced procedures don't set aside elections, because you cannot have an election without such problems. And if you're really in IT, you'd say "data ARE data," since it's plural. :)

Doug, I don't know the law better than anybody, but only one or two of you are even BOTHERING to consider your comments in light of the law. If I'm referring to case law and statute, and you and others are simply throwing out ad hominem attacks and unsupported or rejected arguments (such as that fraud existed), you're darn right I'm not going to take those seriously. If you can't back up what you're saying, why listen?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 01:51 PM
77. Bravo Wilinsky!

Dean Logan's report of his 10/7 mailing date for military ballots is fishy by a week. From witness Joe O'Donnell who visited the Post Office, looked up King County's Permit number and inquired about those dates:

"From Bulk Permit #1455 (the permit that is used for mailing absentee ballots) ... the computer showed that yes the bulk mailing was received by USPS on the 13th and billed on the 13th. When I asked for a hard copy she clammed up saying, because it was of a political nature she would have to forward me on to her supervisor."

Bravo Joe!

Hey you so-called 'reporters' at the Times and P-I, these citizen investigators are making fools of you. Your unwillingness to investigate and report has made Sound Politics the number one source for news of the Washington election. Shame.


Just scroll down to "INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT REGARDING ABSENTEE BALLOTS".

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 11, 2005 01:54 PM
78. This election is not merely "within the margin of error." It is within the margin of lawbreaking.

We know that hundreds of ballots were unlawfully counted in King County. (How many hundreds, we can't rightly say, but it was at least 348 and probably many more, based solely on what Dean Logan has admitted.) That's why a remedy is necessary. Because we know for a fact that the number of ballots unlawfully counted in a heavily pro-Gregoire county was at least 2 2/3 times Gregoire's margin of victory in the hand count, and probably considerably more, given the size of the discrepancy in King County's records.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 02:21 PM
79. Yes, the whole nation IS watching--all the way back east here in Rhode Island!

Posted by: PaulT on January 11, 2005 02:27 PM
80. How many unverified provisionals went through in other counties? How many went through King in 2002 or 2000?

I confess I don't know what is meant by "the margin of lawbreaking."

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:28 PM
81. ScottM, I wouldn't bother with the bandwidth-sucking troll.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 02:32 PM
82. "How many unverified provisionals went through in other counties?"

I don't know of any. King has admitted at least 348.

"How many went through King in 2002 or 2000?"

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Are you suggesting that we might need to throw Cantwell out of office, too?

Let's worry about this election first, shall we?

"I confess I don't know what is meant by "the margin of lawbreaking.""

It's lik the margin of error, but it refers not to error but to lawbreaking. I'd think even you could have figured that out.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 02:37 PM
83. Bostonian, if Dino Rossi posted here, would he be a troll? His views contradict the vast majority of posters here. Is your MO usually to just dismiss someone if you find you have no argument on the facts?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:38 PM
84. Bostonian: I know, I know, but when he keeps serving up lobs, it's hard to rsist smashing them back in his face.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 02:38 PM
85. torridjoe, you keep making the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, each time sucking in different people to respond to you.

*If* you truly believe that hundreds of illegally counted votes does not cast great suspicion on a contest with a margin of 129 ballots, you've never shown why this is a defensible view. You just ignore it and change the subject.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 02:44 PM
86. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat" - Will Rogers

Marc wrote:

For some reason, fixing election systems never seems to benefit the Democrat. Why would you "fix" something that doesn't benefit you or your party - answer - you don't.

Actually, fixing election systems never seems to benefit the incumbent. That's why you see Republicans trying to fix the system here, Democrats trying to fix the system in places like Ohio, and any of the rank-and-file that is willing to see the whole picture (from both parties) looking just a bit embarrased right now.

You'll note that the Democrats are now publicly pointing out errors in King County. Frankly, many of us are more than just a bit annoyed at the incompetence displayed there. The thing that most makes me believe that there is not deliberate fraud happening here is that if it was deliberate, they would have done a better job. As Robert Heinlein once said "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."

It would not surprise me in the least if Mr. Logan were to find that the opportunities in the private sector were more to his liking. I think Halliburton might be hiring auditors.

Party officials (on both sides) rarely chastise their fellow party members in public. (Generally the other side is happy to provide that service.) The fact that it has gotten so embarrasing for us that we need to do this publicly tells me that a real effort is being made to make sure this kind of debacle never happens again on our watch.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 02:44 PM
87. ScottM, I'm trying to establish on what basis you consider the process broken, if you don't even know what errors occur during statewide elections in Washington. If illegal ballots or discrepancies occur in many other counties (as they appear to have), what makes King's sloppiness egregious? How does it establish that this election was irreparably harmed, when in fact there were as many or fewer problems than before? It's like discovering your school board spent $1mil on paper towels and declaring, "This is an outrage!" without learning that they spent $2mil on them last year, and only used 2/3 of them.

Your restatement of the margin of lawbreaking didn't help, unfortunately. Lawbreaking by whom? How are you discerning lawbreaking from error, since you can break the law in error? The margin of error INCLUDES lawbreaking, so I'm not sure how you can go "beyond" it.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:46 PM
88. To answer Torridjoe's silly question - there have always been illegal votes, but the difference here is microscopic-razor thin margin that was far overriden by the number of more illegitimate votes for CG than for Rossi that have already turned up. I think you know that and you engaging in trollsport - just trying to push people's buttons.

Margin of lawbreaking ? I confess - I am not sure about that one either. All of these legislators who talk about having to prove voter fraud are misleading their constituents - either by their own ignorance or by spin. Very likely there was a coverup at King County - damage control and some stonewall tactics are now being employed to try and slow down the revelations. There was fraud employed in counting votes all over the place, but it does not rise to the level of one person/it is fraud by many by feigning incompetence - this has been demonstrated - unmitigated and distributed fraud. It will eventually come out and the sooner, the better ! John Fund will document this all in a book.

Posted by: KS on January 11, 2005 02:47 PM
89. Unfortunately the real info here is being obscured by trollage.
Please quit feeding these bottom feeders as all they are doing is muddying the waters of truth with their repetitive lame spin !
Thank You all !

Posted by: J Mc on January 11, 2005 02:48 PM
90. OK, one last response to torridjoe:

"But we always break the law!" is not a defense against charges of lawbreaking.

Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 02:52 PM
91. KS--you say there are far more illegitimate votes for Gregoire than Rossi than the margin, that have already "turned up." Really? Where are they? How many more? Where did they come from? Why has no one mentioned this before, including Rossi? And what's your point, exactly? Illegitimate votes are a fact of life for elections. They are not reason to set aside a duly completed election.

You also say there was fraud employed in counting the votes. Really? By whom? Where was this reported? Why does Rossi himself contradict this view?


Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:53 PM
92. Bostonian said:
*If* you truly believe that hundreds of illegally counted votes does not cast great suspicion on a contest with a margin of 129 ballots, you've never shown why this is a defensible view. You just ignore it and change the subject.

I've not said anything of the sort. I think they _do_ cast suspicion on the contest. But there's nothing legally that can be done about them for this completed election. Setting aside simply because there were screwups, just isn't done. Why? Because they are a part of ALL elections. Ordering another election just gives you another set of screwups to litigate, and cannot recreate the November 2 election, which is what was needed.

I keep making the same argument, because people keep saying erroneous things: there's been proven fraud, you don't need fraud or tabulated illegal votes for a particular candidate to set aside an election, suspicion is enough cause to start over, etc. Would you prefer my answers changed, instead of staying consistent?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:58 PM
93. John B., I knew there were some grownups left in the Democratic party! Thanks again for posting.

I won't disagree with anything you said, but I want to ask a question. Assuming (as we both do) that most people are essentially honest, what is in place to prevent the unscrupulous folk within a party from misbehaving? Usually the glaring light of the public eye serves that function, to some extent, right?

As a very recent ex-Democrat, I will point out to you that the Republicans have absolutely been under the microscope for the last couple of years. Is there any Republican misdeed or purported misdeed that we haven't seen in wall to wall coverage?

On the other hand, many stories that might embarrass Democratic politicians have gone unnoticed in the national press. The worse the scandal, the less is said. Sandy Berger gets caught stealing code-word secret documents from the national archive--and this makes barely a blip, to mention an example that is now re-emerging.

If a Republican had tried such tomfoolery, he'd already have been tarred and feathered.

The leniency of the press in covering failings of the Democrats has done much, IMO, to permit shenanigans as in King County. This did not come from nowhere.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 03:01 PM
94. ScottM--no one ever said it was a defense of lawbreaking. It is, however, a defense of determining whether WA '04 was an unusual case of errors and "lawbreaking." If it was not unusual, in what way does ordering a revote help? We'll simply see the same proportion of error the next time.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 03:01 PM
95. Is it just me, or do we seem to be eerily missing some of our regular posters?

:) Hope they are having fun at the Kremlin, er, the Kapitol.

Posted by SnoCo Voter at January 11, 2005 11:38 AM

I noticed this, too, SnoCo! Here's my explanation: they work at the State Capital - probably staffers for D legislators. Some of the arguments are not only repetitious and false, they are eerily twisted - post-modernism at its finest!

Posted by: Mac on January 11, 2005 03:09 PM
96. Let's prove "the same proportion of error" with a revote torridjoe. Let's have that recount. I believe the outcome will be far different than you surmise. The vote yesterday and today demonstrate how turly un-democratic or state leaders really are. The will of the people? More like the will of whose in power.

Posted by: Mike J on January 11, 2005 03:12 PM
97. Torridjoe is afraid of a revote and your'e into defending the indefensible... I don't need to answer your outdated questions - they have already been addressed go back and read this blog. I'd like to see new rules added and ENFORCED prior to any revote, so there!

I am waiting for the list of legislators who voted for going ahead with the certification - solely for 2006 election purposes. Prediction: This day proceedings by the State Legislature will probably not matter 6 months from now.

Posted by: KS on January 11, 2005 03:15 PM
98. TorridJoe,

Just who has conceded that "there was no fraud at all"? How can that possibly have been determined when there are votes with no voters, unsigned election registers, "found" ballots with no audit trail, etc. Seems to me a full scale investigation is needed before we can conclude an absence of fraud.

Posted by: Andy Eckhardt on January 11, 2005 03:16 PM
99. To TorridJoe,

Just who has conceded that "there was no fraud at all"? How can that possibly have been determined when there are votes with no voters, unsigned election registers, "found" ballots with no audit trail, etc. Seems to me a full scale investigation is needed before we can conclude an absence of fraud.

Posted by: Andy Eckhardt on January 11, 2005 03:16 PM
100. To TorridJoe,

Just who has conceded that "there was no fraud at all"? How can that possibly have been determined when there are votes with no voters, unsigned election registers, "found" ballots with no audit trail, etc. Seems to me a full scale investigation is needed before we can conclude an absence of fraud.

Posted by: Andy Eckhardt on January 11, 2005 03:16 PM
101. Mike J--why spend the money and time having another vote, when we have previous elections to compare it to? When you say the leaders are un-democratic--how so? Was the vote not actually a vote? Were some of the people voting not actually representatives of the people of Washington? On what basis can you claim the will of the people is otherwise? By virtue of internet and TV polling?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 03:17 PM
102. Candidate Rossi conceded there was no fraud--or at least he makes no challenge of the election based on intentional misconduct. So whether there was actual fraud or not, for the purposes of discussing whether there can be another vote, fraud is not at issue. In any case, none of what you cited must occur via fraud.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 03:20 PM
103. KS--outdated questions? The questions may be old, but your answer would be entirely fresh--because to date, no one I'm aware of has brought forth of any such evidence as you claim: that there are invalid votes ATTRIBUTABLE TO GREGOIRE in much greater numbers than the margin of victory. If there were, there would be no debate at all.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 03:25 PM
104. ToJo,

"Candidate Rossi conceded there was no fraud--or at least he makes no challenge of the election based on intentional misconduct. "

No, Rossi did nothing of the sort (and you know it). He said that there were "no allegations of widespread fraud..." They are not *alleging* that in their complaint; get it?

He doesn't need to prove the fraud to get the election overturned. The fraud that is now emerging only serves as icing on the cake to convince the electorate that the vote does need to be re-done.

Posted by: Ken on January 11, 2005 03:26 PM
105. Imagine this, the press got the numbers wrong. There were more like 1700 revote supporters, and 300 Labor union members opposing the revote.

I had the opportunity to observe the legislative session today. I know those on the floor saw is, everytime one person got up to leave, another entered to take their place (in the gallery). While sitting there, I thought to myself that this certification by the legislature may work for the good. The whole world will get to see her get dethroned. There is already precedent for such action to take place. Patience and perseverance my friends. As was recommended at the rally, make your cars a moving billboard for a revote.

I got to personally tell Mr. Berendt (as he was dodging another citizen's questions), "we'll see you in court."

Thanks Stefan, Brian, BIAW, etc.. we all owe you.

Posted by: Orange Robyn on January 11, 2005 03:31 PM
106. Ken--how is your statement any different from mine?
Yours: "They are not *alleging* that in their complaint."
Mine: "...he makes no challenge of the election based on intentional misconduct."

I'm glad we agree--there is no challenge to the election based on fraud, per his filing and his own comments.

And as for your contention that he doesn't need to prove fraud: Washington's code 29A 68 .070 and .110 very clearly call that contention into dispute. IN .110, illegal ballots must be shown to have been directly given to the "winner," in sufficient number to change the result. Or you may refer to .070, where misconduct must be shown to have been undertaken with the intent to elevate one candidate over another.

And "convincing the electorate" is not really what you should be focusing on. The electorate will decide nothing. This is a judicial issue; Rossi has seen to that.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 03:34 PM
107. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat" - Will Rogers

Sarah wrote:

Maybe I'm being too simple-minded on this, but there are two things that confuse me about the re-vote issue, and I'd like a Washington Democrat to help me out:

1) If you are confident that Gregoire legitimately won the election, i.e. you are certain that the majority of Washingtonians voted for her, then a re-vote should just reinforce that, no? After the re-vote makes clear that Gregoire is the choice of the majority, then she can take office with confidence.

2) However, if a well-conducted revote places Rossi in the governor's seat -- either because that's what Washingtonians wanted all along or because something during the course of this election has caused a few to change their minds -- then that represents the will of the people, no? Why would you want to thrust someone into the Governor's seat whom the majority doesn't want?

Ok, wish granted. Your friendly token Democrat will take this on.

While some of the staunchest of us (remember, no gloating, you've got 'em too) would take a victory at any price, the vast majority of us simply want this to play out in the courts. A re-vote ordered there does us much less damage, perhaps even some good. Expect to see only a token fight on this in the court.

If this gets handled in the legislature, it's a lose/lose situation for us. The extreme "party faithful" will feel betrayed and will hold back important support for the moderates that supported it, and the Republican "party faithful" will have a field day.

If this gets handled by the court, we can get behind the decision and ensure that the re-vote is carried out with extreme care, under the watchful eyes of everyone.

During this whole process, Ms. Gregoire will act very gubernatorial (see, I can spell) and force the Republicans to either work with her during the interim, or find themselves blocking important, obviously bi-partisan legislation that Mr. Rossi would have signed. The public either sees her doing a good job, or sees the Republicans obviously trying to scuttle her.

Republicans, of course, want none of this, as it could undo some of the damage that (fill in your favorite obscenity here) did to us in King County. (I'm expecting Mr. Logan to find that his health requires him to relocate. Probably a desert climate. Somewhere in the Middle East. Driving an ammo truck.)

Be assured, even without a re-vote, more damage has been done to our party than to the Republicans here. We actually have things to accomplish that we think are important to the state. If there's a re-vote, (even if Mr. Rossi wins) we can get on with them.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 03:36 PM
108. Bostonian wrote:

On the other hand, many stories that might embarrass Democratic politicians have gone unnoticed in the national press.

It might surprise you, but Democrats routinely complain that the press has gotten very right-wing in the past decade. They ignore things that Republican politicians have done.

Right now, with a Republican in the White House, you're getting somewhat more scrutiny, but rembember just a few years back? If Hillary gave Bill a dirty look, it was front-page news.

I believe that much of this comes from the fact that when "our guy" messes up, we tend to mentally excuse it as being relatively unimportant, but when the "other side" gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, it is obviously important, deserving far more than the two-minute story on the evening news.

Now, as to a solution. Yes, I agree that daylight is the best disinfectant. Unfortunately, stories about incomptetence in relatively uninteresting public officials does not sell newspapers, nor draw viewers. This mess, however, could ultimately do a lot of good, as it has caught the public eye and annoyed the officials from both parties.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 03:58 PM
109. And as for your contention that he doesn't need to prove fraud: Washington's code 29A 68 .070 and .110 very clearly call that contention into dispute. IN .110, illegal ballots must be shown to have been directly given to the "winner," in sufficient number to change the result. Or you may refer to .070, where misconduct must be shown to have been undertaken with the intent to elevate one candidate over another.

If Rossi could prove that enough votes were fraudulently cast for Gregoire to put her over the top, there would be no need for a re-vote. The election would simply be awarded to him. The standard of proof required for such action, however, would be quite high and probably impossible to meet no matter how much fraud existed.

What Rossi is seeking is to have a court find that, whether through negligence or malfeasance, the election has been damaged to the point that there's no solid evidence that either side won. This is a much lower standard of proof, and one which has already been met prima facie by the illegal votes that have been found in King County and elsewhere.

Whether the illegal votes are the result of fraud or negligence is, for many of them, probably unprovable. Nonetheless, when such actions produce anomolies which are indistinguishable from fraud, I see no reason to regard them as harmless mistakes.

If reports I've read elsewhere are accurate, Rossi actually would have had a sound basis for ordering that the third count be thrown out: King County, contrary to state law, altered an unknown but significant number (I believe documented to be well over 129) of ballots in such a manner as to make the original markings unknowable. Perhaps all the ballots where workers filled in the "Gregoire" oval already had the oval mostly filled in, but because they destroyed the evidence it's impossible to tell. A sound argument could be made that because King County destroyed the evidence needed for a procedurally-proper count, the hand count was illegitimate and the earlier count should stand.

Dino is being more than fair in his demand for a revote, given that there would be a sound basis for his demanding to be awarded the win outright.

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 03:58 PM
110. John Barelli: "Democrats routinely complain that the press has gotten very right-wing in the past decade. "

I know some of them say this, but this does not pass the laugh test.

Who do you think the press was batting for in '04, Bush or Kerry?

If the press was batting for Bush, then pray tell why did we have headline after headline about GWB's supposed failure to complete his TANG service? How many times was that top of the hour? Surely a right-wing press wouldn't want to be so embarrassing to GWB.

In contrast, why did the mainstream press NOT cover the SBVT until their book was #1 at amazon.com? You may not know this but that group came forth with their petition in MAY. The press didn't deign to mention it until late August--and the press has never accurately repeated the claims of the SBVT. If the press were right wing, they missed a huge opportunity to score there!

How many papers ran editorials demanding that Kerry sign Standard Form 180 to prove the SBVT claims false or true, and get it done with?

Moving on more important things, let's talk about the press coverage of UN's Oil for Food scandal.

The first news, in Iraq, of a memo implicating 270 businessmen & politicians came out in April last year. When did you first see Oil for Food covered in a major paper? If the press is right wing, then why have we seen so very little coverage of this Enron-sized story?

And how many editorials have you read pointing out that the UN Security Council was bought off by Saddam Hussein? How many editorials have you read demanding to know the details of the payoff scheme, how it worked, who received payola, how those events interlocked with the UN's refusal to back the US, etc.?

Believe what you like about the charges, but the story itself is red meat for Republicans. So why the quiet?

Based on all that & a lot more, I reiterate my claim that the media scrutiny has been far, far greater on the Republicans in the last couple of years.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 11, 2005 04:17 PM
111. How did we get side-tracked here?

I would like to see us get back to the questions regarding the truthfulness of Logan's statement when he blamed King County elections workers for allowing voters to take ballots without signing the book.

Can't this "so-called" mistake be tracked down by checking the precinct books and their signatures
with the actual votes recorded?

If this can be done then the precincts in question can be looked at.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 04:17 PM
112. Tojo - Based on your conclusion and on the facts that have been laid out by Stefan, there is no debate at all. Open your eyes dude and again, read this blog. Also read the response from John Barelli - he's sounds reasonable and is a Democrat.

Posted by: KS on January 11, 2005 04:18 PM
113. supercat--thanks for the response. I don't have much disagreement with it, until about the 2nd to last paragraph. You said:

"A sound argument could be made that because King County destroyed the evidence needed for a procedurally-proper count, the hand count was illegitimate and the earlier count should stand."

It might be a sound rhetorical argument, but it's not a good legal one. If I recall rightly, the judiciary has but three options: Gregoire won, Rossi won, do it over. There is no provision for invalidating an individual recount; the only way Rossi could be declared the winner is because invalid votes could be attributed to Gregoire in number sufficient to change the result. They have no power to say "that count was illegitimate in general; thus Rossi wins based on the last 'good' count." In that finding, they would necessarily set aside the election.

However, .70 is clear in saying that malconduct by election officials must be done in order to procure votes for one candidate over another. Unless Rossi can prove the enhancements were done in order to elevate Gregoire, he doesn't have standing with that angle. Finding that they did it wrong is not enough; they must find that they did it wrong in order to help someone win.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 04:20 PM
114. John Barelli-

Once again you suprise me with your clear and honest evaluation of what has happened with this fiasco of an election system.

torridjoe-

Huh?

Posted by: smegma on January 11, 2005 04:26 PM
115. RS--believe me, I've read the blog. It's full of hyperbole, insinuation-as-fact, supposition, reliance on what the litigants are saying as if they were objective arbiters, and comments that start with the firm belief that the election was stolen used to frame news, rather than the other way around.

If it's so simple to show factual evidence of illegitimate votes for Gregoire, why do you so avoid pointing out that evidence?

As for John Barelli, he doesn't appear to be addressing the issue of Rossi's legal standing, that I'm aware. Perhaps I missed it elsewhere.

And Bostonian--choosing "oil for food" was a bad choice. So far not a single document has been released buttressing the right's claims on oil-for -food. The "proof" was held by the admitted liar Chalabi, and supposedly turned over to Paul Volcker, who recently described the 'scandal' as not much of anything. Literally billions of dollars routinely named as "oil for food" money was retained by Iraq with the full knowledge and acedeance of the United States Government at the time. It was not kickbacks but pure smuggling, to which we chose to look the other way.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 04:29 PM
116. Sarah, here's couple of comments from another "Washington Democrat" about why I don't support a revote, and why I am, up to the present time, content to have Gregoire certified as governor.

1) While I applaud the work of Stefan and others on the alleged improprieties of this election, and continue to follow the writers of Sound Politics regularly, I DON'T SUPPORT A REVOTE because I have been offered no assurances and no reason to believe that any of these alleged improprieties would be FIXED by a revote.

There's just as much of a possibility that we would end up with another contested election as for Rossi or Gregoire to win outside of the margin of error.

2) Whether Republicans or Democrats like the results of this election, or the alleged improprieties, our current election law is very clear about the process, and the process was followed to the best of everyone's abilities.

If thhat law is flawed, then both Ds and Rs need to work to fix it for 2006, but I have not seen or heard any evidence to suggest that the law was deliberately flouted.

3) As Tucker pointed out above, an 1800-vote discrepancy would be well above the margin of victory in the final count, but it would still result in a 99.8% accurate count in King County.

Considering the large number of ballots (approx. 900,000) and the hundreds of people and procedures needed to run an election like this, I'm quite satisfied with that level of accuracy. Would 100% be better? Of course. Is that realistic? I'm not sure. Once again, let's see if improvements can be made in the law.

4) And, finally, I would remind the Rossi supporters that this election wasn't "stolen" from Rossi. We have no idea WHO won this election. We never will. ALL THREE COUNTS were well within the margins of error. It's just as possible that Rossi should have won the final count as Gregoire should have been the victor in the first two counts.

Furthermore, if the 700+ absentee ballots hadn't been screwed up by King Co. elections workers in the first place, necessitating a bad court case, there would never have been a m,achine recount OR a hand recount.

Posted by: Michael on January 11, 2005 04:34 PM
117. Michael--excellent points, except:

"Furthermore, if the 700+ absentee ballots hadn't been screwed up by King Co. elections workers in the first place, necessitating a bad court case, there would never have been a m,achine recount OR a hand recount."

Actually I think there would have been a mandatory hand count--isn't the threshhold 150 votes? We know for sure there would have been a machine recount. In any case, if you think Rossi wouldn't have sought recounts based on these margins, you're crazy. Who wouldn't, when it's that close?

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 04:37 PM
118. Actually, all they (the Rossi Campaign) need to prove is a process that was not legal.

Slade Gordon also references this as appropriate.

Read the following;

WAC 434-261-080 Ballot enhancement -- Optical scan systems. Ballots shall only be enhanced when such enhancement will not permanently obscure the original marks of the voters. Ballots shall be enhanced by teams of two or more people working together. When enhancing ballots, the county shall take the following steps to create and maintain an audit trail of the actions taken with respect to those enhanced ballots:

(1) Each ballot to be enhanced must be assigned a unique control number, with such number being marked on the face of the enhanced ballot;

(2) A log shall be kept of the ballots enhanced and shall include at least the following information:

(a) The control number of each ballot enhanced;

(b) The initials of at least two people who participated in enhancing each ballot; and

(c) The total number of ballots enhanced;

(3) Enhanced ballots and ballots to be enhanced shall be sealed into secure storage at all times, except when said ballots are in the process of being enhanced, are being tabulated, or are being inspected by the canvassing board.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 04:38 PM
119. Michael - Polls of samples have MOEs. Elections do not have MOEs. What do you mean by the election is within the MOE? We know that machines have an error rate of 1 in 1,000,000, or in this case about 3 votes, in other words basically zero. King County would like you to believe that being within +/- 1,800 is "pretty good" but I don't know of any sane person that would think this to be acceptable, or within your so called MOE.

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 04:40 PM
120. Everybody pay attention, this is driving me crazy. It is Slade GORTON.

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 04:41 PM
121. jaybo--that section defines what constitutes improper treatment of the ballots. 68.070 and 68.110 define under what standard they can lead to setting aside the election. At this point it doesn't qualify--the votes for Gregoire can't be speficially deducted, and the challenge does not allege intentional misconduct.

Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 04:45 PM
122. Tojoe - Its impossible to meet your standard of disqualifying/deducting specific votes from Gregoire while simultaneously maintaining ballot secrecy. A candidate should have a remedy for election workers counting known invalid votes, regardless of whether or not they were cast for him/her. Unfortunately, I can't think of another remedy besides a revote. I support Rossi 100%, but I am not a fan of doing a revote simply for the fact that it will add another weapon to the list of potential challenges to elections in close races that the Democrats seem so fond of these days. See FL 2000 and OH 2004.

Posted by: Marc on January 11, 2005 04:55 PM
123. Torridjoe,

Read carefully (especially the section that discusses illegal votes):

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.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 05:08 PM
124. Torridjoe,

Also read the following (refernce to provisional ballots). Remember that numerous provisional ballots did not go through the process outlined below.

RCW 29A.08.820
Voting by person challenged -- Burden of proof, procedures.
When the right of a person has been challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 or 29A.08.830(2), the challenged person shall be permitted to vote a ballot which shall be placed in a sealed envelope separate from other voted ballots. In precincts where voting machines are used, any person whose right to vote is challenged under RCW 29A.08.810 or 29A.08.830(2) shall be furnished a paper ballot, which shall be placed in a sealed envelope after being marked. Included with the challenged ballot shall be (1) an affidavit filed under RCW 29A.08.830 challenging the person's right to vote or (2) an affidavit signed by the precinct election officer and any third party involved in the officer's challenge and stating the reasons the voter is being challenged. The sealed ballots of challenged voters shall be transmitted at the close of the election to the canvassing board or other authority charged by law with canvassing the returns of the particular primary or election. The county auditor shall notify the challenger and the challenged voter, by certified mail, of the time and place at which the county canvassing board will meet to rule on challenged ballots. If the challenge is made by a precinct election officer under RCW 29A.08.810, the officer must appear in person before the board unless he or she has received written authorization from the canvassing board to submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. If the challenging officer has based his or her challenge upon evidence provided by a third party, that third party must appear with the challenging officer before the canvassing board, unless he or she has received written authorization from the canvassing board to submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. If the challenge is filed under RCW 29A.08.830, the challenger must either appear in person before the board or submit an affidavit supporting the challenge. The challenging party must prove to the canvassing board by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged voter's registration is improper. If the challenging party fails to meet this burden, the challenged ballot shall be accepted as valid and counted. The canvassing board shall give the challenged voter the opportunity to present testimony, either in person or by affidavit, and evidence to the canvassing board before making their determination. All challenged ballots must be determined no later than the time of canvassing for the particular primary or election. The decision of the canvassing board or other authority charged by law with canvassing the returns shall be final. Challenges of absentee ballots shall be determined according to RCW 29A.40.140.

Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 05:16 PM
125. torridjoe: Suppose, hypothetically, that King County had certified that the handcount yielded 50,000,000 votes for Gregoire and 3 votes for Rossi. Suppose, further, that it announced that it had shredded all the ballots. Would you think it proper that such a handcount be accepted, or would you think it should be thrown out. If the ballots were destroyed, what would you propose would be the correct remedy?

The actual situation is, of course, not quite that blatant. The fact remains, however, that the election officials have unlawfully destroyed ballots (filling in an oval on an already-cast ballot destroys whatever marks were or were not present on that oval previously) during the hand-count. Because of this malfeasance, it is not possible to know how the people casting those ballots actually voted.

If the proper procedures had been followed during the hand-count, it would have been possible to determine whether any misfeasance in the act of counting 'iffy' ballots generated a wrongful 130-vote swing and thus correct it. Such evidence was destroyed, however, as a result of malfeasance on the part of King County election officials.

Perhaps King County's failure to use the proper ballot-handling procedures was a result of laziness (generating and logging control numbers, having the right people initial everything, etc. is a lot more work than simply filling in a "Gregoire" oval) but I see no reason to believe that the evidence they destroyed would have vindicated their actions had they not destroyed it.

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 05:44 PM
126. Michael: 1) While I applaud the work of Stefan and others on the alleged improprieties of this election, and continue to follow the writers of Sound Politics regularly, I DON'T SUPPORT A REVOTE because I have been offered no assurances and no reason to believe that any of these alleged improprieties would be FIXED by a revote.

Let me offer three reasons to support a revote:

-1- It is likely that public sentiments will shift one way or the other between now and a revote, such that even if the same problems were to occur the outcome would not be in doubt.

-2- Many of the people who committed malfeasance and misfeasance in on the voided "election" are on notice and will be watched, and will have no excuse for committing such behavior again.

-3- It is fundamentally wrong to allow people to profit from malfeasance or even believe they have done so. It is possible that the election officials who turned a blind eye while 1,213 ballots were unlawfully cast in fact--unintentionally--allowed 1,213 illegal Rossi votes, but I'm sure they don't think that happened.

Unfortunately, punishing election officials is apt to be no easier than punishing other malfeasant state personnel. They'll simply claim they didn't realize whatever they did was so bad, and they'll be given a free pass. But if there's a revote, such excuses won't fly. Officials will realize that improper activity could mean prison. And that should encourage them pretty well to avoid such things.

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 06:01 PM
127. Marc wrote:

I support Rossi 100%, but I am not a fan of doing a revote simply for the fact that it will add another weapon to the list of potential challenges to elections in close races that the Democrats seem so fond of these days. See FL 2000 and OH 2004.

Hmmm. Maybe we can all get behind some truly party-neutral reforms that will prevent this from happening again? Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will look at the race here, along with FL 2000 and OH 2004 and make sure that in future elections everything is not only honest and above-board but that there isn't even an appearance of impropriety.

Then again, maybe pigs will fly. Still, I can hope, can't I?

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 06:21 PM
128. torridjoe wrote:

"As for John Barelli, he doesn't appear to be addressing the issue of Rossi's legal standing, that I'm aware. Perhaps I missed it elsewhere."

He has legal standing as a citizen of the state of Washington. He has petitioned the court for relief, in a situation where it can be argued that he was wronged. Beyond that, it is up to the court to decide, subject to review by the Supreme Court of Washington. (Sorry, I had thought that was self-evident.)

I can certainly understand a belief that the court should reject the petition. I'll be surprised if that happens, or if the party puts up much of a fight as, for reasons I've mentioned earlier, I think that a court-ordered re-vote is probably the best thing that could happen to us.

Without that, it can be assumed that the Republicans will use every legal tactic to remove Ms. Gregoire from office. Somewhere, someone in the Governor's administration will make some small error, which will be pounced on to get a judge to go along with a recall. (Ok, R's on this board. Tell me it ain't so.) We'll be dealing with this mess for years to come. There's even a pretty good chance they'd pull it off.

Contrast that to a re-vote, sometime around May (we have to have time to print and distribute the absentee ballots overseas, after all.)

We get several months of Ms. Gregoire as Governor, pressing for action on important bi-partisan issues, and being the very model of what most Washintonians want in a Governor. I doubt that at least some Republicans will be able to resist the temptation to try and stonewall her at every turn, so they get to look bad.

Frankly, I think the election would be ours to lose. We could manage to, as our track record for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is pretty good, but I'd like to hope that our party leaders aren't idiots.

If we win, then any attempt at a recall looks like what it would be. Sour grapes. A non-starter. We could put this mess behind us, other than making sure it could never happen again.

Even if we did manage to lose, enough public opinion would be on our side that Mr. Rossi would always be carefully watched. If at that point, he ends up being a statesmanlike Governor, working with all sides for the people of Washington, well, great!

After all, what most of us (D and R) want is a good Governor. I'd rather it be a Democrat, and Republicans would rather it be a Republican. But most importantly, I want a good, honest, functional Governor.

Against a re-vote? Heck, no. I'm all for it.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 07:07 PM
129. Marc--it's not impossible; it was done in 1975, in the case cited in Rossi's contest petition. The appellant was able to cite specific ballots fraudulently altered to change the vote.

Jaybo--not sure what your point is reprinting the code. I have read them, several times. You've reprinted the standards for CONTESTING an election, not for having it set aside. Those standards appear in .070, .080, and .110.

Supercat--obviously, once the vote is certified, without fraud the vote stands in your example. It doesn't matter if they're shredded; they were already counted and included. I don't disagree with the rest of your description, but it doesn't change state law: it's not enough just to show messed up votes.

John Barelli--I didn't mean his standing to file; sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant his standing to receive a set aside election. I haven't seen you comment on whether the law allows it. As for what makes the best sense for the political future, I have to say I find that entirely irrelevant and a little partisan. What's good for the Dems or Republicans matters not a whit--it's what the law will allow. And there's very little room for the law to allow a re-vote, not to mention very little to be gained in terms of resolving the election. It doesn't resolve it, it ignores it--which is entirely the wrong thing to do.


Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 07:21 PM
130. ...Revote...
"...Without that, it can be assumed that the Republicans will use every legal tactic to remove Ms. Gregoire from office. Somewhere, someone in the Governor's administration will make some small error, which will be pounced on to get a judge to go along with a recall. (Ok, R's on this board. Tell me it ain't so.) We'll be dealing with this mess for years to come. There's even a pretty good chance they'd pull it off."
John Barelli

John, I don't think a recall would work for a small error, even after this election mess.

But a substantial (not the legal term) error would probably cause some demands for recall.

Posted by: JG on January 11, 2005 07:49 PM
131. torridjoe wrote:

As for what makes the best sense for the political future, I have to say I find that entirely irrelevant and a little partisan.

This board does tend to bring out the partisan in me. Still, partisan issues are at the heart of people's perception of what is going on here. (Please note - I wrote that very carefully.) I think that openly admitting our partisan leaning may well be the first step in figuring out exactly where the "middle ground" is.

And there's very little room for the law to allow a re-vote, not to mention very little to be gained in terms of resolving the election. It doesn't resolve it, it ignores it--which is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Well, some presumably competent lawyers seem to think that there is that room, so I'll be happy to leave the questions of law to the court.

As to ignoring the problem. My whole press is to try to get both Republicans and Democrats to understand that we both win if we come together to clean up the system. Everyone talks reform, but incumbents have no real incentive to act.

This has been such a disaster that at least some reforms will have to be enacted, and many of those reforms are things that Democrats have been asking for. Things like:

Traceable and tamper-resistant paper ballots. (None of those "paperless" systems.)

Voting machines and procedures that are consistent statewide (and hopefully nationwide.)

Others are some pretty reasonable (at least on their surface) things the Republicans want. For example:

Voters being required to show some form of ID. This could be abused, but if we're careful and insist on being part of the reform process, that could be avoided.

Careful review of registrations to remove ineligible voters. (We Democrats would like this too, provided it is done carefully, making sure that ONLY those actually ineligible were removed, and then notified so that errors could be corrected.)

So, in essence, I think this could end up being a blessing in disguise for both parties and, more importantly, for the people of Washington. I just wish it weren't so well-disguised.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 11, 2005 07:56 PM
132. A response of my letter for not certifying the election from Bob Hasegawa- D Rep. District 11.
As you can see, he is hitting the typical Democrat talking points and does not address the court case. I did not vote for him, nor would I after hearing his partisan response. It is important to get on with the business of the State, but in a free democracy and not a quasi-tyranny of this hopefully temporary regime.

Thank you for writing about the recent events in our governor's race. After the November 2 election and two recounts, the election results have been certified by the Secretary of State.

I understand your frustration and I will look at election reform proposals during the upcoming session to make sure the law is very clear
and consistent. However, a "re-vote" is not included in our state's Constitution. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and to support
a new election would dishonor that oath.

Moreover, a "re-vote" does not fit within our democratic system of elections, as it requires people to vote again for the same candidates.
A new election would include new voters and would leave out voters who have moved or passed away. That would simply not be fair.

State law calls for two legal recounts of an election, and a challenge to an election. A re-vote is not part of state law. A fly-by-night
election system is a danger to democracy. Our Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed doesn't support the idea, and I agree with him.

Many of the allegations in the media are baseless, with no proof of fraud. All 39 county auditors, Republican and Democrat, have stated
there was no fraud in this election, and they are the people who know elections best.

If you have ideas for election reform or other thoughts on improving our state, please contact me with them. I will be looking to input from
citizens like you as I make important decisions in the upcoming session. Thank you again for caring enough about our state to take the time and
contact me.

Best regards,
Rep. Bob Hasegawa
House of Representatives
District 11

In response to where & how the contesting of the election will end up. Ultimately it will likely end up in Federal Court, because I don't believe that the State Supreme Court will want to contradict their earlier decision, hence will show their prevailing partisan stripes and not rule for a revote, so get ready to take it out of state.. KEEP ON FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE !

Posted by: KS on January 11, 2005 08:09 PM
133. torridjoe: Supercat--obviously, once the vote is certified, without fraud the vote stands in your example. It doesn't matter if they're shredded; they were already counted and included.

So you are agreeing that even if King County were to certify a vote count that was obviously laden with fraud and shred the ballots, the fact that they certified such a count should preclude any challenge to it?

Posted by: supercat on January 11, 2005 08:18 PM
134. We, here in Ohio are watching this very carefully.
Pulling for you to get the revote...
I love Seattle, have been coming to that beautiful city for 45 years...but I have to grit my teeth when politics raises it's head with my long time liberal friends(where, or where...did I go wrong?)!!!!!!
Good luck and keep the faith...it'll happen!!!

Posted by: Xango Annie on January 11, 2005 09:09 PM
135. Revotelutionary's keep the faith. Tweenty years ago Texas was hoplessly democratic, look at us now. Viva la Rossi!

Posted by: texmex on January 12, 2005 05:47 AM
136. I remember a week or so ago it was brought to everyones attention that the past two elections we had more voters listed as voting thatn votes.
THis election has more votes than voters. If historically looking at the numbers we could have well over 4000 votes. THey just took the people who may have signed the registry but never got around to submitting their vote. I just cant believe that you can instantly go from a minus of votes to a positive number of votes versus voters. It may be true but I find it very hard to believe. Just something to think about.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on January 12, 2005 06:37 AM
137. Torridjoe,

Within the catagory of illegal votes will be all of the dead voters, double voters, and provisional voters that were deemed "illegal" until the process outlined in the RCW was followed.

Remember, hundreds of provisional votes were entered into machines without verification.

Posted by: jaybo on January 12, 2005 06:45 AM
138. NPR's 'Morning Edition' once again earned their taxpayer-funded reputation as PR flack for the Democrats with a gush-job profile of Christine Yanukovych that glossed over the recount (emphazing that it was the final recount allowed by law, no mention of magical mystery ballots, or the excess of voters in King County), went into detail about CGY's role in the toobacco settlement, let her gush emotively about her childhood and her struggle with breast cancer, and dismissed Dino Rossi as a "friendly face" with no substantive policy proposals.

Well done, NPR, your masters are well-pleased.

Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on January 12, 2005 07:46 AM
139. I've figured out that the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Republicans are much more determined to win at any cost.

Haahahaha......well, at the very least, my monitor needed cleaning anyway..

Posted by: Bashir Gemayel on January 12, 2005 08:17 AM
140. This ongoing accident-in-slow-motion only goes to just how unserious many are about the mechanics of the electoral process.
Besides the unprofessionalism of the King County Election Director Dean Logan and his motley crew, we have a system that treats registration as a joke (just how many are checked to see if they are citizens or residents).
The definition of resident allows folks, who live in New York 10 months out of the year, to register to vote in Florida and New York (reported by NYT). In fact, it is possible to legally register in more than two states. I bet no one would stop you from voting in all those states on the same day, especially since the absentee ballot system has been loosened up.
The status of U.S. citizen has now be so degraded that it now means that you won't get hassled by the immigration folks, and nothing more. Non-citizens have virtually every right as citizens, but they do get hassled by immigration. Meanwhile citizens get hassled more often by the IRS.

Posted by: Neo on January 12, 2005 08:45 AM
141. Thanks to the Demos who kindly addressed my questions.

Michael wrote:

We have no idea WHO won this election. We never will. ALL THREE COUNTS were well within the margins of error. It's just as possible that Rossi should have won the final count as Gregoire should have been the victor in the first two counts.

So, why wasn't the first count good enough? Why not the first RE-count? Why not go with best two out of three? If you have no idea who won the election, and all the counts were "well within the margins of error" (others have addressed the MOE issue), then what is the basis for choosing the third re-count as the one establishing who gets the governorship?

I appreciate your responses to my questions, but #4 not only reinforces my perception of the "count until we win" attitude, it strongly underscores the NECESSITY of a re-vote.

Posted by: Sarah on January 12, 2005 09:39 AM
142. Sarah asked:

So, why wasn't the first count good enough? Why not the first RE-count? Why not go with best two out of three? If you have no idea who won the election, and all the counts were "well within the margins of error" (others have addressed the MOE issue), then what is the basis for choosing the third re-count as the one establishing who gets the governorship?

Because Washington election law provides for the recounts. The first one was automatic, due to the narrow margin.

The second (hand) recount is allowed in Washington if it is requested by either side (although why the winner of an election would do so escapes me,) provided that the requesting side post a deposit to pay for the cost if the recount does not change the outcome. The results of the last recount is final, and no further recounts are authorized by Washington law. (Otherwise we'd be doing this until the next general election.)

So, the short answer to your question is: that's how the law was written. Frankly, I doubt if anyone ever considered this situation except perhaps over beers as a "what if" mental exercise.

Posted by: John Barelli on January 12, 2005 12:07 PM
143. Early in the 1st. recount Jon Carlson had a Poll worker on who was describing his experiences in working the poll.
He said they were handed a stack of ballots about 1100 was his guess and then another stack of 100 or so ballots and then they were told to mix then in with the regular ballots. When he asked the eletcions offical what they were he provisional ballots.My Question is this Why would an Election Offical ask them to mix the ballots in? To make it impossiable to pull all Provisional ballots out? To hide them with good ballots? Or to make for an honest and fair election.

Posted by: Vern on January 12, 2005 01:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?