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------
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 :-)
"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?
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 AMWhen 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 AMhttp://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 AMBecause 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 AMI 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?
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 AMThat'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 AMCalm 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.
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 AMWhat 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 AMyou certainly got the "Fixed" part right!
Posted by: furrier on January 11, 2005 10:56 AMHe 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.
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 AMEVERY 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 AMWhen is the Washington election system no longer broken? When it's been fixed.
Posted by: Rex on January 11, 2005 11:03 AMWith 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 AMAll 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 AMAnybody have any other explanations for how this could happen?
Posted by: jaybo on January 11, 2005 11:13 AMThere 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 AMBriefly, 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:) Hope they are having fun at the Kremlin, er, the Kapitol.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 11, 2005 11:38 AMMy 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. "
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"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(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 AMI 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 PMhttp://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 PMIn 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 PMTruth 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 PMWhen 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 PMLiar.
Ever stop and think that if you have to lie, you're probably wrong?
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 PMThere 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 PMOh yes, and strenuous effort to fix the NEXT election.
Posted by: RLG on January 11, 2005 12:35 PMIn 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 PMUnfortunately, 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 PMThis 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"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 PMLike I said in my first post, it's been fun...Good luck.
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 PM1. 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 PM1) 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 PMYou 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 PMSincerely,
Dean Logan's Old Creative Math Teacher
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 PMDean 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".
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.
I confess I don't know what is meant by "the margin of lawbreaking."
Posted by: torridjoe on January 11, 2005 02:28 PMI 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*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 PMMarc 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 PMYour 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 PMMargin 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"But we always break the law!" is not a defense against charges of lawbreaking.
Posted by: ScottM on January 11, 2005 02:52 PMYou also say there was fraud employed in counting the votes. Really? By whom? Where was this reported? Why does Rossi himself contradict this view?
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 PMI 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:) 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 PMI 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 PMJust 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.
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.
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.
"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 PMI 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 PMI'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 PMSarah 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 PMOn 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 PMIf 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 PMI 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 PMI 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"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 PMOnce 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 PMIf 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 PM1) 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"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?
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 PMRead 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.
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.
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 PMLet 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 PMI 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?
"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.
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.
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 PMAs 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 PMThank 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 !
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 PMWithin 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 AMWell done, NPR, your masters are well-pleased.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on January 12, 2005 07:46 AMHaahahaha......well, at the very least, my monitor needed cleaning anyway..
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 AMSo, 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