The Olympian reports today that "Petition filed calling for recall of Reed". The people who filed the initiative are quoted as saying:
those involved as partners include soundpolitics. com, the political blog responsible for publicizing many suspected flaws in the election.Oy. The petitioners, in their exuberance, didn't have permission to go around telling reporters that Sound Politics was a "partner" in their effort
But Stefan Sharkansky, a lead figure with soundpolitics.com, said in an interview that neither he nor the Web site are involved in the recall campaign.My disappointment with Sam Reed is less over the specific disputed ballots mentioned in the article, than over the fact that he seems to be more interested in covering the rear ends of his office and the county elections officials than he is in acknowledging and fixing the massive meltdown of the elections system he's responsible for. Yes, I would prefer a different secretary of state. But the issues regarding a recall:Sharkansky said he does think there is tremendous frustration with Reed, a moderate Republican who opposed efforts by Rossi and the GOP to block the counting of more than 500 disputed ballots in King County.
"A very large number of people around the state feel this election was a botched election, despite the fact Sam Reed and other county officials said it wasn't," Sharkansky said. "It wouldn't surprise me at this point that there are people who would prefer to see a different secretary of state at this point."
1) My own limited time and attention is currently focused on the election contest and the (likely, I believe) subsequent revote campaign.
2) Is a recall of Sam Reed the highest priority use of limited time and resources during the gubernatorial contest?
3) Is a recall of Sam Reed the highest priority use of limited time and resources after the governorship is settled, or are there other higher priority issues, such as a ballot initiative for sweeping election reform that would work around Sam Reed?
4) Of course, it's possible for multiple campaigns to be going on simultaneously. It's a matter of which small number of campaigns I would personally choose to focus my time and attention on, even if I endorsed other campaigns.
5) If a recall of Sam Reed is an appropriate next step, what is the optimal timing for this process?
6) Do the specific recall petition and the people promoting that petition have the right ingredients for success?
These are honest, open questions. I haven't made up my mind yet. Stay tuned.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 13, 2005 12:16 PM | Email ThisWe'll see how it plays out, but I'm not signing it.
Posted by: megs on January 13, 2005 12:23 PMIf it's no big deal to Dean Logan that these things happen in every election, it should be good enough for a recall petition too.
Posted by: ecurbh on January 13, 2005 12:23 PMStay focused, people!
Posted by: Michele on January 13, 2005 12:28 PMThe other thing: be careful what ya wish for. The cure may be worse than the malady. We could do worse than Sam.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 13, 2005 12:29 PMWe ought to start thinking about what to do if the challenge is thrown out (let's not kid around - it probably will be).
A better use of resources is targeting vulnerable dem legislators east of the Cascades. These are people in red districts that are tired of the same carp from Olympia. Time to send more [R]'s to work with Christine.
Posted by: Steve on January 13, 2005 12:35 PMLooks like the Secretary of State really blew it on certifying the
recount. By law he cannot certify the recount unless he receives a
county's certified copy of the abstract of the voters containing
specific information. 24 out of the 39 counties failed to provided
the
required information. BUT Sam CERTIFIED THE RECOUNT IN VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW! WHAT NEXT?
1. WAC 434-262-090 states, "no county's certified copy of the
abstract
of votes shall be considered complete for acceptance by the secretary
of
state until all of the material required by statute or regulation has
been received by the Secretary of State." 24 out of the 39 counties
did
not provide all of the material required!!! Yet the Secretary of
State
certified the recount.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/WAC/index.cfm?section=434-262-090&fuseaction=section
2.WAC 434-262-100 states, that the Secretary of State needs to wait
until he gets "a complete certified copy"...before he shall use that
counties canvass in the official canvass!
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=434-262-100
Looks like Sam, missed a lot of counties. His office either gave me
incomplete information or his staff failed to check the records vs.
the
law.
On January 5, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a public records
request for a copy of each county's certified abstract of the recount
in
accordance with WAC 434-262-080. Today we got the documents in
response
to our request. We were supposed to receive this material on Friday
but
were told that an attorney had to review it; yesterday we got the same
excuse; today we were told there was a meeting with the Attorneys at
3pm
and then we could probably get it. Looks to me that they didn't want
me
to see this prior to the Legislature certifying the election.
However, we noticed some serious discrepancies.
1. Clark County - There is no sworn affidavit and they did not provide
the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total
of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
2. Garfield County -There is no sworn affidavit and they did not
provide
the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total
of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
3. King County -There is no sworn affidavit and they did not provide
the
total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total of
inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes
cast.
The following returns did not contain the county seal as required by
WAC
434-262-080.
1. Adams
2. Asotin
3. Benton
4. Chelan
5. Columbia
6. Douglas
7. Grant
8. Grays Harbor
9.Island
10. Kittitas
11. Klickitat
12. Lewis
13. Mason
14. Okanogan
15. Pacific
16. Pend Oreille
17. Skagit
18. Snohomish
19. Wahkiakum
20.Walla Walla
21. Whitman
Bob
"...Because Freedom Matters"
Bob Williams, President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
PO Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482 F:(360) 352-1874
effwa@effwa.org www.effwa.org ;
Bloggers like the Shark and others not aligned with the MSM will in the future both play a watch dog role and incentivize the likes of Reed to play a more effective role or get the publicity he justly deserves. Let's save the powder for targets that makes real change possible.
Posted by: Gary B on January 13, 2005 12:52 PMFraudoire's friends (or Emily's List) is going to court to block an FEC regulation which would keep it from operating on the national level:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/campaign.finance.ap/index.html
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 13, 2005 01:01 PMAnd, if the revote either happens or does not, then we can focus on Reed. At very least, the elections process and it's leader need a massive overhaul, but first things first, let's not let a seriously flawed election determine the Governor.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 13, 2005 01:15 PM#10)His business is still open in King County.
#9) He sent off his B and O taxes yesterday.
#8) He is still hauling food into Seattle for its
Princes.
#7) He kept his lights on during Dark Tuesday.
#6) He is not blockading Seattle city haul with
his horse carrier.
#5) His kids are still going to government
schools.
#4) He is planning on paying his property taxes
this Spring.
#3) He will be driving his car on FueldownFriday.
#2) He still refers to the socia1ist rags and
socia1ist broadcasters as the mainstream
media.
And the number one sign Issachar doesn't mind being a slave?
He still owns a television.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:32 PM#10)His business is still open in King County.
#9) He sent off his B and O taxes yesterday.
#8) He is still hauling food into Seattle for its
Princes.
#7) He kept his lights on during Dark Tuesday.
#6) He is not blockading Seattle city haul with
his horse carrier.
#5) His kids are still going to government
schools.
#4) He is planning on paying his property taxes
this Spring.
#3) He will be driving his car on FueldownFriday.
#2) He still refers to the socia1ist rags and
socia1ist broadcasters as the mainstream
media.
And the number one sign Issachar doesn't mind being a slave?
He still owns a television.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:32 PMPage hits to Sound Politics are down by a third since the innaguration.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:33 PM(As for Issachar, all I can say is quote Manuel of Fawlty Towers— ¿Qué?)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on January 13, 2005 01:48 PMVery fool-hardy actions! Can't people keep a level head about these things and still get things done.
Which makes me want to thank you Shark for the job you are doing here.
Posted by: Mark on January 13, 2005 01:51 PMLater maybe.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 01:52 PMGun and ammunition sales in Washington remain flat.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:57 PMClick my name.
Posted by: Jericho on January 13, 2005 01:58 PMA guy who stands above the partisan wars is targeted by the partisans.
Shame. Shame.
Posted by: Tom on January 13, 2005 02:00 PMThere always will be some incompetence and fraud in elections. And, there always will have to be interpretations made of intent. Live with it.
The lesson, I think, is that when, after the best vote-count effort is made, the result is still extremely close, there should be no winner declared. It should be called a tie, with the remedy being a (runoff) re-vote or a coin flip. [If there had been a top-two-runoff revote in Florida in 2000, Al Gore probably would have been president, of course.]
I haven't decided, though, whether we need a constitutional amendment to require a revote or whether we just muddle through in the courts, as we are doing now.
Posted by: lwolv on January 13, 2005 02:01 PMConsider the source...the Daily "O" (as in zero). We are forgetting we have some real power already...WE HAVE A NEW AG! Gregoire has already been dethroned once. If we apply heat to Reed (who is already political dead meat) we may end up with a new Sec of State... Logan anyone? You can be sure it's payback time for all those who helped the Queen co-opt the throne.
Our biggest pitfalls right now are getting distracted and becoming apathetic. Don't let them set the agenda by distracting us with Reed!
Posted by: Victor on January 13, 2005 02:02 PMI doubt putting your energy into a recall action against Reed is worth while. I don't think there is anywhere near enough negative emotional opinion in the State to successfully generate a majority vote for his recall. Bottom line is that is what is necessary to take him from office regardless of whether or not he is guilty of any misfeasance or malfeasance.
My opinion is based on at least a little bit of front line experience. Many moons ago I was community leader in Pasco of a successful recall of all the members of a sitting scool board. I was advised early on that there was only a 1% chance of getting just one member recalled. Not knowing any better, being willing to do sort of what you are doing in the Governor's race, along with the help of a bunch of mad housewives willing to get behind the leadership of an insurance salesman who gave up working his business for several months, we were successful... despite the efforts of a local muck raker reporter from the TriCity Herald to undermine the efort. We didn't have an internet for communication then, but I did have one friendly reparter that the TC Herald that was willing to accurately report the news releases that I made daily over the period.
Just keep doing what you are doing... which is great. The momentum should continue if you and the others at Sound Politics keep stirring the boiling pot and adding fuel to the fire.
My very best wishes.
cmohr
Posted by: ctmohr on January 13, 2005 02:16 PMIf presidential elections were decided by a top-two-runoff or a coin flip we really have no clue what would have happened in 2000 because there were other states that were almost as close that Gore won, but Bush conceeded without fighting. NM, IA, and WI were all within .3% but went to Gore without a challenge. Bush won NM and IA in 2004.
I think that in Federal elections states should split their electoral vote in cases where the % is
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 13, 2005 02:25 PMBut, hey, maybe someone other than Stefan can put energies into it. Stefan's got enough to do. And there are plenty of energetic and intelligent people in Washington State who can work on it, right?
Perhaps Stefan can post updates on the recall progress like he has been doing for the revote efforts. The recall website should only be "one click away". Why not zero in on these election problems from all different directions? The liberal Democrats won’t know what hit them!
Anyway, I am ready to sign the petition. Where is it?
Posted by: TADD on January 13, 2005 02:28 PMFor the most part, Reed followed unquestioned interpretations of the law. In some cases, the interpretations are honestly debatable. I do not see any clear violations of the law by Reed.
Yes, I think he could have done a better job. And no, I don't think he is the most qualified person for the job. But this is no basis for a recall in Washington -- you basically have to prove a clear violation of law. And it is almost impossible to recall anyone.
And if it somehow did work, Gregoire will get to appoint the replacement. I say Gregoire, since I doubt that the recall effort will proceed if Rossi wins the election contest lawsuit and becomes Governor.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 13, 2005 03:07 PMand please don't say laura rudderman the chick behind those horrible commercials.
Posted by: chardonnay on January 13, 2005 03:56 PM"For the most part, Reed followed unquestioned interpretations of the law. In some cases, the interpretations are honestly debatable. I do not see any clear violations of the law by Reed."
Richard,
You are very versed in election law. Does the SOS have the authority to wave the supporting documentation to accept a county's vote totals?
After Reed certified and the problems of the mismatch of voters to votes came out a representative from his office said that if they had know about the problems they would have looked into it before certifying, but the law as written seems to require the counties to report exactly the information that would have alerted the SOS's office to these problems.
It might have caused a crisis if Reed had refused to certify until King County (and the other two counties) provided the data, but that would have prevented someone from being sworn in that more than 50% of the state don't think won the election (since King County still can't produce the data that the state law requires for certification).
Additionally, it appears, if what the post above indicates is true, that the SOS's office deliberately held this information about the questionable certification until after the inauguration to prevent it from impacting on the legislative actions pending. That is questionable behavior if all is on the up and up as you seem to believe.
Tactically, I see many reasons not to pursue a recall right now, but, if this kind of conduct in such a critical time for the state dose not justify a recall, then what does?
Posted by: Ranger on January 13, 2005 04:20 PM***
Recalling him, though, is a waste of effort. Save it for later.
According to the BIAW - Reed refused to release the list to them on the grounds that he was not allowed to divulge birthdate information....
This seriously slowed the BIAW's investigation of felon's voting.
HOWEVER...........
Reed gave the list (with the birthdates included) to the media! No problemo!
So much for fair reporting practice!
I think we have a problem here with regard to Mr. Reed......
Posted by: Deborah on January 13, 2005 04:24 PMIn certifying the funny numbers, Sam Reed showed the same kind of integrity as Andrew Fastow of Enron.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 04:52 PMWords lose meaning, don't they?
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 04:55 PMThe law unfortunately does not require that the number of voters be reconciled with the number of ballots in order to certify an election. Counties have to do a reconciliation at some point under the law, but don't have to before they certify. And the law does not specify for anything to happen if the numbers don't match.
On the other hand, an imbalance between voters and ballots, or other violations (such as unchecked provisional ballots) seem to be a good basis for an election contest lawsuit. But there is no law that Reed clearly violated, and there doesn't seem to have been any legal ability for Reed not to certify the results provided by the counties.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 13, 2005 05:33 PMWAC 434-262-090 Receipt of certified copy of auditor's abstract of votes by secretary of state. The secretary of state shall ensure that all material required to be submitted pursuant to state law and these regulations has been included in the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes transmitted to his or her office. In the event the secretary of state determines that the certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes is incomplete, he or she shall notify the county auditor of that fact and shall request that the missing part of the abstract be forwarded immediately. No county's certified copy of the abstract of votes shall be considered as complete for acceptance by the secretary of state until all of the material required by statute and regulation has been received by the secretary of state. In the event the certified copy of the official abstract is illegible or in improper form, the secretary of state shall return that abstract and require an immediate resubmission of the abstract in proper or legible form.
The key part in this case being:
No county's certified copy of the abstract of votes shall be considered as complete for acceptance by the secretary of state until all of the material required by statute and regulation has been received by the secretary of state.
Next:
WAC 434-262-100 Canvass of returns by the secretary of state -- Powers and duties. Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office. This shall be done by adding the certified returns from each completed county abstract of votes in order to determine the final results for those offices and issues he or she is required by law to certify. The secretary of state shall accept the certified copy of the official abstract of votes from each county as being full, true, and correct in all respects. The secretary of state may include in the official canvass, a narrative which details or describes any apparent discrepancies discovered during the canvassing procedure, and may notify the county or counties involved of such discrepancies.
The important part for this issue being:
Upon receipt of a complete certified copy of the auditor's abstract of votes from a county auditor, the secretary of state shall proceed to include the results from that abstract in the official canvass of the primary, special, or general election prepared by that office.
If three counties failed to provide all the required information, then their abstracts were not "complete" and the law clearly states that the SOS can only add their votes to the total once the abstracts are complete. Now, it also clearly states that the SOS must report the numbers reported by the counties without challenge, but he is not required to include any county votes reported until the abstract is "complete".
The open question is, what constitutes a complete abstract. These two paragraphs don't say. But if 36 counties provided:
sworn affidavit;
total number of active registered voters in all precincts;
total of inactive;
total number of all registered voters;
the total votes cast.
and three counties did not, then it seems there is an issue with the certification by the SOS's office. Now, it is possible that 36 counties reported this information above and beyond the legal requirements, but that strikes me as improbable.
Posted by: Ranger on January 13, 2005 06:26 PM
No...it appears that good old Sam once again didn't stand up and work for the election laws of this State.......
Posted by: Deborah on January 13, 2005 06:58 PMGood intentions. Bad approach.
Posted by: TB on January 13, 2005 07:05 PMWhat is the possibility that Cruella DeGregoire is the one who is dangling Reed in front of us, because she hopes that enough angry people will spend themselves going after him instead of her?
She has proven herself to be mean, hack-minded and low enough to do it.
AND*** What if this whole story about going after Reed is just a red herring planted by the Demo-cracks?
Ignore Reed. He is but a small fish. We are after a much bigger trophy.
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 13, 2005 08:12 PMNeither of those two WAC sections require county auditors to count the number of actual voters as part of the certification process.
There are separate RCW's and WAC's that require county auditors to keep a record of which elections people have voted in. But nothing requires there to be a reconciliation of these numbers (or even an attempt at it) before certification.
Yes, the law should be changed. Yes, Sam Reed should be asking the legislature for changing the law. Yes, Sam Reed isn't asking for that particular change.
But there is no clear violation of the law that would allow a recall. And any recall effort simply distracts attention from the real dispute and battle.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 13, 2005 08:42 PMEnough with the Sam Reed thing. Just let it die a quick, quiet death. STAY FOCUSED.
Hmmm, looks like we have a new Michele in here with one "L" also, so I'm now Michele S
Posted by: Michele S on January 13, 2005 09:35 PM"... any recall effort simply distracts attention from the real dispute and battle."
Roger that. Remember that if the Supremes order a ReVote, we will immediately face an all-out political battle to WIN the ReVote. While IMO Dino has an excellent chance of coming out on top, don't even think of taking that for granted. We will need to marshal all resources and energy for that effort. Quoting Michele S:
STAY FOCUSED.
Methow Ken
Posted by: Methow Ken on January 13, 2005 10:08 PMWhile I can not easily tell you all the legalities of what Reed did or not do, I can say that IMO he acted like a pussy footed meely mouth deer in the headlights type of guy.....not the best way to command confidence...
Sam Reed is the EXACT reason why I don't give directly to the political parties....they carry too many of these wishy-washy types that seem to be loyal to both parties and not loyal to what is right and proper.....
Reed is the darling of the left, let him have them....but let's stop pretending that he is a Republican or a conservative....he is neither....
Posted by: lee on January 13, 2005 11:35 PMhttp://www.effwa.org/highlighters/v15_n2.php
Damn, it's hard enough dealing with the fraudulent Dems without the added burden of the incompetent (complicit?) actions of some RINO's.
Posted by: BOrange on January 13, 2005 11:44 PMI don't necessarily agree with the recall. I do think that Reed needs to answer for his utter failure to ensure state law was adhered to throughout the process. I'm not sure that he could satisfactorily restore his credibility with me to vote for him again...
Posted by: BOrange on January 13, 2005 11:50 PMQuite an interesting Freudian slip, there!
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 01:50 PMThe post I referred to stated, "Officials can only be recalled after they've been found guilty in court of 'malfeasance or misfeasance.'" If you could only recall an officeholder after he or she were "found guilty in court" (i.e., convicted), then only post-conviction recalls would be permitted. That is not the case. An officeholder can be impeached for malfeasance or misfeasance even in the absence of a conviction in court.
Posted by: El Blogero on January 14, 2005 03:48 PMYour disappointment with Sam Reed is mine as well.
I have refrained to comment to date, but it is a disservice not to, given the state of affairs.
Concerning your concerns.
You said: 1) My own limited time and attention is currently focused on the election contest and the (likely, I believe) subsequent revote campaign.
Comment: Agreed. You are working around the clock on the cause which I agree with as stated.
You said: 2) Is a recall of Sam Reed the highest priority use of limited time and resources during the gubernatorial contest?
Comment: No, it is not the highest priority, yet this whole mess would NEVER have progressed this far if Sam Reed would not have certified as he did. None of the soundpolitics readers and posters disagree. The ballots are what is at the root of the problem.
You said: 3) Is a recall of Sam Reed the highest priority use of limited time and resources after the governorship is settled, or are there other higher priority issues, such as a ballot initiative for sweeping election reform that would work around Sam Reed?
Comment: Damn good question. Who knows. I would say not highest priority, but a priority never the less. What resources? We are talking virtual drive. We are talking 1 minute to register YES, we don’t need certifications like this. Reform is needed, but before reform will mean anything to “the people” we need a revote.
You said: 4) Of course, it's possible for multiple campaigns to be going on simultaneously. It's a matter of which small number of campaigns I would personally choose to focus my time and attention on, even if I endorsed other campaigns.
Comment: This is not about me, or anyone person. The election should not have been certified as it was pregnant with too many irregularities.
You said: 5) If a recall of Sam Reed is an appropriate next step, what is the optimal timing for this process?
Comment: Now. If not, when?
You said: 6) Do the specific recall petition and the people promoting that petition have the right ingredients for success?
Comment: If not, let anyone step up to the plate: they can have it.
Posted by: martin ringh on January 16, 2005 01:04 AM