Various county auditors, including Snohomish Auditor Bob Terwilliger, have filed papers to dismiss the Rossi election challenge.
Here's my speculation on the underlying motivations --
1) Some of these auditors, like Terwilliger, are Democrats and simply want Gregoire's "victory" to go unchallenged.
2) A new election would come out of the auditors' budgets.
3) Most importantly, I imagine, the litigation would shine light on the various errors, irregularities and inadequacies in the auditors' operations. I suspect some of these auditors would be embarrassed out of their jobs if it were shown how sloppily they ran their departments.
For example, Snohomish County has never been able to produce a correct list of the voters who actually voted on Nov. 2. The Snohomish Elections office acknowledged to me in a recent e-mail that they counted 282 more ballots than voters (158 mystery provisionals, and 124 mystery absentee ballots). Depending on what lies behind these summary numbers, the true discrepancy could even be larger. I'm waiting on answers to some follow-up questions.
Elections director Carolyn Diepenbrock now claims in a court filing arguing against expedited discovery that she has never adequately investigated the source of these discrepancies:
Interrogatory No. 4 requests a list of precincts in which more voters received credit for voting than the number of ballots counted from those precincts. Snohomish County does not have this data available in a computer report format nor can it electronically create a report with available data. To produce this list, elections staff must run an individual computer report for each precinct and its portions (approximately 1000 reports), which would identify the number of voters in a precinct portion who received credit for voting, tabulate the numbers in the precinct portions for a precinct total and then manually compare those numbers to the canvas for the November 2, 2004 election. This is a labor intensive, manual project that will take more time to perform than is available prior to January 21, 2005.It's astonishing to me that Snohomish County certified the election without having done this. I can see why the Snohomish Auditor might not want anybody to , uh, audit his department. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 20, 2005 12:06 PM | Email This
My prediction:
The Democrats will use every means at there disposal to delay the trial. It will not start until March
After a trial that lasts 2-3 months, the judge will find that questionable practices in King and other counties led to errors of such magnitude that there was no way to say who recieved the most valid votes on November 2.
He will further find that as six months (or more) have passed since C.G. was sworn in as gov. that Washington (as an entity) will be harmed if C.G. were removed from office pending a new vote; Rossi does not appeal.
Democrats in the state legislature will block meaningful election reform. Ron Sims keeps his job and fends off a recall.
A Tim Eyman type figure will emerge and a ballot initiative will be placed on the ballot to enact significant reforms.
This initiative passes in 2006, C.G. is still gov., statewide Dems lose heavily, and we will see the election of Senator Rossi.
Dems will challenge the reforms in court and win.
Washington gets a GOP gov in 2008.
Posted by: Grey on January 20, 2005 12:22 PMKeep shining the light of truth on these guys!
Posted by: Michele S on January 20, 2005 12:25 PMIf the court throws this case out--- we will see the true definition of disenfranchised voters.
This Enron vote auditing is insane.
Posted by: Andy on January 20, 2005 12:27 PMLet our leglisators and governor do their jobs.
You wouldn't have wanted the Democrats to stop the wheels of government in 2000...why do you insist on it now?
"For example, Snohomish County has never been able to produce a correct list of the voters who actually voted on Nov. 2. The Snohomish Elections office acknowledged to me in a recent e-mail that they counted 282 more ballots than voters (158 mystery provisionals, and 124 mystery absentee ballots). Depending on what lies behind these summary numbers, the true discrepancy could even be larger. I'm waiting on answers to some follow-up questions."
Aaaaah! Sideshow Bob!
Posted by: ScottM on January 20, 2005 12:30 PMSeems like the wagons are uncircling!!!!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 12:31 PMIt's ALL coming together now. Can't wait to see all these DOFUS's (sp??) deposed! Terwilliger, Logan & Huennekens especially...and there key staff. We'll see who is telling the truth, won't we?
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 20, 2005 12:36 PMAnd I'd look in the ol' SnoCo Yella Pages: A is for Attorney, B is for Bail Bondsmen...F is for Fraud...M is for mail...speaking of which, any updates on the Snohomish County mailing house used for those King County ballots?????
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 20, 2005 12:37 PMHad they counted the signatures in the poll books and compared that number to the number of ballots issued and counted in each precinct, they would have noticed any discrepancies.
They needed to do the same kind of reconciliatiion with absentee ballots -- to ensure that only one vote from each eligible voter was counted. This cannot be done with absentee ballots absent a list of voters credited with voting up to the moment the envelope containing the next ballot is processed to verify the signature and continue to the vote counting step. If they cannot keep a "real time" log of ballots already received from each voter, then they must at least double-check before certifying the election returns to see if the election is tainted by significant numbers of illegal votes cast by people who voted more than once.
Absent some reconciliation of the numbers of absentee envelopes and voters with the numbers of ballots counted in each precinct, they cannot know if someone somehow slipped illegal votes into the pile to be counted.
Once the discrepancies were noticed, the WAC regulations issued in August 2004 required them to resolve the discrepancies, if possible, prior to certifying their returns -- and to make a record of the discrepancies and all steps taken to resolve them.
The Snohomish County elections director should only need to provide a copy of the record required by those regulations, to show how the records for each precinct were reconciled.
It may have been "labor intensive" to do such a thing before certifying the election returns, but certifying without double-checking to be sure there weren't unexplained ballots cast and counted allows ballot stuffing, people voting more than once, etc.
There is nothing in the counties' election procedures that I've seen so far which would ensure the integrity of the elections without a "labor intensive" effort to identify -- precinct by precinct -- the voters who participated in the election before the counties certify their election returns.
Posted by: Micajah on January 20, 2005 12:38 PMPerhaps we ought to start enshrining people into the DOOFUS Hall of Shame. I nomimate Paul Berendt... for a LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
DOOFUS OF THE MILLENIUM!
Very different from when I voted for the fist time in 1988 in Michigan (yes, I voted for Reagan and am still proud of that). Then and there I had to show my photo ID and voter registration card (must have same address), sign my name in a book and on a pre-printed election card. Then I could vote. No room for cheating there.
Gregiore and the Dems may have their day, every dog does, but truth will prevail and justice will be done. It's past due for for Karma to come around and bite back. Unless there's a pact with Satan involved, in which case we have a bigger battle on our hands. (hey, it could happen and would explain a lot)
Posted by: M-Anderson on January 20, 2005 12:53 PMFrom: "Holder, Jennifer R."
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:48:20 -0800
Subject: Council Takes Action on Governor's Election Contest Lawsuit
N E W S R E L E A S E
For Release: January 19, 2005
Contact: Councilmembers (425) 388-3494
Council takes action on Election Contest lawsuit
The Snohomish County Council today instructed the county’s prosecuting attorney to withdraw three motions made on behalf of the county in the lawsuit over the Washington State Governor’s race.
On a five-to-nothing vote, the council decided that Snohomish County should remain part of the legal case. Last week, the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the county from the lawsuit. The council action today told the prosecutor to withdraw that request.
The council also instructed the prosecutor to withdraw a motion supporting Benton and Franklin counties motions to be dismissed from the case. That decision was made on a four-to-one vote (Yes: Koster, Nelson, Gossett, Sax No: Sievers).
On a three-to-two vote, the council also instructed the prosecutor to withdraw a motion supporting the State Democrat Central Committee’s motion for a stay in the proceedings (Yes: Koster, Nelson, Sax; No: Sievers, Gossett).
The actions by the council do not affect any motions filed by the prosecutor at the direction of County Auditor Bob Terwilliger. Terwilliger is a separately elected official and is also named in the suit.
- END -
Posted by: Monroe inmate on January 20, 2005 12:56 PMM-Anderson...if your first presidential vote was in 1988 (like mine was), then you didn't vote for President Reagan. He last appeared on a ballot in 1984. Maybe that's what you meant. If you first voted in 1988 then you may have voted for GHW Bush, which is what I did.
And, you may certainly be proud of that vote as well.
Posted by: Kevin S on January 20, 2005 01:20 PMThis reminds me of the humorous (but good) advice to teenagers: If your parents ever ask "Just how stupid do you think I am?" -- don't answer. Quite a few election officials seem to be telling the public just how stupid they think the legitimate voters are.
Posted by: Boonie on January 20, 2005 01:38 PMBut when you mention "electoral reform," you are talking about photo IDs at the polls, right? I look forward to seeing Democrats supporting that.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 20, 2005 02:05 PMIt really bothers me when Government officials forget who it is they work for.
Posted by: Jason on January 20, 2005 02:10 PMEr. Haven't these people ever heard of "EXCEL"?!
Posted by: JeanneB on January 20, 2005 02:15 PM
What can we look forward to next in this contest?
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2005 02:31 PM1. Would get them fired if they had REAL jobs
2. Is the exact same way the Dems in Olympia account for our tax dollars.
Posted by: smoke on January 20, 2005 02:36 PMBlinded by your partisan views You have made the mistake of siding with terrorists and insurgents. You have chosen to support oppression and violence over the United States, Freedom, and Free people (including, and most importantly, children).
You should be ashamed.
Posted by: Joe on January 20, 2005 02:45 PMNo takers.
Take the offer and quit whining about the cost or time. Put up or shut up guys.
You will see non stop stall tactics from here on out!
Paraphrasing SnoCo officials: We never did a reconciliation of votes-to-voters by precinct (I wonder if they have ever done this in any election?) on computer.
WTF - ???
I'm with JeanneB: Isn't Microsoft Excel a standard product? I can't make a living without it...
And let's get them to stop using the antiquated Tarot Cards used to divine "voter intent" and "ballot enhancement" methods...
Posted by: smegma on January 20, 2005 04:00 PMThese people sound like dinosaurs.
Posted by: JeanneB on January 20, 2005 04:19 PM(Any cartoonists out there?)
Posted by: Boonie on January 20, 2005 04:59 PMThe Magic 8-ball is a great invention, but we are talking about the government. They buy the most expensive method, then spend the least time training on it. If they had experienced Tarot Card readers, they may have been more reliable ;-)
I was a Navy guy once, and when working with federal civil servants I discovered how they use the system to not do their job (not all, but more than enough of them). Hence, our present mess...
Posted by: smegma on January 20, 2005 05:17 PMDaddy's gonna be mad...
Posted by: smegma on January 20, 2005 05:20 PMBut can't you do better than "sour grapes"?
Posted by: Shaun on January 20, 2005 05:48 PMIn that vein, don't you think referring to our governor as a "fraud" is also offensive?
Posted by: Frank on January 20, 2005 05:50 PMI think referring to that fraud as "our governor" is offensive.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 20, 2005 05:54 PMNo because Rossi sued all 39 auditors and is making discovery requests of them and will likely follow up with a round of depositions. Some counties like Ferry have stated that they are not even alleged to have do anything and want out.
Posted by: Erik on January 20, 2005 06:12 PMIsn't Excel about the best thing since digital calculators?
I'm sure your work will be good, and profitable...I hope you work per entry as opposed to the hour!
Posted by: smegma on January 20, 2005 06:26 PMFrank: In that vein, don't you think referring to our governor as a "fraud" is also offensive?Shark: I think referring to that fraud as "our governor" is offensive.
Want a list of every Dem female in the county who voted in the 2000 primary but not in the general? Ten minutes. Tops. Every GOP male between 18 and 35 who voted in that city council election? Ten minutes. Tops. Every voter between 50 and 80 in a specific precinct who votes only in local elections? Ten minutes. Tops. But KC doesn't know how many mystery voters it really has, can't find its duplicate records, etc. And Snohomish doesn't know who voted in which precincts. GMAFB!
The more I read about KC and Snohomish, the more convinced I am that there are only three possibilities. They're corrupt, and covering it up. They're incompetent, and covering it up. They're some of both, and covering it up. And I'm beginning to suspect that the real reason I live in a red state is because we have honest and competent election commissions.
Posted by: Tully on January 20, 2005 09:19 PMWhat!?!?
Listen, bud. The fact that Gregoire is sitting in a seat she did not legitimately win IS offensive.
What is that bumper sticker I read on the backs of so many bunny-hugger cars? Oh yeah...
"If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention."
Pay attention, Frankie baby.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 21, 2005 12:11 AMNote that I restrained from calling her the Selected or illegitimate Governor, (I like wannabe Czar-Gregoire) unlike the Democrat-lefty extremists referred to President Bush for his entire first term. Nevertheless, I know that a REVOTE for Governor on the heels of significant election reform sometime before June is the only fair solution to this election mess !
Posted by: KS on January 21, 2005 08:24 AM