A tip from a voter database user uncovered a long-time Georgia resident who admits to voting in Washington State.
Dr. Daniel M. Sosin earned a graduate degree at the University of Washington in the early 1990s. He has been employed by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta for more than 10 years.
Dr. Sosin has been registered to vote in King County since 1991. He is currently registered at a Seattle address and records show he has voted in every election going back years, including the November and September elections in 2004, the February 2004 special election for the Seattle School District Levy, the general and primary elections for Seattle City Council in 2003 and the Monorail election of November 2002.
Dr. Sosin does not show up in my searches of Washington State property records. On the other hand, DeKalb County ,GA property records show that he has has owned a home in Atlanta since 2000. The address of this home was listed as his absentee ballot mailing address in his King County voter records in the June 2004 version of the voter file. He updated his absentee mailing address to a different Atlanta address in September 2004.
This appears to be a flagrant case of an out-of-state resident voting in Washington State and effectively disenfranchising our legal residents. Is there an explanation for all of this? Yes there is. I reached Dr. Sosin by telephone at his home in Atlanta a few minutes ago. I told him who I was and that I was doing some investigative reporting on voting in Washington State. I asked if there was an explanation why he was voting here. He said "Yes there is. But I'm not going to get into it." and he hung up.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in Dr. Sosin's explanation why he, as a Georgia resident, is voting in Seattle. If and when he cares to explain, I'll be happy to post his explanation.
This appears to be yet another example of gross negligence on the part of King County Elections. Why have they been faithfully sending absentee ballots to this guy in Atlanta every election for the last 10 years?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 29, 2005 05:32 PM | Email ThisWOW, WOW, WOW. Great work as always. In past consulting lifes I have done very comprehensive exception reporting be it banking related, medical malpractice, etc... Why was this not done in King County and WA State??? It just shows that if there were tangible dollars at stake then reports would have been generated however since it is only tax dollars at stake in an indirect sense wrapped in politics then fraud is tolerated when it benefits those in office.
Keep up the good work,
FSJ
Posted by: Fraser on January 29, 2005 05:54 PMDoctor, I look forward to reading your reasons for voting in my state, and the apparent gap in residency between Georgia. Perhaps it's as simple as your confusion on the name of this state (originally called New Georgia) Perhaps not. In any event, I seek your input, through a nice polite Mr. Sharkansky, or, through the full faith and effort of the investigative resources of the State of Washington.
:)
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on January 29, 2005 05:54 PMI wonder what our trolls will come up with as a logical explanation. There is no conceivable legal explanation that I am aware of.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 29, 2005 06:29 PMRead Article VI, Section 4 of the Washington Constitution:
SECTION 4 RESIDENCE, CONTINGENCIES AFFECTING. For the purpose of voting and eligibility to office no person shall be deemed to have gained a residence by reason of his presence or lost it by reason of his absence, while in the civil or military service of the state or of the United States, nor while a student at any institution of learning, nor while kept at public expense at any poor-house or other asylum, nor while confined in public prison, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or of the United States, or of the high seas.
Now, what government is the good Doctor employed by? Could it be the U.S.A. that is his employer at the CDC?
Residence is a state of mind. If he considers WA to be his residence, the fact that the U.S. assigned him to work in GA doesn't change his residence.
Now, if you find that the doctor has registered to vote in GA, you have a case -- because he could only do so by changing his "state of mind" and deciding that GA is his residence.
Posted by: Micajah on January 29, 2005 06:34 PMYou report it to the county auditor.
Read RCW 29A.08.810 and RCW 29A.08.820:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.08.820&fuseaction=section
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.08.810&fuseaction=section
First, though, wouldn't it be neighborly to find out whether the daughter is living in Maryland under circumstances which make it perfectly lawful for her to maintain WA as her legal residence for voting purposes? The auditor will want to know the basis for your belief that the daughter's legal voting residence isn't in her mother's home. The fact that she doesn't appear to reside there is probably enough to prompt an inquiry, but it would be nice to avoid the embarrassment of filing an unfounded challenge to her voter registration.
Posted by: Micajah on January 29, 2005 07:11 PMArticle VI Sec. 4 does not seem like a plausible excuse here. I suspect the key phrase is "reason of his absence". i.e. if you are temporarily absent from your residence while on assignment, you do not lose your eligibility to vote. But if you just happen to be a federal employee who moved permanently to a different state without maintaining any other connection to the place where you're registered? Doesn't pass the smell test. In any case, the guy did not offer this as an explanation.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 29, 2005 07:12 PMNot a Yank - There is no income tax in WA and no state income tax form to file. This is one of the few good things about WA state from a gov perspective and actually there are many people that claim WA as their residence in order to avoid paying taxes in another state. WA doesn't care. Whether the other state does or not is another matter.
It is also possible that some files income tax forms in multiple states. Most states that have income tax require you to pay income taxes in their on every dollar you earn IN THERE STATE. For example, pro baseball players must pay income taxes in every state where they play (except WA of course). This guy probably is paying taxes in GA, where it appears that he is earning his income. If he's not, you can report him to GA, unless there is some sort of loophole for a federal civil servant. WA won't care.
I do not know what the law is regarding reporting an address that is not yours , or you can't claim in some way as yours (such as an agreement with a friend or family member), for voter registration. That might be one path to follow.
I suspect that you'll need to show that this guy voted in GA as well in order for this to be a serious voting issue.
I'll get to the point - Just finding people that seem to live outside the state but claim residence in WA might not be very fruitful. You'll need to show that they over-enfranchised themselves by voting in two states in order to get any traction.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 07:47 PMHe might think: "Who is calling me? Someone who says they are doing 'investigative reporting'? What is this person's motive? Why should I talk to the press? Perhaps I don't like talking to the press.
ALso, perhaps he feels no special obligation to answer questions of a person calling him doing investigative reporting. Perhaps he feels he has the right to not answer question of some individual who calls him and asks him questions that appear to be accusatory.
Stefan, can you imagine Joe Blow citizen reacting in a way that wouldn't lend themselves to having a full in-depth conversation with an uninvited caller to one's home -- especially one who requests an answer to a question that is, on its face, accusatory?
For a group that suggests less government interference, I think you could make a case the interference from the press (you said said you were doing investigative reporting) is completely understandable.
Interestingly, this is akin to the republicans (and your) charge of fraud. Without evidence, you create the atmosphere of presumed guilt. Your fellow readers jump on the bandwagon...one even suggesting this might be a Federal Crime.
Just another "when did you start beating your wife" line...
Posted by: jim on January 29, 2005 07:52 PMBut, otherwise, I have to say I agree with the underlying premise. You need to show something more than simply that a person appears to live outside the state but claims residency in WA.
Our society is very mobile. Metropolitan areas in particular are very mobile.
You really should think twice before pushing too hard on this issue without more proof. I can see it now: Democrats will start saying that this is a good reason to have an income tax. An income tax would discourage people who don't actually live in WA from claiming residence in WA.
We don't want to give the parasites any arguments for an income tax.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:04 PMSo I can change my registration every four years to whatever state seems to need an extra Republican vote, because, well hell, I feel like a Pennsylvanian?
You know, I really don't think I'm allowed to do that.
Posted by: ScottM on January 29, 2005 08:06 PMScottM - that's the beauty of living in a Republic. You can go to whatever state you want. You can live in one state, for all intents and purposes, and claim residence in another state. Look at President Bush, he does that. It's not unusual.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:14 PMI guess I don't see the logic here. Oregon, at least, is very aggressive in claiming their income tax on income I earn on my business in Oregon (and I live in Seattle).I suspect the other states are the same...therefore, there would be no advantage to claiming WA residence for income tax purposes if you live in another state.
Posted by: Touchstone on January 29, 2005 08:21 PMBut, for the sake of SoundPolitics, it might not be a good idea to cry wolf (or should I say "shark"?) without something more substantial to hang your hat on. Evidence of double voting or an affidavit from the occupants of the address would make good hat racks.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:24 PMBy the way, I absolutely DO NOT think I am making a good point! I just want to make sure that we don't give even the smallest excuse for the Democrats to campaign for an income tax. As you can see, the don't really give a damn what actual constituents want if it doesn't fit with their maternalistic view of the world.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:28 PMNot sure that's what Rs really want...more, bigger government. Without that, no matter what system, you will have less than 100% accuracy.
Posted by: jim on January 29, 2005 08:34 PMInterestingly, the IRS is probably the most intense government agency at getting its money, so they might actually be in the business of proving that people don't live in WA.
Jim - that's snide hyperbole.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:42 PMAh, well there's the rub. I refuse to watch local/network TV news and I don't get any local papers.
http://www.sos.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/locator.asp
Posted by: Norm on January 29, 2005 08:59 PM"Look at President Bush, he does that. It's not unusual."
Yes, but the president DOES own a home in Texas. Stefan said he couldn't find
that the doc owned any property in WA. And I'm
assuming his claimed place of residence is out of date.
JeanneB - What's the rub? What side do you think I'm on? LOL
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 09:23 PMSo I can change my registration every four years to whatever state seems to need an extra Republican vote, because, well hell, I feel like a Pennsylvanian?
You know, I really don't think I'm allowed to do that.
ScottM,
As they say in the legislature when offering a "striking amendment," strike everything after "So" and substitute the following:
"a person who is physically present in a state may decide while present in that state to make it his domicile -- also known as his permanent residence or legal residence. Having made up his mind that the state is his state of residence, his departure from that state doesn't necessarily mean that he loses his status as a legal resident of that state. If he departs to report to active duty in the military, for example, he may be gone from that state for 99 percent of the next 20 years and yet retain the state as his legal residence. Only when he is present in another state and forms the intent to change his residence from the former state to the one in which he then is physically present does his legal residence change from what had been up to that point his state of legal residence to his current residence."
A person's legal residence is, as I said, a "state of mind." That state of mind won't have any legal effect if you aren't present in the state which you claim to have chosen as your residence at the time you formed that intention.
Once you have formed the intention, the problem is proving that what you claim is actually what you have decided. People look to see where you spend most of your time, where you license your car and obtain your driver's license, where you pay your taxes, and where you register to vote.
You can fail to prove your true "state of mind" when you cannot demonstrate what's in your mind with the evidence of your own actions.
Your example of choosing PA or some other state every four years as your state of residence for voting purposes wouldn't work, if you parked your butt in WA and just looked at a map of the U.S. and picked out a state to claim as your residence. You would have go and live there in order to prove through your actions that it is your residence.
If you want to discuss topics of this sort, it would be helpful if you avoid setting up a "straw man" that you know you can easily knock down, rather than addressing the argument that was actually posed by me or anyone else.
["Straw man" -- a weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc. so as to be able to attack it and gain an easy, showy victory. Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed.]
If I were a wagering man (and I am), I'd lay money that the doc wants an INCOME TAX break, and therefore he has to VOTE in WA. Probably illegal all the same, but I'm guessing that voter fraud is not his primary purpose, it's a means to his end of income tax evasion.
Just my $.02.
"Mikajah is correct. Residence is a state of mind for the most part."
That is completely idiotic.
Here's a clue, and a website: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/voterguide/faq2.aspx
This link is to the Washington State "Frequently asked Questions about Residency and Voting Rights".
Specific point:
"What should I do if I want to file a report about a person who I suspect is not eligible to be a registered voter?"
Please fill out the following form.
In short:
Residency is not a state of mind, what a ridiculous thing to write, but a legal definition. In Washington State it is:
"“All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote…”(Art. VI sec. 1) . RCW 29.01.140 defines residence for the purpose of registering and voting as a person’s address where he physically resides and maintains his abode."
Here's another clue:
If the good Dr. is a resident of Washington State, then has he voted in Georgia? Does he claim residency in Georgia? Why? Because you cannot claim more than one residency. You can own multiple homes, but only one may be your residency and there are usually some specific state-defined requirements to claim that residency. Often in the number of consecutive days spent there.
State of mind. What nonsense.
Posted by: ed on January 29, 2005 10:45 PMI wonder how many of his kind there are out there?
I remember Pam Rouch (sp?) making a statement during the attempt to delay the Governors certification - about a Canadian resident coming here to vote in our election....
I wonder how many voters with 'dual' residency from other states AND countries voted in our state elections?
And I'm starting to wonder how many LEGAL votes were actually cast in King County? The ILLEGAL votes seem to be growing minute by minute - truly cancelling out the legal ones!
Posted by: Deborah on January 29, 2005 11:51 PMThe state GOP has the list with date of birth, and so does the Seattle Times. It would be very simple for them to run this on De Kalb County, where Dr. Sosin is likely registered (if at all), and the other Atlanta metro counties if De Kalb doesn't get a hit.
It looks like Dr. Sosin, however, is a commissioned officer in the U.S Public Health Service, which has similar residency/home of record/state taxation rules as the military. I will lay odds that Dr. Sosin changed his home of record to Washington during his stay here to earn a Master of Public Health degree at UW, so that he would never have to pay state income tax again.
If he is also registered and voting in Georgia (no evidence of that yet), then I would say that he has some very serious problems facing him ahead. If I was b e t t i n g, I would say that he is not registered in Georgia.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2005 12:05 AMThat, of course, brings up the point that a re-vote would suffer from the same inaccuracies. It's why I don't believe for a second republicans care about felons voting, dead people, etc. After all, a revote wouldn't give full assurance these things would stop.
Instead they care about getting Rossi in -- even though he lost the election. Some here have admitted that's true (and I admitted that the democrats would do the same thing if the situation was reveresed).
Fix the future the best you can...but reinvent the past only if you want your guy elected. Hmmmm.
Posted by: jim on January 30, 2005 07:58 AMRCW 29.01.140 defines residence for the purpose of registering and voting as a person’s address where he physically resides and maintains his abode.
You do not lose residence for voting purposes simply because you are no longer residing at the physical location where you are registered.
For example, if you leave to begin a job in a new location with the intent of returning you will not lose residency.
Posted by: dpk on January 30, 2005 08:10 AMIn a race this close, there needs to be accuracy, and you are insinuating that the R's want 100%. It's not just the R's, from my lil corner of the state, it is the People who want accuracy.
If we get to revote Do you think the counties are going to run the Ballet Count as loosely as before? I think they have learned there lesson. They have already started to clean the voter rolls. The help from this blog, is not going to hurt anyone, unless of course they are voting illegally.
As far as funding for a 100% accuracy, why shouldnt we expect our elections system to be accurate . Should we settle for less?
Maybe we should use the TAX Money collected on Botox surgery, rainwater collection, and soda pop to pay for it!!
Bottom line is, IT"S there job, and they shouldnt be paid more for it. If they hire people who dont know the rules, fire em, and hire someone that does.
We shouldnt excuse it, and go on, or it will happen again and again.
Posted by: Chris on January 30, 2005 08:37 AM"100% accuracy" is just a silly strawman.
What I am asking I'm asking for is:
1) better accuracy than we have today.
2) that we account for the inaccuracy and when the inaccuracy is greater than the margin of "victory" we toss the election out and have a revote.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 30, 2005 09:23 AMAh, well there's the rub. I refuse to watch local/network TV news and I don't get any local papers."
Posted by Cheryl at January 29, 2005 08:57 PM
Cheryl
IRS Publication 600 - "Optional State Sales tax tables" came out in the mail last week.
They are also all available online at www.IRS.gov
I cite, for example, the "Rossi didn't complain when he was ahead" crowd, the "Bush stole the election" crowd, and the ever helpful "Well, elections aren't 100% accurate" crowd.
For me, this is NOT about payback, matching trickery, using 'friendly' judges to affect a desired outcome. And to those who can find it within themselves the ability to rationalize such behavior and attitude as being within the legitimate bounds of decency and democracy, you earn my utter and undying contempt.
Every time someone chooses to do something illegal in voting, thinking they won't ever be found out, damages democracy. Every time someone does something untoward, thinking that the other guy does it, democracy is damaged. Every time someone uses trickery, incompetence, and political games to artificially enhance their position, democracy is damaged. Every time, in our republican form of government, someone creates an atmosphere that causes a public servant to forego the will of the people to advance an agenda 'for the greater good,' we as citizens are harmed. Every time a group of people use their right of protest to impede the rights of others, democracy is damaged.
Folks, I do not abide any nonsense about people who act to usurp the rights of others. Felons voting? Necro voters? Double voters? Illegal immigrant voting? Enhanced ballots? Dumping legitimate votes? Stuffing ballot boxes? Sliding unverified provisional votes? I don't care who any of these voters voted for. The fact that they voted at all is a problem. The fact that their votes were counted as legitimate is a problem. The fact that your auditors, prosecutors, and public officials apparently endorse these practices is a problem.
And, as an added insult, this morning's paper had an inordinate amount of space devoted to felon voting which indicated that this is merely a 'process' issue, and we should just eliminate the exclusion of voting rights from felons due to cost, enfanchisment of African Americans, and to make it easier to comply with the provisions of Washington State law.
Democracy enhancing? I think not, when the attempt is to apply the logic retroactively.
A revote? Sure. 4 Million? No problem, we have the money, and I would be happy to dig up some pork project out of the budget to kill in paying for this. Do I think that the result is different? Not in the slightest. It would get into a base vs base contest in a short period of time, and Gregoire will find herself outfitted with 22,000 Kerry/Murray voters who didn't deem her worthy of their vote the first time. Armed with that advantage and the fact that the auditors have no incentive to do their job on making sure that the rolls reflect legitimate voters, Gregoire wins. Fine.
The bigger issue for me is making the process and results visible, open to the audit of the populace. I want to see penalties applied to those who act to damage the citizenry of my state. I want to destroy the insidious power structure that keeps feeding the current power structure, and gaily prances about in the realm of secrecy. I want accuracy. I want representation. I want legitimacy. I want the voters of this state truly represented, and represented well!
Not too much to ask.
And, if you are above partisanship, you will more likely than not of a similar mind. Fairness should trump the advancement of any social agenda. Think otherwise, and you diminish yourself.
Steve
Not sure that's what Rs really want...more, bigger government. Without that, no matter what system, you will have less than 100% accuracy."
Jim,
I don't mean to be insulting to those at King County R&E but half of the staff is useless. I have worked there seasonally over the last two years. Many of them spend a quarter of their day doing anything but what they were hired to do. There is zero motivation because no one fears that their job is ever in jeopardy. I know if I was in control or anyone successful in the private sector was in control of hiring/firing/managing elections with clean rolls, low to no illegal votes, and no problems with provisionals can be produced with HALF the staff!
A smaller more compact, better qualified, highly motivated R&E staff could easily produce accurate elections that we all deserve.
I live in Woodinville and searched the db for voters on my street. The house across the street has three residents, two adults and their college student daughter. According to the db, the two adults voted Abs, the daughter did not vote. BUT, there's another person with a completely different last name who've I've never heard of listed at their address who, per the database, voted abs. I searched four11.com and questdex and found no phone listing for this name.
It could be a typo, could be a simple error, could be fraud. I'd like to point this out to the neighbor, but would 1)hate to come across as being nosey and 2)risk exposing fraud on his front porch!
Ron
Posted by: RonP on January 30, 2005 10:29 AMWell stated!
Posted by: Deborah on January 30, 2005 11:10 AMHmmm. "Mikajah is correct. Residence is a state of mind for the most part." That is completely idiotic. Here's a clue, and a website.... In short: Residency is not a state of mind, what a ridiculous thing to write, but a legal definition. State of mind. What nonsense.
Then, there was this Posted by Barchester at January 30, 2005 02:41 AM -- which didn't use intemperate language, but curiously disagreed with me while at the same time listing the same factors as I had listed which can be used to prove a person's intention --
Richard Pope's observations about residency are most correct of any so far. Micajah's statement that residency is largely a state of mind is incorrect. There are a number of factual elements that go into a court's determination of residency....
ed,
I said residence is a “state of mind.” You call that nonsense and ridiculous.
Barchester,
You say I’m incorrect, but then seem to state the same thing as I – but without the figure of speech “state of mind.”
Let’s try again. When I say “state of mind” I am using a figure of speech to assert that a person’s domicile (also called permanent residence and legal residence) is established by the person’s intention.
As I said in answer to ScottM, that intention has no legal effect unless formed while the person is physically present in the state which he intends to make his domicile.
I hope you will agree that we cannot “read the mind” of anyone, so we must look at the actions of people to determine whether their claimed intention is their actual intention.
The factors Barchester listed as evidence of a person’s residence are essentially the same as what I listed as the actions people look at to determine the actual intent of anyone claiming to have established a domicile in any particular state. (I say those factors are examined to determine a person's intent, and I suppose Barchester believes they have nothing to do with establishing intent.)
Perhaps Barchester and ed don’t believe that “intent” or “intention” has anything to do with establishing a domicile.
If so, you are simply wrong.
Below, I have provided excerpts of the text of some statutes and sections of the state constitution in which you can see that the intention (the “state of mind” as I put it) of a person is a central factor, if not the central factor in determining the person’s domicile/legal residence/permanent residence.
I put the words referring to intent in bold print, so you should be able to pause long enough at that point to let the concept sink in. Then, maybe it won’t seem like nonsense to you.
When you get to the parts that deal specifically with voting rights, pay particular attention to the things which do not cause a person to lose eligibility despite his departure from the state, county, or precinct for an extended period of time – while he actually resides somewhere else.
If you give it time to sink in, I think you will be able to realize why departing one place to go live in another doesn’t always cause a loss of voting eligibility in the place from which the person departed. Here’s a hint: The person may have no choice, for example, if he wants to attend a state university located some distance from his domicile, or if he has been directed to work somewhere else by the U.S. government or the state government. Even his temporary absence of his own choice doesn’t cause him to lose voting eligibility. Departing here and living somewhere else doesn’t necessarily cause one to lose voting eligibility here – when the circumstances are such that it is still the fact that the person intends this to be his or her domicile.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=28B.15.012&fuseaction=section
RCW 28B.15.012
Classification as resident or nonresident student -- Definitions.
(4) The term "domicile" shall denote a person's true, fixed and permanent home and place of habitation. It is the place where the student intends to remain, and to which the student expects to return when the student leaves without intending to establish a new domicile elsewhere. The burden of proof that a student, parent or guardian has established a domicile in the state of Washington primarily for purposes other than educational lies with the student.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=28B.15.013
RCW 28B.15.013
Classification as resident or nonresident student -- Standards for determining domicile in the state -- Presumptions -- Cut-off date for classification application change.
(1) The establishment of a new domicile in the state of Washington by a person formerly domiciled in another state has occurred if such person is physically present in Washington primarily for purposes other than educational and can show satisfactory proof that such person is without a present intention to return to such other state or to acquire a domicile at some other place outside of Washington.
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Constitution.htm
ARTICLE VI
ELECTIONS AND ELECTIVE RIGHTS
SECTION 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote, except those disqualified by Article VI, section 3 of this Constitution, shall be entitled to vote at all elections. [AMENDMENT 63, 1974 Senate Joint Resolution No. 143, p 807. Approved November 5, 1974.]
SECTION 1A VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. In consideration of those citizens of the United States who become residents of the state of Washington during the year of a presidential election with the intention of making this state their permanent residence, this section is for the purpose of authorizing such persons who can meet all qualifications for voting as set forth in section 1 of this article, except for residence, to vote for presidential electors or for the office of President and Vice-President of the United States, as the case may be, but no other: Provided, That such persons have resided in the state at least sixty days immediately preceding the presidential election concerned.
The legislature shall establish the time, manner and place for such persons to cast such presidential ballots. [AMENDMENT 46, 1965 ex.s. Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 4, p 2820. Approved November 8, 1966.]
SECTION 4 RESIDENCE, CONTINGENCIES AFFECTING. For the purpose of voting and eligibility to office no person shall be deemed to have gained a residence by reason of his presence or lost it by reason of his absence, while in the civil or military service of the state or of the United States, nor while a student at any institution of learning, nor while kept at public expense at any poor-house or other asylum, nor while confined in public prison, nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or of the United States, or of the high seas.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.04.151&fuseaction=section
RCW 29A.04.151
Residence.
"Residence" for the purpose of registering and voting means a person's permanent address where he or she physically resides and maintains his or her abode. However, no person gains residence by reason of his or her presence or loses his or her residence by reason of his or her absence:
(1) While employed in the civil or military service of the state or of the United States;
(2) While engaged in the navigation of the waters of this state or the United States or the high seas;
(3) While a student at any institution of learning;
(4) While confined in any public prison.
Absence from the state on business shall not affect the question of residence of any person unless the right to vote has been claimed or exercised elsewhere.
[2003 c 111 § 126; 1971 ex.s. c 178 § 1; 1965 c 9 § 29.01.140. Prior: 1955 c 181 § 1; prior: (i) Code 1881 § 3051; 1865 p 25 § 2; RRS § 5110. (ii) Code 1881 § 3053; 1866 p 8 § 11; 1865 p 25 § 4; RRS § 5111. Formerly RCW 29.01.140.]
IMO - Not a good idea. Can you say, "harassment?" I suspect "John" may be a troll.
"Posted by James Tyrrell at January 29, 2005 06:19 PM
One good question to have answered here, of course, is he also voting in Georgia? And just where did he swear at his "hypocritic" oath?
I'd like to know whether this person is ALSO voting in Kentucky, Connecticut, Michigan and other states where he has lived and worked?
Posted by: Mac on January 30, 2005 11:46 AMWhat's the proper method for reporting suspicious voters we find in the database?
See what was Posted by Micajah at January 29, 2005 07:11 PM in answer to the same question from "mikesnotalib."
The person who voted by absentee ballot using your neighbor's address as his residence may be, for example, on active duty in the military. If so, and if his last residence in WA was at that address, then he can still use it as his voting residence for so long as he maintains that his domicile/legal residence/permanent residence is the state of Washington.
To see if that person (or his parents) ever owned that place, you might be able to use the county assessor's records to find the previous owners.
Unfortunately, the online database appears to require the parcel number in order to access the records. You may need to go to the assessor's office to get the parcel number for that address.
Here's the assessor's web page:
http://www.metrokc.gov/assessor/
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 12:07 PMMost doctors employed by the CDC are in the service of the United States. Micajah lists the residency requirements for registering and voting in Washington, and it appears that Dr. Sosin may meet these requirements. However, I suspect that the good doctor is avoiding the 6% tax.
It would be interesting to see the relevant statutes in the state of Georgia for establishing (or avoiding) residency for tax purposes. If Dr. Sosing only votes in Washington, then he may be a legal voter and his voting pattern is to bolster his claim against a possible filing by the State of Georgia.
If this is in fact the case (based on assumption), the doctor will not look kindly on prying.
P.S. My sister did decide to list Georgia as her state of residence. It is good to know that there are still a few people out there who follow both the wording and the actual spirit of the law.
The quotes you posted see to indicate that one is not a resident of Washington if one is here primarily for educational reasons, and that the burden of proof (for purposes of tuition, at least) is on the student to prove that he is here primarily for other reasons.
"(1) The establishment of a new domicile in the state of Washington by a person formerly domiciled in another state has occurred if such person is physically present in Washington primarily for purposes other than educational and can show satisfactory proof that such person is without a present intention to return to such other state or to acquire a domicile at some other place outside of Washington."
Posted by: ScottM on January 30, 2005 02:59 PMSee Georgia Code Section 48-7-1(10)
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=48-7-1
State departments of revenue look at physical presence (which is observable), rather than "state of mind" (which is not) in detemining residency for taxation purposes.
Posted by: A Pointer on January 30, 2005 03:51 PMThis "extra" voter has a very unique "male" name. A Yahoo people search yields a single hit of a person with this name living in Virginia. It links to a reunion.com entry showing this person graduated from Quincy, WA, high school in 1991. VA-WA connection.
So, is this enough to report to the county auditor? Or, should I ask the neighbor? As I said, in my previous post, they aren't friends, just neighborly acquaintances, but I'd hate to reveal votor fraud on their front porch.
I have this voter's VA phone number from Yahoo and my neighbor's number if someone wants to volunteer calling who can't be traced to me.
Posted by: RonP on January 30, 2005 04:00 PMThe quotes you posted seem to indicate that one is not a resident of Washington if one is here primarily for educational reasons, and that the burden of proof (for purposes of tuition, at least) is on the student to prove that he is here primarily for other reasons.
That is the meaning of that statute, so far as I understand it.
The intention ("state of mind") of the person who came to this state from somewhere else, and who now wants to enjoy the much lower tuition fee charged to WA residents, is supposed to be shown in order to enjoy that lower tuition fee.
In reality, I doubt that they do anything to prevent the enjoyment of the lower fee -- once the student has actually resided in this state for one calendar year. At least, that's what I recall having read in the newspapers. Students from out of state often pay the higher tuition fee only during their first year at one of our colleges or universities.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 04:24 PMIf the voter in question receives his absentee ballots at a mailing address in VA, then you may have located him in the directory using Yahoo.
(You haven't said whether you checked a voter registration database that provides both his claimed WA residence address and his mailing address.)
If both his claimed voting residence address and his mailing address for the receipt of his absentee ballot are the same, then it seems you already know enough to know that he isn't living at that address.
So, I'm assuming you've seen a mailing address used for mailing his absentee ballot to him.
That leaves unanswered the question whether he is authorized to use that residence address as his voting residence while absent from WA.
If King County obeys the law, they will need an affidavit from you which states your basis for believing that the voter doesn't maintain a residence at the address listed as his residence, and that the voter isn't covered by the exceptions in Article VI, section 4, which allow him to use his last WA residence address as his voting residence while absent from WA (active duty military, etc.).
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.08.830
RCW 29A.08.830
Affidavit -- Administration, notice of challenge.
(1) Any registered voter may request that the registration of another voter be canceled if he or she believes that the voter does not meet the requirements of Article VI, section 1 of the state Constitution or that voter no longer maintains a legal voting residence at the address shown on his or her registration record. The challenger shall file with the county auditor a signed affidavit subject to the penalties of perjury, to the effect that to his or her personal knowledge and belief another registered voter does not actually reside at the address as given on his or her registration record or is otherwise not a qualified voter and that the voter in question is not protected by the provisions of Article VI, section 4, of the Constitution of the state of Washington. The person filing the challenge must furnish the address at which the challenged voter actually resides.
They will then notify the voter and give him an opportunity to appear at a hearing in person or by affidavit. He will know who blew the whistle.
If that voter is a relative or close friend of your neighbors, then they are going to find out who started the challenge process going.
Wouldn't it be better to ask them if they know a person by the name of that voter?
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 05:19 PMhttp://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=48-7-1
State departments of revenue look at physical presence (which is observable), rather than "state of mind" (which is not) in detemining residency for taxation purposes.
Good for you, A Pointer! You grasped the concept that no one can read another person's mind, so must look to a person's actions to determine that person's intentions.
And, there's yet another concept that comes into play when a state imposes an income tax on earnings whose source is within the state: They rarely care whether anyone claims to have a legal residence/permanent residence/domicile in another state.
For some people residing and earning a salary or wages in a state, though, the state may not be able to impose its income tax on their wages or salary -- if the wages or salary is paid by Uncle Sam, and the person is in that state on orders from Uncle Sam.
Here are some excerpts from the Georgia statute at the URL you provided. See if you can guess who fits within (7):
"(6) 'Nonresidents' means taxable nonresidents and nontaxable nonresidents."
"(7) 'Nontaxable nonresident' means every individual who is not otherwise a resident of this state or a taxable nonresident of this state."
"(10) 'Resident' means:
(A) Every individual who is a legal resident of this state on income tax day.
(B) Every individual who, though not necessarily a legal resident of this state, nevertheless resides within this state on a more or less regular or permanent basis and not on the temporary or transitory basis of a visitor or sojourner and who so resides within this state on income tax day." [Emphasis added.]
"(11) 'Taxable nonresident' means:
(A) Every individual who is not otherwise a resident of this state for income tax purposes and who regularly and not casually or intermittently engages within this state, by himself or herself or by means of employees, agents, or partners, in employment, trade, business, professional, or other activity for financial gain or profit including, but not limited to, the rental of real or personal property located within this state or for use within this state. 'Taxable nonresident' does not include a legal resident of another state whose only activity for financial gain or profit in this state consists of performing services in this state for an employer when the remuneration for the services does not exceed 5 percent of the income received by the person for performing services in all places during any taxable year;"
Guess I'll need to get the voter registration db to compare his claimed WA residence address and his mailing address. Maybe he has the military "waiver." But, if he's also voting in VA...
Posted by: RonP on January 30, 2005 08:06 PMMaybe Stefan can help by looking to see what mailing address is being used to send an absentee ballot to the guy.
I don't recall if the database made available by one of the papers had both addresses -- and also don't know the URL to get to that database, if it's still available.
I would bet that the guy is on active duty. Since his wife isn't voting absentee in WA using her parents' residence as her address, she probably is registered to vote where they are stationed. He, on the other hand, would retain his WA domicile if at all possible -- so he doesn't need to be concerned about state income taxes wherever he may be sent by the military.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 09:25 PMhttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politics/voters/
I don't know if their database is still searchable -- it requires a full first name and last name according to the instructions, and I don't live in King County so I can't check with my own name to see.
Posted by: Micajah on January 30, 2005 09:32 PMAs you suggest, maybe Stefan can check the addresses - if he's not busy frying much bigger fish :-)
I looked at the the Virginia State Board of Elections web site (www.sbe.state.va.us/VotReg/VR_Confirmation) but it requires a driver's license PIN to confirm voter registration - or under freedom of information if you're media or a politician.
Posted by: RonP on January 30, 2005 09:50 PMYou're right about that and it is painful!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 30, 2005 10:40 PMhttps://www.gaphysicianprofile.org/profile.ShowProfileAction.action?lic_nbr=031838
This isn't some young kid; he gradutated from medical school in 1983. There are several corroborating elements on his info page to confirm that he works and lives in Georgia. A felony conviction from ANYWHERE is a huge problem for anyone who wants to be licensed ANYWHERE.
What a maroon!!!
Posted by: WA doc on January 30, 2005 11:20 PMI did a few searches on your street and found the house you are referring to. I then looked up the son-in-law on google, found him listed as (at least) a major in the United States Air Force (yes the name is unique).
He is listed as living in Fairfax, VA from that Reunion profile match. There are lots of military-related facilities up there. A quick search for her (maiden) name on whitepages.com shows 5 different people with the same middle initial and gives her an age within two years of her husband. May be her, but the point is that there are 5 addresses given, some in TX, MI, KS, WV, etc.
Point is, they may be moving around a lot since he's in the Air Force, and have left their official registration in WA (it appears she kept her last name). He very well may be a valid voter.
You can reply by email...it is valid.
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 31, 2005 08:17 AMI joined the Navy in 1955 and voted 'absentee' in Washington State when I was first eligible to vote (I was 21 in 1956). My "Home of Record" was the State of Washington (Grant County) for my entire 21 years of Navy service and I always voted in every election by absentee.
During my 21 years in the Navy, I owned homes in several States; but never registered or voted in any of them. I didn't think I was doing anything improper or illegal or unethical -- maybe I was; but I felt I was "A Washingtonian" and I came back to live in Washington here after discharge.
It seems to me that had I voted in any other State while in residence there, I would have been doing something unethical; and, probably illegal.
Certainly a test for illegality would be if Dr. Sosin voted in a Federal election in two different States for the same election.
Reviewing his property tax notice, it appears that he is also not claiming the homestead exemption (the code H0 is not on the homestead exemption list and there is no reduction in the assessed value of the home).
What the doctor is doing (apparently legitimately) is making sure that he keeps Washington state ( and 0% state income tax) residence by voting in Washington state and not claiming the homestead exemption.
Unless we find that he registered to vote in Ga, we are beating a dead horse. (The Ga Department of Revenue would also like to find him registered to vote in Ga, too! LOL)
If he were my client (I am a tax CPA), I would advise him to do the very same thing.
Posted by: Andy on January 31, 2005 09:28 AM
Let's be careful not to upset our military voters (who tend to be Republican leaning) by trying too hard to condemn people just for having out-of-state mailing addresses.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 31, 2005 10:01 PMSo, let's see, He lives in Georgia, possibly gets paid from Washington DC, claims residency in Washington State with no state income tax. Gee, Is his first name Scott as in Scott Free?
Tim
Posted by: TimMan on February 18, 2005 03:26 PM