Clark County has now been added to the voter database.
See if you can find the 225 magical mystery voters that the county auditor cannot find.
And speaking of Clark County, a reader from Vancouver e-mails:
REVOTE RALLY PLANNED FOR GREGOIRE’S RECEPTIONPosted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2005 04:57 PM | Email ThisWHEN: Wednesday, February 2, 2005
WHERE: 605 Barnes Road, Vancouver, WA
(Red Cross Building in the Vancouver Historic Reserve)
TIME: 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
(Let’s try to get a large there crowd by 5:30p.m.)
Bring your REVOTE signs – printed or otherwise, and wear something ORANGE.
This will be a peaceful rally . We want to remind Ms. Gregoire, Mayor Pollard and the City Council that we aren’t happy with this election and are insisting on a revote.
(This reception is hosted by Mayor Pollard and the City Council for the “invited business owners”.)
Though feeling the election was stolen by Bush in 2000, nevertheless, they extended Bush the respect due the President.
Will the republicans give our current governor the same respect?
The lawsuit is in process...if it ends in a new election so be it. Until then, we have a governor and respect is due the office.
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 06:02 PMThe reception is an exclusive event, which according to Vancouver City Attorney Gaithe is by invitation only, and is apparently for the business community.
The Revote Rally is for any and all who care about election integrity and requires no reservation or business affiliation to attend.
Respectfully submitted,
Posted by: Margaret on February 1, 2005 06:15 PMI'll tell you a sad statement; why don't you back this one up with facts:
"Though feeling the election was stolen by Bush in 2000, nevertheless, they extended Bush the respect due the President."
What planet have you been living on? Must be the Blue Planet....
What a crock.
Posted by: Ken on February 1, 2005 06:30 PMAl Gore did show enormous respect while he turned purple and bellowed about Bush betraying this country. Aretha Franklin understands respect far better than Gore and the rest of the Bushitler crowd does. And if that's respect, what would they do if they forgot their manners so far as to dis the President?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 1, 2005 06:34 PMFor instance, they stood and applauded upon his swearing in in 2000. Note the republicans in the WA leglislature refused to applaud during Gregoire's swearing in.
Talk about sad.
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 06:35 PMYou don't see any $65million lawsuits to impeach Bush do you? There are many who feel Bush lied -- just as there were many that felt Clinton lied....
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 06:37 PM
I'm not a fan of hers, but my faith tells me that compared to Jesus, we all have our shortcomings. She's one of God's creatures. I'm sure He thinks she is valuable.
However, the following makes me feel better:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I doubt that this particular rally will block traffic, by the way.
Posted by: Boonie on February 1, 2005 07:00 PMGee, lets see here, perhaps the fact that she...
Cost the state over $20 million in botched cases then blamed it on a subordinate for failing to file it on time, then settled out of court for millions with the above said subordiante
or maybe because she is a pathogical hypocrit who thinks that 261 votes is a virtual tie, but 129 is not
or perhaps now that she is in office her cohorts are gunning down political enemies like it is the OK corral
or maybe the fact that she abused her office while AG, taking political money from law firms she contracted with
or is just the fact that she is an unlikable, spitful human being who values political power more than democracy...
Posted by: Angry Voter on February 1, 2005 07:03 PMThere are many who feel Bush lied -- just as there were many that felt Clinton lied...
No, Clinton did lie. "Feeling" that someone has lied does not mean that they have lied. One has either lied or not lied; one's feelings play no part in determining whether or not another person has lied.
Posted by: timekeeper on February 1, 2005 07:36 PMYOU: Gee, lets see here, perhaps the fact that she...
Cost the state over $20 million in botched cases then blamed it on a subordinate for failing to file it on time, then settled out of court for millions with the above said subordiante
ME: True.
or maybe because she is a pathogical hypocrit who thinks that 261 votes is a virtual tie, but 129 is not
ME: Given that the legal voting wasn't completed (remember the law ROSSI voted for? It was for a HAND RECOUNT to end the recount process?), this is fair until all the legal recounts were completed.
or perhaps now that she is in office her cohorts are gunning down political enemies like it is the OK corral
ME: What? I watch TVW. What on earth are you talking about?
or maybe the fact that she abused her office while AG, taking political money from law firms she contracted with
ME: Is this true? Please elaborate.
or is just the fact that she is an unlikable, spitful human being who values political power more than democracy...
ME: That's the definition of politician. I've spent many days in Olympia..believe me republicans fit this bill as well as democrats.
Posted by Angry Voter
ME: yes you are. Just like the majority of Americans who voted for Gore in 2000.
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 07:44 PMJust to clear things up Bush lied to america, Clinton lied to a grand jury (AKA Perjury) the second is an appeachable offense the first is not.
lastly I have respect for the office of Governor, but it doesn't mean I have to respect the person.
Posted by: Adriel on February 1, 2005 07:56 PMGregoire the grinch contracted part of the tobbaco settlement lawsuit out to a SC firm (for nearly $5mil of the cut). Then all of a sudden everybody in that firm, to include the receptionist maxed out to her AG campaign. Now you tell me, how does a secretary write a $2k check to an attorney generals race on the other side of the country? Hmmmm...
HB 1070 from labor to fast track to the grinch for signature is designed to dismantle workers comp returns to associations (hmmmm BIAW maybe?) or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that one day the Times does a story about BIAW working OT to find illegal voters... and low and behold the next day a bill is dropped to keep them very busy.... what a bunch of crooks the democrats are in this state
Posted by: angry voter on February 1, 2005 08:21 PMOr about Rossi voting to RAISE taxes (SB 5341, HB 2231, SB 5404)?
Or his refusal to release his tax records (what was he hiding???)
Or that he disclosed $75K from Scott Real Estate and then said "it was a mistake" and he never worked there? What was really going on? Even after he issued a press release saying he's a Vice President there?
Or that he claimed to know the workings of small business ("only candidate who signed the front of a paycheck") but the last time he managed people in the private sector was when he was IN HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE working as a janitor?
Bottom line...any mud you sling at Gregoire is equally able to be slung at Rossi.
So..time to get off the high horses....
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 09:22 PMLet's hope they follow the lead not of Newt Gingrich (Mr. Divider) but of President Reagan (who truly brought people together).
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 09:32 PMI can only assume you agree that mud can be slung equally, since you refuse to address any of my comments about Rossi on the merits.
Equal play. Politicians are the same..regardless of party affiliation.
I have no idea about this firm you talk about. Do you have ideas about the lies Rossi told during the campaign? They are all documented....
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 09:37 PMPPS...I even agreed with you on one point!
Posted by: jim on February 1, 2005 09:39 PMI suggest you start repeating them to yourself now so you can try to build up a tolerance because you will be hearing those words...and seeing he utter them..from the time the Court sets aside this election until the Election in November.
jim--
Remember, your Party said Rossi was against Breast Cancer research....until they found out the hard way Rossi's mom & sister were victims.
They major issue in the new vote will be attitudes toward illegal votes---
The Democrats have dug a deep hole for themselves.
The problem is they are too stupid to stop digging!
My guess is, more than a few loons crossed the Columbia river to insure their man, Kerry, carried the western states. Of course, while they are at it, might as well cast a vote for the ruling class, Queen G. Someone, who has more time than I, should run Multnomah county records against the Clark county records. Wouldn't find anything..would they?
Posted by: Splatter on February 1, 2005 10:00 PMTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, HIGH NOON IN RED SQUARE
ALL SEATTLITES INVITED, bring the RIGHT protest gear!!!
More info? Go here: www.uwcr.net
Posted by: CR ACTIVST on February 1, 2005 11:01 PMStefan....
The Clark County auditor might want to check your database - using HIS county auditors office address......
1408 Franklin Ave, Vancouver WA 98660
(that would be the 1400 block of Franklin ave..)
Could it be that he allowed people to use his building address for voter registration...in 2004?
Many of these voters have out of state and out of the country mailing addresses - and while most of them registered to vote for the first time in 2004 - some have been registered voters since 1992!
Is it law that you must use an actual residence address when registering to vote - especially if your mailing address is from out of state or out of the country? I am finding so many voters using official county buildings as their residence address - it seems incredible that this would not be noticed by county officials....
There are just too many to be by chance or error...So I'm asking for clarification.
Is it OK to use an official county building address for voter registration purposes?
Posted by: Deborah on February 2, 2005 12:17 AMAlso, is it legal? The following is from the Washington Administrative Code.
WAC 434-208-100 Registering to vote -- Nontraditional address. No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional physical address being used as a residence address. Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status provided the voter designates a valid mailing address.
This rule was issued by the Secretary of State in August 2003, by authority granted in RCW 29A.04.610 to make reasonable rules regarding elections.
But I think you have amnesia about President Bush and many many dems. all we heard was 'HE'S NOT MY PRESIDENT". They even held a bizarre counter-inauguration that same day where Al Sharpton took an oath of office. I don't know what they thought that would prove.
Then dems spent the next four years throwing up all over President Bush and spewing every foul thing you could. It was way worse than any Clinton-hating I ever saw. The vitriol was overflowing.
You really aren't in a position to claim widespread acceptance by dems of President Bush. It was quite the opposite. We all watched for four years.
Posted by: Michele S on February 2, 2005 09:45 AMDelores M Avila
PMB 841
704 228th Ave. NE
Sammamish WA
I'm also seeing multiple names of absentee voters in my over-55 neighborhood in homes of people who are listed as single-dwellers in our directory.
Let them not take their cues from our republican legislators who refused to offer the decent courtesy that President Bush has been extended by our demcorat representatives and seantors.
Do the words 'Barbara Boxer' mean anything to you? Do the words 'Cynthia McKinney' mean anything to you?
I am still not clear on the WAC you referenced. Would voters who registered their residence address at a county building - yet listed their mailing address as a PO Box or out of state - be covered under WAC 434-208-100 (Registering to vote -- Nontraditional address)? How would this WAC apply to those who use the county auditors office address for their residence yet use a P O Box or have an out of state / country address listed for a mailing address?
Here are some examples using 1400 Franklin St -
Clark County (Auditors Office address)
BRE Shows residence address as: 140e FRANKLIN ST VANCOUVER Mailing address as: P.O. Box VANCOUVER, WA 2001
CSI Shows residence address as : 140e FRANKLIN ST VANCOUVER Mailing address as: 8033 HURRICANE COVE COURT LAS VEGAS NV 2004
KGD Shows residence address as : 140e FRANKLIN ST VANCOUVER -Mailing address as: 14 DEPOT SQ #1 NORTHFIELD VT 2004
MD Shows residence address as : 140e FRANKLIN ST VANCOUVER Mailing address as : 78 RUNDLE RD SE MEDICINE HAT AB TIA 4A3 CANADA 2004
MCLL Shows residence address as: 140e FRANKLIN ST VANCOUVER Mailing address as: BLDG 2444 CASSIDY RD FT BLISS TX 2004
Exactly how is their residency in Washington state established? The only address they list for here is the county courthouse - yet they aren't homeless - as their out of state mailing addresses suggest.......
Help me out here...
The law says that when registering, the person must provide the address of the their residence.
RCW 29A.08.010 "Information required for voter registration."
As used in this chapter: "Information required for voter registration" means the minimum information provided on a voter registration application that is required by the county auditor in order to place a voter registration applicant on the voter registration rolls. This information includes the applicant's name, complete residence address, ...
The law defines residence.
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.
Therefore, the SoS administrative code providing for non-traditional addresses applies only to those whose residence doesn't conform to the norm.
I can understand how someone living in a park might have a mailbox, like BRE does. I suppose someone living in a park could enlist and be assigned to Fort Bliss, like MCLL? However, I'm not sure how someone could maintain their residence in a park and have a regular address in Nevada, Vermont or Alberta.
The law does not allow a voter to register where they work or at a mailbox, postal or private. The point of this is to assure that they are voting in those elections that pertain to where they live. For example, I have a residential address and a mailbox. I receive my mail at the mailbox, mostly due to problems with mail theft in the rural area where I live. My home is District 17 (yes, Benton is my senator!). My mailbox is in the city of Vancouver, in District 49. I don't get to vote in Vancouver, even though I work there. Actually this is a good thing. Rather than having three dems representing me in the legistlature, I have two reps and a dem.
Also, something new I learned while writing this is RCW 29A.04.151(3) prevents an out-of-state college student from establishing residency simply by attending an institution of learning. Likewise, an in-state college student should be barred from establishing residency at the college. This appears to be another law that is not being enforced.
It's as though our laws have created a perpetual circle with respect to voter residence requirments!
By allowing some voters to use city and county building addresses as their residence....then having no requirment for an in-state mailing address (or in-country for that matter) - they have made it virtually impossible to stop non-residents and non-citizens from voting! Sure - they can be dealt with after the fact.....IF any one cared to do something about it on the city, county or State level.....but looking at the huge numbers of questionable registrations - especially from 2004 - (I mean HUGE numbers!) it's as though this residence circle were common knowledge among a lot of people.......
Did Brost send out a memo on this last year? Heh..
Posted by: Deborah on February 3, 2005 12:22 AMTwo problems are raised, even with this. One, it doesn't help with old registrations which don't have the DL or SSN info on their records. Second, it doesn't help identify multi-state registrants.
The first problem could be addressed by SB 5078, which would require everyone to re-register under the new requirements. The second could only be addressed at the federal level.
Posted by: north clark county on February 3, 2005 07:55 AM